HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/2000AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
February 22, 2000
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
February 8, 2000
a. Maplewood Retail Shopping Center, 2271 White Bear Avenue
b. 1999 Annual Report Reconsideration
6. Design Review
a. Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood (Clarence Street)
b. Fresh Paint Office/Warehouse, 1055 Gervais Avenue
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Board Presentations
9. Staff Presentations
a.
Reminder: CDRB Volunteer for February 28 City Council Meeting is Tim
Johnson. Items to be reviewed are the Maplewood Retail Shopping Center
and the North St. Paul Post Office.
b. CDRB Volunteer Needed for March 13 City Council Meeting.
reviewed will likely be the Maplewood Fire Station.
10. Adjourn
Item to be
p:com-dvpt~cdrb.agd
II.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 22, 2000
CALLTO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina
Ananth Shankar
Tim Johnson
Jon LaCasse
Craig Jorgenson
Present
Present (arrived at 6:01 p.m.)
Present
Present
Present (arrived at 6:01 p.m.)
II1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of February 8, 2000
Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the minutes of February 8, 2000, as submitted.
Boardmember LaCasse seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Secretary Tom Ekstrand said the applicant for Item 6. b. Fresh Paint asked to have it removed
from the agenda and postponed until a future date. He also suggested moving 5.b. Annual
Report to the end of the meeting. Chairperson Ledvina suggested moving this item to 9.c. under
Staff Presentations.
Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the agenda, amended to delete 6.b. Fresh Paint and
move 5.b. 1999 Annual Report Reconsideration to 9. c.
Boardmember LaCasse seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Maplewood Retail Shopping Center, 2271 White Bear Avenue
Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. He explained that, at the last CDRB
meeting on February 8, 2000, the board approved the plans for this project but required that
the building color scheme, landscape plan, and comprehensive sign plan be resubmitted for
their approval.
An issue with the building colors was that they were not shown on the plans. Another reason
for tabling was because the board did not like the color variations of the awnings and of the
tubular steel details on the building. They felt that it would be a problem with tenant
changes--a new tenant may wish to have their own awning colors that differ from the
established color scheme.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-22-00
-2-
One option the community design review board discussed at the last meeting was to display
awnings and steel work of the same color. The applicant has presented two alternatives to
depict both scenarios. Secretary Ekstrand explained that he does not object to either color
scheme. If the board approves the three-color design, staff recommends that the board
require that these colors not change. He stated that he discussed this issue with the
applicant before the meeting and they agree that the three-color scheme would not change as
the tenants change.
Mr. Ekstrand discussed the second issue which was with the landscape plan. He was
agreeable to the applicant's revised plan.
A third issue Mr. Ekstrand presented was the comprehensive sign plan. He discussed the
staff proposal for signage and distributed a summary comparing staff's proposed sign plan for
this shopping center with the applicant's proposal. Mr. Ekstrand went through the various
parts of the sign criteria item by item, including points such as sign placement, sign letter
height, sign length and pylon sign height.
The board asked questions about the staff report. Chairperson Ledvina was not in favor of
the three-color scheme for the building. He preferred one uniform color for the awnings and
tubular steel features.
Peter Hilger, an architect with Portfolio Design, was present representing the applicant. Mr.
Hilger explained their preference for the three-color building scheme and stated that they
would not propose to change the colors for specific tenants.
The board stated they were okay with the proposed landscaping so they moved to discussion
about the comprehensive sign plan. Mr. Hilger was asked to comment on staff's proposed
sign criteria for the shopping center. He expressed the developer's need for store
identification on the back of the building. Chairperson Ledvina questioned why this was
necessary with a large pylon sign on the highway side of the site that would be visible and
give the same store names. Mr. Hilger felt that drivers tend to focus on the building and not
on pylon signs. Mr. Ledvina asked for staff's opinion. Mr. Ekstrand said that he shared Mr.
Ledvina's concern. A sign on the back of the building would be excessive and redundant
with the pylon sign, also readable from the highway.
Mr. Hilger explained that they would like approval for the tower signs to be larger and more
prominent than the signs on the sign band. Staff was suggesting a maximum sign height of
26 inches for all building-mounted signs. The applicant had proposed tower signs to be 48-
inches tall, plus the space between multiple lines of stacked copy.
