HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2001
,
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2001
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina
Ananth Shankar
Tim Johnson
Jon LaCasse
Craig Jorgenson
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand. Assistant Director of Community Development
Recording Secretary:
Lori Hansen
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 23, 2001
Board member Johnson moved approvai of the minutes of January 23, 2001.
Board member Jorgenson seconded the motion. Ayes-All
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Shankar moved approval of the agenda, as submitted.
Board member Johnson seconded.
Ayes-All
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-21-2001
-2-
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
A. Service Engineering Addition and Parking Waiver-(2720 Maplewood Drive).
Mr. Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director, gave the staff report for the city.
Mr. John Kliethermies, is proposing to build a second story addition on his Service Engineering
building. The proposed addition would cover the middle third of his southwestern style building.
Mr. Kliethermies would build wing wall extensions on the front elevation to give the proposed
upper floor more of a full second story appearance from the highway. The addition is needed for
data storage and office space by the applicant. He is not proposing to add additional personnel.
He is requesting a waiver from the parking requirements. The existing building is grand fathered
to have fifteen parking spaces. There are eleven on the north side of the building and four along
the street. The code requires twenty-five spaces right now for the existing building. With the
proposed addition, the code would require thirteen additional spaces for a total of thirty-eight. The
applicant is also requesting approval of architectural plans.
There are three main issues that staff addressed in the memo. The building is attractively
designed and should blend in well with the existing structure. Staff's only concern is that the
applicant ensures that the back of the wing walls are colored and textured to have the same
material as the front of the building so the building looks finished. The other issues are regarding
the applicants parking needs and the existing five car parking lot that has been added just north of
Kohlman Avenue. Staff concurs with the applicant that his current number of parking spaces is
sufficient. The applicant is in the shoreland area, and to add the additional parking would take
considerable excavation and retaining wall construction. Staff does not see the need for that, nor
would they want to allow that based on the shoreland regulations.
The applicant is slightly over the impervious surface requirement, currently, due to an earlier
counsel action back in 1995. Staff is recommending to resolve that matter by either applying for a
conditional use permit for the reduced green space and also a variance due to it not having a 15-
foot setback from the street right-of-way. As an alternative, the applicant has the option to remove
the excess hard surface and restore the ground.
In lieu of not requiring additional parking, staff has talked to the applicant about signing a
restrictive covenant to record against the property. This would limit future high-traffic generating
businesses in this building. The exact verbiage has not been established by the staff as of yet,
but the city attorney thought this covenant would be a good idea. Details would be worked out
later to the city attorney's approval. The language would require that future tenants or owner of
the building must not have tremendous traffic needs. Staff chose to go that route over denying
the request because the applicant is a good business resident of the city. The city does not want
to lose him, so staff is trying to satisfy everybody's needs.
Mr. Jorgenson asked if handicapped parking is required. Staff stated they are required to have
one handicapped space.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if the covenant related to business use of a site or property has been
used in the past. Staff responded in saying the city has used various forms of recordable
agreements and restrictive covenants in the past. This was requested by the city attorney as a
way to try to solve this particular issue. This will either be a denotation or a separate document
written up, signed by all parties and notarized. This would become a recorded document with the
county.
Mr. Shankar asked if the parking spaces along Kohlman Avenue met regulation. Staff stated they
do not.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-21-2001
-3-
Mr. John Kliethermies, 2212 Beam Avenue, the applicant, was present to answer questions. He
has owned the building since 1 993 and has operated his business out of this building since that
time.
The property was originally built in 1930 and has been added onto over the years. All the current
tenants are service oriented. Service Engineering designs retaining walls all across the country.
In answering why they would like to add a second floor onto the building, Mr. Kliethermies stated
due to the nature of previous construction, it left a fiat roof that ponds water, and occasionally
seeps in. In the engineering business, they are required to keep drawings for a number of years,
therefore they have a significant number of files to maintain and need additional storage room.
They would like to be able to move these drawings and a storage area to the second floor.
In 1994, the city improved the frontage road on Maplewood Drive. In doing that they took the
unpaved road and took out all of the parking in the front of the property. Originally the parking
was pull-in-straight-in parking, and ran all along the frontage road. There are two handicapped
spaces on the site. The first is located on the north corner of the site on Maplewood Avenue.
