Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/08/2004AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, November 9, 2004 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers -Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. Second Revision to the October 12, 2004, Minutes b. October 26, 2004, Minutes 5. Unfinished Business: a. CVS Pharmacy, 2168 and 2180 White Bear Avenue 6. Design Review: None Scheduled 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. November 8, 2004, City Council Meeting -University Auto 9. Staff Presentations: a. Community Design Review Board Representation at the November 22, 2004, City Council Meeting 10. Adjourn Second Revision - MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie-Kline called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL IV Chairperson Diana Longrie-Kline Present Board member Ledvina Absent Board member Judy Driscoll Present Board member Linda Olson Present Board member Ananth Shankar Present Staff Present: Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Commissions Present: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Open Space Task Force Ginny Gaynor Bill Bartodziej Historical Preservation Commission Richard Currie Robert Kreager Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes -Driscoll, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for September 21, 2004. Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of September 21, 2004. Board member Shankar seconded Ayes ---Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar Abstention -Driscoll The motion passed. Community Design Review Board 2 Minutes 10-12-2004 V. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Gladstone Neighborhood Planning Process Update Ms. Melinda Coleman, Mr. Tom Ekstrand and Ms. Shann Finwall gave a presentation on the planning process for the revitalization of the Gladstone area as well as some successful redevelopment examples in surrounding cities. Ms. Coleman thanked the Historical Preservation Commission and the Open Space Task Force members for attending the community design review board meeting for tonight's discussion. After the Gladstone presentation, members of the board, commission, and task force made comments and asked questions of city staff as follows: • CDRB member Driscoll asked about the possibility of doing a dimensional concept plan which would better address the public's need to visualize the concept. • CDRB member Olson cautioned that the more detail you put into the concept plan, the higher the cost of the process. Also, Ms. Olson stated that it appears that the latest concept plan has too much housing and not enough business. • Open Space Task Force Coordinator Virginia Gaynor stated that the neighbors should be assured that the city is not proposing to bulldoze the entire area all at once, that the revitalization would be incremental. Ms. Gaynor questioned whether the city would be purchasing land for redevelopment in the area. • Chairperson Longrie-Kline stated that in order to develop the Gladstone Savanna with any type of housing or business it would require a unanimous vote by the city council. Also, Chairperson Longrie-Kline inquired if there had been any studies on the success of mixed-use developments where there are retail shops below housing? • Open Space Task Force Coordinator Virginia Gaynor stated that the Gladstone Savanna and all other open space within the city is designed to be used by the neighborhoods in which they are located, not necessarily as a regional park. It will be important for the Open Space Task Force to have a voice in the planning process of the neighborhood. • Historical Space Member Robert Kreager stated that it would be helpful to have a glossary of terms used in this revitalization process. Also, it would be beneficial to note where all of the city's historical buildings are located within the Gladstone neighborhood. • Chairperson Longrie-Kline stated that an outside facilitator to help in the planning process would be a good idea. • CDRB member Olson stated that in addition to the historical buildings, any large or significantly important tree should be located within the Gladstone neighborhood. • Member Driscoll stated that the surveys sent by city staff were a good idea and asked if they were helpful in the planning process. Chairperson Longrie-Kline opened the discussion up to the public. The following individuals gave comment: Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 10-12-2004 • Kim Schmidt, Gladstone Coalition Chair, 1800 Phalen Place, Maplewood. • Pat Vaughn, Gladstone Neighbor, 1856 Phalen Place. • Kevin Schmidt, Gladstone Neighbor, 1800 Phalen Place, Maplewood. • Carol Warling, Gladstone Neighbor, 1449 Ripley Avenue, Maplewood. • Elmer Swenson, Gladstone Neighbor, address not known. • David Gageby, ERS Development, LLC • Chris Hampl, Gladstone Neighbor, 1120 Gordon Avenue, Maplewood. VI. DESIGN REVIEW None. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Report on the September 27, 2004, City Council Meeting -Summerhill Senior Cooperative Building and Mapletree Townhouses Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the Summerhill Senior Cooperative Building at the Transfiguration school at 935 Ferndale Street was denied by the city council. The city council passed the Mapletree Townhome development off Southlawn Drive. Ms. Finwall said there is a policy and procedure manual that the city council guides its decisions on and part of that allows the city council to reconsider a vote if one of the descending voters brings it up at the next city council meeting and a majority of the members agree to have the item reconsidered. Mayor Cardinal, who was one of the descending voters for the Transfiguration comprehensive plan change, has agreed to place the item on the October 14, 2004, city council meeting and he will make a motion to have it reconsidered. If the motion passes by a majority vote the Summerhill Senior Cooperative building would be reconsidered at the Monday October 25, 2004, city council meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie-Kline called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL IV. Chairperson Diana Longrie-Kline Present Board member Ledvina Present Board member Judy Driscoll Present Board member Linda Olson Present Board member Ananth Shankar Absent Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Rose Lorsun g, Planning Intern APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Longrie-Kline moved to approve the agenda. Board member Driscoll seconded. Ayes -Longrie-Kline, Driscoll, Ledvina, Olson The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for October 12, 2004. Chairperson Longrie-Kline requested additional wording be added to page 2, first paragraph, last sentence. The sentence should now read Mr. David Gageby of ERS Development, LLC spoke as well as some of the Gladstone neighbors regarding the process of developing the Gladstone area and the future of the neighborhood. Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of October 12, 2004, as amended. Board member Longrie-Kline seconded Ayes ---Longrie-Kline, Driscoll, Olson Abstention -Ledvina The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Community Design Review Board 2 Minutes 10-26-2004 VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. CVS Drugstore, 2168 and 2180 White Bear Avenue (Existing Oasis Market and Fina Lube Building on the corner of County Road B and White Bear Avenue) (6:10 p.m. - 7:25 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Velmeir is proposing to redevelop the Oasis Market and Fina Lube site located on the northeast corner of County Road B and White Bear Avenue. The redevelopment will include the construction of a 13,013-square-foot CVS Drugstore. Staff recommends approval of the plans date-stamped September 22, 2004, for the CVS Pharmacy located at 2168 and 2180 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Board member Olson said the illuminated pylon sign is shown at 24 feet high and 15 feet 8 inches wide. She asked if this was the maximum size the city allows under the current sign code? Ms. Finwall said the city's height requirement for a freestanding sign in a business commercial zoning district is 25 feet high, which could be increased as the setback of the sign increases. Since this is not amulti-tenant building these signs will have to meet city code requirements but the signs are not under design approval tonight. Board member Olson asked if the dumpster could be relocated to the east side of the building? Ms. Finwall said with the County Road B drive aisle and the drive-thru it may impede the traffic movement and difFiculty in the trash pick up Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Jim Lavalle, Velmier Companies, 7900 International Drive, Bloomington, addressed the board. Mr. Lavalle said the CVS pylon sign should be perpendicular to White Bear Avenue and County Road B facing east west. He said they have provided a revised site plan showing the relocation of the trash dumpster to the east side of the building. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked what hours the trash would be picked up? Mr. Lavalle said typically the trash would be picked up between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked what hours the drive-thru pharmacy would be open? Mr. Lavalle said the drive-thru pharmacy hours would be from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. He said they are willing to work with the city staff on the conditions listed in the staff report. They provided a revised building elevation plan incorporating the same design elements as the front two sides for the east and north side of the building. Board member Olson asked if the revised building elevation showed the reduction of brick and the increased EIFS product? She asked if the applicant had building samples to show the board? Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 10-26-2004 Mr. Lavalle presented the board with the building materials board. Board member Ledvina asked if the glass shown on the building elevations was tinted and what color the window mullions would be? Mr. Lavalle said the glass is clear and the window mullions would be fire engine red. Board member Olson asked what type of traffic volume they expected for this store? Mr. Lavalle said they did a traffic study for another project in this market and a typical store would generate about 75 vehicles a day during normal sales periods. They haven't done a traffic study for this area so he cannot more accurately answer that question. Board member Ledvina said the number of parking spaces required by the city is 65 yet the application shows 77 parking spaces on the site plan. He wondered if the additional 12 parking spaces were really necessary. In his opinion instead of the additional 12 parking spaces the applicants should consider green space with additional landscaping rather than the additional impervious surface. Mr. Lavalle said they feel they have met the green space and setback requirements and have provided convenient parking for their customers and employees. They feel it's necessary to have the ability to have as much convenient parking as possible to best service the customers. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked on a typical day how many drive-thru trips they would have? Mr. Lavalle said the traffic study that was done for a different project showed approximately seven vehicles a day. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she noticed on the site plan the drive-thru window would be on the east side of the building and close to the residential neighborhood. She asked if they had thought of having a security camera on that side of the building. Mr. Lavalle said a typical store does not have a security camera in that area. They address those security concerns by location and could implement that if it is necessary. He said to clarify, the outside lane is for prescription drop offs and the inside lane is for prescription pick up. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said her concern was that the drive-thru was at the back of the store and there is residential next to that. Board member Olson said staff recommended extra screening between the drive-thru area and Emma's Place and she asked what type of screening the applicant was proposing. She asked if they had proposed using landscaping that would absorb the sound of the vehicles idling, mufflers, and the intercom? Mr. Lavalle said they just received the staff report yesterday October 25, 2004. The landscaping revision city staff recommended seemed to be a good measure to buffer things like that, but, they are open to other measures that the board may feel would help, such as a fence. Community Design Review Board 4 Minutes 10-26-2004 Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked what hours the CVS pharmacy would be open? Mr. Lavalle said these stores are open 24-hours-a-day, but, based on sales that could change. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said based on the information that the stores are open 24-hours-a- day she wondered if the lighting could be dimmed after a certain hour so they don't shine into people's windows. Mr. Lavalle said they would work with staff. They can look at different lighting options as well as the control of the energy management system to ensure the adjacent residential property is not negatively impacted by the light. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she noticed this building elevation is very similar to the CVS pharmacy being built at Arcade Street and Maryland Avenue. Mr. Lavalle said the building size is the same and the front architecture elements are the same except the Arcade and Maryland location has more brick and additional design elements on it. Mr. Lavalle said there are other representatives in the audience that could come forward and answer any engineering or architecture questions. Board member Olson asked about the tank removal process. Mr. Lavalle said the site is undergoing remediation and has for a number of years. The environmental consultants have reviewed the remediation that has been completed and are working with the MPCA on a construction contingency plan. They are in discussion with the MPCA as to how they can address concerns if additional things are found during construction. Board member Olson asked if the process was going to end at some point and were they going to remove the tanks before construction began? Mr. Lavalle said yes the tanks would be removed and the impacted soils would have to be removed and disposed at an accepted landfill. There would also be monitoring after construction is complete to ensure remediation is complete. Board member Olson said in her opinion the CVS building is plain. She is concerned about the security, the fact that this is going to be a 24-hour pharmacy and how Emma's Place and CVS Pharmacy would interact as neighbors especially with the drive-thru behind their buildings. She said she doesn't want to see the lighting dimmed too much, she wants people to feel safe but doesn't want to bother the neighbors either. Board member Olson said the landscape screening may serve some purpose for noise deadening depending on the vegetation but the board may want to recommend a fence for screening. She likes what CVS pharmacy represents and thinks this would be a good addition to the city; however, it needs some additional architectural elements. She also believes there will be a lot of pharmacies on White Bear Avenue. Board member Ledvina said this is an important area for redevelopment in Maplewood. This location is prominent relative to the Maplewood Community Center and the City Hall campus on County Road B and White Bear Avenue. The design is "okay" but he thinks there should be Community Design Review Board 5 Minutes 10-26-2004 additional architectural elements to the building elevations. He gave a building elevation to Ms. Finwall for a CVS pharmacy development proposed in the midway area that he found on the Internet and he asked staff to display it on the monitor. This building design has much more architectural detail and he would view that building a higher quality design and would hope that for this prominent site in Maplewood they would have a similar design. With the redevelopment of White Bear Avenue in the Hillcrest area he would suggest the board reflect the same type of concepts with this development. Because of the prominence of the location he believes a better design could be used which would lead to a better fit for the community. Board member Driscoll said after comparing the two building elevations she would agree with Board member Ledvina. The plan shown for the midway area has much more architectural elements in comparison to this design proposal. She noticed the signs on the midway building elevation show exterior wall signs with one-hour photo and drive-thru pharmacy and those words appear quite a bit smaller than the signs shown on the Maplewood plans, and that makes a difference visually. Board member Ledvina said he would agree, but as the sign code currently stands the CDRB doesn't have control to change the signs. He feels the pylon sign is oversized for this size of building. This is 30-foot tall building and a 24-foot high sign is too large and inappropriate for a building of this size in his opinion. Board member Olson agreed with the comments made. She would also like to see trim around the windows and other architectural elements added to the building to make this building neighborhood friendly. