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.