This parking site has extended concrete pavement for easy in and out access. The second
handicapped parking spot is directly as you enter the main parking area to the right of the
driveway. When the city approached the applicant with the proposed changes they suggested
putting the parking lot to the north side of the building. They also proposed adding a five car lot in
the southeast corner of the site. The applicant asked that it not be installed at that time due to not
wanting to lose that space. Since that time the applicant has been dealing with water issues on
the site and in his basement. Kohlman Avenue is very steep coming down to the site, and water
runs down into the back of his property. A 3-foot wall was built and filled with gravel to keep the
water on the roadway and off the property.
The applicant was in agreement to the covenant. He does not feel it was any more restrictive
than what he has now.
Mr. Ledvina confirmed with the applicant that he was in concurrence to the staff report regarding
the conditions that have been outlined.
Mr. Shankar asked the applicant how many people will be working in the building after the
expansion. The applicant noted there will be approximately 12 to 15 per day.
The applicant explained the color scheme will be a muddy brown. The windows are going to be
re-trimmed and a synthetic stucco exterior finish will be applied over insulated board. Staff has
not viewed a color rendering at this point. Staffs concern would be that the exterior color would
be uniform throughout the building. The top story would need to match the existing building. Mr.
Shankar requested staff approve some type of color sketch be approved prior to receiving their
building permit. Mr. Ledvina agreed, and decided it could be included in the conditions.
Mr. Ledvina asked if the owner should be required to record the required document with Ramsey
County. Staff stated recording the document is fairly easy for the city to do, therefore, they felt it
would be a way for the city to ensure it got done if the city recorded the document with the county.
Chairperson Ledvina felt under A in the recommendations, having two sets of numbers may be
confusing. He asked that possibly an item 5a and 5b be added. Staff will address this issue and
look at denoting the items in a different fashion.
Item B4 states the property owner shall keep the area behind the building picked up and not store
any items in that space. Chairperson Ledvina felt this was a use issue. This requirement, he felt,
was beyond the terms of the construction and suggested an alternative be used. Requiring the
property owner to remove the items that are currently being stored behind the building may be
more appropriate. Screening requirements according to the ordinance may also be required if
outdoor storage is requested in the future. Mr. Kliethermies explained there is only 6-7 feet
behind the back of the building. What is back there right now is building materials for the addition.
A John Deer Skid Steer, which is used for clearing the parking lot of snow, is parked in the lot
during the winter.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-21-2001
-4-
Board member Johnson moved the board to:
A. Approve a parking waiver for Service Engineering, 2720 Maplewood Drive, based on the
following reasons (1--4) and subject to conditions (5 a & b):
1. The applicant has shown that there are enough parking spaces for the building's
current parking needs.
2. The applicant is not planning to add personnel with this addition.
3. Providing more paved parkin9 on the site would further violate the impervious
surface requirements of the shoreland ordinance. The site is currently exceeding
this requirement.
4. The applicant has verbally agreed to a restrictive covenant being recorded
against his property to regulate the types of businesses in this building based on
their degree of traffic generation.
5. This approval is conditioned upon the property owner doing the following before
obtaining a building permit for the second-story addition:
a. Submitting a signed restrictive covenant to be approved by staff. This
covenant shall ensure that future occupants of 2720 Maplewood Drive
are low traffic-generating businesses. The city shall record this
document with Ramsey County.
b. Submitting complete applications for a conditional use permit and a
setback variance for the five-car parking lot on the south side of the site.
As an alternative to making these applications, the property owner may
agree to remove the parking lot and restore the ground. If the property
owner chooses this alternative, he shall present staff with a letter of intent
to do so with the stipulation that he will complete the parking lot removal
and ground restoration by June 1, 2001. With either alternative, the
property owner shall give the city cash escrow to cover the cost of the
parking lot removal and ground restoration.
B. Approve the plans, date-stamped January 26, 2001, for the proposed second-story
addition at Service Engineering, 2720 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the
findings required by code and subject to the following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit
for th is project.
2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall do the following:
a. Submit a signed restrictive covenant to be approved by staff. This
covenant shall ensure that future occupants of 2720 Maplewood Drive
are low traffic-generating businesses. The city shall record this
document with Ramsey County.