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said when she sees the Maplewood Community Center, the Maplewood City Hall, and the newly proposed Ramsey County Courthouse building design she sees this building fitting in as far as building size, the look and feel of the building and design features. However, she agrees the building elevation could be dressed up a bit. She would rather see more color banding, color trim around the windows and less like a big box building. The proposed entry way plan is more consistent with the community center than with the tower as shown on the midway design plan. The CVS pharmacy would be a good addition to the city. She would like to ensure, however, a happy medium between lights being bright enough for security reasons and lights which do not cause a negative impact on the adjacent residential property. She likes the new location for the trash dumpster on the updated plan dated October 26, 2004. Board member Olson asked if CVS pharmacy hoped to gain business from the new Walgreen's in the Hillcrest area on White Bear Avenue or from the Walgreen's by Rainbow Foods? Mr. Lavalle said they hope to be a strong competitor from all of the surrounding pharmacies. Board member Olson said the Walgreen's in the Hillcrest area has a tower and stronger presence; she asked if they felt they could compete with the newly built Walgreen's? Mr. Lavalle said yes. The building Mr. Ledvina gave to staff to show on the monitor was designed because of input from the community they had received regarding the redevelopment of that site. They would be willing to discuss some different architectural elements for the proposed Maplewood building facade. Elements such as additional windows and changing Community Design Review Board 6 Minutes 10-26-2004 exterior elevations would be a nice addition. But he would need to get approval from CVS to have any towers or the look of a two-story building. Board member Ledvina said he is not in favor of substituting brick with EIFS. He thinks additional architectural elements can be added to the elevations. He likes the glass on the midway building, the vertical variation in the fagade is a positive thing, and the tower element is a nice addition and he would hope to see better plans as reflected on the midway building plan. He also thinks the drive-thru pharmacy would reduce the amount of parking spaces needed and that the applicant should look at less impervious and more environmentally friendly green space with additional landscaping. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the CDRB has approved other plans where the applicant had shown proof of parking so that could be a possibility. She asked the applicant how they felt about the fence idea at the rear of the property? Mr. Lavalle said they are not opposed to the fence idea. Ms. Finwall said Emma's Place already has a 6-foot high black vinyl coated chain linked fence that runs along the entire length of the property. That is not a screening fence and would not buffer noise but it would be unattractive to have a second screening fence constructed next to it, that is the reason staff is recommending the landscaping. Now that she is aware this would be a 24-hour operation the recommendation to have additional landscaping and the lighting concerns are even more of an issue. Board member Olson asked the applicant if they would be agreeable to maintain the brick on the north and east side of the building at a minimum of three or four feet in height, particularly because of the drive-thru. It occurred to her if the brick was reduced to a foot off of the curb and replaced with the EIFS material the wall would be subject to a lot of damage. The brick fagade would offer a more substantial product and may sustain less damage over time. Mr. Lavalle said he would agree that a brick wainscot of three or four feet high could be incorporated. Board member Olson asked if the architect wanted to address the question of how they could architecturally enhance the building elevations? Ms. Kim Larsen, Architect with RSP Architects, 1220 Marshall Street NE, Minneapolis, addressed the board. She said on the revised site plan the wainscot is already shown at 3 feet, 4 inches high. She discussed some of the alternatives that could be done with EIFS and brick. Board member Olson asked if it would be possible to have a frame around the windows? Ms. Larsen said that is possible. Board member Ledvina said he doesn't see how the banded windows fit into the design. Ms. Larsen said the windows are such that the tenant can stock merchandise below and the windows above can let natural light in. Community Design Review Board 7 Minutes 10-26-2004 Mr. Lavalle said the arch is really a canopy that gives the look that the windows are arched when they aren't. He said any ideas or recommendations the board could give them would be appreciated and they would go back and check into incorporating them. He also said the windows could be enlarged slightly. Board member Olson said maybe there could be a wider banding around the windows to make them stand out more. Ms. Larsen said the light tan color used on the cornice could be used around the framing of the windows. Board member Olsen said she would be happy with that. Board member Ledvina said he is uncomfortable trying to describe additional architectural elements to the applicant and would suggest that this item be tabled and ask the applicant to come back with a different plan. Ms. Finwall said the next CDRB meeting is November 9, 2004, and staff would need the revisions by November 3, 2004, for the CDRB packet. Mr. Lavalle said they are agreeable to tabling this proposal and will take the comments offered by the board and city staff and come back November 9, 2004. Board member Olson asked if they would be amenable to reducing the amount of signage for this proposal? Mr. Lavalle said he would bring that information to the appropriate people. Board member Ledvina moved to table the plans date-stamped September 22, 2004, for the CVS Pharmacy located at 2168 and 2180 White Bear Avenue. The board has asked the applicant to revise the plans and bring the item back to the CDRB meeting November 9, 2004. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes -Driscoll, Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson The motion to table passed. Board member Olson said some items the CDRB would like to see revised are additional architectural elements, window enhancement, enhanced landscaping, relocation of the dumpster, the size of the impervious surface, and reduced signage. b. Olivia Gardens Townhomes, 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road (7:25 p.m.