Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/28/2002AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 28, 2002 6:00 P.M. Maplewood City Hall - Maplewood Room 1830 County Road B East 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of the May 14, 2002 Minutes Unfinished Business: None Scheduled Design Review: a. Lexus Automobile Dealership Addition - Highway 61 b. Dearborn Meadow Townhomes - Castle Avenue c. $.P. Richards Addition - Gervais Avenue d. Tillges Medical Office Building - Hazelwood Street Visitor Presentations Board Presentations Staff Presentations: a. Community Design Review Board Representation at the June 10, 2002, City Council Meeting b. Upcoming Items: 1) Washington County Bank- White Bear Avenue 2) Sinclair Gas Station - Larpenteur Avenue 3) Hmong Alliance Church Expansion - McMenemy Street 10. Adjourn I1. III. IV. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MAPLEWOOD ROOM TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Craig Jorgenson Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Present Absent Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda. Board member Shankar seconded. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for May 14, 2002. Ayes-Ledvina, Olson, Shankar Ayes ---Ledvina, Olson, Shankar Board member Shankar moved to approve the CDRB minutes for May 14, 2002. Chairperson Olson seconded. The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Lexus Automobile Dealership Addition -Highway 61 Ms. Finwall said Mr. Brian Teeters, representing Ryan Companies and Lexus, is proposing a revision to the conditional use permit (CUP) for the Lexus Dealership at 3000 Highway 61. This revision includes three additions to the existing building and changes to the parking lot and driveway layout to accommodate the building additions. The proposed building additions would be rock-face concrete block, EIFS (exterior insulation finish system), a stucco-look material and glass and would match the existing building. The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: A revision to the existing conditional use permit (CUP) for a maintenance garage. The city code permits the sale of new and used vehicles from this location. The code, however, requires a CUP for service and maintenance of cars. 2. The revised architectural, site and landscape plans. The city council should approve the CUP revision, as the proposal would meet the necessary findings. The owners have operated the existing dealership without problem since the contractor finished the construction. The applicant had originally proposed to store all refuse and parts in the building. Since then, they have started keeping their trash dumpsters and other debris on the back (east) side of the building. As such, the applicant is now proposing to add an enclosure for the dumpsters on the east side of the building. This enclosure would be a welcome addition to the site, as it would allow Lexus to keep the dumpsters more out of site. The proposed exterior building materials (rock-face concrete block and EIFS) would match the existing building materials. The proposed building would be attractive after the construction is complete. As noted above, the applicant is proposing to add a dumpster enclosure on the east side of the building. Staff has not yet received plan details for the enclosure. The city should approve these plans as part of the approval process. The city's parking ordinance does not clearly define the parking requirements for an automobile dealership, i.e., parking spaces for automobile inventory. The code, however, does list parking requirements for a variety of other land uses. The code would require Lexus to have 160 parking spaces if one uses the ratio of 1 space for each 200 square feet of office/showroom, 1 space for every 1,000 square feet of parts storage, 3 spaces for each service bay and 1 space per employee. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 The applicant's plans show 190 parking spaces before the construction and 176 parking spaces after the construction. Staff feels that there should be sufficient parking for the needs of Lexus. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Greg Madsen, Sr. Architect for R.J. Companies in Minneapolis, addressed the board. The trash enclosure that they are proposing is essentially a wooden enclosure with concrete footings. The enclosure will be painted to match the adjacent surfaces of the building. This will house the garbage that Lexus will be generating. Board member Shankar asked if they are installing a new exterior stairway? Mr. Madsen said correct. Board member Shankar asked what material is proposed for the stairway? Mr. Madsen said it will be metal and will be painted to match the adjacent surfaces. They just want everything to blend in with the fa(~ade. Chairperson Ledvina said he thought it was interesting that the applicant developed glass block into the building. He asked if they considered that design feature in other elevations of the building like the south elevation? Mr. Madsen said they have used the glass block in other buildings successfully. He encourages board members to go out to the Wayzata facility that was recently completed. The glass block was introduced into the wash bay area in this case. They did not want anybody to see into that area but they wanted to introduce some natural light and add some interesting design features to the outside of the fa(~ade. They had not considered using glass block in any other areas. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the glass block was frosted? Mr. Madsen said it is not frosted glass but more like a warped glass. It is translucent, you can't see what is going on behind the glass but you can see movement. Board member Shankar asked if there were any maintenance issues with the existed painted block that they are proposing to use again on the building? Mr. Madsen said they use a paint that has a 10-year warranty. It wears out eventually but it wears nicely. Board member Shankar asked if there is enough room by the trash enclosure in the parking lot for the garbage truck to maneuver around? