Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/2003AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Thursday, September 11, 2003 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of the August 12, 2003 Minutes 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled Design Review: a. Maplewood Square Comprehensive Sign Plan - 1860-1890 Beam Ave. b. Auto Glass - 2310 Hazelwood Street 7. Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations: Review of Community Design Review Board Applications 10. Adjourn I1. III. IV. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Diana Longrie-Kline Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Staff Present: Present Present at 6:12 p.m. Present Present Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda. Board member Olson seconded. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for August 12, 2003. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar changes. Board member Shankar seconded. The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Ayes --- Ledvina, Olson, Shankar Board member Olson had corrections to the minutes on pages 3, 5, and 9. On page 3, in the 12th paragraph, delete the word with and add the words wall openings. On page 5, in the 6th paragraph in the 2nd sentence, change the word congregation to church. In the 3rd line add the word hall after the word congregation. In the 4th line after the word problem add the words for projection screens. On page 9, in the 1st paragraph, 3rd line, change the word combing to combining. Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of August 12, 2003, with the amended Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-11-2003 VI. 2 DESIGN REVIEW a. Maplewood Square Comprehensive Sign Plan - 1860 - 1890 Beam Avenue Ms. Finwall said Welsh Companies, Inc., leasing agent for Maplewood Square, is proposing a comprehensive sign plan to ensure consistent wall signage for the eight Maplewood Square tenants. The plan calls for one to three wall signs per tenant, to be placed above each tenant space. The existing freestanding sign will remain the same. Board member Shankar said the conditions state letters or Iogos must be 51/2'' deep. He asked if it was acceptable to have larger letters or Iogos? Ms. Finwall said the letter depth was recommended by Maplewood Square at 5Y2" deep, so the depth of the letters or Iogos must not exceed 5~". Board member Olson asked if deep meant wide or from the face of the building? Ms. Finwall said deep meant the distance from the face of the building to the front of the letters or Iogos. Board member Olson asked what the reason was for individual letters, a single unit sign would be considered a cabinet sign. Ms. Finwall said this type of signage is called individual letters to ensure it is not a cabinet style sign. Board member Olson asked if there was an advantage to individual letter signs? Ms. Finwall said in her opinion, individual letter signs are more aesthetically pleasing than the cabinet style. Welsh Companies recommended the individual letter signs. Board member Olson said she objects to signs being removed or modified from a building leaving holes in the facade, which cannot be easily patched. Ms. Finwall said Maplewood Square is proposing to use a sign band, which these signs can be adhered to and removed from. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the comprehensive sign plan covers window signage? Ms. Finwall said Maplewood Square is bound by the city's sign code, which would allow up to 75% of a window area to be covered by signage. Board member Olson asked if that was referring to permanent signage as opposed to something that can be painted on the window glass? Ms. Finwall said it pertains to temporary signs only. Board member Shankar asked if the individual letters on the sign are illuminated? Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-11-2003 3 Ms. Finwall said the applicant is initially proposing all signs be illuminated. If future signs are not illuminated the applicant has indicated they would like the letters as fabricated aluminum, 2-inches deep and painted black. Board member Olson asked if this would be reviewed in 2 years? Ms. Finwall said the standard language in any design review board item is to review the project in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit for the project. If the Maplewood Square did not construct the requested signs within two years they would have to come back to the board for a comprehensive sign plan review. In this case the tenants at Maplewood Square are very anxious for their new signs and will be working with a sign company to implement the plan as soon as possible. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Ms. Leigh Anne Brakee, at 7807 Creekridge Circle, Bloomington, representing Welsh Companies, addressed the board. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant if she had any concerns relating to the staff report and the conditions outlined by city staff? Ms. Brakee said no she did not. Board member Olson wondered about the sign band and if they would be applying a backer board, which the letters could be adhered to as opposed to drilling multiple holes into the building facade for each individual letter? Ms. Brakee said in the original plans that was not included, however, that is something that was brought to their attention and they will be getting new pricing including the raceway so that the letters are easily removed as opposed to leaving the holes. Board member Shankar asked about the raceway? Ms. Brakee said it would be a long metal strip painted to match the stucco. Letters would be adhered to the raceway. Chairperson Ledvina asked if Welsh Companies have any window sign requirements for the tenants? Ms. Brakee said