Community Design Review Board -5-
Minutes of 02-21-2001
b. Submit complete applications for a conditional use permit and a setback
variance for the five-car parking lot on the south side of the site. As an
alternative to making these applications, the property owner may agree to
remove the parking lot and restore the ground. If the property owner
chooses this alternative, he shall present staff with a letter of intent to do
so with the stipulation that he will complete the parking lot removal and
ground restoration by June 1, 2001. With either alternative, the property
owner shall give the city cash escrow to cover the cost of the parking lot
removal and ground restoration.
c. Submit plans for staff approval showing the placement and design of a
trash enciosure. The enciosure must have a gate that extends to the
ground. The enclosure must be large enough to accommodate trash and
recycling containers. The property owner shall also submit screening
plans for any new rooftop mechanical equipment he may install that
would be visible by the residential neighbors.
d. Submit a color scheme for the building to staff for approval.
3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Paint any new rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building that
would be visible. Screen any rooftop mechanical equipment that would
be visible by residential neighbors.
b. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure with a closeable gate.
c. Finish the back of the wing walls to have the same material, texture and
color as the building for uniformity.
4. The property owner shall remove the items being stored behind the building.
5. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the
required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the
unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June
1 if the building is occupied in the winter or within six weeks of occupancy
if the building is occupied in the spring or summer.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any
unfinished work.
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
Mr. Shankar seconded.
Ayes-All
Motion carries.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-21-2001
-6-
B. Auto7one plan Review and Setback Variance-1749 N Century Avenue)
Mr. Tom Ekstrand gave the staff report for the city. The applicant, CEI Engineering, is proposing
to build a one-story, 5,500 square AutoZone auto parts store on the former A&W site on Century
Avenue. The proposed building would have an exterior of split face and single score concrete
block. It would also have a couple four inch wide accent bands running around the building. The
building would be painted in variations of grey so there would be light, medium and dark tones of
grey.
The applicant is requesting that the city approve a 20-foot building setback variance from the rear
property line. The code requires a 50-foot setback and the applicant is proposing 30 feet. They
are requesting approval of building, site and landscaping plans, and also a lot division. The
current property owner plans on retaining the southerly 52-feet of the old A&W site to incorporate
into his own property. There are no circumstances that are unique to this site that would prevent
the applicant from meeting the 50-foot rear setback requirement. The applicant could meet
setback requirements by taking the parking that was proposed in front of the building and shifting
it around to the north side of the building. The building could then be shifted toward Century
Avenue and a variance would not be needed. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the
variance request.
Regarding building design, the proposed building design would be compatible with the existing
commercial development in the area, but staff is recommending that they add brick to the exterior.
All the adjacent commercial buildings in the area have brick on their exterior. That would make
the appearance of this building consistent with the buildings across the street in Oakdale. In
addition, staff is recommending that all roof equipment be screened from the residential neighbors
view, which is a code requirement, and that the applicant submit a photometric plan of the light
spread.
The landscaping plan seemed a little meager, there were only six trees proposed along the north
lot line, and all the turf was proposed to be seeded. The turf should be sod versus seed, and
trees are needed on the front and back of the site. Staff is also recommending the screening
fence be pulled back twenty feet from the front lot line and be cedar for esthetic reasons. Staff felt
there was a lot of opportunity to add evergreens and deciduous trees in the back to soften the
back side of the building.
In review of the grading plan, there were drainage concerns noted by Chris Cavett, the Assistant
City Engineer. Although they do not appear to be problematic, all the drainage issues need to be
worked out with the city's engineering department to ensure all of Mr. Cavett's concerns are
satisfied.
As for the lot division, staff is recommending the owner of the proposed southerly parcel, saw cut
and remove any pavement to the new lot line to observe the five-foot parking lot setback which
code requires. The owner of the southerly parcel should also abandon the old A& W well. They
will need to go through a licensed well drilling company to accomplish this.
Staff is recommending denial of the variance, on the basis that there are no circumstances that
are unique to the site that would prevent the applicant from meeting the 50-foot setback. The
applicant could meet the setback requirement as demonstrated by staff in the report. The variance
would not meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since there are options to meet code
requirements. The applicant could purchase additional land from the seller which could increase
their site layout options.
Staff is also recommending approval of a parking waiver to go along with staffs proposed revision.
This would reduce the number of parking spaces required. Staff is recommending approval of
the architectural and site plans subject to the addition of the brick on the exterior and
resubmission of a landscape plan.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-21-2001
-7-
Chairperson Ledvina clarified that staff has not been able to discuss with the applicant the change
in the site plan and his acceptance, or not, of these changes. Mr. Ledvina also confirmed with
staff that a gradin9 plan was submitted from the applicant.
