HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/11/2005
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
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. November 9, 2004, Minutes
5. Unfinished Business:
None
6. Design Review
a. Maplewood Imports Auto Center (2450 Maplewood Drive)
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
a. November 22, 2004, City Council Meeting
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Community Design Review Board Representation at the January 24, 2005, City
Council Meeting
10. Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2005
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Chairperson Diana Longrie
Vice Chairperson Matt Ledvina
Board member Judy Driscoll
Board member Linda Olson
Board member Ananth Shankar
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Ken Roberts, Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Roberts said because no CDRB representation was needed at the November 22, 2004,
city council meeting item 8. a. could be deleted. However, Chairperson Longrie requested the
addition of a new item 8. a. under Board Presentations regarding the Gladstone task force
committee representation.
Mr. Roberts requested the addition of an item 9. b. under Staff Presentations for discussion of
the next CDRB meeting on Tuesday, January 25, 2005.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for November 9, 2004.
Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of November 9,2004.
Board member Longrie seconded.
Ayes ---Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 01-11-2005
2
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Maplewood Imports Auto Center (2450 Maplewood Drive) Land Use Plan and
Zoning Map Changes, Conditional Use Permit and Design Approval
Mr. Roberts said Mr. Jon Hansen, of LeJeune Investments and Maplewood Imports, is
proposing to build four new automobile dealerships and a support services building on the 32-
acre property at 2450 Maplewood Drive. Mr. Roberts said this complex would include 4
separate dealership buildings (each with sales and service facilities); a support services
building and up to 1,945 parking spaces for inventory, customers and employees. The city has
planned and zoned this site CO (commercial office) and M-1 (light manufacturing.)
Board member Ledvina said in the staff report it states the construction for the Audi dealership
would set the standard for the building design for the rest of the site. Board member Ledvina
asked if it was staff's expectation that the subsequent dealership buildings to be built on this
site would have matching architectural characteristics.
Mr. Roberts said city staff expects quality projects and quality buildings to be built. However,
because each building will have separate manufacturers and may have a certain prototype or
standard they must follow this limits what can be done to the buildings. Mr. Roberts said he
couldn't guarantee they would have similar colors or architectural characteristics.
Board member Ledvina said the Audi building has a glassed in show floor area and asked if
the other buildings would have similar architectural features?
Mr. Roberts was unsure because there haven't been any other building plans submitted for
review.
Board member Olson asked what would happen to the existing car dealership facility?
Mr. Roberts said the applicant has told him that each manufacturer would like to have their
own building so they wouldn't have to share space. Currently they have three dealerships in
one building. Audi would be building the first building to be built but he isn't sure about the
other dealerships. A new dealership not now in the area may come into the area as well.
Board member Ledvina asked staff about the large drainage swale and how the decision for a
drainage area came about.
Mr. Roberts said the drainage swale was part of the revised proposal. The reason for the
drainage swale was that the city engineer didn't want to put pipes in the ground that they may
have to move or disturb because of changing building pads or locations of the future buildings.
They felt a better solution was to put the drainage swale in and then finalize the underground
storm sewer as the project progressed.
Board member Ledvina said then you end up with an additional 5 acres which would require
stabilization and would result in erosion. He is curious about the city engineers rational behind
that decision.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 01-11-2005
3
Mr. Roberts stated his understanding of the situation based on what was said at the planning
commission meeting and from what was stated in the engineering report.
Board member Olson asked what the dark blue areas were shown on the plans, are they
ponds, rain basins, or rainwater gardens.
Mr. Roberts said those are proposed to be rainwater gardens scattered throughout the site to
help with the storm water runoff.
Chairperson Longrie said she read in the staff report that a traffic study had been done. There
was concern that as this project develops there would be more traffic on the frontage road. On
page 49 of the staff report it states the developer would likely be partially responsible for any
mitigation or street improvements deemed necessary on the local system. She asked where
that condition would be put within this development.
Mr. Roberts said not yet. On page 12 of the staff report a condition E. was added after the
planning commission meeting, because of MnDot's comments, this project and growth in the
area in general, the city engineer has recommended that the city do a traffic study for a large
portion of Maplewood. These areas to be studied for the traffic study include this area, the
Gladstone area, the mall area and the Legacy Village area. The applicant has been notified
that this study needs to be done and that there may be assessments for street improvements.