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 4 Mr. Madsen said the truck is a front loader. They actually pull the dumpster out, turn it, dump it in the truck, drop the dumpster and push it back into place. So yes, there is plenty of room to maneuver around. Board member Shankar asked if the guardrail is going to be up to code? Mr. Madsen said yes. The city's building official would not allow it to be anything but up to code. Board member Olson asked the applicant how many parking stalls they are giving up by putting the Lexus addition on? Mr. Madsen said 14 parking stalls are being eliminated. Chairperson Ledvina said his personal opinion regarding the trash enclosure is that it should be something more substantial than what they are proposing. Board member Olson moved to approve the plans (date-stamped April 26, 2002,) for proposed additions to the Lexus dealership at 3000 Highway 61. The city is approving these plans based on the findings required by the code. Approval is subject to the following conditions: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall provide staff with detailed plans for the dumpster enclosure. These plans shall show the enclosure with materials matching the material of the building and shall be subject to staff approval. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building additions: Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement). Construct the trash dumpster enclosure, subject to staff approval. (code requirement). Post any driveways or drive aisles that are less than 28-feet wide for "no- parking." This includes the driveway on the east side of the building. The contractor or property owner shall clean up the site including the removal of the unused silt fence and privacy fence sections. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 5 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. This approval does not include the signs. Staff will review any sign changes through the sign permit process. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes -Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. b. Dearborn Meadow Town homes - Castle Avenue Ms. Finwall said Mr. Mike Ackerman is proposing to develop nine townhouses (four twin homes and one single unit) in a development called Dearborn Meadow. It would be on a 2.11-acre site on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. To build this project, Mr. Ackerman is requesting that the city approve: A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. 2. A change to the zoning map. This would be from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD will allow the townhouses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have them on a private driveway. A preliminary plat for nine lots for the nine housing units. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 On May 23, 2000, the community design review board recommended that the city council deny the 10-unit proposal. The board felt that the site was too dense based on the configuration of the buildings. They felt that 15 feet between structures was too little and that the southerly buildings should be reoriented to face north with their backyards butting up to the backyards to the south. After much discussion and the recommendation from these meetings, Mr. Ackerman withdrew his development requests before staff sent the 10-unit proposal to the city council. Ms. Finwall said the proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing homes. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding with brick veneer on the fronts, and the roof would have asphalt shingles. The proposed plans keep many of the existing trees around the perimeter of the site and near the wetland. As proposed, the developer would plant 21 trees on the site. These include a row of black-hills spruce along the south property line and 10 maple trees on the site, primarily at the front corner of each unit near the driveway. The landscape plan also. shows the proposed plantings around each unit that will include spirea, junipers, dogwoods and arborvitaes. The applicant should revise the landscape plan to be consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards. The maple trees must be at least 21/2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. The plantings proposed around foundations of the units should remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all yard areas should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Mike Ackerman of Mike Ackerman Construction in Centerville, addressed the board. He handed out a sheet with photos of the materials he will be using to show as a visual for the board. Chairperson Ledvina asked if it is possible to extend the wainscoting around the side elevation on the units? Mr. Ackerman said it is possible. window on the side of the unit. appearance of such a large wall. He said many times people choose to put a bay So that side of the town home does not have the Board member Shankar asked about the distance between units 4 and 5 compared to the distance between units 6 and 7. Mr. Ackerman said that is because the utilities are being stuffed into the property to the east. So when the sewer, water and the septic go in he needed to provide service to the property to the east. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 7 Mr. Ackerman said the different setbacks are needed because utilities are being installed on the townhouse property for the property to the east. That property currently does not have any sewer service and one of the conditions of doing the townhouse development was to provide service to that property. Board member Olson asked the applicant if he had checked with the Fire Marshal to see if there would be difficulty in getting a fire truck into that location with the curve in the road. Mr. Ackerman said the Fire Marshal has no concerns or problems with the plan or the curve in the road. There is no room to turn a fire truck around in the street but there is room to pull the truck into a driveway and drive out. Chairperson Ledvina said he is concerned about unit 3 and how it would appear on Castle Avenue. His recommendation is to bring the wainscoting around on the north side of unit 3. It is a flat grade there and the unit it is not a walk out nor does it slope down. He would also like to see on the south property line, a berm two-to-four feet in height. He also thinks it would be nice to stagger the evergreen trees and it may be appropriate to add more trees. Even though the applicant shows eleven evergreens along the south property line, they are shown at full maturity. There may be a need to add up-to five more trees and then stagger them. Mr. Ackerman said the new grading plan actually calls for a berm. He has worked with the neighbors and staff regarding that. Board member Olson asked if the applicant had planned on putting any type of a monument sign on the road? Mr. Ackerman said because of the grade there really is not a flat spot that can be seen from Castle Avenue to put a monument sign in. There is going to be a streetlight on Castle Avenue that is subject to approval. Board member Olson asked if