Mr. Hilger requested that the board allow them to place signs on building fascia without being
mounted on a raceway. Staff recommended that signs be on a raceway because it minimizes
damage to the building. The applicant said they apply signs to the EIFS or stucco because
holes are easily patched.
Mr. Hilger felt the number of signs proposed were within the sign code regulations. Staff
pointed out that the northerly corner store would have five signs by the applicant's current
proposal: one on the front, one on the side, one on the back, and one on each of the two
pylon signs. Mr. Ekstrand felt this was excessive. He said the requirements for a
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-22-00
-3-
comprehensive sign plan do not intend absolute adhesion to the sign code. The intent is to
use the code as somewhat of a basis for review so that the sign plan for a multi-tenant
shopping center will be attractive and uniform.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if the board was ready to make a motion on these issues. He
thought it might be prudent to separate the sign plan from the other two items.
Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board approve the building
color scheme and landscape plan with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with all community design review board conditions from their previous review
on February 8, 2000.
2. If the community design review board approves the three-color design, staff recommends
that the board require that these colors not change.
3. The landscape plan shall be subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall replace the four ash trees on the south side if they cannot be
saved, and replace the two relocated evergreens on the White Bear Avenue side if
they do not survive. Tree sizes shall comply with the code. The applicant shall not
remove any tree or plant growth on public right-of-way since these trees were shown
as plantings on the approved landscape plan.
b. The applicant shall resod any disturbed right-of-way.
c. The applicant shall install an in-ground lawn irrigation system in all landscaped areas.
Boardmember Jorgenson seconded.
Ayes--Shankar, Jorgenson, Johnson,
LaCasse
Nays--Ledvina
The motion passed.
Chairperson Ledvina explained that he voted against this because he felt the accent colors
should be consistent.
Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board approve the
comprehensive sign plan as stipulated in staff's summation with additions by the review
board. The sign plan for the Maplewood Retail Shopping Center is as follows:
1. Each tenant can have up to a 36-inch-tall wall sign on their storefront whether or not they
occupy a "tower front" space.
In addition to a 36-inch-tall sign on the front of the building, tenants in a corner space can
have a 36-inch-tall sign on the side elevation. Side elevation signs can only be placed
over doors or windows of that tenant's space.
3. Wall signs are not required to be on raceways.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-22-00
-4-
Signs on the rear building tower are permitted as proposed, but must be confined to the
stucco area. These signs shall not exceed 1½ foot by 14 feet in size.
The pylon sign near Highway 36 shall not exceed 36 feet in height as measured from the
base of the sign.
Boardmember Johnson seconded.
Ayes--Shankar, Johnson
Nays--Ledvina, Jorgenson, LaCasse
The motion failed.
Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board approve the
comprehensive sign plan for the Maplewood Retail Shopping Center as follows:
1. Each tenant can have up to a 36-inch-tall wall sign on their storefront on the main sign
fascia area. Tenant signs on the tower shall not exceed 48 inches in height.
In addition to a 36-inch tall sign on the front of the building, tenants in a corner space can
have a 36-inch-tall sign on the side elevation. Side elevation signs can only be placed
over doors, windows or towers of that tenant's space.
3. Wall signs are not required to be on raceways.
4. Tenant identification signs are not allowed on the back of the building.
5. The pylon sign near Highway 36 shall not exceed 36 feet in height as measured from the
base of the sign.
Boardmember Jorgenson seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
A. Maplewood Fire Station No. 2, Gladstone Neighborhood (Clarence Street)
Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Steve Lukin, Assistant Fire Chief for the
City of Maplewod, answered the board's questions about the proposal.
Boardmember Shankar asked why it wasn't possible to keep the building at its planned
location but move the 10 parking stalls to the west to remain in compliance with the Clarence
Street right-of-way. Mr. Lukin replied that one of their concerns was keeping the "aesthetic
look of it." He said they wanted to save the numerous shrubs on the sub-northerly edge to
protect the trail and buffer the area from the neighboring residents.
