HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/10/2001AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
July 10, 2001
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
June 12,2001
a. 3M Leadership Development Institute Remodel - 600 Carlton Street
b. Dean's Tavern Addition - 1986 Rice Street
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Board Presentations
9. Staff Presentations
a. CDRB representation needed for the July 23 and August 13 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
JULY 10, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director
Recording Secretary: JoAnn Morin
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 12, 2001
Board member Johnson moved approval of the minutes of June 12, 2001.
Board member Olson seconded. Ayes--All
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairperson Ledvina suggested that the Board review the Dean's Tavern design first because no
one was present for the 3M design review.
Board member Olson moved approval of the agenda as amended.
Board member Johnson seconded. Ayes--All
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VI, DESIGN REVIEW
a. Dean's Tavern Addition - 1986 Rice Street.
Mr. Ekstrand gave the staff presentation. He stated that Mr. Paul Mateyka of Dean's Tavern is
proposing to add a 1,353 square-foot customer seating area and a 120 square-foot kitchen
addition onto the south side of his building. The building exterior of the proposed additions would
be horizontal-lap siding to match the existing building. The applicant would also add vinyl awning
across the front of the building to match the existing awning on the building. He stated that Mr.
Mateyka had just informed staff that they are considering utilizing the existing awning by taking the
Matt Ledvina Present
Ananth Shankar Absent
Tim Johnson Present
Craig Jorgenson Absent
Linda Olson Present
II. ROLL CALL
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-'10-0'1
-2-
awning off of the north and south elevation of the building and using those awnings as a
continuation for the front of the new addition. Mr. Ekstrand stated that the conditions had been
changed from the original conditions listed in the staff report. The additional conditions that he has
added are relative to site elements. In terms of the building appearance, the addition would match
the existing structure. In terms of the site, however, there are several non-conformities with this
property and staff would like to come as close to conformity with city code, within a degree of
reasonableness. They have an encroachment out into the right-of-way with the existing parking,
staff is not recommending that be changed because this being an existing situation and it did not
upset the engineering staff. If it does ever come time that MnDot decides to widen Rice Street,
then the applicant would be forced to comply and move parking and provide a better boulevard.
The applicant agrees to sweep, patch and restripe the existing parking lot and add paving to the
north, which is now gravel. Mr. Ekstrand stated that staff grappled with requiring screening on the
north end of the site because there is a house on that property. The property is zoned commercial
and is currently a rental property, but the code still does require screening. Mr. Ekstrand stated
that city code does however that the Community Design Review Board has the discretion not to
require screening if they feel it would not be beneficial.
Mr. Ekstrand stated he reviewed this issue with Mr. Mateyka. The entire site going to the north is a
gradual slope upwards towards the house on the adjacent property. He stated if a six-foot high
barrier was put in, it would probably not do a great deal of screening for the house, car headlights
would still go over the top of the barrier and hit the residential windows. He stated that the purpose
of the screening code is to protect an adjacent house from headlight glare. Mr. Ekstrand stated in
terms of meeting the ordinance, there is only a five-foot green strip required from their parking lot
adjacent to the abutting lot line. In this case it is presently a sea of gravel and to creating a five-
foot strip of green would not survive, it would also need to be curbed so people would not drive
over it. The applicant stated that the adjacent property owner has no problem with sharing his
access and having the Dean's Tavern patrons drive in from his property and cross over onto their
parking lot. Mr. Ekstrand stated he felt that there wasn't enough benefit in requiring screen and
the five-foot strip of landscaping. He is recommending to meet code setbacks that the parking lot
stop five-feet from the north lot line and be paved to that point, and the gravel would remain the
rest of the way.
Mr. Ekstrand stated that in front of the proposed addition there is currently an asphalt area with a
concrete apron and drive leading out to Rice Street. The applicant proposes to provide a strip of
greenery with foundation plantings right in front of the addition, but would like to leave the existing
bituminous for service and deliveries. This area would not be for parking and staff recommends
that it be posted for no parking.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if there would be curbing on the north edge of the parking lot. Mr.