Chairperson Longrie said in developing this large area she was concerned about the traffic as
it continues to develop. She was concerned that the mitigation or street improvements should
be part of the conditions put upon the developer of the site.
Mr. Roberts said essentially the city is stating it in an indirect way and the applicant must follow
the conditions. If the city engineer says there would be some mitigation that would be
accomplished, paid for, or studied. If it turns out public improvements need to be done those
would be done through assessments. If there are other things identified during the traffic study
then that would be negotiated between the engineering staff and the developers at that point.
Board member Olson asked if there were any plans to update Highway 61.
Mr. Roberts said that is something that would be discovered through the traffic study. MnDot
hopes to eventually turn Highway 61 back to Ramsey County.
Board member Shankar asked where the applicant planned on unloading the large truck trailer
inventory of new cars on this site.
Mr. Roberts said the plans show that the first building would have adequate turning radius on
each of the sites for truck trailers to unload the cars.
Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Jonathan Baker, AlA, 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 250, Minneapolis, addressed the board.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 01-11-2005
4
Chairperson Longrie said the board would like to hear about the building design and
characteristics and the board appreciates seeing building samples of colors and materials.
Mr. Baker said he didn't bring any building material samples this evening but could describe
what the building would look like. He described the color renderings of the proposed building
and the materials that would be used aloud.
Chairperson Longrie asked if there would be any foundation plantings around the Audi
building.
Mr. Baker said yes. Around the showroom portion of the building there will be a deep
landscaped area. The roof will be sloped and there are no gutters and the water runs off the
front of the roof and down. Typically they use rock, mulch, and plantings in front of the building
to take on the snow and water runoff from the roofline. He said around the back of the building
is curbing to protect the building.
Board member Olson said it sounds like the Audi building is going to be monochrome with
glass, silver and metal exterior with light woods used in the interior of the building. She asked
what the other buildings would look like that would be built on the site?
Mr. Baker said the auto dealerships have building prototypes that they must follow but they do
not know what dealerships would go in the remaining buildings yet. One dealership that was
proposed for this site was a Land Rover site and they have a dark green metal roof and a
different motif for their building. The site is going to be Maplewood Imports Auto Mall and
would be fairly compatible in style but with different motif's and logos. Right now there is
Porsche, Mercedes, and Audi in their existing facility and the Audi building is the first to be built
on this site. Final plans have not been made at this time as to which other dealerships would
go in any of the proposed buildings. The intent is to show the maximum way the site could be
developed and ultimately that decision is up to Mr. Jon Hansen of LeJeune Investments.
Mr. Jon Hansen, President of LeJeune Investments, 9393 Wayzata Boulevard, Minneapolis,
addressed the board. Mr. Hansen said Mr. Doug Moulder, General Manager of Maplewood
Imports is also in the audience and is available for questions as well. The first goal is to build
the Audi building, the second building to be built would be for the Mercedes dealership and
then they will be regrouping along the way. They can either sell the current dealership facility
or develop a facility for Porsche.
Board member Shankar asked if the 20 service bays shown on the plans were necessary.
Mr. Hansen said yes all 20 service bays were necessary. At the Golden Valley Carousel
building they have 26 service bays and they are all used. They are building for future growth in
mind.
Board member Ledvina said it appears the only glass on the building is associated with the
show room area. He asked if there was a possibility of incorporating any glass on the west
fayade.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 01-11-2005
5
Mr. Baker said the way this site is designed the building has many offsets and different
heights. There is a large warehouse on that side of the building and landscaping would be
used as well so the building is not plain by any means. Functionally it isn't necessary to have
windows on that side of the building.
Board member Ledvina said his point was to break up the expanse of the large wall of 25 to 30
feet in height.
Mr. Baker said the building is broken up with different reveals and accents and there are
enough changes in height to break up the expanse. There preference would be to build the
building the way it's drawn on the plan.
Chairperson Longrie said the west side is the side that people are viewing from Highway 61.
She knows that the applicant's focus is on the north side where the building faces. The board
visualizes what will be seen driving along Highway 61. Board member Ledvina said putting
function aside, other ways to break up this large block building could be with additional
detailing to give it more interest because of what people will see driving along Highway 61. He
said he knows additional landscaping was mentioned by staff and that could help as well.
Mr. Hansen said this building is built in Golden Valley and with the white wall and the crisp
reveal it is a very sharp building. When it's built it will be one of the nicest dealership buildings
in the area.