Mr. Shankar asked if the applicant would still meet the parking requirement with the adjusted plan
that allows for the 50-foot setback requirement. Staff said they would be short by one parking
spot. A setback variance is tougher to approve than a parking waiver (the council has more
discretion with parking issues).
Mr. Jeremy Yee, with CEI Engineering, was present for the applicant. AutoZone's headquarters is
located in Memphis, Tennessee. They are a national company with over 2500 stores across the
united states. They sell new car parts with discount prices and do not provide any kind of auto
repair service.
Mr. Yee talked with his client regarding the setback requirement and adjusting the plans to comply
with the setback. His client was comfortable with that change to comply with the ordinance.
Regarding the concrete block around the top of the building, Mr. Yee felt the need for a strong
structure to support the weight of the top brick. If the city would like to see face brick around the
top perimeter, they will change their design to comply and satisfy that requirement.
The applicant is also willing to add more landscaping to the sides and front of the building. They
will also add a cedar wood fence for screening.
A photometric lighting plan was submitted to the city with the site plan. Typically AutoZone
buildings have lights in the back of the building for safety purposes. The AutoZone sign is not
lighted and a pylon sign is also being proposed for the parking lot.
Mr. Yee has talked with Mr. Cavett regarding engineering issues. The applicant will install the silt
fence inside of the property line. The drainage that is currently flowing into the parking lot will be
redirected to the grassy area for pretreatment, then to the storm system.
Before the city signs off on the deeds for the lot division, the owner or buyer needs to provide staff
with the escrow to guarantee that this work will be completed. Mr. Yee explained AutoZone has
no problem paying the money to get the work done, but if the seller does not complete the work
they need to finish, it will hold the project up. Mr. Yee asked if the city could coordinate with the
owner of this parcel to accomplish the necessary requirements. Mr. Ekstrand does understand
another company did apply for this lot division, and what he can do is explain to this applicant
what the cities conditions are.
Mr. Ledvina asked what color the bollards would be in front of the building. Mr. Yee stated they
are typically red to match the sign. The board felt a more neutral color would be appropriate,
possibly a grey or tan color. Although Mr. Ledvina felt wheel stops may be efficient to stop a car,
Mr. Yee explained all their stores have the bollards to protect the expansive glass in the front of
the building.
Mr. Ledvina felt the landscape plan and fence design should be approved by staff prior to
receiving the building permit. Staff felt that would be workable and appropriate.
Mr. Shankar moved the board to:
A. Deny the proposed 20-foot rear building setback variance because:
1. There are no circumstances that approve a parking waiver for the proposed
AutoZone to have up to five spaces fewer than the code allows. This exception
allows the applicant flexibility in laying out the site plan. This waiver would still
require at least 23 parking spaces which is reasonable for a building this size.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-21-2001
-8-
2. The applicant can meet the setback requirements by revising the site plan as
illustrated by staff in the staff report.
3. The variance would not meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since there are
options to meeting the code requirements.
4. The applicant could purchase additional land from the seller which would increase
site-layout options.
B. Approve a parking waiver for the proposed AutoZone to have up to five spaces fewer than
the code allows. This exception allows the applicant flexibility in laying out the site plan.
This waiver would still require at lease 23 parking spaces which is reasonable for a
building this size.
C. Approve the architectural plans, date-stamped January 18, 2001, for the proposed
AutoZone auto parts store, 749 N. Century Avenue, and approval of the staff's-alternative
site plan concept for AutoZone as illustrated in the staff report. Approval is subject to the
applicant complying with the following conditions:
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:
a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city
engineer for approval. The plans shall address the concerns and issues
outlined by Chris Cavett in his report dated February 12, 2001.
b. Submit revised building elevations which substitute the single-score
concrete block with face brick on all sides of the building. The applicant
shall also submit a screening design for roof-top mechanical equipment
that would be visible by residential neighbors. Staff shall review these
revisions.
c. Submit a revised site plan for staff approval which illustrates staffs
alternative design with building setback compliance. The revised site
plan shall also provide for a five-foot parking lot setback from the south
lot line and compliance with all parking-lot dimensional requirements.
d. Submit a revised landscape plan for staff approval providing for plantings
in the 15-foot setback area, a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees
behind the building and sod in all turf areas, not seed.
e. Submit a revised fence design for staff approval that uses cedar instead
of treated wood. The applicant shall coordinate their fence design with
the neighbor to the north to take their existing screening fence into
account. The revised fence shall be set back 20 feet from the front lot
line so not to obstruct driver visibility. The revised fence design shall be
considered part of the landscape plan and shall be subject to review
board approval.
f. Submit a photometric plan showing the light spread from lighting fixtures.