Ekstrand stated that he is recommending no curbing. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the ordinance
required curbing in this situation. Mr. Ekstrand stated that was correct, but this is a bit of a different
scenario. He stated that the code as written would allow the continuation of what is there, but
because they are proposing a change, it gives the Board an opportunity to start requiring
upgrades. Mr. Ekstrand stated he did not feel it is necessary to require every upgrade possible,
but rather try to attain a reasonable amount of upgrades and not hinder the applicant from making
their improvements by making it more costly for them, but try to get closer to what the code would
like to see there. He stated that curbing would meet the ordinance, but he questioned how much
would it benefit with the existing traffic patterns there, it may be a hindrance.
Board member Johnson asked staff if the owner of the property to the north had been spoken to.
Mr. Ekstrand stated that he understands the applicant has talked with the owner of the property,
but not with the current renter. The owner has authority over the renter.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-10-01
-3-
Board member OIson stated that she passes the property daily and does not see any reason for
requiring screening if it is not going to be a particle improvement. She stated that it is a fairly open
area and as she recalls that residence is not near the lot line.
Mr. Ekstrand stated that he does not want to be lax with the code, but he feels that certain
improvements do not need to be required in this situation if they are not beneficial.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if the residence property was zoned commercial. Mr. Ekstrand stated
that yes; it is zoned business commercial.
Mr. Paul Mateyka, the applicant, addressed the Board. He stated that he agrees with the staff
report as given.
Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant about the curb cut on the southern part of the lot. He
asked if it would be used for deliveries and such. Mr. Mateyka stated yes that it would be.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if it would be possible to use the other entrances for deliveries. Mr.
Mateyka stated there are other entrances that could be used.
Board member Olson asked how much parking on the north side would be new to cover the needs
of the extra patrons. Mr. Mateyka stated he would be adding 55-feet by 140-feet of new pavement
and increasing the parking by about ten cars.
Board member Olson asked the applicant if he would be keeping the awning on the front of the
building. Mr. Mateyka stated he wants to remove the south and north awnings and put the entire
awning on the front of the building and wrap it around about three feet on each side. He stated
that the awning is about 15 years old and is weathered canvas. He added that if he put new
awning onto the building, it would not look very good next to the weathered old awning.
Board member Johnson asked the applicant when he planned to add the deck addition. Mr.
Mateyka stated he would be pursuing that this winter or next spring. Board member Johnson
asked staff if there was any requirement by the Board to ensure the applicant adds the deck
addition. Mr. Ekstrand stated that staff is recommending approval of the location of the deck, but
staff would approve the actual design when it was built. Mr. Mateyka stated that there are six
mature trees where the deck is planned to be. He stated that those trees would be saved and the
deck would be wrapped around them for natural shade on the deck.
Board member Olson stated she liked the idea of the planters and a strip of green along the front
of the building.
Chairperson Ledvina stated that he also does not have a problem with not requiring the screening
on the north side of the property in this instance. He added that there are better applications for
screen and in this scenario it would not be appropriate. He added that when the property to the
north develops the screening and curbing could be addressed at that time. He asked staff if the
Board could identify a condition to that effect in this proposal. Mr. Ekstrand stated that was a good
point, when and if that property does develop it would be desirable to have a finished edge to the
site. He stated he felt it should be added as a condition. However, the condition may be missed
when the property develops, but he feels that it still should be an added condition. Mr. Ekstrand
added that Mr. Mateyka is hoping to purchase an additional 50-feet of the property to the north,
which would encompass the adjacent driveway and bring his property line up to the grass edge.
He stated that if and when a lot division is approved, staff would like to see some site upgrades.
Chairperson Ledvina stated he likes the way the awning on the property looks currently. He feels it
really finishes off the north elevation. He stated he felt it would detract from the building if it were
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-10-01
to be removed from the north elevation. He stated he could understand the applicant's concern as
it relates to matching the fabrics to a new awning, but thought perhaps there is a way to treat the
fabrics to restore an older fabric to a newer look.