Chairperson Longrie said it's difficult for her to understand how this building will look and feel
without having building samples to refer to.
Mr. Hansen gave a photo of the Golden Valley Carousel building to be shown on the screen so
the board could visualize what a completed building would look like.
Board member Shankar asked where the west elevation transitions from the low to the high
roof if there was an opportunity to pull the building out six inches or so rather than have it all
the same plain this would give the same effect as a window.
Mr. Baker said that could be done.
Mr. Hansen said this building design is the European look and they like the crisp white high
tech look. Any changes to the building design could be denied by Audi.
Board member Shankar said he likes the high tech look as well, he is just wondering if there
was one more break in the plain this could cast a shadow and make it appear there is a
window there.
Chairperson Longrie said that brings up an interesting question of what changes Audi would
approve compared to the board recommending how they would like to see the project look in
the City of Maplewood. She asked how Audi would feel about having an additional reveal
band added along the west side to complement the existing band.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 01-11-2005
6
Mr. Baker said from his experience with the building in Golden Valley that would be denied. As
a design professional they tried to make the building better. Audi is very strict with certain
elements and believe it or not, the one stripe on the building is a big deal for Audi.
Mr. Hansen said they asked if they could use a different color gray and were told they couldn't.
Chairperson Longrie said she's trying to get a feel for how much leeway the board has and
how restrictive the prototype design is. She believes if Maplewood wants this building in the
community, the board has to accept this design.
Mr. Hansen said they had similar concerns when they were building the Golden Valley facility
along Highway 394 but it turned out to be a very nice building.
Board member Ledvina said he would concur with Mr. Hansen in that regard because he has
seen the building from the highway and the design of the building is very nice. Earlier he
asked if more glass could be added to the building but in consideration of the whole building
site and the main show room area having so much glass, he feels comfortable with the building
plans and is less inclined to ask for building modifications.
Board member Olson said additional landscaping on the west elevation takes care of many of
the board's concerns. She asked if the doors on the west side of the building could be treated
as a design consideration.
Mr. Hansen described how each of the four doors on the west side of the building would look.
The doors are going to be mostly glass that can't be seen through along with some silver
accents. Mr. Hansen said he would like to address the comment made earlier about the
drainage swale. In the first plans based on city staffs comment and the watershed comments,
substantial revisions were made. Their main concern was how to handle the swale during
construction. They had proposed phasing the buildings in and were told you don't want to
move a building on top of a storm sewer. Over 35% of the site will remain green space which
takes over 11 acres out of production. So this proposal is not a real high-density development.
Mr. Baker said the intent was to have a 32-acre site, build one building in 2005 and another in
2006 and so on. There was discussion regarding how much of this infrastructure to build as
part of the 20% of the overall project being constructed. They decided to build the ponds in the
back of the property and decide how to get the water to the back of the property. The
conclusion was to handle it with the drainage swale and as each subsequent building was
built, additional infrastructures would go in and they would be that much closer to completion.
Board member Olson asked what they had proposed to do with the center of the roundabout
that is shown on the plans.
Mr. Baker said currently it's shown as landscaping in the middle of the roundabout. The
roundabout would not be constructed with the first building. They are still trying to determine
what to put there. There has been discussion of having a sign there, a pond, landscaping, or a
flag, right now it is just a turn around.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 01-11-2005
7
Board member Olson asked if the applicant saw any problems with vehicles making the turning
radius of the roundabout.
Mr. Baker said no, the roundabouts are being built to the emergency standards so fire trucks
and other emergency vehicles can get through there.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped November 17, 2004, for the
proposed Audi automobile dealership building and related sales/storage lot at 2450
Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following: (additions to
the original recommendation are underlined)
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Signs shown on the site plan and building elevations are not part of this approval and
will require separate sign permits.
3. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a grading or building
permit:
(a) Final grading, paving drainage, utility, traffic/street improvement and erosion
control plans. These plans shall meet the requirements of the city code and the
city engineer.
(b) A striping plan for the new automobile sales/storage lot. The plan must include
drive aisles that are at least 24 feet in width.
(c) A revised landscape plan to include:
(1) The ponds should be vegetated with native grasses with Forbes. Native
shrubbery and trees should be planted on the upland portion of the
perimeter of the pond.
(2) All landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the ponds, must
have an underground irrigation system.
(3) Showing additional overstory trees on the west side of the site (near the
frontage road).