there would be individual lights at each of the town homes like carriage lighting? Mr. Ackerman said there would be lights on each side of the garage door and one on the back of the town home. There will not be individual lights at each location nor will there be any other streetlights in the area. This is due to the neighboring properties. This eliminates having a streetlight shining into their residences. Board member Olson said her only comment is that she thinks there should be more plantings on the proposed site plan. She heard a rumor with the widening of Highway 36 that some of the houses on this proposed area would be removed. Could staff check into that? Community Design Review Board 8 Minutes 5-28-2002 Ms. Finwall said she would check into that but she would assume that public works would have indicated that in the review of this project. Mr. Ackerman said he thought he understood from Will Rossbach that the removal of homes was going to be on the other side of McKnight Road. Board member Olson asked staff and Mr. Ackerman to follow up with that to make sure. She understood the widening of Highway 36 would happen within a few years. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 24, 2002, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Dearborn Meadow. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (3) (a) (b) (c) (d) Include building, floor elevation and contour information. Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. Show a berm (two to four feet high) along the south property line of the site, The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved removal. by the city engineer before site grading or tree Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2~) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (5) There shall be no parking on one side of the 28-foot-wide driveway (Castle Place). The developer or contractor shall post Castle Place with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standard. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval, which incorporated the following details: (1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (2) Planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the wetland with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of people mowing close to the pond. (3) The maple trees must be at least 21/2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (4) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped April 24, 2002, shall remain on the plan. (5) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the wetland easement). (6) No landscaping shall take place on Castle Avenue on the boulevard. The contractor shall restore the boulevard with sod. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 l0 (7) Adding five more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) to the proposed 11 evergreen trees along the south property line of the site. These trees are to be at least six feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows on the berm. Present a color scheme to staff for approval for each building. Present a revised building plan to staff that shows brick wainscoting on the north face of Unit 3 (along Castle Avenue) extending back to at least the peak of the roof. Compete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the area within the easement, which may be seeded. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (2) Remove any debris or junk from the site. e. Put addresses on each building for each unit. f. Provide driveway turn arounds for Lots 1 and 2 on Castle Avenue. 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 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. do Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 ll All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes-Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. c. S.P. Richards Addition - Gervais Avenue Ms. Finwall said S.P. Richards Company is proposing to build a 47,440-square-foot, two-story addition onto their building at 2416 Maplewood Drive. The proposed addition would have an exterior of flat concrete block to match the existing building. The only difference between the addition and the existing building is there would not be any windows with fluted block accents in the addition. The applicant would use the proposed addition for warehousing. The city allows warehousing as a permitted use in the M1 (Light Manufacturing) district (the zoning for this location). The applicant is requesting that the community design review board approve the site, architectural, landscape and lighting plans. Staff is requesting that the city council approve a parking waiver. The 20 proposed parking spaces are not needed. To enhance the design of the proposed addition, staff suggests that the applicant include the same window and block accents on the south side of the addition that are on the existing building. In addition to windows and block work, staff suggests that the applicant revise the landscape plan to increase the amount of landscaping in front to "soften" or screen the large building fa(;:ade. The CDRB recently approved a landscape plan for Menard's that used plantings to break up a large concrete elevation on their new addition. The applicant is proposing to install 20 new parking spaces with this addition. Thero would then be a total of 121 spaces on site, which would meet code requirements. Upon inspection, staff found that S.P. Richards has a very small parking demand. In fact, there are about 75 parking spaces on the south side of the building that the business does not currently use. Staff is recommending that the city council grant a parking waiver so that the city would not require the owner to install any additional parking with the proposed addition. The proposed parking spaces would eliminate green space and be an unnecessary expense. The applicant should revise the proposed site plan to show these 20 spaces as "proof of parking." The owner should not install these spaces unless there is a need for them in the future. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 City staff recently approved a lot division for the property to the east of this site. This split will create the property for the proposed expansion area from the larger lot to the east. However, the owner of the property to the east has not yet recorded the deed to create the new legal description for the new lot. The CDRB should require that the city not issue a building permit until the owner combines the existing property and the lot for the proposed expansion into one property for tax and identification purposes. In addition to the above comments about enhancing the landscaping south of the building, the applicant should restore the damaged areas on the site. As an example, trucks have damaged the grass edge on the north side of the site. To correct this damage, the owner should widen the pavement as needed (while maintaining a five-foot minimum setback) to better accommodate truck maneuvering. In addition, the owner should install concrete curbing along the north edge of this parking area to meet current code requirements. The owner also should restore the grass and build a retaining wall (if needed due to grades) behind the new curb. Chris Cavett, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, reviewed the applicant's proposal. Mr. Cavett's comments were on pages 12 and 13 of the staff report and include suggestions for grading, drainage and erosion-control improvements. The applicant should show these changes on the final project plans. He also noted several issues with the current site including the condition of the pavement and the existing drainage facilities. Chairperson Ledvina said he noticed the paint on the outside of the building is peeling. Is that a condition for the applicant to repaint the exterior of the existing building? Ms. Finwall said on page 3 it states the applicant shall paint the existing building to match the addition. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Charles Habiger, the Project Architect, and Mr. Lee Koppy, the Project Engineer of Schoell & Madson, Inc., addressed the board. Mr. Habiger said the original building was designed as a rental office/warehouse structure in 1974. They rented out the bays of the building and S.P. Richards purchased the building and converted it to its sole use of warehousing. The proposed addition is also strictly for warehousing. The building generally won't be occupied other than to get inventory out, load it onto a truck, and bring the inventory out to various sites. They continued the band along the building to match the existing building. S.P. Richards would like to have as few entrances to the building including windows, as possible for security reasons. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 ]3 Mr. Habiger said they have already tested the building to make sure there is no lead in the paint. As part of the construction they will be removing the old paint and painting the whole structure so that it looks like there was never an addition put on after the fact. The reconstruction of the parking lot is incorporated into the overall project work. There are some potholes in the parking lot and the dimensions of the parking lot are undersized to handle truck traffic so they want to build a shallow retaining wall to the north of the site to expand the parking lot. They will fix the potholes and do an overlayment on the entire parking lot. Parking on the parking lot is 50% utilized. It is strictly employee parking. They currently are underutilizing the parking lot. Board member Olson asked if the applicant would maintain the same color scheme? Mr. Habiger said the existing building would be painted at the same time as the new addition. Board member Shankar asked if warehousing is being used in the existing building? Mr. Habiger said 95% of the existing building is for warehousing. Only about 2,000 square feet is currently utilized for office space. Board member Shankar asked if theft is an issue in the existing warehouse? Mr. Habiger said that is something he can't answer. Board member Olson asked if they would have a retaining wall? Mr. Koppy said they have been in discussion with the engineering department regarding the retaining wall. Mr. Habiger said they wanted to install a masonry retaining wall to stabilize the ramp by the loading docks. The engineers felt that by resurfacing it at a 12-12 pitch they would be able to keep it in place. Board member Olson asked what the material would be for the retaining wall? Mr. Habiger said it would be a modular block. Board member Olson asked if they would be adding any additional lighting? Mr. Habiger said they would propose to add some wall packs on the sides of the buildings for security, especially in the truck loading area. Chairperson Ledvina said he does not believe the staff's requests are reasonable to include the same window and block accents on the addition. He is understands the applicant's concern for security. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 14 However, it is a large wall and the building is on a fairly busy street, which is quite visible. In his opinion if a window would be broken on that side of the building it would be noticed. Board member Shankar said there are other ways of addressing security issues even with windows being added. Chairperson Ledvina said he would be in favor of the staff's recommendation and the other board member's agreed with the chair. He also stated the applicant needs to be more specific with the species of trees and plantings on the site. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 29, 2002, for the proposed S.P. Richards building addition at 2416 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (changes are in bold) Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall submit the following to staff for approval: A revised grading, drainage and erosion-control plan addressing the issues in the memo from Mr. Cavett. A revised landscape plan showing additional trees on the south side of the building addition directly in front of the building and in the front lawn area. Species and size of the existing trees on the site and the proposed landscaping material shall be identified. A revised south elevation for the addition that shows windows and fluted- block detailing that match the existing building. Evidence that the owner had recorded the deeds with Ramsey County that combine the existing lot and the expansion area into one property for tax and identification purposes. A revised site plan showing the 20 proposed parking stalls as "proof of parking". 