she did not believe so. The permanent signage is what Welsh Companies are allowing in this comprehensive sign plan. Chairperson Ledvina said the ordinance outlines a 75% window coverage. In the future the ordinance will be modified to reduce that. He asked if they would be amenable to a reduced percentage of window signage such as 50%? Ms. Brakee said she believed so. Community Design Review Board 4 Minutes 9-11-2003 Chairperson Ledvina said he thinks the remodeling of the Maplewood Square looks very nice and is a big improvement. In his opinion the window signage should be reduced from 75% to 50%. Board member Longrie-Kline agreed that the Maplewood Square looks very nice and is a big improvement to the area. Board member OIson moved to approve Welsh Companies' comprehensive sign plan for the Maplewood Square multi-tenant building located at 1860 - 1890 Beam Avenue with the following conditions: (changes to the conditions by the board during the 9/11/03 CDRB meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted,) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit for this project. 2. Wall signs are limited to the following: a. Primary Tenants (tenants with store frontage below towers): 1) Signs must be of individual letters or Iogos. 2) Letters or Iogos must not exceed 51/2'' deep. 3) Signs are allowed to have colored letters or Iogos. 4) Illuminated copy to be internally illuminated only, non-illuminated copy is to be fabricated aluminum 2 inches deep painted black. 5) Number of wall signs are limited to tenant space frontage as follows: 100 feet or larger: 3 signs 60 Feet or larger: 2 signs Less than 60 feet: 1 sign 6) Signs installed in the gable areas of the primary tenant's towers must be centered within the tower above the doors, with no restriction on letter or logo height or size. Surface material shall be repaired following removal of si.qn. 7) Signs attached to the raceway ~'-c*'-'""d '"';*~';" *~-'-' ";"" ~'~"'~ above the awnings are restricted in height to 16 inches, and must maintain an 18- inch margin from the edge of tenant space. 8) Wall signage is limited to the north wall only. b. Secondary Tenants (tenants without store frontage below towers) 1) Signs must be of individual letters or Iogos. 2) Letters of Iogos must not exceed lae 51/2'' deep. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-11-2003 3) Signs must have black and white acrylic faces and black returns. 4) Illuminated copy to be internally illuminated only, non-illuminated copy is to be fabricated aluminum 2 inches deep painted black. 5) Secondary tenants are limited to one wall sign. 6) Signs must be installed within the sign band above the awnings and must maintain an 18-inch margin from the edge of the tenant space. 7) Sign height is limited to 16 inches. 8) Wall signage is limited to the north wall only. Freestanding signage is limited to one freestanding sign that is 29 feet high and 240 square-feet in area as permitted in the original April 15, 1998, and July 17, 1989, sign permits. The freestanding sign must be maintained in good repair. Window siqnage for all tenants is limited to 50 percent coveraqe of any window, or as allowed by city code, whichever is more restrictive. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Longrie-Kline seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. b. Auto Glass - 2310 Hazelwood Street Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if there would be a representative for Auto Glass available to answer questions? Ms. Finwall said there was not a representative for Auto Glass available this evening, however, they did contact staff and left a phone number where they could be reached in case there were questions. The applicant also brought in a sample of block for the board to review, representing the color and texture of the block used on the proposed building. Chairperson Ledvina said that was appropriate and staff could continue with their presentation. Ms. Finwall said due to the deteriorating condition of the existing Auto Glass building at 2310 Hazelwood Street North, Auto Glass is proposing to demolish their building and construct a new, larger building on the site. Auto glass will close their current business at the end of the summer and place a temporary office trailer on the site to house two customer service representatives until the construction of the new building is complete in the spring of 2004. Board member Olson asked if there were any other product samples for the board to review? Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-11-2003 Ms. Finwall said no. Board member Olson asked if the sample of block would be used by the front door or by the garage doors of the proposed building? Ms. Finwall said the sample of block provided would be used around the garage doors. Board member Shankar asked if the block used on the office and garage door area will be split-faced rock? Ms. Finwall said yes they both will be split-faced rock but will be different size blocks. Board member Longrie-Kline asked staff if the temporary office trailer was in place for more than 10 months without the required foundation would there be a penalty to Auto Glass Specialists? Ms. Finwall said Auto Glass would have to sign an agreement with the city's building official on the proposed time line for the trailer. If the trailer remained longer, the building official would take appropriate actions. Board member Longrie-Kline asked why a foundation would be required for the temporary trailer on the site? Ms. Finwall said according to the notes from the building official if the temporary structure is used for more than 6 months a foundation would be required as part of the building code and that is one of the reasons Auto Glass Specialists would like this process