HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/12/20022.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10.
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
March 12, 2002
6:00 P.M.
Maplewood City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road B East
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda
Approval of the February 12 and February 26, 2002 Minutes
Unfinished Business
Design Review:
a. Hillcrest Animal Hospital - 1320 County Road D
Visitor Presentations
Board Presentations
Staff Presentations:
a. Community Design Review Board Representation at the March 25, 2002,
City Council Meeting
b. Community Design Review Board Vacancy Update
c. Sign Ordinance Discussion
Adjourn
II.
III.
IV,
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina
Craig Jorgenson
Linda Olson
Ananth Shankar
Staff Present:
Recording Secretary:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Shann Finwall,
Associate Planner
Lisa Kroll
Board member Jorgenson moved approval of the agenda.
Board member Olson seconded. Ayes ---Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the February 12, 2002, minutes.
Board member Jorgenson moved approval of the minutes of February 12, 2002.
Board member Olson seconded. Ayes -Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
Approval of the February 26, 2002, minutes.
Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of February 26, 2002.
Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes -Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 03-12-2002
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Hillcrest Animal Hospital (1320 County Road D)
Ms. Finwall stated that Dr. Jennifer Bouthilet, representing the Hillcrest Animal
Hospital, is proposing to build a 7,000 square-foot animal hospital at the
southwest corner of Highway 61 and County Road D. This proposal includes
constructing a new animal hospital to replace the current animal hospital and a
former house on the site. Specifically, the owners recently demolished a house
on the property, will construct the new hospital (if approved), and then will
demolish the existing hospital after completing the new hospital.
The applicant is requesting approval of the following:
A conditional use permit (CUP) to build the new building closer than 350 feet
to a residential zoning district. The nearest residential district is immediately
to the west of the site. The proposed building would be 229 feet from the
west property line of the site.
2. Approval of site, landscape and architectural plans.
Ms. Finwall said the proposed building also would be 300 feet from the nearest
house to the west. The proposed future addition would be 256 feet from this
house.
The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP at their March 4,
2002, meeting. The community design review board should act on the design
aspect listed as item B. numbers 1 through 8 as outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Finwall stated the proposed building would be attractive and would have
decorative rock-faced block, stucco and asphalt shingles. The proposed colors
are brown, cream and beige. As proposed, the building would fit the character of
this highway-frontage business location.
The proposed site plan shows a future addition on the west side of the hospital
building. The location of the addition should not cause any problems. In fact, the
proposed future addition would be farther east than the existing animal hospital.
The design of the addition, however, should be reviewed by the city before the
city approves a building permit for the addition.
The proposed landscaping west of the parking lot and driveway is a good start,
but the owner should develop this plan further. The city code requires that the
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 03-12-2002
developer screen the parking lot from the home to the west by a six-foot-tall, 80
percent opaque screen. The owner may accomplish this screening by berming,
fencing, plantings or a combination of these. As proposed, the plan does not
meet the code requirement for screening. As such, the applicant should expand
the landscape plan to meet this code requirement. If the applicant wants to use
trees to meet the screening requirement, the trees should include six-foot-tall
Austrian Pines, Black Hills Spruce or a combination of these or other similar
species of trees.
Ms. Finwall said the applicant has not proposed any plantings on the north or
east sides of the building. In addition, the proposed plans show a dog run on the
north side of the building. The applicant should further develop the landscape
plan for these parts of the site by adding no-maintenance plantings on the north
and east sides of the building. These plantings also should include provisions for
screening the dog run from views to the north and west with opaque fencing or
trees. There is a house on the Sparkle Auto property to the south. The city
code, however, does not require screening on this side of the site since the city
has planned and zoned this property light manufacturing.
Ms. Finwall said with the County Road D realignment proposal this portion of
County Road D may be a cul-de-sac at this point which will make the north
elevation less visible to passing vehicles.
The applicant should provide a lighting plan indicating the light spread and fixture
design. The lighting code requires a plan when near homes. The fixtures
installed should be a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid
nuisances.
A retaining wall is also proposed along the east side of the parking lot and a four-
foot high fence is also proposed above the retaining wall. This retaining wall is
up to 12 feet in height, although the applicant states this retaining wall may be
modified to create a stepping of this wall which staff does feels is a good idea.
Staff suggests the wall be no more than four feet in height and is landscaped.
