Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/23/2008 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23,2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Boardmember John Demko Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Boardmember Ananth Shankar Boardmember Matt Wise Present Present Present Present Present at 6:02 p.m. Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand. Citv Planner Ginnv Gavnor. Naturalist III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Ledvina moved to approve the amended agenda adding item 6.b.-U. of M. Capstone Project. Boardmember Shankar seconded Ayes - Demko, Olson, Shankar Abstention - Wise The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. July 22, 2008 Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the minutes of July 22, 2008, as presented. Boardmember Demko seconded Ayes - Demko, Olson, Shankar, Wise Abstention - Ledvina The motion passed. V. DESIGN REVIEW a. Legacy Shops at Legacy Village, County Road D City Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report explaining the request for approval of plan revisions for the Legacy Shops at Maplewood, a 14,616 square-foot retail center at Legacy Village. Mr. Ekstrand reviewed design plans of the building. Mr. Ekstrand said he feels the assortment of materials selected is attractive, good-quality products and should be compatible with the other developments in the neighborhood. Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant has not submitted the lighting fixture designs and these should be provided for review. Mr. Ekstrand said they are requiring that there not be any lighting facing south as a consideration to the residents at Wyngate. Mr. Ekstrand introduced Patrick Sarver of the Hartford Group, who is the master developer of this development. Mr. Ekstrand said Todd Geller of Hartford Group, who will be the owner and operator of this center, will also be attending this meeting. Community Design Review Board 2 Minutes 09-23-2008 Boardmember Olson asked staff if the townhomes to the south have screening. Mr. Ekstrand responded the townhomes are landscaped for site beautification, but are not screened. Boardmember Wise asked staff about the previous site elevations and asked for clarifications on the staff's suggestion regarding brick to the roof on the decorative columns. Mr. Ekstrand showed the original plan elevations and said the applicant did not feel it was a functional design, even though the building looked nice. Mr. Ekstrand said the suggestion for installing brick upward toward the roof on the columns was inspired by the caps on the adjacent Ashley Furniture and other buildings in the area. Boardmember Demko asked staff if a photometric or lighting plan was submitted with this request. Mr. Ekstrand responded that a photometric plan showing the foot candles of light intensity around the property was received and that their plan met city code. Mr. Ekstrand said they have not submitted a lighting fixture design plan. Boardmember Ledvina suggested the board limit its consideration to the design issues under its purview which are germane to the board's discussion. Patrick Sarver, director of development with Hartford Group, presented samples of the proposed building materials for the board's review. Todd Geller introduced himself saying he is with Victory Capital and working with the Hartford Group on this development and the redesign of this project. Mr. Geller said the applicant is willing to work with staff in designing the column caps with designs similar to buildings adjacent to this site. Boardmember Olson asked Mr. Geller to address the brick and split face masonry proposed around the building. Mr. Geller responded that they took the previous design of the building and then created similar design applications. Mr. Geller said the difference is they have taken the glass off the back of the building and upgraded it with stucco materials to make it as complementary as possible to the back side of the building on the south and to add as much landscaping as possible. Boardmember Shankar mentioned the awning colors were listed as blue, but the sample on the materials board is not blue. Mr. Sarver responded that the awnings will be complementary but a specific tenant might want to make a modification to an awning to complement their signage. Mr. Shankar asked if the three samples on the materials board could be any color. Mr. Sarver responded affirmatively and noted it would be tastefully done to match the design architecture and adjacent properties. Boardmember Shankar asked if there are two different colors of stucco shown on the board. Mr. Sarver responded affirmatively noting they will be used to create variety and interest along the building. Mr. Shankar said it appears from the elevations that there will be one color of stucco used on three sides of the building and a second color used on the south side. Mr. Sarver explained the lighter color one stucco will be used on the field areas and the darker color two will be used on the cornices. Boardmember Olson asked Mr. Sarver to comment on the lighting plan since the board has not received a copy of the plan. Mr. Sarver explained the final lighting fixtures have not been selected yet, but similar fixtures represented on the samples board show they will be an up or down light fixture. Mr. Sarver said since they are the master developer for the entire area, the final fixtures selected will be consistent with those already in place in the area. Boardmember Olson asked Mr. Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 09-23-2008 Geller if the lighting on the south side of the building could be down lights only. Mr. Geller responded affirmatively. Boardmember Olson asked if the channel sign age will be backlit. Mr. Geller responded the sign age will be backlit. Boardmember Shankar asked if the roof top units would be screened or if they will be visible. Mr. Sarver responded the number of rooftop units has not yet been determined, but the perimeter wall of the building is designed with a central parapet that extends to screen any rooftop units. Mr. Sarver explained they are in agreement with staff's landscaping request to screen with over story trees 30-40 feet on center along the south side of the building between the town homes would be appropriate to create the street scape along Village Trail East. Boardmember Shankar asked what parking use is planned for the south parking lot area. Mr. Sarver explained the south parking lot area will be used primarily by employees. Boardmember Shankar asked where the gas and electric meters would be mounted. Mr. Sarver said they will be located in the back near the center of the building by the mechanical room. Boardmember Olson asked for comments on the staff request for increasing the landscaping at the front of the building. Mr. Sarver said they have concerns with upgrading the landscaping on the north side of the building and planting