Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD' COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEWiBOARD Wednesday. March 1, 2006 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: January 24, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Menards - 2280 Maplewood Drive 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. February 13, 2006, City Council Meeting -ltems'Discussed Include Community Design Review Board Appointments and Ramsey County Public Library 9. Staff Presentations: a. New Member Orientation b. Annual Report c. Sign Code - Final Recommendation d. Member Representation at the March 13, 2006, CCity Council Meeting - Design Review Items to be Discussed Include Menards $nd Annual Report 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Board member Joel Schurke Absent Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Schurke The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for January 24, 2006 Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of January 24, 2006. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes ---Ledvina, Olson, Shankar Abstention - Schurke The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Menards - 2280 Maplewood Drive Ms. Finwall said Mr. Robert Geske, of Menard's Inc., is proposing to build a 16,1 05-square-foot garden center addition on the south side of the Menards store. They are proposing an exterior of glass panels, emerald green accent panels and a wrought iron fence for the garden center. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 2 The proposed plans also show changes to the existing parking lot and changes to the exterior of the building. Specifically, Menards would eliminate 17 parking spaces and reconfigure the parking lot so that all of the spaces would be at gO-degrees to the drive aisles. In addition, they are proposing to update the front of the store. This Would include changing the existing mansard and signage over the main entrance and adding four fieldstone and timber columns to support the new canopy. Menards wants to change the signage on the building. Ms. Finwall said the planning commission recommended the CUP ahd the parking reduction to the city council on February 6, 2006. Board member Ledvina clarified that the CDRB would not be discussing the parking lot reduction? Ms. Finwall said the planning commission made a recommendation on the parking reduction but the CDRB can comment on that as part of the site plan. Board member Ledvina said regarding the recommendation for additional architectural features on the north fac;:ade, the elevations provided really don't reflect the existing conditions with the extensive tiered landscaping that is on the north elevation. He asked if that recommendation accounts for the tiered landscaping? Ms. Finwall said initially Menards submitted a plan with the green stripe removed and that is where the concern came about and as the planning process went on, the city found out the green stripe would remain. That was taking into account the landscaping which was a condition of the CDRB in 2001. With that in mind staff thought it would be a nice element inclusive of the landscaping. Board member Ledvina said when you look at that elevation it would be easy to dress it up but the elevation does not represent the existing condition alorhg the north fac;:ade. Ms. Finwall said she wished she would have taken a photo of the existing tiered landscaping conditions. Board member Schurke said he is personally not in favor of ornamenting the north elevation with these columns. This is a big box building and expresses itself that way. He would like to see if some element of landscaping occur at the entrance to the building since this is a landscaping/garden center and it has a hard scape entrance to the building. Board member Shankar had no comments at this time. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Mark Lee, representing Menards, 2280 Maplewood Drive, Maplewood, addressed the board. The other representative for Menards, Rob has fallen ill and could not be here this evening. As far as whether or not there will be landscapirhg in front of the garden center, what is shown on the garden center elevations is a low wall with the polycarbonate panels and glass and the accent panels above it. He said what Menards is proposing is an improvement over what is currently there. He would hate to make the assumption that there would be any other landscaping that is not already represented on the plan. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 3 Chairperson Olson asked if the entry to the landscaping ariea would only be accessible through the store or would it be accessible through the wrought iron fence? It is unclear on the plans. Mr. Lee said he has photos of another Menards garden center that was built to represent how this proposal would look. Mr. Lee gave the photos to staff to put on the screen. Chairperson Olson asked if there were any building materials to present to the board for review? Mr. Lee presented the board with two building samples,. He said the emerald green metal accent panels would be for canopy structures, and the clear glass sample would be for the glass panels for the garden center walls. They would also be using a black wrought iron fence. Access to the garden center can be obtained both through the Menards store as well as through the garden center entrance itself. The board was not clear how far the wrought iron fence and the roofline of the garden center would go because the plan and the building elevation do not correlate, therefore there was much discussion back and forth regarding this as well as ather issues. Board member Schurke said it appears to be impossible to have four canopies into the entrance area because on the elevation plan the entrance shows only one canopy above it. Chairperson Olson said she wasn't sure these plans were to scale. Mr. Lee said he didn't have a scale with him but he has no reason not to believe this wasn't exactly what Menards is proposing. The board did not have a scale to measure the plan either. Chairperson Olson asked what Menards proposed to do with the existing fence. Mr. Lee said the wood fence would remain. He said there are wood pallets and shelves stacked against the fence. Chairperson Olson asked if they would be painting or staining the wood fence to make it look more attractive. Mr. Lee said they propose to leave the fence natural. When you use stain it becomes blotchy and paint peels so they would leave the fence in its natural condition. Some stores use a chain link fence which would be see through and you can see the lumber supply, but they prefer to use a wood fence to block the view for the residents. Again there was a lot of time spent discussing the inconsistencies that the board found on the plans. Chairperson Olson said personally she does not have a problem with the design, she has a problem with the presentation and how it translates. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 4 Ms. Finwall said the scale of the canopies does not correspond to the plan and she doesn't believe four canopies would fit there. Ms. Finwall said perhaps the CDRB could vote on this proposal and make it a condition to have the plans clarified in better detail. Board member Ledvina asked what Menards reaction was to the staff condition labeled C. 2. b. which states Revise building elevations to keep or add major design elements on the north elevation. This could include keeping the green stripe on the building or adding fieldstone and timber columns as proposed for the front entrance. Mr. Lee said frankly he didn't think this would be an issue and he thought the plan was essentially acceptable as it was. If it's the preference to dE!viate from this plan he would hate to delay this development. He said maybe he could call Mr.Geske and ask what the preference was if it is okay with the board. Board member Ledvina said the staff report has been written for 1 month now. Mr. Lee said Mr. Geske is home sick this evening and Mr. Geske knows this plan front to back. Board member Shankar said Menards is proposing four new columns on the west side so it is the same type of treatment on the north side as proposed by staff. There is terraced keystone landscaping there and these timber columns may fall right on top of the landscaping. He said the planters are five feet from the building. Board member Ledvina said just to update you Mr. Lee, Menards was required to have the terraced keystone landscaping because Menards built their building five feet taller than what was allowed. Chairperson Olson said one of the reasons the board is so strict tonight is because the city has had problems with Menards Inc. in the past. The CDRB approved a building and Menards built the building taller than what was approved. The landscapEld tiers were added on the north side of the building as a condition to make the height of the building appear not so tall. The CDRB wanted to require more but were unable to. There were very strong feelings there because Menards did not accurately represent what was constructed. That is one of the reasons the board is paying such close attention to this garden center proposal this evening. She said she is not particularly interested in seeing the columns added to the north side but what she would like to see is that the landscaping is cared for and enhanced. She has noticed a lot of the bushes have died and it seems to her if the landscaping was fortified more the columns would not be necessary. Personally she would prefer the columns to be near the doorway to attract attention and get the customers in and out of the store. If columns are placed near a service door for example that would be distracting for customers. Board member Schurke said he would concur with those statements. He would also recommend to staff that the board should have a scale ruler for proposals like this. When there are issues that are unclear the board would have a scale ruler on hand to verify the scale of things. Personally he would rather see Menards invest the money that they would have put into the columns and invest it into additional landscaping on the site. Including doing some landscaping to soften the whole parking lot experience. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 5 Board member Schurke said he would also like to see something done in terms of the storm water management on the site with the reduction in the parking requirements and with the adjacency to Keller Lake. Chairperson Olson thought those were very good observations to bring forward. Mr. Lee asked if Menards would have to bring these changes back to the CDRB for approval? Ms. Finwall said that's up to the CDRB if they want to see the revisions to the plans or not. Otherwise the board could recommend that staff review the changes for approval and then this could proceed to the city council. Board member Schurke said if it's appropriate he would recommend in order to not delay the process any longer than necessary if the conditions and changes are clear enough, staff could review the changes on behalf of the CDRB so it can be moved on to the city council. Board member Ledvina said this would go onto the city council next. Chairperson Olson said Menards can appeal the board's decision if they are not happy with the board's recommendation. Board member Shankar asked staff when this would be heard by the city council? Ms. Finwall said March 13,2006. Board member Schurke said he would like to have the light post removed from the wrought iron fence. He thinks it would look nicer without it and he also has concerns about light pollution. Mr. Lee said personally he likes the decorative light post, on the wrought iron fence. It would only use a 75 watt bulb and would not cast a lot of light, it's only meant to add some ornamentation to the fence. Chairperson Olson asked how many light posts there would be on the fences? Mr. Lee said he doesn't see them shown on the plan. Board member Schurke said they are shown on the site plan on page 13 of the staff report. Board member Schurke said he would be happy without them on the fence at all. Board member Ledvina said he would agree the light posts should not be there. Chairperson Olson said she would also agree they should not be there. Board member Schurke said he would recommend that some type of storm water management be looked at for this site. It struck him that this site is 95% impervious. Board member Ledvina said this site is grandfathered in and that is why there is so much impervious surface. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 6 Chairperson Olson said that could be added to condition C. 2. a. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the site plan date-stamped January 17, 2006, and the building elevations date-stamped February 6, 2006, for the 16,1 05-square-foot garden center addition to Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the following conditions: (changes to the conditions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) 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 to the city engineer for approval. The city enoineerino department should review the plans for the possibility of Menards implementino some or additional types of best manaoement practices to help treat storm water on the site. b. Re'iise tt:le 13~i1ding elevations to keep or ad<:l major sesign elemonts on tho north olovation. This so~ls inslude keepin!3 tho g~oen stripe on tt:le building or adding fieldstono ans timber columns as pr-oposed for tt:lo fr-ont entrance. b Revise the site plans for staff approval to provide enough handicap-accessible parking spaces to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. c. Submit for staff approval. consistent elevati~ns and site plans which correlate to each other. The plans date-stamped Januarv 17. 2006, and elevations date- stamped Februarv 6, 2006, are inconsistent and difficult to read. d. Submit a revised wrouoht-iron fence elewation showino that the proposed decorative liqhts have been removed from th~ fence. e. Submit a landscapinq plan showino the folloWino: (1) All existino landscapino on the n<i'rth side of the buildino. This plan should reflect alllandscapino materiflls which are healthy, in poor health, or dead. The purpose of this plan is to ensure that all landscapinq reouired previously by the city in this location has been planted and is healthy and thrivino. (2) Work with staff to implement land~capinq in front of or near the new qarden center. If landscapino in thi$ area is not feasible, work with staff to implement additionallandscapino; throuohout the site. f. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building addition: Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 7 a. Menards shall provide a gate and clear accElss to the sanitary sewer manhole on the site as part of this request. b. Paint any new rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color if the units are visible. (code requirement) c. The city waives the trash-dumpster screening requirement unless the dumpsters would be visible to the public. If Menards wants to keep their dumpsters outside, then they shall provide an enclosure for them using the same materials and color as the building. d. 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. e. Meet all the requirements of the fire marshal including: (1) Keeping the perimeter of the building accessible for fire emergencies. The applicant should arrange with 'the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the building in the case of emergencies. (2) Installing a monitored fire protection system. (3) Providing a floor plan of the store and a fire department lock box at the main entrance. f. Verify that all existino required landscaping is healthy and growing, and replace the landscapino if it is not healthy and orowino. Plant all other landscapino reouired with this 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 eS$ential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The ownE!r or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of oCdupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. Signs are not part of this approval. The applicant $hall submit any requests for new or revised signs to staff for sign permits. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Schurke Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 8 The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on Monday, March 13, 2(])06. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Shankar was the CDRB repres~ntative at the February 13, 2006, City Council Meeting. Because the meeting weflt so late Board member Shankar had to leave before his CDRB item came up so <l:hairperson Olson reported. The only board item to discuss was the Ramsey County Public Library at Southlawn Drive, which passed ayes all. The proposal was approved with the galvanized green metal roof as opposed to the copper roofing product that was proposed. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. New member orientation Ms. Finwall reported on February 13, 2006, the city council appointed Joel Schurke to the CDRB. This vacancy occurred when Diana Longrie became Mayor of Maplewood. Joel Schurke will serve the remainder of Diana Longrie's term which began January 1, 2005, and ends January 1, 2007. The Community Development department would like to congratulate the newest member of the CDRB, Joel Schurke and welcome him. Ms. Finwall read the CDRB membership orientation that was included in the staff report. This material is intended to outline the objective, review process, responsibilities and scope of authority of the CDRB. b. 2005 Annual Report for the CDRB Ms. Finwall said on January 24, 2006, the CDRB reviewed a proposed draft report of the 2005 annual report. The CDRB requested that staff add square footages and number of units to the development proposals revilewed by the board and also expand the report to further describe the types of developmlents reviewed. Chairperson Olson moved to approve the 2005 Annual Report for the CDRB. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina. Olson, Shankar, Schurke The motion passed. This item goes to the city council March 13, 2006. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 9 c. Sign Code - Final Recommendation Ms. Finwall said on January 24, 2006, the CDRB discussed final changes to be made to the code based on this feedback and other research. The CDRB requested that city staff research how murals could be included in the draft sign code and also requested other minor changes to the code for review at the next meeting. Included in the staff report is a copy of the draft sign code with the language regarding murals and the other minor changes highlighted in red. The CDRB should recommend approval of the att~ched February 14, 2006, proposed sign code. This revised sign code, with any additional changes requested by the CDRB, will be presented to the city council for their final review and approval. The board said they were very pleased with the sigrl code changes and thanked staff for all the hard work and efforts to get the sign code ready for the city council. Ms. Finwall thanked the CDRB members for all their efforts and contributions to the sign code changes. Board member Ledvina moved to recommend the sign code to the city council. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Schurke The motion passed. This item will go onto the city council and the date i$ yet to be determined. d. New board member Joel Schurke volunteered to be the CDRB Representative at the Monday, March 13,2006, city council meetinlg. The CDRB items to be discussed include Menarqs at 2280 Maplewood Drive for the CUP revision and parking reduction authorizatior1 and design, and the 2005 CDRB Annual Report. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m.