Because the landscape plan is incomplete at this time staff recommends the
applicant submit a revised landscape plan for the community design review
board approval. This plan should include additional landscaping on the north and
east sides of the building and code required screening on the west side of the
parking lot and driveway.
Board member Olson is curious about the signage and the elevations. She
asked if the south elevation is going to be the entrance and the exits? And she
asked if the signage is going to be on the east side? The parking is basically
going to be on the south and west side?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 03-12-2002
Ms. Finwall said yes that is correct. The signage proposed would require a
separate sign permit but the signage is intended to face Highway 61 on the east
elevation.
Board member Olson asked if there are going to be any freestanding signs?
Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Paul Meyer of Paul Meyer Architects addressed the board.
Dr. Jennifer Bouthilet the owner of the Hillcrest Animal Hospital addressed the
board.
Mr. Meyer said the signage proposed is on the east side because that is the
highway frontage to Highway 61 and there will be signs on the south side and at
each of the entry points to the building. He said regarding monument or
freestanding signs, there is an existing sign that is along the frontage road.
There is also an existing sign that the applicant would be looking to replace at the
north driveway entrance.
Board member Olson said the north side is blank with no signage or indication of
what is there.
Mr. Meyer said the site is very elevated and there is a lot of established growth
on the hill. The applicant is trying to blend the building in with the natural setting.
He said there really isn't any exposure to the people passing on County Road D
on the north elevation because of the elevation and natural growth.
Board member Olson asked if they are going to be digging into the elevation and
removing vegetation for the dog run?
Mr. Meyer said they wouldn't be effecting the established vegetation. There is
about 20 feet of rise up to the site from the street, so if you are driving you really
need to look up to see the building.
Board member Jorgenson said he perceives that when one drives by the site
they will be mostly seeing the roofline of the building on the north side.
Mr. Meyer said yes and that is why there is really no advantage to having
signage on that side other than the monument side.
Board member Jorgenson said the building is back a ways and you have the sign
that draws you to it but if you drive too fast you will miss the building passing up
County Road D from Highway 61.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 03-12-2002
5
Mr. Meyer said part of the goal is to locate the building to the east so the building
itself is visible. The applicant is moving the building away from the residential
district over 100 feet further. Part of the reason the driveway is curved the way it
is is to save the majority of the trees that are on site. Mr. Meyer said the site plan
is really laid out quite well to save the beautiful trees. The request to have more
plantings on the north side will not really enhance the area.
Board member Olson said she was just curious how the grading plan and the
dog run incorporated would lay out with it running so close to County Road D.
She would imagine that there is going to be a real steep grade there.
Mr. Meyer said not at the dog run. At the edge of the dog run and down there will
be a steep grade.
Board member Olson asked if the dog run would be concrete?
Mr. Meyer said it is a peat gravel surface with a fence enclosure.
Board member Olson asked if the dog run would run the whole length of the
building?
Mr. Meyer said the site plan indicates that the dog run is 8 X 8 feet.
Dr. Bouthilet said the purpose of the dog run is to take the dogs out to go to the
bathroom a few times a day while their runs inside are being cleaned. When
they are outside they are out there for a temporary basis.
Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant if they had samples of the materials to
be used for this project?
Mr. Meyer brought a sample board to show board members of the different
products and colors that will be used.
Chairperson Ledvina said he had a question regarding the retaining wall. He
wonders what the views are of the applicant regarding the retaining wall. This
will be a major site feature as it relates to the appearance along Highway 61.
Mr. Meyer said in order to achieve what the applicant wanted to do with the site
the improvements were integrated as much as they could with the existing trees
because there are some significant trees. In terms of the location of the building
they really needed the retaining wall on this portion of the site because if they
came to the south side of the site the parking really didn't lay in well because of
the north slope. To actually use the site appropriately they wanted to move the
building as far to the east as possible. But in order for the property to drain
properly, they needed to have the parking lot higher than they wanted it to be just
so it tied in with the trees on the south side of the property.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 03-12-2002
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Meyer if the entire wall would be 12-feet high?
Mr. Meyer said not for the entire length. The contours slope into it. A portion of
that will be screened by the trees that are remaining in that area and along the
south elevation it will be sloping back to zero. The concern at stepping the
retaining wall at four-foot intervals is with each of those intervals it takes two or
three feet more property. If you take the wall farther to the east to accomplish
the stepping, the wall actually becomes higher because you are going father
down the hill and you also encroach into the next tree that they would like to
save.
