HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/2007
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
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: December 12, 2006
5. Unfinished Business:
a. CarMax Auto Superstore - Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenues
6. Design Review:
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
10. Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 9,2007
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina
Chairperson Linda Olson
Board member Joel Schurke
Board member Ananth Shankar
Present at 6:04 p.m.
Present
Present
Absent
Staff Present:
Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Ledvina requested discussion regarding outdoor signs during board
presentations.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Chairperson Olson seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Schurke
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for January 9,2007.
Board member Schurke moved approval of the minutes of January 9, 2007.
Board member Ledvina seconded.
Ayes --- Ledvina, Olson, Schurke
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Carmax Auto Superstore - Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenues
Mr. Ekstrand said on December 12, 2006, the CDRB reviewed the Carmax plans. They felt
that the building design should be enhanced to provide windows on the service garage. At this
meeting, the applicant presented building elevations which also showed the car wash building.
Then on December 18, 2006, the city council approved the Carmax plans, but required that the
applicant resubmit the architectural plans to the CDRB for further review due to the board's
recommendation for additional windows.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 1-9-2007
2
The council required that the applicant provide a three-dimensional cad drawing of the
elevations for submission to the design review board for their approval based upon previous
suggestions by the board and staff. Mr. Ekstrand said he handed revised plans with a three
dimensional view of the proposed building on the site to each of the board members prior to
the start of the meeting this evening.
Staff looked at some of the existing auto dealerships along Highway 61 to see which have
windows on their service garages. Staff found that Maplewood Toyota was the only dealership
with windows on their service garage. The Kline Motor Sports building and Maplewood Volvo
had none. Lexus, Nissan and Audi dealerships did not have service-garage windows, but had
windows on their second-floor offices above their service garage.
Since the CDRB reviewed the Carmax plans, the applicant has revised them to provide a
continuation of the EIFS fascia material around all sides of the service garage for continuity.
They also added windows on the east wall of the service garage. Staff feels that these
proposed enhancements are acceptable revisions. The revised building design is attractive
and up to par or exceeds the design of other auto dealerships on Highway 61 .
Board member Ledvina asked where the recommendation came from for the three
dimensional plans?
Mr. Ekstrand said that was a recommendation from Councilmember Rossbach. He thought a
three dimensional view of the building and the site would help the CDRB visually understand
how the building would appear from all angles.
Board member Ledvina thanked staff for the explanation.
Chairperson Olson asked if the windows that were added to the service garage were
functioning windows and if they would allow light to pass through or would it be a glass panel?
Board member Schurke said the plans look like viewable glass. If you look at the other view of
the glass it shows etching.
Mr. Ekstrand said 3M has a vision glass that you can see through and there is another type of
glass that allows light to pass through it. Staff would probably have to clarify that question with
the applicant.
Board member Ledvina said just to clarify, the windows you are referring to are not on the
service garage; that is actually the office/showroom area.
Mr. Ekstrand clarified where the service portion of the building was on the plan. The windows
that the board requested the applicant add were on one side of the building and that may be
the presentation area.
Chairperson Olson asked if the applicant was here to answer questions.
Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant for Carmax is not present this evening. Mr. Bruce Mogren is in
the audience as the adjoining property owner.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 1-9-2007
3
Chairperson Olson asked if Mr. Mogren wanted to address the board and add anything to the
discussion.
Mr. Bruce Mogren, Mogren Development Company, 1801 Gervais Avenue, Maplewood,
addressed the board. He said he's here because they did the entire plat and he is the property
owner adjacent to this proposal and he is interested in knowing what the final plan is for the
site and would like to make sure the site looks nice. Personally he thinks the proposal looks
nice compared to what Carmax Corporation had originally proposed and the building plan has
come a long way. He knows Carmax has built a lot of these buildings across the country. He
thanked the CDRB for their work on this proposal.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the revised 3-D perspective building-design plans
date-stamped December 27, 2006, and elevations received prior to the start of tonight's CDRB
meeting January 9, 2007, for the proposed Carmax Automobile Dealership. Approval is subject
to compliance with the conditions of approval as required by the city council on December 18,
2006.