3. Before obtaining a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall do the following: ae Complete all required landscaping and site improvements for the proposed addition. b. Complete the following on the existing site: Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 (1) Repaint the existing building so it matches the addition. (2) Reconstruct the existing parking lot and restripe to meet current code standards. (3) Replace dead landscaping. (4) Repair or replace damaged parking lot lights. (5) Replace heaved sidewalk sections. (6) Remove the unused tank racks south of the building. Restore this area with landscaping. (7) Widen the parking lot north of the building for truck maneuvering while maintaining a five-foot minimum setback. The owner shall install a concrete curb along this edge to meet the current code standards for parking lots. (8) Restore the grass along the north edge of the parking lot and build a retaining wall if the grades dictate. c. Provide a trash enclosure with gates for any outdoor trash containers. do Install continuous concrete curbing along all parking lot and driveway edges. e. Install in-ground lawn irrigation for the addition site. If the contractor has completed any required work, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: ao The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. bo The city receives a 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 if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. The applicant shall provide lighting in the form of a wall pack on the north face of the proposed addition. 6. The drainage issues shall be resolved with staff. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 Board member Olson seconded Ayes-Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. d. Tillges Medical Office Building - Hazelwood Street Ms. Finwall said Robert Tillges is proposing to develop a 3.57-acre lot located south of Beam Avenue and east of Hazelwood Street. The proposal includes two phases of development. The first phase is a 23,094-square-foot office building that will house Mr. Tillges' existing prosthetics and orthotics practice currently located at 1983 Sloan Place, Maplewood, as well as other medical-type tenants. The second phase, to be constructed in the future, is an 11,778-square-foot office building that will house medical-type tenants as well. To build this development, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: 1. The vacation of an unused sewer easement. 2. A comprehensive sign plan for a multi-tenant building with five or more tenants. Design review (site plan approval of overall development and architectural, landscaping, and lighting approval for the Phase 1 building). Ms. Finwall said the entire site must be graded in order to construct the Phase I building and parking lot. With the grading of the entire site, 18 large trees will be removed. The city's tree preservation ordinance requires that all large trees removed on a property be replaced one for one, with a maximum of ten replacement trees per acre. A large tree is defined as a tree with a diameter of 8 inches measured from a 4-foot trunk height, excluding box elders, cottonwoods, and poplars. The applicant's landscape plan for both phases shows a total of 42 replacement trees, with 23 trees replaced with Phase I and 19 trees replaced with Phase I1. Phase I will be constructed this year and Phase II will be constructed in the future, as the market bears. Because the entire site is being graded, the soil on the Phase II portion of the development must be stabilized. As a condition of approval, the applicant should be required to sod or hydro seed the Phase II portion of the development within 14 days of completion of the Phase II grading. The grading plan shows grading onto the Maplewood Professional Building's property to the north. The owners of the Maplewood Professional Building have agreed to allow this grading and are willing to sign a temporary grading easement with the applicant. In addition, the grading plan shows grading onto the city-owned property to the south, adjacent the Hazelwood Avenue right-of-way. Grading in this area will remove 11 cottonwood trees and 1 poplar tree, 9 of which are within the city-owned land. As stated above, cottonwood and poplars are not considered a large tree in the city's tree preservation ordinance. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 17 Nevertheless, as a condition of allowing the grading on the city-owned property, the applicant should be required to replace all 12 trees on the city property. The city engineer has approved this grading, which will also be negotiated and addressed in the required developer's agreement. Ms. Finwall said during the subdivision of the applicant's property from the Maplewood Cancer Center property to the north, a 30-foot driveway easement was platted on the west side of the Maplewood Cancer Center's lot. This easement serves as access from Beam Avenue into the applicant's lot. The original site plan submitted for this development showed an expanded and shared parking lot with the Maplewood Cancer Center to the north. This proposal was originally turned down by the Maplewood Cancer Center. Therefore, the applicant resubmitted the site plan with a 7-foot parking-lot setback from the Maplewood Cancer Center's property. After reconsideration, the Maplewood Cancer Center is now willing to work with the applicant to construct a shared parking lot. Staff supports a shared parking lot for several reasons. First, the Maplewood Cancer Center seems to be experiencing a shortage in parking for their existing building. Second, the shared parking lot will allow an additional access point for the Maplewood Cancer Center property from Hazelwood Avenue. Third, the shared parking lot would create additional parking in front of the Tillges Medical Office Building and would be the best use of space within both developments. If the shared parking lot scenario is proposed in the future, design review by the Community Design Review Board will be necessary. There are a total of 179 parking stalls proposed for the development, 107 parking stalls constructed with Phase I and 72 parking stalls constructed with Phase II. The 23,094 square foot Phase I building is broken down into office, laboratory, and storage space with 100 parking stalls required per city code. Assuming the 11,778 square foot Phase II building is all office space, 59 parking stalls are required. The Tillges' development exceeds the required number of parking stalls by 20 parking stalls. The Phase I building is attractive with an exterior of two types of face brick, clear glass windows with prefinished aluminum frames, and a timberline shingled roof. The roofline is broken in the middle to give the appearance of two buildings, with an entryway constructed of brick pillars and a decorative metal trellis. Individual tenant entryways are constructed of EIFS (a stucco-look product), brick and sill cap pillars, with a standing seam metal roof. The east elevation includes a rock-face block retaining wall up to 4 feet in height. The retaining wall is proposed to level a picnic/break area on the east side of the building. The landscape plan is an attractive amenity to the building with a variety of plants proposed along the