Chairperson Ledvina said he still has a concern about a 12-foot high retaining
wall and how that will appear.
Board member Olson asked Mr. Meyer what type of block they are going
proposing for the retaining wall?
Mr. Meyer said it will be a modular block and the color will be similar to the
building colors.
Board member OIson asked if they are using Anchor or Keystone blocks?
Mr. Meyer said they have not selected that yet. It will probably not be a Keystone
block because they are about 85 pounds apiece.
Board member Olson stated that at a recent meeting at work she learned that
with building retaining walls it is important to check the imperviousness of the
concrete to ensure that it has freeze/thaw factor variability. She said they are
finding that a lot of retaining walls are failing after 15 years so that is just a
caution she would like to pass onto the applicant.
Mr. Meyer said he understands that 10 to 15 years ago there was some really
poorly designed retaining walls. With today's technology they are finding out
more about the soil pressures and which products work best. As the design
professional Mr. Meyer is very sensitive to those facts. Because the parking lot
is located so close to the wall, it will also add a surcharge load onto the wall.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Meyer if he had any concerns regarding the staff
report in terms of the conditions that were outlined?
Mr. Meyer said a concern of his was providing additional landscaping to the north
side. On the west side of the property they proposed to have a row of evergreen
trees and a row of deciduous trees and they thought that was superior to putting
two rows of evergreen trees on the west property line. Staff did not disagree with
that but they had to report the non-compliance with the ordinance in terms of the
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 03-12-2002
'7
screening requirements. There hasn't been any screening on that part of the
property. The replacement trees are on that side and they thought from a design
standpoint that mixing the types of trees was beneficial. The second component
to that is the uncertainty of what alignment County Road D will have on the west
side of the property in terms of the screening requirements.
Board member Olson said she prefers the combination of evergreen trees and
deciduous trees for screening.
Board member Jorgenson asked Mr. Meyer what the time line for the future
expansion to the west is?
Mr. Meyer said an optimistic timeline is two years. A realistic timeline is more
than two years but that all depends on how things go.
Dr. Bouthilet said it would also depend on how well the business handles the new
mortgage payment.
Chairperson Ledvina said he is very concerned about the 12-foot retaining wall.
He believes it needs to be broken up into sections. He is not sure how it can be
designed but he has very strong feelings about a continuous retaining wall that
high. He thinks the design of the building, the materials, the color schemes, and
the parking lot will be a very nice, but he has concerns about the retaining wall.
Mr. Meyer asked what types of plantings would be required above the stepped
retaining wall?
Chairperson Ledvina said he would recommend something like evergreen
bushes that would look nice for the full four seasons.
Mr. Meyer said the applicant would prefer to put a wildflower mix in there to tie in
with the north side of the building.
Chairperson Ledvina said he would prefer some kind of evergreen bushes
because the wildflowers are going to die and then the sections will have nothing
alive above them.
Dr. Bouthilet asked if they could have something that would climb up the wall?
Chairperson Ledvina said that would only get you through two seasons. In winter
that will not be visible and he really believes it will look better with evergreen
bushes, it will be visible from the road and it will look nicer. He thinks the
landscape plan needs to be brought back to the community design review board
with revisions. At first he thought it could be done on the staff level but he
believes it should be revised and brought back to members because of the
details of the retaining wall and landscaping.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 03-12-2002
8
Board member Jorgenson said he would feel better about the west elevation
being so plain if he knew when the addition would be built. It may be two years
or it could be ten years before the addition takes place.
Dr. Bouthilet said it is plain but there is a huge silver maple tree that is tall and
wide and you will hardly notice the whole expanse of the wall that was
mentioned.
Board member Jorgenson moved to approve the plans date-stamped February
12, 2002, for the proposed Hillcrest Animal Hospital at 1320 County Road D.
The owner shall do the following: (CDRB changes to the recommendations are
underlined).
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building
permit for this project.
2. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit:
Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. The plans shall meet
all the requirements of the city engineer. The utility plans shall provide a
fire hydrant where the new driveway of the hospital meets County Road D.
bo
A site lighting plan showing the light spread and fixture design. The light
fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare
from the residents.