Chairperson Olson seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Olson
Nay - Schurke
The motion passed.
Board member Schurke said he thought board member Shankar who represented the CDRB
at the city council meeting did an outstanding job articulating the points that were raised during
the board's review of the Carmax proposal. He would recommend, but not require that
architect's submit cad drawings with a three dimensional view for projects over a certain dollar
amount such as a project over 1 million dollars. That would help the board see what a project
would look like from all sides. It wasn't that the CDRB didn't understand the proposal, the three
dimensional drawing was to give a visual example of what the finished product would look like
and how the proposal would affect the surrounding proposal area. The street elevation is also
important when understanding how a proposal would look.
Board member Schurke said at the previous CDRB meeting board member Ledvina
commented that there are certain things that are not in the purview of the CDRB and are not
part of the board's role. However, he believes the CDRB has an expectation to look at
aesthetic implications of a site. He is voting against this project based on the rational that this
proposal is being built in the shoreland area. He thinks the natural amenities are part of the
aesthetic. As the board explores their role he thinks certain things needs to be considered as
part of what the board is responsible for making recommendations on to the city council. It's
not only the building itself that would be built on the site; it's also about landscaping and other
things. When you get into wetlands and shoreland issues he thinks from a PUD planning
standpoint the CDRB should look at making sure the plantings are done proportionally to the
development in the PUD. That way we don't end up in a situation where developers squish
trees in a given spot just because it's the only available planting area, it needs to be planned
for functional reasons too.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 1-9-2007
4
Board member Schurke said he thinks board member Shankar came very close to designing
the building for Carmax which he doesn't think that is the role of the CDRB. The architect
should respond to the recommendations of the board and then the city council can review that
and either make a decision on it or allow city staff to work with the architect or developer to
come to a final decision. In the Carmax proposal he believes city staff could have made the
final approval on the changes. He wanted his comments to go on record that the CDRB trusts
the decision of city staff and thought this was not necessary to come back before the CDRB
this evening. It's important that we don't elongate the development process to the point where
it delays the process and could keep people from bringing good projects into the community.
Board member Ledvina echoed those comments. These drawings meet his expectation
regarding what he felt the board was looking for in the redesign of the building and he felt it
would have been fine for staff to work with the applicant regarding the conditions the board
placed on the recommendation they made to the city council and this shouldn't have been
necessary to come back before the CDRB.
Chairperson Olson said she agreed with those comments. The council could have made the
final decision based on city staff working with the developer and it wasn't necessary for this
plan to come back before the CDRB. She said she appreciated seeing the three dimensional
cad drawings. In fact she would like staff to ask that three dimensional cad plans be submitted
with the application.
Mr. Ekstrand said the city could make a recommendation but not make it a "requirement"
because some firms cannot provide that information. Staff will amend the application form
stating that recommendation.
Chairperson Olson said she also liked board member Schurke's recommendation to enhance
the scope of what the CDRB would like to see and she had made that request in years past.
Many times the board is presented with a plan that shows the proposal up to the property line
and no information of the surrounding property area. For example, with the Legacy Village plan
the board saw the plan for the entire property area which was nice to know what was planned
for the areas surrounding each development.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
None.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
a. Outdoor billboard signs
Board member Ledvina requested the board discuss outdoor billboard signs. Board member
Ledvina said large electronic outdoor billboards look like large television screens to him.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 1-9-2007
5
Board member Ledvina said he recently saw a billboard in south Maplewood off of Highway
494 near Carver General Repair, south of Lake Road. He said this "was" a regular outdoor
billboard and it was converted to an electronic billboard sign that has flashing movements that
change every 5 seconds and the sign can be seen 2 miles away.
Chairperson Olson said she saw an electronic billboard sign that had been converted from a
regular billboard located off of Highway 35W going into Minneapolis and the sign flashes and
changes images every few minutes.
