Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, June 13,2006 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: a. April 25, 2006 b. May 9, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2475/2485/2495 Maplewood Drive b. Ramsey County Library Comprehensive Sign Plan - Southwest Corner of Legacy Parkway and South lawn Road (Legacy Village) c. Comforts of Home Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. June 12, 2006, City Council Meeting 9. Staff Presentations: 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson opened the meeting with an informal discussion at 6:12 p.m. while waiting for Board member Hinzman to be present for a quorum. The CDRB meeting was officially called to order at 6:16 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Joel Schurke Board member Ananth Shankar Present at 6: 16 p.m. Present Present Absent Absent Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Ekstrand requested moving the Design Review items 6. b. and c. to items 6. a. and b. and make 6. a. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Comprehensive Sign Plan item 6. c. and request the addition of the Landscaping Plan for the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center to item 6. d. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as amended. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for April 25, 2006. Board member Schurke was not present for the meeting but called the recording secretary with changes to the minutes on pages 7 and 17. On page 7, first paragraph, after the words Arden Hills add he believes. In the fourth paragraph reword the paragraph to read Board member Schurke said the point is that there is a lot of light pollution and any additional lighting causes problems whether it comes from signage or lighting. On page 17, delete the sixth paragraph because it's a repeat of the motion made on page 18 and is unnecessary to state the motion twice. Chairperson Olson moved approval of the minutes of April 25, 2006, as amended. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes --- Ledvina, Olson Abstention - Hinzman Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-13-2006 2 The motion passed. Approval of the CDRB minutes for May 9, 2006. Board member Schurke called changes into the recording secretary because he was absent from the meeting. On page 7, fourth paragraph, fourth and fifth line, change the words GORtiRuation to attenuation. In the fifth line, change the word inGtructioRal to structural. Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of May 9, 2006, as amended. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Olson Abstention - Ledvina V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Ramsey County Library Comprehensive Sign Plan - Southwest Corner of Legacy Parkway and South lawn Road (Legacy Village) Mr. Ekstrand said Jay Biedny, project manager for this proposal with Ramsey County, is requesting approval of the signage plans for the proposed Ramsey County Library in Legacy Village. The planned unit development (PUD) approval for Legacy Village required that the applicant submit a comprehensive sign plan. The signs proposed are all tastefully done and meet city sign code requirements. This proposal also complies with the city's proposed sign ordinance amendment. Staff recommends approval of this signage proposal. Board member Hinzman asked if there were any conditions along with the recommendation? Mr. Ekstrand said no, staff felt the signage was appropriate. He said Shann Finwall had checked to see that it complied with the proposed ordinance and it does comply. Board member Hinzman said he noticed a sunset clause provision for another sign permit that stated it was approved for a 2 year period and if nothing occurred during that timeframe it would need to come back for another review. He asked if that was a standard condition or if that was only pertinent on the one permit that he had seen. Mr. Ekstrand said that is not a typical condition put on by staff. The CDRB may have gone through many sign approvals without his knowledge but he did not believe the city typically put a sunset clause on sign permits for proposals. Chairperson Olson asked what the symbol of the cartoon character representing a person sitting reading a book meant and if it was a Ramsey County symbol or if the symbol was only pertinent to this library? Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-13-2006 3 Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Tim Karl, HGA Architects, addressed the board. He said the symbol you referred to is an official Ramsey County Library logo. The sign would be cut out of metal and backlit. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the comprehensive sign plan for the Ramsey County Library date-stamped May 15, 2006. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson The motion passed. b. Comforts of Home Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street Mr. Ekstrand said Brian Winges of Comforts of Home is proposing signage for the new Comforts of Home assisted living facility to be developed on the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street (2300/2310 Hazelwood Street). A requirement of the conditional use permit for Comforts of Home is that all signs be approved by the community design review board (CDRB) prior to issuance of a sign permit. Chairperson Olson asked with the proposed roadway improvements to Hazelwood Street and Highway 36, would either of those improvements along with the proposed sidewalk affect the placement of the sign? Mr. Ekstrand said he would anticipate that the requirement of moving the sign back would only be a benefit to the Comforts of Home site. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Mark Paschke, Frisbie Architects, 215 North 2nd Street, Suite 204, River Falls, Wisconsin, addressed the board. He said he understands the sidewalk would be placed in the right of way, beyond the property line, along Hazelwood Street, and there are no issues. There is no problem relocating the sign outside of the required visual triangle, and Comforts of Home would have to wait for the road improvements to be done to see if it would be affected or not. Board member Ledvina said sign A is an asymmetric sign and he wanted to make sure that the elevation the CDRB is looking at is actually the east elevation of the sign, not the west elevation as shown in the diagram in the staff report. Mr. Ekstrand said that's a good clarification. Board member Hinzman said during the review of the original proposal he noted a 30 inch oak tree on the site located off the southeast corner and he was wondering if the tree could be saved or not? Mr. Paschke said he didn't believe the tree could be saved due to the steepness of the grade and where the footings would have to be placed. When you look up at the canopy of the tree, the root structure in the ground is usually as large and that can cause problems for building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-13-2006 4 Chairperson Olson said that's unfortunate that the oak tree cannot be saved. Board member Hinzman moved to approve the plans date-stamped June 6, 2006, for a comprehensive sign plan for Comforts of Home assisted living facility located at 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit for this project. 2. Sign criteria for the site include the following: a. Wall sian: One wall sign located on the north side of the building. The wall sign is limited to individual letters which are 18 inches in height. b. Freestandina sians: Two monument signs to be located on the northwest corner of the property (along Highway 36) and on the east side of the property (along Hazelwood Street). The monument signs are limited to 37 square feet in area and 8 feet in height for the Highway 36 sign and 8 square feet in area and 5 feet, 9 inches in height for the Hazelwood Street sign. The monument signs must maintain a 100-foot setback from one another, a 10- foot setback to all property lines, and must meet the required 25-foot visibility triangle per city code for any sign placed at an intersection. The signs must be constructed of cultured stone or other material which is compatible to the building with internally-illuminated sign panels. The illumination from the Hazelwood Street monument must be turned off at 10 p.m. nightly. 3. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the applicant must submit the following to be approved by city staff: a. Revised site plan showing the location of the freestanding sign which maintains a 10-foot setback to all property lines and does not impede on the required 25-foot visibility triangle. b. Landscape plan showing landscaping around the base of the freestanding sign to include low-maintenance shrubs and perennials. 4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson The motion passed. b. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2475/2485/2495 Maplewood Drive Mr. Ekstrand said Jim Kellison of Commercial Equity Partners is requesting approval of the comprehensive sign plan for the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center on Maplewood Drive. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-13-2006 5 Mr. Ekstrand said the business center is on the west side of Maplewood Drive (Highway 61), between Acorn Mini Storage and the Hmong American Alliance Church. This project consists of three office/warehouse buildings which are under construction. The code requires a comprehensive sign plan when there are five or more occupants or tenants in a building or development. Board member Ledvina said he has no issue with the monument sign; he likes the design and attractiveness of the buildings. However, he has an issue locating signage above the second floor windows. There are very few examples in the City of Maplewood where there is signage on second story buildings. Staff mentioned an example of second story signage would be similar to the ReMax real estate building on County Road D. The signage on this two-story building conflicts with the architectural detailing on this newly constructed building. There are two brown bands of stone along the top and the signage would go into the banding and aesthetically he thinks that isn't going to look good. He wasn't sure if it would be necessary to reduce the size of the signage so it wouldn't run into the banding. Personally he would prefer to eliminate the signage on the second story of the building altogether. Chairperson Olson asked if there would be separate tenants in each of these two story condominiums that warrant the need for signage both on the main floor units and the upper story units? Mr. Kellison said the signage would not be required above all the upper story windows. There is a strong likelihood there would be second floor users which is why they have the mezzanine space there. Signage on the second story would not be a solid block; the letters would have 50-70% air or light through where the letters would