Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/11/20032. 3. 4. 5. o 8. 9. 10. AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD March 11, 2003 6:00 P.M. Maplewood City Hall Council Chambem 1830 County Road B East Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of the February 25, 2003 Minutes Unfinished Business: Sibley Cove Apartment Building - South Side of County Road D, East of White Bear Avenue and West of Ariel Street Design Review: a. Kohl's Department Store Building Addition - Maplewood Mall b. Van Dyke Village Townhomes - West Side of Van Dyke Street, North of County Road B c. Countryside Motor's Saab Building Addition and Sales/Storage Lot Expansion - 1180 Highway 36 East Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled Board Presentations Staff Presentations Adjourn II. III. IV. V= MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chairpemon Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. because of video technical difficulties. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Craig Jorgenson Diana Longrie-Kline Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Staff Present: Present Absent Present Absent Present Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Finwall said the applicant for the Van Dyke Village Townhomes would like to remove his proposal from the agenda this evening. Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda with the change. Board member Longrie-Kline seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Shankar APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for February 25, 2003. Board member Longrie-Kline moved to table approval of the minutes for February 25, 2003. Both board member Longrie-Kline and board member Shankar were absent from that meeting. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes --- Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Shankar UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Sibley Cove Apartment Building - South side of County Road D, East of White Bear Avenue and West of Ariel Street Ms. Finwall said the CDRB tabled this item at the last CDRB meeting due to the concerns regarding the design of the apartments. Mr. David Steele, representing MWF Properties, has revised the building elevations and is now requesting design review approval for his proposed 80-unit apartment building. He is proposing this project on a 7.1-acre site on the south side of County Road D between White Bear Avenue and Ariel Street. The project would be a 3-story apartment building with underground parking for 100 cars. In addition, the plans show 100 surface parking spaces and 18 future parking spaces on the site. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 2 Ms. Finwall said the building would have a mix of 86 two-bedroom units and 14 three-bedroom units and a storm shelter in the garage area of the building. Ms. Finwall said the city council denied Mr. Steele's request for a land use change at the city council meeting March 10, 2003. However, Mr. Steele is proceeding with his design review in the hopes that the city council will reconsider his proposal. Ms. Finwall said the proposed building would be attractive and would have three stories above grade and an underground parking area. As proposed, the building would have an exterior of face brick, horizontal cement board siding on the first floor, horizontal vinyl siding on the second and third floors and scale shingles on the gable ends, and the roof would have asphalt shingles. The developer has proposed a mix of building colors - primarily earth-toned rusts and creams (red, brown and tan). Ms. Finwall said the revised elevation shows shingles on the gable ends as opposed to the horizontal siding. The addition of french or patio doors with metal railings on the outside of the units, 1" X 4" colored trim around the windows and doors, and more brick on the end elevations, extending brick to the third floor elevation. The revised plan also shows a new entry portico extending out from the front door of the building and a door and patio out to the tot lot on the northeast side of the building. However, the proposed plans do not show the south elevation with the underground garage door. (This building style, with the proposed materials and colors, should be compatible with and equal in quality to the buildings in the area, including the Birch Glen apartments.) Ms. Finwall said the proposed landscaping plan is a good start but needs additional work. It shows the developer planting at least 50 new, trees including red oaks, maple, ash, linden, black hills spruce and Austrian Pine. In addition, the plans show the planting of a variety of ornamental trees and shrubs on the site. The landscaping plans show most of the site will be graded with the construction of the storm water pond on the southeast corner of the lot. However, it does not show any landscaping or ground treatment in the ponding area and the city should require the developer to provide a revised landscape plan that would include the landscaping treatments for the ponding area and for any rainwater gardens that the developer may be including on the site. Ms. Finwall said the applicant provided a site lighting plan that shows the expected light spread from the proposed parking lot lights. The proposed poles would be 20-feet tall and would have a sharp cutoff shoebox luminary with a 250-watt high-pressure sodium light bulb. The city code requires the light fixtures have a design that hides the bulb and lens from view. Ms. Finwall said the applicant should revise the lighting plan in several ways. First, the plan should show how the lighting on the building would add to the