too much so that it becomes a future visibility problem at the front of the building. Mr. Ekstrand responded staff had requested additional landscaping at the front of this building, but this has been a past issue when developments plant mature trees that then grow too large for the area. Mr. Ekstrand explained Ashley Furniture is concerned the Legacy Shops not obscure their store's visibility and they actually prefer the new location proposed for the Legacy Shops. Mr. Ekstrand said he would be happy to work with the applicant to devise a landscape plan that is attractive and lower profile. Mr. Sarver noted the corners of the building architecturally have been intended to have signs that frame the corners and would have two sides. Mr. Sarver said as a matter of clarification they would like to have the two signs on the taller piece on both sides of the corner. Mr. Ekstrand said the condition on signage in the report was drafted off of the original report and will need to be revised. Mr. Ekstrand said they did not receive a sign plan from the applicant and asked whether they might have signage criteria to present at this meeting. The applicant responded they did not have signage criteria at this time, but will be created as they finalize the design of the building. Boardmember Ledvina moved approval of the revised site and building design plans date-stamped September 9, 2008 for proposed Legacy Shops at Maplewood retail center at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall do the following: . Review the plans for staff approval for all elevations adding decorative caps or crown on top of the brick columns. . Revise the landscaping plan for staff approval to increase the plantings along the north and east frontages and to provide the over story trees at 30 to 40 feet on center along the south frontage. Community Design Review Board Minutes 09-23-2008 4 . Provide a roof-equipment screening plan showing how roof-mounted equipment will be screened from the residential views to the south. If the proposed building parapet isn't tall enough, screening must be provided. The applicant shall comply with the city code in this respect. . Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters for staff approval. . Provide a lighting plan details showing the proposed light fixtures for staff's review and approval. There shall not be any lights on the back of the building. Site lights south of the building shall be pole-mount lights that aim toward the building. . Freestanding light fixtures shall be consistent with existing light fixtures for Legacy Village development, subject to staff approval. . Lighting on the south elevation shall be only down lighting. 3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: . Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any required revisions. . Provide roof-equipment screening as required by code. . Provide in-ground lawn irrigation as shown on the plans. . Comply with all requirements of the fire marshal, building official and police departments as noted in the staff report. 4. A comprehensive sign plan must be submitted subject to approval by the community design review board. 5. Before obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing landscaping and other site improvements. This irrevocable letter of credit shall include the following provisions: . The letter of credit must clearly indicate that it is an irrevocable letter of credit in the name of the City of Maplewood, payable on demand, to assure compliance with the terms of the developer's agreement. . The letter of credit must allow for partial withdrawals as needed to guarantee partial project payments covered under the terms of the letter of credit. . The letter of credit shall be for a one-year duration and must have a condition indicating automatic renewal, with notification to the city a minimum of 60 days prior to its expiration. 6. The community design review board shall review any major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 7. The color of awnings shall be consistent/compatible with the color scheme of the building (no garish colors) and subject to staff approval. Community Design Review Board Minutes 09-23-2008 5 8. The applicant shall modify the area above the columns on the back of the building to provide a contrast to the main wall color to break up the expansive large back wall. Seconded by Boardmember Wise Boardmember Shankar questioned whether condition d. of Item A relating to the PUD conflicts with the board's motion. Boardmember Olson said she is okay with the board's motion since it is quite a general statement and is under the purview of the board. Boardmember Shankar suggested a friendly amendment might be added to the motion requiring brick be extended to the bottom of stucco color two on the six columns. The board discussed with Mr. Sarver the amendment to require the brick extension on the six central columns. Mr. Sarver asked whether an alternative of doing something different with the stucco such as changing the color or adding reveals might be used instead of the brick. Mr. Sarver said they previously explored extending the brick, but it did not look right and thought it might be because it then isn't consistent with the front of the building. It was suggested that using a EI FS color change might provide the alternative desired. It was decided t the applicant would work with staff to come up with an alternative design for the six columns. Boardmember Ledvina accepted the friendly amendment to his motion to modify the color of six of the interior columns on the south elevation of the building to change the EIFS color to provide more prominence in breaking up the expanse of the lighter tan EIFS. As the second to the motion, Boardmember Wise accepted the friendly amendment to the motion. The board then voted: Ayes - all The motion passed. b. U. of M.Capstone Project City naturalist Ginny Gaynor explained the University of Minnesota's Capstone project, which is an environmental sciences project class that involves problem solving for monumental change. Ms. Gaynor said the city is working with 49 seniors at the University of Minnesota. Ms. Gaynor said the theme chosen is Sustainable Maplewood and includes student groups studying impervious surface areas in the Mall area, vegetation planning, sustainable park issues, and a group working with the city regarding a green workplace model. The board discussed with the students areas for future study and methods to proceed with their study. The board asked students to report back to the board with questions and their findings. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None Community Design Review Board Minutes 09-23-2008 6 IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. CDRB representative for the October 27 city council meeting: Mr. Ledvina b. Mr. Ekstrand introduced the newly hired city planner, Mike Martin. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:27 p.m.