Chairpereon Ledvina stated that he does not feel that it is necessary to retain the curb cut in front
of the new addition. He stated that there are three curb cuts onto Rice Street and feels that it
would be beneficial to eliminate one of those cuts. He feels that area should be restored with
vegetation.
Board member Olson stated she agreed with Chairpereon Ledvina on his point regarding the
awning. She would much rather see the awning replaced than to have it chopped back to only
three-feet around the cornere of the building. She stated it would be more practical to retain the
awning over the doorway to protect the patrons and employees when entering the building.
Board member Olson also agrees the Chairperson Ledvina's point regarding removing the curb cut
and having the area restored to vegetation.
Board member Johnson also agrees that the curb cut should be removed. He also stated he did
not feel that the screening on the north side was necessary.
Mr. Ekstrand stated that he felt that the awning on the north side should be retained. He also
stated that he would also like to see one less curb cut on Rice Street. He feels that it would not
hinder the business for their deliveries. He also stated with the current curb cut, there is a
possibility of patrons pulling right up to the building, even if it were to be posted no-parking, it is a
potentially hazardous parking area. He stated that if the curb cut were closed, he recommends
that it be done to MnDot standards. He stated there might be a permit process for closing a curb
cut. The Board all agreed that there is definitely potential parking hazards in that area.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if the pylon sign was going to be removed and if so, what type of
replacement sign would be added. Mr. Mateyka stated that the pylon sign would be removed and
new signs would be placed onto the building.
Mr. Mateyka asked the Board if he would be required to place awning above the deck on the south
side of the building. Board member Olson stated that she did not see any reason why he could not
eliminate the awning on the south side.
Board member Olson moved to approve the plans date stamped June 21,2001 for expansion of
Dean's Tavern at 1986 Rice Street 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. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit:
ao
Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans.
Plans for the design and placement of the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure shall be
large enough for refuse containers and any recycling containers the applicant may use.
The trash enclosure shall have gates that are 100 percent opaque and extend to the
ground.
A lighting plan for the parking lot if there would be any new site lights installed. This
plan shall meet the standards of the city lighting code.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-10-01
-5-
do
A revised site plan showing narrowing of the landscaped area west of the handicap-
parking spaces to avoid blocking the sidewalk and the deletion of the four westerly
parking spaces along the north parking row.
3. Complete the following before occupying the addition:
a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
Co
Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits and a handicap-parking sign for the
handicap-parking spaces.
The site lights shall not exceed the maximum light intensity required by code. Aim or
shield any new site lights so they are not a nuisance to neighbors.
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.
e. The exterior materials and color of the additions shall match the existing building.
Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers. The enclosures
must be 100 percent opaque, match the color of the building and have a closeable gate
that extends to the ground. (code requirement).
Remove the pylon sign and sign base from the parking lot.
Pave the parking lot to within five feet of the north property line. Also, pave the existing
entrance, which is on the neighbors' property to the north 20 feet east of the existing
driveway apron. The applicant must present written approval from that owner before
doing this work.
i. Sweep and patch the existing parking lot.
j. Stripe the entire parking lot.
k. The five-foot parking lot setback from the north lot line shall be provided but shall be
crushed rock.
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.
The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The
amount shall be 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 fall or winter, or
within six weeks of occupancy 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.
The location of the future deck is approved. The deck design, however, shall be subject to
staff approval. The owner shall provide fencing around the perimeter of the deck subject to
the requirements of the Police Chief.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-10-01
-6-
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development or the
assistant community development director may approve minor changes.
Board member Johnson seconded the motion.
Ayes - All
Motion carries.
b. 3M Leadership Development Institute Remodel - 600 Carlton Street.
Mr. Ekstrand gave the staff report. He indicated that the applicant was not present at this time.