site lighting. Secondly, the plan should have additional lighting near the driveways, where they intersect with the public streets, so they are adequately lit. Finally, the plan should show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view of adjacent properties to avoid nuisances. Ms. Finwall said staff is recommending that the developer install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the west side of Ariel Street between the existing sidewalk north of Woodlynn Avenue and the south property line of the daycare center. This sidewalk would provide the residents of this building off-street pedestrian access to the shopping area and church to the south. A sidewalk along Ariel Street also would provide a pedestrian link to existing sidewalk along Woodlynn Avenue to the sidewalk along Ariel Street south of Woodlynn Avenue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 Ms. Finwall said the city installed a new trail along the south side of County Road D in 2002, as part of the County Road D reconstruction. The city needs, however, a ten-foot-wide permanent easement along the south side of the right-of-way (on the project site) to cover the area that the trail is on. Ms. Finwall said this site has commercial properties on three of its sides, including an auto repair mall to the west and strip center to the south. Staff feels it would be prudent for and helpful to the residents of the new apartments if the developer installed screening along the west and south sides of the project to help ensure that the new residents and their vehicles are separated from the adjacent commercial properties. With the revised plan the developer is showing a six-foot high wood fence to be located along the west side of the property. However, because of an existing easement on the south side of the property the applicant told Ms. Finwall that the easements on the south part of the property for the existing power lines prohibit them from installing any structures or permanent improvements, except the parking lot, in the easement area. As such, they cannot install a fence along the south property line of the site. In addition, the developer is proposing planting gardens on the south side of the property for the use of the tenants in the building. Board member Shankar asked staff how the applicant intended to keep the garden properly cared for? Ms. Finwall said perhaps the city should address that issue in the conditional use permit (CUP) with the applicant in the maintenance of the apartments. Chairperson Ledvina asked if staff could comment on the split vote on this proposal that was reviewed at the city council meeting March 10, 2003? Ms. Finwall said she was not present at the city council meeting but she understood two of the city council members voted against the proposed land use plan, which is required to construct an apartment. This property is zoned business commercial as well as limited business commercial. In order to construct the residential units, a land use change is proposed and with that a majority vote is required. There were concerns from an adjoining property owner for Birch Glen Apartments who expressed concerns with this proposal. The applicant is requesting design review in the hopes that the city council will reconsider his land use plan change in the near future. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if the concern is related to the land use and not in the design? Ms. Finwall said the Mayor, who was one of the two dissenting voters, expressed concern that the CDRB had not approved the design review yet. Board member Longrie-Kline asked staff wasn't there a concern because of the change of use? Her concern is the CDRB is looking at the design and determining the mechanics of the design and then the applicant goes through the expense and the process just to find out the project can't be done. In her opinion, you have to change the use, before you can look at or approve the design. If the use is never going to be changed, then it doesn't matter what the design looks like because the use is the issue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 4 Chairperson Ledvina said the charge of the CDRB is to review the design and the city council action should not sway them either way. Ms. Finwall said, keep in mind the approval of the design is not approval of the project, so even if the CDRB approves the design review tonight and the city council does not reconsider the CUP and the land use plan change, this is where the proposal would end. Ms. Finwall said city council member Kathleen Juenemann is in the audience and perhaps she could comment on that. Mr. David Steele, at 4807 Slater Court in Eagan, representing MWF Properties, addressed the board. He said they have on-site management that would care for the property. They will make sure the gardens are tilled and cleaned up in the fall. They have proposed to install the rainwater gardens on the property and would be working with Chris Cavett on that. He said they would install the eight-foot wide french balconies at a height of 48 inches instead of the code requirement of 42 inches in height for an added safety measure. He brought color samples to show the board of the materials they propose to use on the exterior of the building. The competitor across the street Birch Glen has asked for a level playing field. He said Sibley Cove Apartments are proposed at 40 feet in height at the top of the roof and Birch Glen Apartments is 38 feet in height. If part of what he is being judged on is what is across the street, Birch Glen has 72,000 square feet of green space verses Sibley Cove at 219,000 square feet of green space. Mr. Steele