There shall not be any lights behind the building. The lighting fixtures
used shall be the type that have recessed bulbs and lenses.
Community Design Review Board -9-
Minutes of 02-21-2001
g. Obtain an access permit from MnDOT for the proposed driveway access
and for stormwater flow within their system. The applicant shall also
follow MnDOT's requirements for closing the old A&W driveway opening.
This old opening shall be curbed over and the ground restored.
h. Show the bollards in front of the building to be grey or tan to complement
the building color.
3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and a
stop sign at the driveway exit.
b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and
driveways. This includes the area of any future driveway connection to
the lot to the south.
c. Paint the roof-top mechanical equipment to match the building color if the
units are visible. (code requirement) The applicant must also screen the
roof-top equipment from residential neighbors' views.
d. Construct the trash dumpster enclosure using the same materials and
color as the building. This enclosure shall have a 100 percent opaque
gate. The gate material shall be cedar to match the screening fence.
e. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code
requirement) except for the ponding area behind the building.
f. Provide site-security lighting as required by the code. The light source,
including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so not to cause
any nuisance to drivers or neighbors.
g. Properly close the old A&W driveway opening with curbing and ground
restoration.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the
required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the
unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June
1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the
building is occupied in the spring or summer.
5. Signs are not included in this approval. The applicant shall submit sign proposals
to staff for review.
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
D. Approval of the proposed lot division, subject to the following conditions:
1. The owner of the proposed southerly parcel shall saw-cut and remove any
pavement within five feet of the new lot line to observe a five-foot setback (code
requirement). The five-foot setback area shall then be restored and sodded.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-21-2001
-10-
2. The owner of the southerly parcel shall properly abandon the old A&W well in
accordance with Minnesota Department of Health water-well codes. The owner
must contract with a Minnesota-licensed well-drilling company for this work.
3. Obtain a demolition permit from the city, demolish the A&W building and remove
all debris from the site before the city may sign the deeds to split this parcel.
Allowing the creation of the proposed lot line before the removal of the A&W
building would result in the building traversing the lot line. This would violate
building and setback requirements.
4. The work required in Conditions One and Two shall be accomplished before the
city signs the deeds for this lot division or the property owner or buyer shall
provide staff with escrow to guarantee that this work will be completed. As stated
in Condition Three, the building must be removed and site cleaned up prior to the
city signing the new deeds.
5. The proposed southerly parcel (Parcel 2) shall be legally combined with the Mr.
Macula's property to the south.
6. Record the new deeds within one year.
Board member Johnson seconded.
Ayes-All
Motion carries.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATION
No visitor presentations.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Mr. Ledvina wanted to discuss the excess of the "snout-house" town home style (where the
garage is the prominent feature). A lot of times the developer is working off of a zero lot line,
therefore locking themselves into this particular snout-house design. He wanted to make the staff
aware of the problems this could potentially cause when the applicant's proposal reaches the
design review board. If the board is going to provide input and review, they can't have their
hands tied in terms of how the lots are set up.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
A. 2000 Community Design Review Board Annllal Report.
Unless there are comments or concerns, Mr. Ekstrand is recommending that the board
approve the annual report.
Mr. Ledvina would like to see the language changed for the city site lighting ordinance. He
would like it to read: The board is in the process of evaluating potential changes to the city's
site lighting ordinance to improve energy conservation and reduce light pollution for the City of
Maplewood.
Mr. Shankar made a motion to approve the 2000 Community Design Review Board Annual
Report as amended.
Mr. Jorgenson seconded.
Ayes-All
Motion carries.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-21-2001
-11-
B. Board member Shankar will represent the design review board at the March 12 City Council
Meeting.
C. Mr. Ekstrand has four applicants for the vacancy on the design review board. He will schedule
interviews for the March 13 meeting.
Board member Johnson attended the last city counsel meeting. Rose-Rice Used Car Lot was
on the agenda. Due to the applicant not showing up, the proposal was denied.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m.