Boardmember Shankar liked the building elevations and was "pleased with the choice of
materials." However, he was concerned with the "massiveness" of the south elevation and
wondered if some banding could be used across it. The architect for the project said they
were trying to bring in an emblem or some kind of wall signage in this area but this was
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-22-00
-5-
dependent on cost. She explained that this is the apparatus bay area that would be used for
future expansion. This wall measures approximately 80 x 20 feet. Mr. Ekstrand felt more
trees were needed on the landscape plan to provide a screen on the south.
Boardmember LaCasse moved the Community Design Review Board:
Adopt the resolution which approves a 15-foot parking lot setback variance for the
proposed Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood north and northwest of
1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. This variance would allow a parking lot within the Clarence
Street right-of-way. Approval is based on the following findings:
Compliance with the setback requirements would cause the applicant undue hardship
because of circumstances unique to the property. The site is oddly shaped making
meeting all parking lot setback requirements difficult.
The applicant would meet the spirit and intent of the code by providing handicap-
accessible parking spaces closer to the front entrance than if the spaces were moved
to a different location.
3. The city has allowed parking in the right-of-way before when the situation warranted it.
This variance is subject to the applicant submitting a curbing plan which indicates
continuous concrete curbing, concrete edging and parking barriers as shown on the
curbing diagram in the staff report. This plan must be submitted to staff for approval
before the issuance of a building permit.
Adopt the resolution which approves a variance from the parking lot curbing requirements
for the proposed Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood north and
northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. This variance would waive the curbing
requirement in specific areas on the site. Approval is because sheet drainage from the
two larger parking lots is preferred for water quality in this instance.
This variance is subject to the applicant submitting a curbing plan which indicates
continuous concrete curbing, concrete edging and parking barriers as shown on the
curbing diagram in the staff report. This plan must be submitted to staff for approval
before the issuance of a building permit.
Approve the plans (stamped January 28, 2000) for the proposed Maplewood Fire Station
No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood, based on the f nd ngs required by the code. The property
owner shall do the following:
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 provide the following for staff
approval:
a. A grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan.
b. A revised landscape plan showing the following:
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-22-00
-6-
(1) Red Maple and Red Oak trees that are at least 2 ½ inches in caliper, balled
and burlapped.
(2)
(3)
Amur Maple trees that are at least 1 ½ inches in caliper, balled and
burlapped.
A six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque buffer on the south side of the east parking
lot.
(4) Areas that will be sodded and those that would have prairie grass.
(5) Any additional tree, shrub or turf requirements of the Ramsey-Washington
Metro Watershed District.
(6) In-ground lawn irrigation around the site on the west side of Clarence Street.
Co
A revised site plan showing the following:
(1) The design of the parking barriers. There must be a parking barrier on the
south sides of both larger parking lots.
(2)
(3)
(4)
A site lighting plan which indicates the fixture designs and illumination
intensity.
Concrete curbing and concrete edges as shown on the curbing diagram in
the staff report.
The driveway from Frost Avenue moved to the west five feet to meet the
required five-foot side yard setback from the easterly lot corner.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building:
Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers. The
enclosure must be 100 percent opaque, match the material of the building and
have a closeable gate that extends to the ground. (code requirement)
b. Install all landscaping as shown on the approved plan.
c. Screen roof-top mechanical equipment that would be visible from the homes
along Clarence Street. All other roof-top units that are visible from non residential
areas must be painted to match the building. (code requirement)
d. Provide handicap-accessible parking spaces and signs as required by the ADA
(American's with Disabilities Act).
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Add a brick rollout course along the south elevation to break up the large brick wall.
Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-22-00
The motion passed.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
There were no visitor presentations.
VIII, BOARD PRESENTATIONS
IX.
-7-
February 14 City Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina reported on this meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
A. CDRB Volunteer for February 28 City Council Meeting: Mr. Johnson will attend this meeting.
B. CDRB Volunteer for March 13 City Council Meeting: Mr. Shankar will attend this meeting.
C. 1999 Annual Report Reconsideration
Secretary Tom Ekstrand updated the board on this report. He said it was essentially the
same except for the addition of a paragraph that expressed the board's willingness and desire
to do whatever needs to be done to address design issues in regard to the undeveloped land
west of the Maplewood Mall and also the White Bear Avenue Corridor.
Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board approve the 1999
Community Design Review Board Annual Report.
Ayes--all
Boardmember Jorgenson seconded.
The motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.