be. The two bands of color along the top look like brick but are actually a flat concrete block and do not protrude. He said they have received many compliments regarding the detailing of the buildings. There is a need for signage on the second story and he does not know how to minimize the signage in order to get it below that banding area for some users and still allow others regular size signage. He asked that the CDRB allow him to have signage on the second story of the buildings. Board member Hinzman said he would concur with the comments regarding limiting the amount of signage on the site. This seems to be a "destination" site and you wouldn't be able to see signage from the rear two businesses from Highway 61. You are going to drive into the site, enter the building and go into the tenant space, so driving by the signage doesn't serve a purpose and the signage would seem to detract from the fine architecture of the building. In his opinion this would be a better-looking building without signage on the second story. That being said, he was not sure what power the board had during the comprehensive sign review. To say yes or no to signage in the different areas on a building, he would feel more comfortable deferring that to members of the CDRB that have been on the board longer than he has. Board member Ledvina said it's an issue with the architecture of the building. The CDRB wants to accommodate the businesses and the developer. In terms of the individual tenants in the buildings, the CDRB had an idea of what this building was going to look like when the CDRB approved it, and when you plaster signage all over the building, that changes the appearance of the building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-13-2006 6 Mr. Kellison said because of the visibility of the signage along Highway 61 those spaces have sold fast. Secondly, the signage does not exceed the square footage allowance in the ordinance and in fact is considerably under the allowance. Thirdly, when they submitted this plan last fall they had these areas designated as future signage areas so those areas have been approved. However, they did not have the style of signage on the building nor did they have the monument sign. Mr. Ekstrand said he agrees with Board member Ledvina regarding his view on building aesthetics but he also feels the need to create the opportunity for the tenants in the upper spaces to identify their space in uniformity with the rest of the tenants. Sure there is going to be instances where above the signage isn't going to be uniformly spread across the building front. Even as tenants or occupants turn over there are going to be holes in the uniformity, but that is often the case in multi-tenant centers as tenants change. Basically he is supportive of signage for all potential occupants. Board member Hinzman said the CDRB has spent a lot of time going through the sign ordinance, and if he is correct, the new sign ordinance makes allowances for these types of signs to be put up, and this would be one of the first batch of buildings to come in under the new sign code, and he would be reluctant to say no to signs that meet the new sign code if they meet the new requirements. Chairperson Olson said she would agree. She asked if the association would be limiting each tenant in the building to only one sign? Mr. Kellison said they would not limit the number of signs but potentially that is something the city could do during the sign permit process. If two tenant spaces were sold such as Gladstone Windows and Doors who would require a few units, they may need more than one sign but each individual buyer of the tenant spaces will have to come to the city and apply for their sign permit, and the city will have to set the limits for the signage. He is not sure that they can say that each business is limited to one sign. Gladstone would have four spaces here but he isn't sure Gladstone would be requesting four signs. He said he is looking for direction here regarding where the signage can go and what "style" the signs should be. Board member Ledvina said he didn't recall seeing these designated signage areas on previous plans when the original site approval took place but he will go back and look at those plans. If that truly is the case, the CDRB does not review the signage at the same time of architectural review. If that was really shown on the plans and the CDRB reviewed it without any issues, it's not fair for him to say they should not be allowed to have signage on the second story of the buildings. At this point he would vote against the second story signage because it would run into the banding and he feels the building would look nicer without it. Chairperson Olson said for the buildings on Highway 61 there will be a lot of visibility but for those located in the back they will be more hidden and their signage will not be visible for anyone driving by. Mr. Kellison said he would imagine the back two buildings would have minimal signage. One of the users doesn't even want anyone to know he is located there, so he will most likely have no signage. Mr. Kellison said another space will be for Gladstone Windows and Doors for storage and may not have signage. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-13-2006 7 Board member Ledvina asked Mr. Kellison if he would be willing to have no signage on the second story for building #3? Mr. Kellison said he isn't prepared tonight to make that kind of decision. His guess is the back building would be signed very minimally and probably wouldn't have illuminated signs because there would be no purpose for that. Board member Hinzman moved to approve the sign criteria for the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center date-stamped May 26, 2006, with the following revisions and conditions: 1. The monument sign is approved as proposed. 2. The allowed wall signage for building occupants shall be restricted to individual channel letters. These letters must be mounted on a raceway to minimize building damage. Raceways must be painted to match the building. The color and style of lettering is not regulated. 3. Wall-mounted signs may only be placed above the occupant's windows on the east and west sides of the building. Such signs are not allowed on the north or south sides of the building. Sign height shall be restricted to a total height of 30 inches in the sign band above the occupant's front windows and shall not extend beyond either side of the occupant's front windows. 4. There shall not be any illuminated signs on the west side of the west building. 5. Signs are allowed on service and garage doors. These shall be non-lit, individual- letter signs (painted, adhesive-back of the like). The lettering height, style and color must be uniform throughout the business center. Letter heights must not exceed four inches. Lettering of this nature may be placed on the end elevations on service and garage doors as an exception to that listed above. 6. Signs shall not be allowed on the entrance towers of the building unless the applicant chooses to place building addresses there. 7. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan providing for landscaping at the base of the proposed monument sign since the new sign ordinance draft requires landscaping at the base of ground signs. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Olson Nay - Ledvina The motion passed. Board member Ledvina said he voted nay for the purpose of aesthetics and he doesn't approve of signage on the second story of the building exterior. It's a beautiful building and he is very happy with how it's turning out. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-13-2006 8 Mr. Kellison said hopefully Board member Ledvina will be pleased with the building signage when everything is said and done. d. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Landscaping Plan - 2475/2485/2495 Maplewood Drive Mr. Ekstrand said Jim Kellison is also requesting approval of the landscaping plan. He understands from the neighbors that the trees that were delivered to the site were only 8 to 9 feet in height and the conditions were for 12 to 14 foot tall trees. The city code requires trees to be 6 feet tall. Staffs feeling is that the 8 to 9 feet tall trees do meet the city code but staff welcomes the neighbors to speak. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Jim Kellison of CEP Companies addressed the board. He said the landscapers began planting the trees before he realized he needed to come before the CDRB for landscaping approval and that's why this was added on the agenda so late. He said there have been several meetings with the neighbors regarding this proposal and most recently a meeting one week ago. He said during the meeting last fall the plan was to plant Norway pines 12 to 14 feet tall. Unfortunately because of the season we are in now, you can't plant coniferous trees when they are candling or you could lose as many as 50% of the trees. When they ordered the trees, they were told the trees were between 10 and 12 feet tall. The landscaper purchased the trees and it turns out most of the trees are 8 to 9 feet in height according to the tags that were seen by the neighbors. He personally has not verified that fact and so the trees may be between 8 to 10 feet in height or they may be last year's trees and have grown since the tags were put on the trees. They want the screening to work for the neighbors and they want to make the neighbors happy. The city code requires that the trees must be 6 feet in height. If they need to plant more trees in order to get better screening, they will. The landscaper began placing the trees incorrectly which has since been corrected. Mr. Kellison said he reviewed the landscaping plan and where the trees would be placed on the berm to provide the best screening for the neighbors. They are planting spruce, Austrian pine, dogwood, amur maples and autumn glaze maples. They will also be planting river birch trees in the corners of the rear property. After the landscaping is done if any of the neighbors decide they would still like a fence built to help with the screening, they would do that for the neighbors. He said he would have to check with their lawyer regarding the legality issues with a fence being placed on the berm and if the neighbors want to maintain the fence. Once this project is done the units (sold as condominiums) would be run by an association. They will also provide a sugar maple for Tom and Missy O'Connor at 2506 Adele Street. Chairperson Olson asked the neighbors to come forward with concerns. Ms. Kathv O'Donnell, 2498 Adele Street. Maplewood, addressed the board. Mr. Kellison said the trees were supposed to be planted on the berm and they need to be moved. She said there are two trees on the southwest corner that are almost dead and she was wondering if those could be replaced by the developer. Ms. O'Donnell said she and her husband haven't decided if they want a fence, but if they decide to have the fence, they would like it up on the berm. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-13-2006 9 Ms. O'Donnell said having the fence down on her property would not serve a purpose but it would help screen from the businesses on the berm, and she said she would be willing to take responsibility for the fence. However, she isn't sure how that would work regarding the legal issues of the fence. Ms. Missv O'Connor, 2506 Adele Street. Maplewood, addressed the board. Her main concern is that the two rows of trees be planted uniformly down the berm. She said the neighbors want somebody supervising the landscaping to make sure it is placed correctly. The trees would have all been planted if the neighbors weren't outside watching and if they didn't make some phone calls to get it done right. She understands that the city requirement for trees is only 6 feet tall, but they were promised 12 to 14 foot tall trees here, and now they are only 8 to 9 feet tall which is quite a bit shorter, so they are disappointed with that. This is a two story building and having 12 to 14 foot tall trees would have screened this area from seeing the businesses a lot better. The homes in this area have decks on the upper level and people enjoy sitting on their deck which is located above the berm and barbequing. It will be many years before these trees are fully developed and screen the area the way the neighbors thought the trees would. Chairperson Olson said she works with landscape architects and the one positive thing to planting a smaller tree is that it has a better chance of survival. She was happy the developer is planning on planting Autumn Glaze maple trees because they are very nice trees and she would like to see more of that tree species planted in the city. Board member Ledvina said he would like to commend Mr. Kellison for working with the neighbors on this project and listening to their concerns regarding the building and landscaping for this project. There are not many project planners that go to these lengths to try and make the neighbors happy. Personally he doesn't think putting a fence on the berm is a good idea. There are problems with tree roots, tree branches, and maintenance issues that come with a fence. Ms. O'Donnell asked regarding the trees in her backyard if there was a possibility of planting trees in between the trees that are already there so there are two staggered rows of trees closest to them? Mr. Kellison said he would be out on the site Wednesday morning so he would check the site over and be monitoring the landscaping being planted. His only concern is having too many trees planted close together can cause tree roots competing and cause the loss of trees. The landscaping contractor should be on the site Wednesday and he would defer this to him before making any decisions. Chairperson Olson said she echoes the comments made by Board member Ledvina. She is encouraged by the fact that people are working together on this site and the challenges here. Board member Hinzman said he would like to clarify the minimum height of the coniferous trees. The board decided on a minimum of 8 feet in height. Ms. O'Connor said she doesn't want a fence because she and her husband prefer the natural look of landscaping and trees versus a fence. She thought the reason the fence was being discussed was for noise protection. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-13-2006 10 Ms. O'Connor said once all the businesses are in place she imagines there will be noise issues, then what will the neighbors do? Because the trees are not as large as the neighbors were promised and are not full enough yet, it will be a long time until the sound is dulled. Mr. Ekstrand said staff recommended that the dock doors not face the residential homes but that was not well received by the neighbors. Meeting the 80% code is very difficult even though it is the city code. The trees will grow and fill in and if there are noise concerns the neighbors could call the police and then it would be an enforcement issue. Ms. O'Connor said the reason the neighbors did not like that recommendation was because that would move the buildings 100 feet closer if the loading docks were facing the other direction and the windows of the building would be looking right into the windows of their homes. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the revised landscaping plan date-stamped June 13, 2006, for the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center subject to the applicant providing a landscape materials legend identifying all planting sizes and species. The coniferous trees shall be at a minimum heiqht of 8 feet. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Chairperson Olson was the CDRB representative at the June 12, 2006, City Council Meeting. Chairperson Olson said Carver Crossing of Maplewood was discussed for 2 hours and then tabled until Thursday, June 15, 2006. Comforts of Home assisted living facility at 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street for a comprehensive land use plan change and conditional use permit, which was approved by the city council. Board member Ledvina said if there were any CDRB items to discuss at the upcoming city council meeting he would volunteer to be the CDRB representative. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Ekstrand discussed upcoming agenda items for the CDRB to look forward to. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m.