stepped up so they would only need the temporary trailer for 6 months or less. Board member Longrie-Kline said if a foundation is needed what would the foundation be made of and how would you remove the foundation once the trailer is no longer needed? Ms. Finwall said in the original proposal they were going to install the temporary trailer this fall and remove it next summer, which staff estimated would be about 10 months. The removal of the foundation is something that would be dealt with in the building permit and would add additional expense. Board member Longrie-Kline said it sounds like Auto Glass Specialists would like the temporary trailer to be there no more than 6 months because of the added expense of building a foundation if the trailer were to be there longer? Ms. Finwall clarified staff recommended that a foundation is required if the temporary trailer was there for more than 6 months as per the building code. Chairperson Ledvina asked how many locations this proposed building design for Auto Glass Specialists is built? He is trying to get an idea of how many sites they have built this building at to reflect the photo of the Osceola Wisconsin site using the building products in the photo. Ms. Finwall said Osceola, Wisconsin, and perhaps Lakeville, Minnesota. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-11-2003 Board member Longrie-Kline asked if the applicant expressed why they had a concern that there be additional brick or color on the north and west side of the building? Ms. Finwall said Mr. Whitney indicated that Auto Glass Specialists would like to present a standardized image. They prefer not to alter their building because this is their chosen image and there is an added expense. Board member Olson stated the applicant indicated they would be willing to alter the landscaping around the site, correct? Ms. Finwall said yes the applicant stated they would alter the landscaping as staff has recommended. Board member Shankar said he would approve the addition of additional landscaping along the outside walls in lieu of brick banding along the exterior of the building. Ms. Finwall said when she read the staff report she did not have the photo of the Auto Glass building located in Osceola, Wisconsin. After looking at the photo it appears that the north elevation is not lacking landscaping but she would be concerned with the elevation facing the residential area. Chairperson Ledvina said the existing building looks fine to him. He understands the applicant wants a drive thru scenario with a garage. The current building fits into the neighborhood but he is concerned about the proposal for the new building with the red roof and the height of the garage area in this residential neighborhood. He is concerned with how this building compares with the existing building and the neighborhood. He asked what the zoning is on the west side of Hazelwood Street? Ms. Finwall said the zoning is residential and is to remain residential. Board member Olson asked what was to the east of this property? Ms. Finwall said a wetland is to the east. Chairperson Ledvina said he would agree with the staff that high quality brick materials should be used with views that face the residential area. In his opinion this proposal will be 1~-to-2 times taller than the existing building that is currently there. Board member Olson said she does not have a problem with this proposal. In her opinion this area is very flat and many of the homes are only single story. Therefore, she has no objection to having a building higher than the residential area homes. She said the red roof is a bit strong but as long as the building is facing Highway 36 the impact of the building exterior is softened for the neighbors on the other side of Hazelwood Street she is fine with this proposal. Board member Shankar has a concern with the vertical panels as shown on the plans. He prefers the vertical panels as shown in the photo provided, as opposed to the plans indicated in the staff report. He thinks it would be nice to add a single course of banding right below the windows and extend the band along the north and west side. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-11-2003 The board members agreed that adding the banding to all sides of the building would be a nice addition. Chairperson Ledvina asked board members how they felt about the red roof on the proposed building? Board member Shankar said as long as it is not really red he is fine with it. He suggested the applicant submit a sample of the roofing material to staff to make sure it is not bright red. Chairperson Ledvina said since this building is in a residential neighborhood he has a problem with the standing seam metal red roof. He imagines the other two Auto Glass sites are in more of a commercial area compared to this area, which is residential. Board member Longrie-Kline asked the chair what roof color he would be comfortable with? Chairperson Ledvina said he would be comfortable with a brown or green roof, which would reduce the impact of a metal roof in a residential neighborhood. Board member Olson asked if the neighbors were sent a survey asking if they had any concerns regarding a new building being built? Ms. Finwall said a survey was sent to the neighbors, but they were sent the plans and were invited to the CDRB meeting. The city also placed a development sign on the site with the community development telephone number for more information. Chairperson Ledvina asked the board if the recommendations could be made in two motions? The board agreed. Board member Shankar moved to approve the installation of a temporary office trailer at 2310 Hazelwood Street for use by Auto Glass Specialists until the completion of their new facility with the following conditions: (changes to the conditions by the board during the 9/11/03 CDRB meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted): The applicant must submit a written commitment to agree to remove the temporary office trailer within ten months, before obtaining a building permit. The temporary office trailer must then be removed within ten months after installation. The applicant must submit elevations of the proposed temporary office trailer for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant must submit a revised site plan showing the temporary office trailer installed on the north side of the lot, location of existing and proposed buildings, and location of temporary parking stalls on the existing parking lot. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-11-2003 Compliance with all conditions for a temporary office building as specified in the city building official's August 15, 2003, memorandum including, but not limited to, building foundation, full bathrooms 1 to 20 pitch entry, handicap accessibility, two exits, 20-foot setback from other buildings, and Minnesota State Building Code compliance. e. Compliance with all requirements of the fire marshal. If a foundation is constructed for the trailer, the foundation must be removed followinq the removal of the trailer. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped July 25 and August 18, 2003, for the proposed Auto Glass Specialist development at 2310 Hazelwood Street. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (changes to the conditions by the board during the 9/11/03 CDRB meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted): Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Before getting a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following: 1) Revised grading and drainage plans to be approved by the city engineer that comply with all conditions as specified in the assistant city engineer's September 3, 2003, memorandum. In addition, the grading and drainage plan must show the location of any proposed retaining walls. The applicant must obtain a building permit for any retaining wall over 6 feet in height. 2) Revised north and '.":cst building elevations showing the integration of brick, either as a wainscoting or an entire wall. (Revised all building elevations showing the integration of an 8-inch tall contrastinq color block band immediately below the windowsill, which wraps around all elevations. The revised elevations should also depict that panelized bandinq on top of the mansard roof-reveals are in panels of 4-feet on center, as depicted in the photograph submitted by the applicant of Auto Glass' Osceola store at the 9/11/03 Community Design Review 3) Revised landscape plan showing the following: 1) replacement of amur maples with an alternative ornamental tree; 2) the landscape berm along Hazelwood Street should be constructed in front of the parking lot, and not within the Hazelwood Street right-of-way; 3) additional landscaping including trees and shrubs planted around the parking lot edge; 4) additional landscaping planted in all required rainwater gardens; 5) reestablishment of turf in all disturbed areas; and 6) location of underground irrigation for all landscaped areas, excluding rainwater gardens. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-11-2003 4) do l0 Board 5) Trash enclosure plan showing materials used in the construction of the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure must be compatible with the building and must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. The applicant must submit samples of the standinq seam roof, banding stripe, and block materials for staff approval. 6) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) 2) 3) 4) If any 1) 2) exterior Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exits and a handicap-parking sign for each handicap accessible parking stall. Construct the required trash enclosure. Install all required landscaping, in-ground lawn irrigation, and retaining walls. All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view of adjacent residential properties. All roof-mounted equipment visible from the street must be painted to match the color of the upper part of the buildings. required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. This approval does not include signage. All proposed signs or relocation of existing signs must comply with the city's sign ordinance and the applicant must obtain all required sign permits prior to relocation or installation. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. member Olson seconded. Ayes - Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar Nay- Ledvina Chairperson Ledvina voted nay because he feels the design of the building is out of scale with what exists and is in contrast with the residential uses that are neighboring. The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-11-2003 VII. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. IX. ]! BOARD PRESENTATIONS Board member Shankar attended the city council meeting August 25, 2003, and the only CDRB item was the Hmong American Alliance Church, which was tabled until September 22, 2003. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Review of Community Design Review Board Applications Ms. Finwall said there are two applicants for the community design review board (CDRB) vacancy of Craig Jorgenson and they include Jeffrey Bartol and Roger Posch. Interviews with the two applicants should be scheduled for the next CRDB meeting on Tuesday, October 14, 2003, since there will be no meeting September 23, 2003. Ms. Finwall thanked the board members for coming to the board appreciation dinner and for their time on the board. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m.