handed out photos of Birch Glen Apartments to the board so they could compare that building with his proposal for Sibley Cove Apartments. He feels Sibley Cove has achieved a better landscaping plan proposal, they would have more green space, a nice garden area for the tenants, an architectural pleasing combination of building materials dressing up the exterior of the building and he thinks the Sibley Cove Apartment plan is comparable or maybe even better than the Birch Glen Apartments. Board member Longrie-Kline asked the applicant what the water source would be for the tenant gardens? Mr. Steele said whatever Mother Nature doesn't provide to the garden, the on-site management will sprinkle the garden. He said it is an additional service they will provide for the tenants. You can't provide the garden and not water it and take care of it. Just like they are going to provide a tot lot. They propose to put in a rubber mat on the tot lot to prevent injuries to the children. This rubber mat is about 11~-inches thick and will be a cushioning for the children unlike wood chips that used to be used on playgrounds. Board member Shankar asked Mr. Steele if the heating and cooling units would be by heat pump? Mr. Steele said no the heating and cooling would be done by wall pack. The self-contained heating and cooling unit will be located in the corner of the living room or the bedroom. It will be dark colored, pre-finished aluminum, approximately 18 inches X 42 inches high. Board member Shankar stated that Birch Glen Apartments doesn't have wall packs on the exterior of their building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 Chairperson Ledvina asked if there was anybody else in the audience that wanted to speak regarding this proposal? Mr. Pat Flaherty, representing Birch Glen Apartments, at 3100 Ariel Street, Maplewood, addressed the board. He said he is opposed to this project. He was at the city council meeting the evening of March 10, 2003. Birch Glen Apartments and its representatives are not the only ones opposed to this proposal. There were neighboring businesses such as the Auto Mall, the strip mall, the Emerald Inn, and people in the residential area that were also opposed to this proposal. This land is in a commercial zone and the neighboring businesses did not want anything but commercial property to be built there. His concerns are more in the design itself of the building. Mr. Steele said you would barely see the rooftop of this building, but this building would be 40 feet tall. It will look like a big wall behind the commercial buildings on White Bear Avenue. He said it looks like Mr. Steele has done some things to improve the design of this building but there are still no decks, no bump outs and it is still a large L-shaped building. He doesn't see people building apartment buildings like this anymore. People build entrances to welcome people and bump outs on the buildings. Birch Glen Apartments were not allowed to be built as a large plain building. His company had to build a grander entrance to welcome people, and build bump outs to break up the expansion of the building. Sibley Cove does not have any of those elements on this proposed building design. Birch Glen Apartments was told by the city that they had to include those elements on the design of their building and he wants a level playing field. This building does not belong here. The Mayor had several issues with this building and one of the major issues was the land use change. Several neighbors saw Mr. Flaherty at the city council meeting on cable and they contacted him by telephone today. The concern that has come out in the last day or two is that the adjoining properties did not get notified regarding this proposal. He said the notification was sent out to the physical property addresses and not legal property addresses. Most of the other addresses were addressed to "Manager" at Amoco, "Manager" at Daycare Center and not addressed to the owners. Many of these are leased buildings and the building owners may not be agreeable to this proposal. He thinks a better attempt should have been made to notify the people that count. Board member Longrie-Kline was trying to clarify what Mr. Flaherty meant by "they just want a level playing field." Did he mean he wanted the applicant for Sibley Cove to spend more money on their building by putting more materials on the exterior of the apartment building, or did he mean he wanted Sibley Cove to put in architectural elements like bump outs on the building so it would look more like the design of Birch Glen Apartments? Mr. Flaherty said a developer can spend a lot of money on exterior improvements for a building this size but it will still look like a huge warehouse building. The expanse of this building is the size of a football field. He thinks the applicant should be required to put the bump outs on Sibley Cove just as Birch Glen was required to. Mr. Flaherty said other architectural elements would be things like a welcoming entrance to the building. With the expanded brick the applicant proposes to put on the building and other exterior enhancements, the building still looks like one large long building and it is not broken up in any way. He doesn't believe the Sibley Cove proposal is being held to the same standards that the city required of Birch Glen Apartments. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 Kathleen Juenemann, city council member at the City of Maplewood, addressed the board. The city council members that voted against this were Mary Koppen and Mayor Bob Cardinal. The issues were the land use change and the final approved design plan. The land use plan change was something the city could consider in this case because the city has been talking about affordable housing and that is often used as a transition from commercial to residential. The city is talking about mixed use in the Hartford Development at the Hajicek property and possibly at the Hillcrest and Gladstone neighborhoods. Speaking as citizen, Kathleen Juenemann 721 Mount Vernon, she said, in the design phase of this proposal, there seems to be a very large difference of placement with the two buildings. Birch Glen Apartments is right on top of the street, so to be pleasing to the eye, staff was concerned with the building design and placement on the property. She said just as Mr. Flaherty had worked with staff for the design of Birch Glen Apartments, Mr. Steele has been working with staff for the Sibley Cove proposal. The Sibley Cove building would be more recessed or hidden from view in its location with the lot so she presumes the design advice from staff had to do with the placement of the buildings on the lots. Chairperson Ledvina said the changes in the design of the building are pretty dramatic from the first set of plans the board saw. He is pleased with the design changes. The prominence of the Birch Glen building was a big issue with the placement on Ariel Street. The Sibley Cove building does not have the same street presence that Birch Glen has. He thinks the natural vegetation will help isolate the views of the building, especially from the east and north. It is his opinion that the developer has listened to the board's comments as well as staff's comments and has made most of the changes to the proposed plans. Board member Longrie-Kline said she believes you can break up the expanse of a building with color, texture and the use of different materials and it would have every bit of an effect on the appearance and is just as costly as doing other architectural enhancements. She thinks they are two different styles of buildings. There is a lot of green space around the building, there will be revisions to the landscaping and she supports this proposal. Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to comment that perhaps the applicant and the city could consider the possibility of substituting the curb and gutter for the south portion of the parking lot and use a buffer strip to enable sheet-flow drainage to the grassy area. This may provide more of a buffering capacity for the storm water. Board member Longrie-Kline asked staff if the city has some type of agreement regarding the maintenance of a public garden, weeds and/or grass height? Ms. Finwall said as far as she was aware, the city has not had a public garden within an apartment development before, but the city could include a condition in the CUP that an approved maintenance agreement for the public garden is agreed upon by staff and the developer. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped J~,uc,:'y,.-,,"" .-,,,,.,"'"n" March 4, 2003, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for the Sibley Cove Apartments. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: (changes are in bold and deletions have a strike through them). 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 grading permit or a building permit: 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: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year high water elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. The ponds or basins shall meet the city's design standards and shall include best management practices and rainwater gardens wherever practical. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. (f) Show as little disturbance as possible on the north and east sides of the site (near the daycare center) to minimize the loss or removal of natural vegetation. This is to keep and protect as many of the large trees along the north and east property lines (near the daycare center) as possible. (3) *The tree plan shall: Community Design Review Board 8 Minutes 3-11-2003 (a) Be approved by the removal. city engineer before site grading or tree (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 no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (4) The design of the storm water pond shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. (5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except the south side of the parking lot where the developer should work with the city on the possibility of substituting curb and gutter with a buffer strip to enable sheet flow drainage. (6) The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24-foot width-no parking on either side and 28-foot width parking on one side. The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. (7) The developer shall disturb as little as possible of the area along the north and east property lines near the daycare center, Change the grading plan for this park of the site as recommended by the city engineer. (8) The developer shall install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along Ariel Street between the existing sidewalk north of Woodlynn Avenue and the south property line of the daycare center. (9) A storm water management plan, including drainage and ponding calculations, for the proposal. (10) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions noted by the city engineer in the memo dated February 10, 2003. b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city staff approval showing: Community Design Review Board 9 Minutes 3-11-2003 (1) As much of the existing vegetation (including large trees) remaining along the northern and eastern property lines (near the daycare center) as possible. (2) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas on the south side of the parking lot around the storm water pond with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the pond. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (3) The planting of native grasses and flowering plants around the proposed storm water pond shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. (4) The planting details (including flowering plants and shrubs) for the rainwater garden at the northeast corner of the building. Submit revised building elevations to be approved by staff as follows: (1) south elevation (2) underground garage elevation f. ~ Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Submit a revised site lighting plan for the city staff approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the building would add to the site lighting, and the plan should have additional lighting near the driveways, where they intersect the public streets, so the driveways are adequately lit. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to property shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. h. ~ The developer shall record the following with Ramsey County: (1) The documentation to combine the properties into one property for tax and identification purposes. (2) A ten-foot-wide permanent easement for public street right-of-way and public utility purposes along the south side of the County Road D right-of- way. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) review and approve the proposed utility plans. The fire chief shall approve the access to the back (northeast side) of the building for firefighting needs. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 l0 k.j. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling containers and enclosures. If the developer wants to build such facilities, the enclosure shall have materials that are compatible with the building, and they shall have gates that are 100 percent opaque. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. This approval does not include the 20-unit addition on the east end of the site. The developer or builder shall submit all necessary plans to the CDRB for their approval before the city may issue a building permit for this part of the project. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Install reflectorized stop signs at each exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. Paint any rooftop mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. Install and taper the concrete sidewalk along Ariel Street to match the driveways. g. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. Install a six-foot-high solid screening fence along the west property line of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence shall be subject to city staff approval. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 Install a quality video surveillance system that covers the underground garage and its entrance/exit doors. This system shall be subject to the approval of the Maplewood Police Department. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2) *Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. 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 above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping 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. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. This approval does not include the signs. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Commissioner Longrie-Kline seconded. Ayes- Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Shankar The motion passed. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Kohl's Department Store Building Addition - Maplewood Mall Ms. Finwall said Kohl's is proposing a 10,229-square-foot addition to the west side of their store at the Maplewood Mall. The addition would match the materials and colors of their existing store. They would revise the site plan to direct the drive lane around the addition and maintain the same traffic flow that currently exists. Ms. Finwall said parking compliance was a concern. The applicant has shown that they would meet parking requirements. The code requires one parking space for each 200 square feet of leasable floor area. After the proposed addition, the mall would slightly exceed that. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 Ms. Finwall said Kohl's would only be reinstalling the westerly sign due to this proposal. The existing signs on the south and north elevations would remain. Staff finds no issue with the relocation of the westerly sign onto the new west elevation. The applicant has included a site-lighting analysis for the mall parking lot west of Kohl's. They are proposing to relocate some of the light poles. The lighting code states "if outdoor fixtures are replaced as part of any construction requiring a building permit, the fixture shall be upgraded to meet the requirements of this ordinance". Ms. Finwall said the CDRB decision on this proposal is final unless someone makes an appeal to the city council. Appeals must be made within 15 days of the board's decision. The city staff cannot issue a building permit for this project until the end of the 15-day appeal period or until the city council acts on an appeal. Board member Longrie-Kline said she would have to abstain from voting in the Kohl's proposal. Because of her employment with Target Corporation, she reviews proposals for other Kohl's stores. Despite the fact this Kohl's store is not in her region, she said it could be a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Paul Baumgardt, and Mr. Tom McGannon, both engineers with Edwards & Kelcey at 7401 Metro Boulevard, Ste. 3430 in Edina, representing Kohl's, addressed the board. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped February 11, 2003, for the proposed building addition, wall signs, site plan changes and landscaping changes to Kohl's at the Maplewood Mall. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff may approve minor changes. The applicant shall make sure that any new or relocated outdoor lighting fixtures do not emit more than the allowed maximum of .4 foot-candles of light intensity at the property line. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Shankar Abstention - Longrie-Kline The motion passed. Countryside Motor's Saab Building Addition and Sales/Storage Lot Expansion - 1180 Highway 36 East Ms. Finwall said John Schmelz is proposing to remodel and expand the existing Saab sales/showroom building located within his Countryside Motors automobile dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East. The addition will be 8,61 O-square-feet in area and will have an automobile repair and service facility. In addition, Mr. Schmelz proposes to expand his automobile sales/storage lot into a vacant lot next to the Ember's Restaurant. Staff recommends approval of the proposal with several design conditions. Board member Shankar asked if staff looked at the existing building materials and the pre-cast concrete panels for compatibility and color? Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 Ms. Finwall said no she had not. Chairperson Ledvina asked a representative of the applicant to address the board. Mr. John Larson with RSP Architects, 1220 Marshall Street NE in Minneapolis, representing the owner, and Mr. John Schmelz with Countryside Motors, both addressed the board. Mr. Larson reviewed the colors and materials that would be used on the exterior of the building with the board. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Larson if this is a standard Saab building with standard parameters that one has to work with to unify the design? Mr. Larson said yes, Saab USA, Inc. sets the standards. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Larson about the rooftop equipment and vents on this addition. Mr. Larson said the rooftop units would be on the service addition portion only. The existing roof will remain a standing seam metal roof but they are going to reconstruct it to achieve a better drainage. There are four roof-top units on top of the service addition and they feel with the height of the parapet wall being two feet above the roof and the roof sloping from west to east, the units will fall even farther below the wall. Part of those roof-top units will be screened fairly well by the parapet height and they are also required by the building official to provide screening as required if those roof-top units don't meet the satisfaction of the city. Chairperson Ledvina said they would prefer that the rooftop units be located as close to the parapet walls to benefit from the screening of the walls. Mr. William McCulhy, a Civil Landscape Engineer with Glen Rehbein Companies, representing the applicant John Schmelz, addressed the board. Their company was brought in to use the maximum amount of parking space on the property. They originally created an underground storage facility for the storm water rather than the ponding plan submitted to the board. The product is called the uni-ecosystem. It is a paving system that does not produce any runoff. It is a porous pavement system and it gives storm water the opportunity to sit within the structural layer of a parking lot surface. The pavement is sized so that you can design for certain storm events. The water is slowly released from this system before it infiltrates into the ground. Mr. Schmelz looked at the two costs of these systems and initially determined the uni- ecosystem was too costly. He wanted to share with the board, the applicant's reluctance to spend additional money on unneeded things, such as, a wrought iron fence, decorative brick or stone columns, an electronically controlled entry gate, a black vinyl coated chain-link fence, irrigation system, and additional landscaping. The applicant, Mr. Schmelz, feels his money would be better spent on his building and parking lot for his customers. He said the items mentioned above are nice if they were in a different setting, but are more extravagant then he needs to have for his car dealership. Mr. Schmelz has now decided to go with the ecosystem. The reason he is doing this is to allow him to park more cars on his lot. The city will benefit from this because they will have a showcase parking lot. Also, here is a product that has never been used in the City of Maplewood and Mr. Schmelz is prepared to be the first. The watershed district has seen the benefits of this porous paving system and they have granted a grant towards the cost of this porous paving system. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 14 Mr. McCulhy said they don't know the conditions of this grant but the watershed district has allocated $20,000 towards the cost of installing this alternative paving system elsewhere. Mr. McCulhy said this design has similarities to another project they did in White Bear Lake called the Cummings project. Mr. Schmelz has problems with some of the staff conditions, for instance having to find water services for the irrigation system. He said planting trees and additional landscaping could eventually cause problems. Trees can produce sap and the sap is difficult to get off the cars and can cause damage. Tree limbs can break off and land on cars and damage them. The applicant would like these conditions changed if possible. Board member Shankar asked what this paving system looks like? Mr. McCulhy said there is a gap that is Y2 inch X 1-inch long. He said once these paving stones interlock, it leaves cells the size of your thumb digit every couple inches and the water drains into them. This porous pavement system is very stable in northern climates. Two months ago he attended a seminar held by the Minnesota Irrigation Control Association on porous pavement systems and everybody in the storm water community was there to see it. The watershed district is making a statement by granting $20,000 towards this innovative porous pavement system for his client, John Schmelz. Mr. John Schmelz, 1180 Highway 36 East in Maplewood, owner and applicant for Countryside Motors, addressed the board. He showed the board some photos of what is currently on the property he purchased for his sales/storage lot. Mr. Schmelz said he wanted to show the board how he will improve the land 150%. Board member Longrie-Kline asked staff about the striping plan. Is it correct that the applicant only needs to strip the drive aisles and not the parking spaces? Ms. Finwall said Mr. Schmelz discussed his concerns with staff regarding the striping of the parking stalls. Staff directed the question to the Fire Marshal and he indicated that only the drive aisle itself in the parking lot would need to be 20 feet wide as opposed to the 24 foot in width as indicated in the staff report. Because of that, staff is not proposing that the parking spaces be striped at this time unless customer or employee parking is proposed in that lot, which staff understands it is not. Board member Longrie-Kline said she thinks the staff recommendation for the wrought iron fence, decorative stone columns, etc. is consistent in character with an upscale dealership. She certainly appreciates that the applicant is cleaning up the vacant lot but she also thinks that the conditions listed by staff are consistent with an upscale dealership and it would look nice around the property. She asked for clarification regarding the sap falling onto the cars from trees and doing damage. Mr. McCulhy said in the landscaping requirements, staff wanted additional landscaping on the east and west and there is already landscaping on the north. He said any tree that would get to a significant height could drip onto the cars. Board member Longrie-Kline asked if there could be trees planted that do not omit sap? Mr. McCulhy said there are varieties of trees that do not omit sap. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 Chairperson Ledvina said perhaps the applicant could work with staff to select the correct tree varieties to eliminate any sap problems from happening. Board member Shankar asked staff what was to the east of this property? Ms. Finwall said it is a combined business and a single-family house and another single-family house. Board member Shankar asked staff if the vinyl-coated fence would provide a better division between the lot and the single-family home rather than a chain-linked fence? Ms. Finwall said the city is approving the expansion of a non-conforming use in that this parking lot or sales/storage lot for automobiles is required by the city ordinance to be up to 350 feet from residential property. In this case, the applicant is proposing to come within 20 feet of residential properties. Because of that, staff feels there should be mitigating conditions that help shield and protect this commercial business from the surrounding single-family homes. Staff feels that the black-vinyl-coated chain link fence is an enhancement over a regular chain link fence with barbed wire on the top. Chairperson Ledvina said he agrees with Ms. Longrie-Kline's comments regarding the fencing. He doesn't think it should be required to have an electronically controlled gate and could be eliminated. In his opinion, the chain-link fence in front of the dealership should also be replaced. He thinks the front of the Saab building has a nice appearance and when you see the chain-link fence, it has no curb appeal. He would like to add to the staff recommendation the removal of the chain-link fence in front of the dealership and replacing it with the same type of fence required in front of the sales/storage lot. In his opinion, there is quite a lot of money invested in the building. The addition of architectural elements, landscaping and an architecturally compatible fence is a small expense compared to what is being done to the site. Mr. Larson said the client understands the need to have a nice appearance from the street. The client does not want nor does he require the need to have fencing in the front of the building. With a different building, that may be appropriate, but not in this situation. He said the client thinks this requirement is a bit over the top. Requiring fencing does allow the client's customers to see the cars. Chairperson Ledvina said he appreciates the opinions that were shared but the city is looking for something with a higher standard for the property. The changes that have already been made are very nice and should continue with the staff recommendations. He is willing to entrust the details to be worked out with the applicant and staff regarding those elements. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 16 Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped January 24, 2003, for the proposed Saab building addition and sales/storage lot expansion to Countryside Motors automobile dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following: (changes or additions are in bold and deletions have a strike through) Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Signs shown on the site plan and building elevations are not part of this approval and will require separate sign permits. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a grading or building permit: a. Final grading, paving, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the requirements of the city code and the city engineer. b. Address all of the concerns (mentioned below) to the satisfaction of the St. Paul Regional Water Services: (a) Verify location of all water mains within the property. (b) Verify that the necessary easements exist for all water mains. (c) Relocate the proposed training wall and subsequent grading for the new sales/storage lot so that it is no closer than 15 feet from the centerline of the existing water main in the vacated Cope Avenue right-of-way. (d) Ensure the St. Paul Regional Water Services has access to all water mains on the property. (e) Verify the location of the water services to Ember's Restaurant and any grading over the water services. (3) Verification that John Schmelz is the fee owner of the 30-foot wide portion of the vacated Cope Avenue right-of-way that runs along the south portion of the expanded sales/storage lot property. (4) drive aisles that are at least 20 feet in width. The plan must include (5) A revised site plan showing: a) that the new sales/storage lot is setback 20 feet from the eastern residential property line. b) that the existing fence in front of the Saab building be removed and replaced with a fence compatible to the required north sales/storage lot fence described below. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 17 (6) Elevations of the proposed fence and gate. The north elevation should include a ........ ~.. -.A_ · .... or pre-cast ..... ~,,, -' .......... decorative fence with brick, e~ stone -'-" concrete columns o"'~ ~n "1'""+'"";""'" ""'"'+'"'~"~ ght ;'"'" '""+"' '"~+" on .................. ~ ........... W,"OU .......... the front of the sales/storage lot; and a black vinyl coated chain-link fence on the sides and rear of the sales/storage lot subject to the approval of staff. The fence may be up to a height of 8 feet. (7) A revised landscape plan to include: (a) Trees and shrubs to be planted in front of the sales/storage lot, along the frontage road. (b) A row of columnar trees (narrow trees such as arborvitae or lindens) between Ember's parking lot and the new sales/storage lot. (c) =--*----~:---- *~' ....... ~ pi .......... ~ ,,,~ .... ,,, Re acing the Colorado blue spruce with Black hills spruce and extending the row of Colorado blue spruce and Isanti dogwood along the top of the entire retaining wall (both south and east, adjacent both residential properties). (d) The pond should be vegetated with native grasses with Forbes. Native shrubbery and trees should be planted on the upland portion of the perimeter of the pond. (e) All landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the pond, must have an underground irrigation system. (8) A revised outdoor lighting and photometric plan. The revised plan shall show the height and style of all outdoor lights (including relocated lights), and that the light illumination from all outdoor lights does not exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. (9) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. d. Complete the following before occupying the sales/storage lot: (1) Install all bituminous or engineered porous surface and curb and gutter. (2) Stripe all drive aisles. (3) Install the approved fence. (4) Install all required landscaping by June 1 if the sales/storage lot is finished in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of completion of the sales/storage lot if it is finished in the spring or summer. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 VII. VIII. ]8 Board member Longrie-Kline seconded. (5) Install all required exterior lights. Complete the following before occupying the Saab building: (1) Install all required exterior improvements. (2) Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent residential property. (all roof-top equipment and vents should be located as close to the parapet walls or as appropriate to provide the best screening possible). (3) Ensure all traSh dumpsters are enclosed in a trash enclosure, subject to staff approval, if there would be outside trash storage. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: (1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. (2) 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. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Shankar The motion passed. This item will go to the city council on Monday, March 31,2003. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Board member Shankar was unable to attend the city council meeting so Ms. Finwall gave the report that Ohlson Landscaping was approved and the 2002 CDRB Annual Report was approved by the city council. a. CDRB Representation needed at the city council meeting for March 31, 2003. Board member Shankar will be the CDRB representative at the March 31, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be Countryside Motors Sales/Storage Lot Expansion. There is a possibility that the Sibley Cove Apartment proposal may be reconsidered as well. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Finwall said she sent an e-mail thanking Mr. John Carmody for the Sustainable Building Presentation he gave a few weeks ago. Ms. Finwall said she included some information on the City of Oakdale's Green Building Program in the board's packet. This is a volunteer program where they try to promote more environmentally friendly and sustainable building issues. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.