(d) A revised outdoor lighting and photometric plan. The revised plan shall show the
height and style of all outdoor lights and that the light illumination from all outdoor
lights does not exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines.
(e) A 100-foot-wide wetland protection buffer easement. This easement shall be
prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall
prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the
buffer. The applicant shall record the deed for this easement before the city will
issue a grading or building permit.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 01-11-2005
8
(f) Verification that all watershed district special proVISiOnS, as indicated on the
watershed district permit, are met before the city issues a building or grading
permit for the site.
(g) A revised south building elevation showing the final design elements and
materials for the gates of the trash enclosure. The gates are to be 100 opaque
and shall be constructed of wood or metal instead of chain-link fencing with slats.
(h) Combine the five existing parcels into one parcel for tax and identification
purposes with Ramsey County. The owner or contractor must submit proof of lot
combination to city staff before the city will issue a grading or building permit.
(i) 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.
4. The applicant or the contractor shall complete the following before occupying the Audi
building or before using the storage lot:
a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction.
b. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit and a handicap-parking sign for each
handicap accessible parking space.
c. Construct a 100 percent opaque trash dumpster enclosure to meet code
requirements, unless trash dumpsters are stored indoors.
d. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the parking lot islands and for all
landscape areas (except the ponding areas). Lawn irrigation in the right-of-way
may be waived if MnDot will not allow it. It is also waived in the wetland buffer
area.
e. Post signs identifying the customer and employee parking spaces.
f. Install city-approved wetland buffer signs at the edge of the wetland buffer
easement that notifies that no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or
dumping is allowed within the buffer.
g. Install all the required exterior improvements, including landscaping and signs.
h. Install all bituminous and the engineered porous or permeable surface and the
curb and gutter.
i. Stripe all drive aisles.
j. Install all required landscaping by June 1 if the dealership or if the sales/storage
lot is finished in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of completion of the
sales/storage lot if it is finished in the spring or summer.
k. Install all exterior lighting.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 01-11-2005
9
I. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from public streets.
5. 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 above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of
Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall
complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the
building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if
occupancy is in the spring or summer.
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
7. This approval does not include the signs. The signage for the development will be
reviewed by staff through the sign permit process.
8. This approval does not include any of the other buildings on the site (except the Audi
dealership). The owner shall apply to the city for design approval for each of these
buildings (including the architectural, landscaping and drainage plans). The community
design review board (CDRB) must approve the project plans for each of these buildings
before the city can issue a building permit for each building.
9. The desiqn for future buildinqs on the site maintain a consistent hiqh quality buildinq
material selection and architectural desiqn.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
Chairperson Longrie said the community design review board bases their recommendation to
the city council on the findings that:
1. The design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair
the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not
unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed
developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
2. The design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and
attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive
municipal plan.
3. The design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of
good composition, materials, textures and colors.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 01-11-2005
10
This item goes to the city council on January 24, 2005.
Board member Ledvina wanted the applicant to note that the board prefers to see building
material samples and would like better renditions and design plans for each building as this
project continues. This information is needed for future meetings in order to see how the
whole plan works together and for the board to understand the details of the project.
Chairperson Longrie said generally speaking the board wants to see building material samples
and was disappointed that the applicant did not have samples to present this evening. The
board generally reviews samples during presentations and most applicants do provide
samples for the board to review. In the future the board expects to see building samples as
this project moves forward. She feels comfortable with the plan knowing additional
landscaping will be added to the west elevation of the building. This building is the trend setter
of this development. Although this building is a prototype there have been other developments
that have come before the CORB that have building prototypes as well and the board has
recommended changes for a better fit in the community.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
a. Gladstone task force committee representation
The city council appointed CDRB member Linda Olson to serve on the Gladstone task force
committee as a CDRB representative. The first Gladstone task force committee meeting will
be held Wednesday, January 19, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at Gladstone Fire Station on Clarence
Street.
Board member Olson thanked the city council for the opportunity to serve on this task force.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Board member Shankar volunteered to represent the Community Design Review
Board at the January 24, 2005, City Council Meeting.
The only item to discuss is the Maplewood Imports Auto Center at 2450 Maplewood Drive.
b. CDRB Meeting, Tuesday, January 25, 2005.
Items to discuss include the Public Works Expansion and the Pondview Apartments
expansion off Ivy Avenue and Ferndale Street.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:24 p.m.