foundation of the building. Throughout the Phase I portion of the development, 23 trees and additional plantings are also proposed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 18 The lighting plan shows seven pole-mounted lights within the Phase I portion of the development. The pole lights are proposed at an overall height of 27.5 feet. The maximum light illumination is shown at the property line of up to 5.1-foot candles. The lighting plan must be revised to comply with the city's lighting ordinance which requires that freestanding lights have a maximum height of 25 feet as measured from the ground grade to the top of the luminary and that the maximum illumination at the property line not to exceed .4-foot candles. The city's sign ordinance requires all multi-tenant buildings with five or more tenants to have an approved comprehensive sign plan. The Phase I building of the development will have up to eight tenants, with additional tenants proposed in the Phase II building. Tenant wall signage proposed is 16-square feet in area and will be placed within a dormer, above the tenant windows. The wall signs will be limited to the north and east elevations. Two 20.5-foot-high freestanding signs are also proposed. One sign will be placed along Hazelwood Avenue and one along Beam Avenue. The two freestanding signs will match the exterior of the building with brick columns and a decorative metal trellis. The sign will display the name of the development and the individual tenants. The applicant should be required to revise the landscape plan to include landscaping around the base of each sign. A sign easement for the Tillges property is located along Beam Avenue, within the Maplewood Cancer Center property. This easement was a requirement of the original subdivision of the two properties. In order to ensure a 10-foot setback for the freestanding sign from the Beam Avenue right-of-way as required by the city's sign code, the easement must be increased in size. The applicant is working with the owners of the Maplewood Cancer Center to revise this easement. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the board is approving both site plans for Phase I and Phase I17 Ms. Finwall said the applicant is requesting site plan approval for the overall site. The Phase II building would have to come back for CDRB approval. As the applicant is grading the entire site for Phase I and Phase II, it was staff's intent that the entire site be approved. However, there may be some minor revisions to the site plan when the applicant brings Phase II back. Board member Olson asked how far apart the two phases are from being built? Ms. Finwall said the applicant has indicated it will be built as the market bears. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the pavement would be constructed in the first phase? Ms. Finwall indicated to board members where the first phase starts and ends. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 Chairperson Ledvina asked what the rational is to have the parking go out so far. He said it would seem that is a far distance for patients to walk to enter the building. Ms. Finwall said currently there is a waterway that runs on the property. The applicant is proposing 20 parking spaces more than what the code requires. The applicant is also working with the Maplewood Cancer Center to propose a shared parking area that would come back to the CDRB for approval. Board member Olson asked if the annual 4th of July celebration and fireworks were going to be held at the park. Would it effect the construction of this development in anyway? Ms. Finwall said the annual celebration will be held at the park and she is not sure if that will have any effect on the construction of this development. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Robert Tillges of Tillges Certified Orthotics and Prosthetics, Inc., Maplewood, addressed the board. He said Phase II would be built based on the need and how the medical market goes. If somebody approaches him for a medical facility he will take a look at it. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant if he had samples of any of the building materials and the color scheme they will be using. Mr. Tillges showed the board the samples of the base, brick, and EIFS materials that are proposed for this development. Board member Olson asked about the trellis. Mr. Jerry W. Anderson of Jamb Architects, Inc., addressed the board. He said the trellis on the north elevation is 8-feet deep, on the south elevation the trellis is 4-feet deep. Chairperson Ledvina asked how the windows would look. Mr. Anderson said the window trims are going to be a green color with a blue tint. The window themselves are clear glass with mullion bars painted to match the windows. The thin 1/~-inch divider strips between the sheets of glass will be colored to match the window frames. They will be using that same color for the roof edges and trellis. Chairperson Ledvina asked if there is a possibility of eliminating some of the parking on the southwest? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 2O Mr. Anderson said no. He said there is a difference between the parking requirements for office and shopping use as specified in the city code compared to the actual parking needs of a medical use. There are usually 5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building area. The problem is that medical facility-parking needs are different. There are peak times where more parking is needed. More and more medical facilities are building the parking lots for 6 stalls per 1,000-square feet of building area. The problems of running into the peak times would be eliminated then. Mr. Tillges said employees could access the building from the backside of the building as well so the employees will park on the southwest side of the site. This allows more room for the patients to park closer to the entrance of the building on the side. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant if they had considered downsizing the Hazelwood sign to appear more residential in character. Making it the size of a monument type sign? Mr. Tillges said the reason they chose that design for the sign is because it reflects the design and the character of the building. The sign would be the same at both entrances. Mr. Anderson said if the sign is going to be a concern because it would be backlit, they could put it on a timer to shut off at night as to not bother the neighbors. Chairperson Ledvina said his thought was to downsize the sign and still keep the same elements. Mr. Anderson said it is possible. But while traveling down the road the smaller the lettering the more difficult it is to see or read. There are many tenants in the building as well. Board member Shankar asked what were the total heights of the signs? Ms. Finwall said they would be 20.5 feet high. Chairperson Ledvina said since it is in a residential area, a scaled down version of the sign would be more appropriate. Board member Shankar asked Mr. Anderson why there was a break in the building roof line. Mr. Anderson said the Tillges portion of the building is 90 feet in width and the rental portion is 78 feet in width. Over the dumpster enclosure for the Tillges portion is a flat roof. Chairperson Ledvina asked what board members thought of the sign plan. Members are reviewing the comprehensive sign plan as well. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 21 Mr. Tillges said the sign will be located quite a ways down from the Hazelwood Street residential area. Chairperson Ledvina said it is also the only commercial building in the area so there would be no other sign competition. He thinks if somebody were driving down Hazelwood Street they would be sure to see this site, even with a smaller sign. Mr. Tillges said he has conceded a lot of issues in this development for the City of Maplewood. The sign lets people know where they will be, His request is to approve this sign proposal based on the fact that seniors do account for a large amount of his cliental. Board member Olson said she has an elderly father who would have a difficult time finding an office without large, clear signage. She believes it is important for the elderly to read large legible wording on a sign. Having the word Hazelwood on the sign can be confusing for people because there are other buildings with Hazelwood on the sign. Ms. Finwall said it should be pointed out that if the CDRB recommends to the city council that a smaller sign on Hazelwood be proposed, the applicant has the option of appealing that decision to the city council. The city sign ordinance would allow up to 25 feet in height at the property line with increased height as it goes back from the property line. The height of size of the sign is allowed per the city's sign ordinance. The applicant is also allowed to have two freestanding signs if the signs are located on a corner, which this is because of the access onto Beam Avenue. Board member Shankar said he has more of an issue with the 20-feet wide part of the sign. He is okay with the height of the sign. Board member Olson asked if they could reduce the width of the brick columns and remove the trellis on top? Mr. Anderson said the problem with reducing the brick columns is the truss systems are made up for four feet on center. There are four trusses on one entry and three trusses on another entry. Setting up a jig to change the truss size significantly adds to the cost of the job. Board member Shankar asked if the two columns could be moved in? Board member OIson said she realizes the cost factor and maybe the truss size could stay. Could they just make the columns smaller and move them in three feet? Mr. Tillges said the sign falls within the city ordinance and it should remain the way it is proposed. He said he has gone through so much expense redrawing these plans three times already and it has put a cash burden on them as it is. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 Mr. Tillges said he would want some consideration from the CDRB on this. You could debate this item all night. We have made a number of concessions on this whole development and he would like some consideration and have the CDRB okay the sign plan. Board member Olson said the CDRB has no problem with the proposed plans for this site other than the size of the signs. Chairperson Ledvina said the CDRB is in the process of revising the sign ordinances to prevent these types of large signs. In the future a sign like this would probably not be allowed. It does technically meet the sign ordinance but that sign ordinance is over 20 years old and needs to be revised. The CDRB recognizes the problem with the sign ordinance and is just starting to make revisions regarding sign sizes. Board member Olson asked if there was a way to shrink the size of the sign down a bit? Mrs. Tillges said economically there isn't. Chairperson Ledvina said maybe the board could make a recommendation to the applicant that they reconsider the scope of the sign and leave it up to the applicant and staff to come to some type of an agreement. Board member Shankar said he thinks the applicant should make the columns smaller and move the sign in three feet. Leave the truss size the same. Just change the 5 lines to 4 lines on the sign and relate the lines to the brick banding. If there were eight tenants in the future, then they could put a line down the middle of the sign and have eight tenant names. This would reduce the width of the sign by three feet making it 17 feet wide instead of 20 feet wide. Mr. Anderson said they went to a sign company to have the sign designed for the insert and the backlighting. Mr. Tillges said he liked the recommendation by Mr. Ledvina. This would allow them to review the sign and come to an agreement with staff. He would like to leave the sign as it is. Even though it may be less expensive to have it three feet smaller he would like to leave the sign as it is proposed. Board member Olson said she understood the truss size was the biggest expense. The proposal the board had offered would make the sign less expensive for the applicant by making it three feet smaller. Mrs. Tillges said it also makes the sign face three feet smaller, which is pretty significant. She said if you look at the whole proposed development the sign is in proportion with this development. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 Board member Olson said this is one thing the CDRB is struggling with as a committee with reviewing the sign ordinance. An example of this is the Birch Run Station sign. The sign is sized in comparison with the development and that sign is way too large. Board member said it is not appropriate, it is intrusive, it is overpowering and it is unattractive. The proposed sign for the Tillges project is not any of those things. It is very attractive. However, it is also on a smaller, narrower street. She doesn't really want to see the brick towers on the side of the street. She understands the need for the text to be legible. She is struggling with the brick columns and the width of the sign being 20-feet wide. Mrs. Tillges said the sign would still be three feet narrower. Again they are working with the geriatric population who need to see the sign. Mr. Anderson said narrowing the sign three feet would make the face of the sign 25% smaller and that is quite significant. Board member Shankar moved to approve Robert Tillges' comprehensive sign plan for the Tillges Medical Office Building with the following conditions: (changes are in bold) ao Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit or parking lot permit for this project. bo Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the applicant will submit or complete the following: 1) A revised sign easement for the proposed freestanding sign on the Maplewood Cancer Center property at 1580 Beam Avenue. The revised easement must encompass the proposed placement of the sign with a 10-foot setback from the Beam Avenue right-of-way. 2) A revised landscape plan showing landscaping around the base of both freestanding signs to include Iow-maintenance perennial shrubs and flowering plants. 