-8:20 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Mr. Jeff Matthews, representing Matthews Construction, is proposing to build 14 townhouses (in seven twinhomes) in a development called Olivia Gardens. It would be on a 2.79-acre site on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. The design of the buildings includes horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer or stone on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have atwo-car garage. Ms. Finwall said staff recommends approval of the site plan, grading and drainage plans, landscaping, lighting, and building elevations for Olivia Gardens Townhomes on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. Community Design Review Board 8 Minutes 10-26-2004 Board member Ledvina asked if building 1, 6, and 7 would be walkouts. Ms. Finwall said the applicant could answer that when he addresses the board. Board member Olson said unfortunately she didn't have an opportunity to visit the site, but according to the plans there appears to be no landscaping around the back of the building and she wondered if any was proposed? Board member Ledvina said when he went out to the site he noticed open space located to the north with low wetland areas. While at the site he also noticed there had been grading work done. He asked why grading had been done without the building permit? He thought the correct protocol was to have the board review the proposal, then to city council, and then a grading and building permit could be applied for. Ms. Finwall said this application was already approved by the city council and city staff approved the grading plan with the condition that the CDRB process take place before any building permits were issued. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Jeff Matthews, Matthews Construction, residing at 10650 Brookview Road, Woodbury, addressed the board. Board member Ledvina asked why a fence was that was being proposed on the south side of the property. He also asked which townhome buildings would be walkouts? Mr. Matthews said this is the first he had heard of any requirement for a fence. He said Unit 1 is a lookout unit, unit 7 would be built as slab on grade, and units 2-6 are walkouts. Mr. Matthews said the reason there is no landscaping to the north is because those units have a very nice view looking out onto the wetland area and into the trees, so he didn't see a need to have landscaping in the back of the townhomes. Board member Olson asked if he would sod that area? Mr. Matthews said yes. Mr. Matthews showed color samples to the board. His concept for this development is to have a different color for each unit to make this development look unique and like a single family neighborhood. He said he is using premium building products as well for this development. There will be three different colors on each of these units for the shakes, fascia, and siding products and he will use rock, cultured stone and brick products as well. He builds custom homes so he has a lot of experience using different building products and various colors together and has a feel for what sells and what doesn't. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she is fine with the variety of colors being used but was concerned what colors would be used next door to each other. Mr. Matthews said he doesn't have the colors he would use on which units mapped out yet but he could do that if the board requested it. Community Design Review Board 9 Minutes 10-26-2004 Board member Ledvina said maybe it would be appropriate for the applicant to work with staff on those decisions. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she was fine with that if it was agreeable with the other board members. The other board members were agreeable to that as long as the colors would be compatible. Mr. Matthews agreed. Board member Ledvina said the position of building number 7 is strange, but seems to work in that location. He wondered if the applicant could continue the wainscoting along the north side of townhome number 7 since that side is visible by units 5 and 6 and if the building would be slab on grade that shouldn't be too difFicult? Mr. Matthews said that is a unit where the All Side product is used and the entire unit would be the same color. Board member Ledvina said the reason he brought the fence issue up was because it was shown on the plans. Perhaps the engineer had responded to staff comments but he is strongly questioning the value of having the fence. Mr. Matthews said he prefers not to have the fence and would like to keep the area as natural as possible by planting trees and maybe a berm along the east side of the property. He said he met with the owner to the south and the neighbor is enthusiastic about the development , he has no children so it is not a safety concern on the neighbor's part. If everyone could come to some agreement without the fence he would be happier about that. Board member Olson asked how deep the pond would be? Mr. Matthews said he believed the pond would be three-to-four feet deep. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked what type of light fixture the applicant was considering? Mr. Matthews said the outside lighting would be recessed lighting and would direct light downward. He was told by city staff that two light poles would be sufFicient for this development. He said he is going to put a small shed on the property to house the sprinkler system and he thinks the best location would be on the west side at the end of the road. Board member Olson asked if he could fit that sprinkler house in between the easement and the end of the road and still allow for turn around space for unit 6? Mr. Matthews said the building would be built at the end of the road where it dead ends. Board member Olson asked if there would be any retaining walls on this site? Mr. Matthews said no. Board member Ledvina said he is fine with the lighting. Community Design Review Board 10 Minutes 10-26-2004 Board member Driscoll said she thought the lighting and the buildings are very nice and