Loading...
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.