3) A revised freestanding sign plan showing the footing detail and verification of an 8-mile-per-hour wind load capacity to be approved by the building official. 4) A revised lighting plan showing the proposed lighting source for two freestanding signs and photometrics for the two signs. The tenant wall signs for the Phase I building (Tillges Medical Office Building) are limited to the north and west elevations only. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 ?.4 do The tenant wall signs are limited to 2 feet in height by 8 feet in width and must be placed within the dormer above the tenant's window space. The tenant wall signs for the Phase II building are not approved with this proposal. fo Two freestanding signs are approved (overall size is 20.5 feet in height, 17 feet in width). One freestanding sign is to be located with a 10-foot setback to the Hazelwood Avenue right-of-way. The second freestanding sign to be located within a sign easement located on the Maplewood Cancer Center property at 1580 Beam Avenue. A timer shall be installed on the Hazelwood Street sign that turns the sign lights off at 10:00 p.m. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped January 25, February 12, February 18, April 11, and May 8, 2002, for the overall site plan and the Phase I portion of the Tillges Medical Office Building development. The city is approving these plans based on the findings required by the code. The applicant shall do the following: (changes are in bold) Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. bo The Phase II portion of the Tillges Medical Office Building Development is not approved with this approval. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit or complete the following: 1) A signed developer's agreement and cash surety to the city which covers the following: assurance of construction of the sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water main; temporary grading easement for grading conducted on city property; acquisition of city property; and engineering review charges. 2) A survey completed by a registered land surveyor showing the following: existing conditions, all easements located on the property (identify the extent and interest for each easement, and location of the Phase I building and parking lot. A registered land surveyor must also stake the location of the building on the property. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 3) A revised grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans which meet conditions and requirements of the assistant city engineer outlined in his memorandum dated April 11,2002. 4) A revised landscape plan that shows 12 replacement trees to be installed on city property within the area of the approved temporary grading easement. The revised plan should also identify the planting species, sizes and quantities. City code requires deciduous trees to be at least 21/~ inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. Coniferous trees must be at least six feet tall. 5) A revised lighting plan that shows all pole lights to be a maximum of 25 feet in height, measured from ground grade to the top of the luminaries, and the maximum light intensity at all property lines not to exceed .4-foot candles. 6) A temporary grading easement for all proposed grading on the Maplewood Professional Building property at 1560 Beam Avenue East. 7) An agreement that authorizes the construction of a portion of the parking lot within the storm water drainage easement located along the north property line of the southern leg of the property (Easement Document Number 3031096). The agreement must be signed by the Maplewood Cancer Center property owner at 1580 Beam Avenue East and all other parties with interest to the easement. 8) The vacation and relocation of portions of the County Ditch No. 18 easement to match the proposed culvert extension (Ditch Easement Document No. 2207724). The new easement must be recorded with Ramsey County and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. 9) A revised utility plan showing the location of a fire hydrant to be approved by the city's fire marshal. 10) Place temporary orange safety fencing at the grading limits, including around all trees to be preserved (construction fence to the drip line of the trees). d. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 so VII. VIII. 26 2) 3) 4) Install all required Phase I landscaping on the site and install 12 replacement trees on the city property located to the south of the site. Sod or hydro seed the Phase II portion of the development within 14 days of completion of the Phase II grading. Install continuous concrete curb around the parking lots and drives, including installing concrete curb along the two proposed driveway extensions into the Phase II portion of the development. 5) Pave all driving surfaces. 6) Install a fire hydrant. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) 2) 3) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives a 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 winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring and summer. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson seconded Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. Ms. Finwall said this goes to the city council on June 10, 2002, VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-28-2002 IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ananth Shankar will represent the Community Design Review Board at the June 10, 2002, City Council Meeting at 7:00 p.m. Upcoming Items 1) Washington County Bank - White Bear Avenue 2) Sinclair Gas Station - Larpenteur Avenue 3) Hmong Alliance Church Expansion - McMenemy Street X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.