3. Submit revised plans for CDRB approval as follows:
The landscape plan shall include additional landscaping on the north and
the east sides of the building (especially in front of the dog run) and the
code-required screening on the west side of the parking lot and driveway.
bo
The retaining wall plan shall include the retaining wall shown with a
minimum of a two-foot step or breaking in tiers with landscapinq located
above the tiers. Any wall that is more than four feet tall requires a buildin.q
permit issued by the city.
4. Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
b. Install a handicap-parking sign for the handicap-parking space.
c. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped
areas.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 03-12-2002
VII.
VIII.
IX.
d. Stripe all customer parking spaces at a width of 91/2 feet and the employee
spaces at 9 feet.
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.
The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the
required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the
unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June
1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of
occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any
unfinished work.
Signs are not part of this approval. The applicant shall apply for sign permits
with staff.
This design approval does not include the future addition on the west side of
the hospital. This addition must be approved by the city before the city issues
a building permit for the addition.
8. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes -Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion passed.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Board member Olson was the representative at the city council meeting on
March 11, 2002. She discussed the drainage issues at Maplewood Toyota, St.
Jerome's Catholic school, and the CDRB Annual Report that was presented to
the city council by her at the meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 03-12-2002
l0
a=
Community Design Review Board Representation at the March 25,
2002, city council meeting.
Board member Jorgenson will be the representative if it is possible, otherwise,
Board member Olson will volunteer. Items to be reviewed will be the Hillcrest
Animal Hospital and Lighting Ordinance.
b. Community Design Review Board Vacancy Update.
Ms. Finwall stated that the city council appointed Jackie Monahan-Junek for the
planning commission vacancy. Staff will contact the remaining candidates to see
if they are interested in interviewing for the CDRB vacancy. Ms. Finwall will
schedule interviews with all interested candidates for a CDRB meeting in April.
Board member Jorgenson asked what the procedure is when appointing
someone? He said members saw that the planning commission recommended
someone for the position, and then the city council picked another candidate. It
seems that the city council didn't take into account what the planning commission
recommended. If the planning commission and CDRB are supposed to be
representing the people, but then the city council hand selects someone they
want anyway, it almost seems like they don't value the planning commission's or
the CDRB's decisions.
Board member OIson said once again the first choice of the members was
passed for another member the city council wanted instead of who the board
wanted. The candidate that did not get selected is understandably very unhappy
with the City of Maplewood because this is the third time she was not selected for
a committee.
Chairperson Ledvina said it was his recommendation that the board have a
formal vote where the board's input would be heard. It is 100% of the city
council's discretion.
Board member Jorgenson said in a sense it is a waste of the board's time to go
to the trouble of interviewing a candidate and give input and vote only to have the
city council go and select someone else and gloss over any recommendation that
any of the boards might recommend.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Jorgenson if he would like to make a motion that
the boards should not interview candidates and the city council do all the
interviewing since they are doing the selecting on their own anyway?
Board member Olson asked the chair if that was even an option?
Board member Jorgenson said he would take it upon himself to see how other
communities deal with the voting process for members.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 03-12-2002
1!
Board member Olson said she would consider making a motion to incorporate
into the next set of minutes after interviewing the candidates in order to send a
message to the city council that they not ignore the board's recommendation.
One of the reasons is that if a candidate is the best candidate the board would
like to have that person on their team. It made her feel very funny at the city
council meeting that a person that had to have her arm twisted to be back in the
running for a planning commission spot was selected instead of the
commission's first choice.
Chairperson Ledvina said he thinks Mr. Jorgenson stated it correctly when'he
said the members might be wasting their time and the candidate's time when the
members don't really make up a solid piece of the selection process. He is not
saying to turn it over to the board and let them select their own members, but if
the board doesn't have any kind of significant input then why bother.
Ms. Finwall said she is new to this process and suggested that she review the
selection process and will bring back suggestions to the board prior to
interviewing for the existing CDRB vacancy.
c. Sign Ordinance Discussion.
Chairperson Ledvina said that a good starting point to revising the city's sign
code would be to create a mission statement for the sign code. Ms. Finwall
agreed to work on a mission statement as well as compile several other cities'
sign codes and put together a table comparing them to the City of Maplewood's
sign code. The CDRB plans on reviewing possible changes to the city's sign
code throughout the year.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m.