He stated that Mr. John Olfelt, of 3M Company is proposing to make some building upgrades with
building 255, which is their training facility. They are proposing to give the building a face lift by
refurbishing the outside of the building by covering the existing pre-cast concrete exterior with the
lower 60% being brick and the upper portion would be metal panels in warm tones of gray. The
roof would be a standing-seam metal roof held out by wooden supports. They are upgrading the
building because they are going to be converting this facility into an executive training facility.
They are proposing to leave the south elevation as is because the building is well screened by
existing screens, they plan to paint it to be compatible with the new details that will be on the
building. They are also proposing landscaping on the front street side and the east side of the
building. They are also proposing to lower the parking lot lighting poles from 30ofeet to 20-feet
and increasing the wattage from 400 watts to 800 watts. They feel this lighting change will
provide better security and cause less light spill over as well. Based on the photometric plan, they
are a little high on the number of foot-candles allowed at the residential lot line. They are at .5,
code requires .4. Staff is recommending that the applicant submit a revised plan showing they
are meeting the .4 maximum. As for the building plan, staff felt that they are nice upgrades and
are recommending approval.
Board member Johnson asked staff if 3M was aware of the recommendations put forth by staff.
Mr. Ekstrand stated that yes, they were aware. He did state that they have not yet responded to
the requirement for a revised lighting plan.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if they have seen any building material samples that they are
proposing. Mr. Ekstrand stated no, he had not seen any samples. Chairperson Ledvina stated
that he was concerned about how the design of the mansard and the wood supports were going
to work and look. Mr. Ekstrand stated that he thought that each of the wooden supports would
angle out from the wall, however, the plans do not depict the detail of the size of the wooden
supports. Mr. Ekstrand stated he was not sure whether the mansards would be in an open or
closed design style.
Board member Olson suggested deferring this design review until the next meeting when a
representative from 3M could be available to answer their questions. Chairperson Ledvina added
that he would like to see some materials as well. He also stated that he is a bit concerned about
the existing loading dock. It appears 3M is doing all the upgrades to improve the appearance of
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-'10-01
-7-
their building but the loading dock is very unsightly. He felt that something should be done to
improve the appearance of that dock. Board member Olson stated she would like to see
illustrations of the light poles that they are proposing.
Board member Olson motioned to table this design review.
Board member Johnson seconded the motion.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
VIII.
Ayes - All
IX.
There were no visitors present.
BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Board member Johnson reported on the June 25 City Council Meeting. He stated the Afton
Ridge townhomes were on that agenda. The City Council approved this item with the design
modifications that were put forth by the Board regarding the modification of the south elevation of
the Oxford design and the elimination of the emergency vehicle turn-around.
Chairperson Ledvina brought up the issue regarding the portable auto sales on Rice Street that
the Board had approved several months ago. He stated that they are in full operation, and in full
non-compliance with all the conditions that the Board had outlined in the staff report. Mr.
Ekstrand stated that staff is aware of the situation and will be in contact with the business soon to
address the issues. Chairperson Ledvina stated that they are still in need of closing the curb cut
and changing the lighting on the canopy.
Board member Johnson announced that he would be stepping down from the Community Design
Review Board. He stated he is involved in another business that is involving more and more of
his time. He indicated that he could remain on the Board until staff finds a replacement for him.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Mr. Ekstrand requested a CDRB representative for the July 23rd City Council Meeting,
Chairperson Ledvina volunteered for that meeting. Mr. Ekstrand also asked for a CDRB
representative for the August 13th City Council meeting, Board member Olson volunteered for this
meeting. Mr. Ekstrand stated that there are no CDRB items currently on either of those meeting
agendas.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff what are the upcoming proposals for the CDRB. Mr. Ekstrand
stated that staff is working on a project for Comfort Bus, a school bus company, who has
submitted their plans for the old Amusement City site. He stated that Amusement City would be
closing down on August 22, 2001. Mr. Ekstrand stated that Beau's Restaurant on McKnight and
Minnehaha has been sold to a different restaurant and plans are being made for a "face lift" and
adding additional parking. He stated this application would be for a conditional use permit, a
rezoning and a plan change, and a setback variance would be required.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m.