Mr. Ekstrand said the city received a phone call from a Cottage Grove planner who asked
about the electronic billboard sign in south Maplewood. Because Shann Finwall handles the
sign code Mr. Ekstrand said he transferred the call to her but didn't have any further
information on the situation. The billboard company converted the sign from a standard
billboard sign to this electronic television billboard without checking with the city to see what
the sign ordinance was or ask if a permit was needed. Staff will ask Shann to report on this at
the next CDRB meeting.
Chairperson Olson said she would appreciate that. She believes we haven't seen the last of
these types of signs and that this is a new trend that could be an issue with the sign ordinance.
Mr. Ekstrand said the topic of electronic billboards is just another subject matter that needs to
be addressed.
Board member Ledvina said electronic signs have been addressed when the board revised the
sign ordinance and it has already been discussed at length. It's disheartening to see
something like this electronic billboard sign without having any interaction between the owner
of the billboard and the City of Maplewood.
Chairperson Olson thanked Board Member Ledvina for bringing the subject matter to
everyone's attention.
Board member Schurke asked staff what the recourse is for a billboard company converting a
regular billboard sign to an electronic television billboard? Is there a requirement that the
billboard company did not meet for review or submittal to change the sign over?
Mr. Ekstrand said the billboard company made the sign conversion without the city knowing
about it and if it weren't for the telephone call to city staff, we may have not known about it.
Sometimes things are done and it's up to the city to catch it or for a resident or someone else
to make a phone call to the City of Maplewood.
Chairperson Olson asked if a billboard company doesn't pull a permit aren't there
repercussions that could take place?
Mr. Ekstrand said if the electronic outdoor billboard sign is in compliance with the city's sign
ordinance but they didn't get a permit, the city could double fee the company for the sign
permit. If they made a change to the billboard sign that doesn't comply with the city's sign
ordinance the city can tell them they have to convert the sign back to the way it was or they
could apply for a sign variance and it would come before the city for review.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 1-9-2007
6
Chairperson Olson said she didn't think this electronic billboard sign would be in compliance
with the city's sign ordinance.
Board member Ledvina said in terms of the proposed sign ordinance, the electronic billboard
sign wouldn't be in compliance. However, the sign ordinance the CDRB worked on has not
been approved or adopted by the city council yet and is not in affect.
Mr. Ekstrand said the new sign ordinance has not been adopted by the city council yet. Shann
has not been able to get the sign ordinance reviewed by the city council yet. Due to other
priorities in the city, Shann has been instructed to put the sign ordinance on the back burner so
to speak. She is anxious to conclude the sign ordinance process but with the other numerous
things going on in the city right now she has been told to put the sign ordinance on hold.
Chairperson Olson asked if she should contact the city councilor the mayor regarding the
proposed sign ordinance revisions to stress the importance of making this a priority? Maybe
staff could bring this matter up with the city council and let them know the CDRB would like to
know the status of the sign ordinance and the timing of the process.
Mr. Ekstrand said staff would check on that for the board.
Board member Schurke asked what the status was for board members whose terms expired
on December 31, 2006, and the process of continuing to serve even though technically they
have not been reappointed yet? He said he received a letter stating his term had ended and
that he needed to reapply and be interviewed by the city council.
Mr. Ekstrand said this situation happens at this time of the year. Members who wish to serve
again may not officially get reappointed. The process is to reapply for the position on the board
and be interviewed by the city council. The city council will be interviewing new applicants and
current board or commission members and the city council will make the decision. The city
appreciates the boards and commissions who volunteer to serve the city and appreciates them
continuing to serve until the process is completed.
Board member Schurke said he thinks the process to reappoint people whose terms are going
to expire should really begin before the term expired on December 31 , 2006.
Mr. Ekstrand said staff is not involved in the process this time. This is being handled by the city
manager's office. A letter was sent out by the city manager's office. Staff doesn't have the
exact timeline of the process but staff thanks the board members for continuing to serve on the
CDRB until they hear otherwise. Since former board member John Hinzman resigned we have
four current CDRB members and we need at least three board members for a quorum to hold
a CDRB meeting.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
None.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:41 p.m.