said it's nice to see ashingle-style architectural series of homes in the Midwest. She asked about the garage detailing. Mr. Matthews said the garage detail shown on the plans is a mistake on the plans. To achieve the look of the garage door shown he would have to use a wood garage door and he proposes to use steel doors with windows. Board member Ledvina asked where the utility meters would be located? Mr. Matthews said the utility meters would be five or six feet from the entrance off to the side of the units. The board members said they like the expansive color choices, the uniqueness of the development, and the proposed building materials. Board member Olson asked where the mailboxes and house numbers would be placed? Mr. Matthews said he received a plan from the post office and he believed the mailboxes would be posted on the south and north side of Olivia Court along Stillwater Road. The house numbers are going to be on the garage as a monument in the stone or brick. Board member Olson said she recommends he works those details out with staff. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped October 4, 2004, (site plan, grading and drainage plans, landscape, lighting and building elevations) for the Olivia Gardens Townhomes on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following (changes made by the community design review board during the October 26, 2004, meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted): 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 building permit: a. Have the city engineer approval final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated October 11, 2004. (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. Community Design Review Board 11 Minutes 10-26-2004 (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (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. !01 Chr~~e~,ooy _a~I- rctQininn ~e,ollc ran the r~lan_J. 4n" ro+oininn ~e,ollc mr~ro ~~`"'~~ +hon fr~~ it foo+ +oll ron~ tiro o h~ ii~l~rd`i'nnY~normi+ frr~m +ho ni+" (f) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (g) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. {#) The city engineering department and the applicant shall review the need for the 4-foot-high fence located around the proposed NURP pond, and remove the fence from the plans if not needed. If needed, the applicant shall show the details of the proposed fence including the materials, height and color, to be approved by city staff. eh„~., rdo+oilc ohr~~ i+ +ho nrr~nr~cord fon~o h" +ho nr~nrd in~l~ irdinn motoriolc hoinh+ onrd r~r~lr~r Tho r~r~n+ron~- droll + f~n nn the-eoc+ cirdo ref thy nr~ond~_inea~the-exi~t~n~ roilcruir_a~^onn~ C+ill~e,o+or C?r~orJ (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer. (b) Include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site and shall show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight feet tall and shall be a mix of black hills spruce and Austrian pine (not Colorado blue spruce). (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans and shall show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-26-2004 (a) 12 A water service to each lot and unit. (b) The repair and restoration of Stillwater Road (including curbing, street, trail and boulevard) after the contractor removes the existing driveways, connects to the public utilities and builds the new private driveway (Olivia Court). (c) The driveway in front of Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, as wide as possible while still accommodating the necessary screening and trees. (d) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main drive (Olivia Court), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (e) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (f) The developer or contractor shall post one side of the driveway (Olivia Court) with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. (g) The private driveway labeled as Olivia Court and Stillwater Road labeled on all plans. (h) The common area labeled as Outlot A on all plans. (5) The design of the ponding area and the rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site utility, grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit revised landscape and tree plans to city staff for approval that incorporates the following details and that meet the following requirements: (1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (2) The plan shall show the size, species and proposed location of all trees. The maple trees must be at least 2'/2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (3) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area and the rainwater gardens with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from Community Design Review Board 13 Minutes 10-26-2004 the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (4) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped October 4, 2004, shall remain on the plan. (5) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the ponding area). (6) The contractor shall restore the Stillwater Road boulevard with sod. (7) Adding at least 12 more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) along the south property line of the site. These trees are to be at least eight feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows to provide screening for the houses to the south. (8) Adding at least nine more trees along the north property line of the site and on the northeast corner of the site (near Lot 1, Block 1). (9) Shows the in-ground lawn-irrigation system, including the location of the sprinkler heads. (10) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. b. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. c. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting, and the plan should have additional lighting along the main driveway (Olivia Court), so it is adequately lit. These 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 properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of- ways from adjacent residential properties. d. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. e. Submit for city staff approval revised building plans and elevations that show the followina: 11 specific colors for each buildina: 21 north elevation of building number seven to include a brick or stone wainscot to match the front of the building; 3) steel garage doors with decorative windows for all units 4 of -ii r ~~° ~h~ it or_g~ ~ n~~m~t~~~~~h~ yolr~rc ref oll mot°YVra~s wh~te shutters, ~ white window grids; ~ white balcony railings; ~ °z„~a- what provide more detail about the brick or stone accents. Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-26-2004 14 f. The placement of utility meters, mailboxes and unit numbers on the building to be approved by city staff. g. The developer or builder will pay the Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. h. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the city staff. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, the publicly-owned parcel to the north, the private utilities, landscaping and any retaining walls. Obtain the necessary approvals and permits from MnDot. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the ponding area, which the contractor should seed and landscape. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit onto Stillwater Road and address on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. e. Install and maintain all required landscaping (including the plantings around each unit and around the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). f. 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 the nearby homes and residential properties. Community Design Review Board 15 Minutes 10-26-2004 g. Install asix-foot-high solid screening fence or additional landscaping along the west and south property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the town houses and the parking areas from the existing dwellings. These additional materials are to ensure there is at least asix-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. h. 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: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. 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 of the next year 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. c. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson offered a friendly amendment to have the condition for a retaining wall removed because the applicant said there would be no retaining walls. Chairperson Longrie-Kline offered a friendly amendment to show the use of steel garage doors with windows used and that the placement of the utility meters, mailboxes, and house numbers be approved by staff. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes -Driscoll, Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson The motion passed. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the CDRB bases their decision because: 1. The design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. Community Design Review Board 16 Minutes 10-26-2004 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. c. University Auto, 1145 Highway 36 (8:20 p.m. - 8:45 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Mr. Hossein Aghamirzai of University Auto Sales and Leasing is proposing to expand University Auto's motor vehicle sales lot at 1145 Highway 36 East. Staff recommends approval of the design review of the expanded motor vehicle sales lot with several conditions. Board member Olson asked Ms. Finwall if she read correctly that the applicant had already begun the grading work on this project and would be double fined for a grading permit? Ms. Finwall said correct the applicant began grading the site without the appropriate grading permit. Board member Olson said it appears every inch of this site will impervious surface. She said she was unhappy with the landscaping plan that was submitted. Ms. Finwall said the applicant is proposing a 15-foot setback from the right-of-way for the new parking lot which will provide green space. This property is zoned M-1 which is light manufacturing and is not located in any shoreland overlay district so city code does not have specific impervious surface requirements on this site. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Mohsen Aghamirzai, General Manager of University Auto, 1145 Highway 36, Maplewood, addressed the board. He said they agree with staff's recommendation for additional landscaping and would submit a new landscaping plan. Board member Ledvina asked when the paving of the parking lot would take place? Mr. Aghamirzai said weather permitting they hope to get the paving done yet this year. If they are unable to pave this year they would have to wait until May or June. Board member Ledvina said if the paving was not done this year he asked if they would install a silt fence. When he visited the site he noticed some erosion control problems already. Mr. Aghamirzai said when the demolition took place they did the grading. This was the wrong thing to do without a grading permit. There was a misunderstanding and they have spoken to the city engineer Chuck Vermeersch and agreed everything would be done correctly. Community Design Review Board 17 Minutes 10-26-2004 Chairperson Longrie-Kline said one of the staff recommendations is to waive the requirement for an underground irrigation system. If the board waives that requirement she asked how the landscaping would be maintained? Mr. Aghamirzai said they have maintained the grass for the past 4 years as well as the planter box so they don't see any issue with continuing to care for the landscaping. Board member Olson asked if there was access to the Second Harvest parking lot located to the north of their site and have they been using that to move cars around within the site? Mr. Aghamirzai said prior to construction commencing there was no driving between the properties. Now that the property has been graded there has been, but only for the contractors, they do not drive or move any vehicles through the access. Mr. Aghamirzai said the required five-foot setback requirement for the survey was an omission by the surveyors. That area will be maintained. They would either fence it or create some type of a barrier to ensure his customers do not drive through there. However, he is not ready to commit to any agreement at this time. Board member Ledvina said just for the record he remembers the last time University Auto Sales came through for approval by the CDRB last year. One comment he had made and recommended was to have the light posts painted because they were very unsightly and they remain unpainted. Board member Olson moved to approve the site plan date-stamped September 17, 2004, for the expansion of a motor vehicle sales lot at 1145 Highway 36 East. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: (changes made by the community design review board during the October 26, 2004, meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted): a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the expanded used motor vehicle sales lot, the applicants must submit the following to staff for approval: 1) A grading and drainage plan which addresses all conditions required in Chuck Vermeersch's memorandum dated October 18, 2004. 2) Revised site plan showing the expanded motor vehicle sales lot maintaining a 5- foot setback to the rear property line. 3) Landscape plan showing the planting of at least 7 deciduous trees (one tree per 30 feet) or 14 ornamental trees (one tree per 15 feet), 30 shrubs, and several perennial plants to be planted along the front of the expanded motor vehicle sales lot, and shrubs within the existing planting bed along the west side of the building. All other areas must be sodded or seeded with grass. The CDRB waives the city code requirement for underground irrigation. Community Design Review Board 18 Minutes 10-26-2004 4) Trash dumpster enclosure plans for the outside trash containers if used (code requirement). This plan must show the placement and design of the enclosure. Trash enclosures must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. Enclosures must be of a material that matches or is compatible with the building. 5) Photometrics plans for any new outdoor lighting. The plan must include the light illumination at all property lines not exceeding .4-foot-candles and all freestanding lights maintaining a height of 25 feet or less. 6) 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. c. Complete the following prior to the city conducting a final grading inspection on the site, unless the city holds the above-mentioned cash escrow or letter of credit to ensure completion of the work: 1) Painting all new and existing parking space stripes. 2) Construction of a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers if used. 3) Repainting of all existing light poles white to ensure no chipped or peeling paint. 4) Installation of all required landscaping. d. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. e. If paving of the expanded motor vehicle sales lot does not occur in 2004, the applicant shall review the need for silt fence and erosion control with the city engineering department. Board member Ledvina offered a friendly amendment regarding the need for erosion control if paving was not complete this season. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes -Driscoll, Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson The motion passed. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the CDRB bases their decision because: 1. The design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, Community Design Review Board 19 Minutes 10-26-2004 orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 4. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. This item goes to the city council on November 8, 2004. d. Wyngate Townhomes, 1750 and 1752 Village Trail (Legacy Village Rental Townhomes) (8:45 p.m. - 9:20 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Mr. Patrick Sarver, of the Hartford Group, is requesting approval of design plans for the Wyngate Town Homes. Wyngate is a 50-unit rental, affordable-housing project previously approved as part of the Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development). Wyngate will be located between Ashley Furniture and the recently approved town homes of the Heritage Square Second Addition. The proposed complex would consist of two, two-story buildings. The proposed buildings would be sided with stucco and have asphalt shingles. Each building will have 25 units. There will be 48 underground parking spaces in each building for 24 of the units. Each building will also have ahandicap-accessible unit with its own two car garage for a total of two garage spaces per unit as code requires. There will also be 31 surface parking spaces for visitors in parking lots on the east and west sides of the site plus 10 parallel-parking spaces along the east-west roadway to the north. Staff recommends approval of the plans dated October 1, 2004, for the proposed Wyngate Townhomes in the Legacy Village PUD. Board member Olson said the 2003 approved Legacy Village concept plan shown on page 9 of the staff report is very old. There are things on the map that are no longer going to be built and it bothers her that this map is not currently representing what will be developed. Board member Olson said this map shows a corporate commercial site, playground, picnic area, soccer field, executive office suite and clubhouse with pool, water park, and picnic area in which none of that is going to be built. Ashley Furniture is shown in the wrong location according to the way it was approved. Having outdated information makes it hard to imagine how this development would be built around the trails and other buildings. She would've liked to have seen a current overall plan to envision how this would all be developed. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Patrick Sarver, Director of Land Planning for the Hartford Group, 12100 Singletree Lane, Eden Prairie, addressed the board. He thought an updated overall site plan was included for the packet and apologized for not including it. He has site plans available but not with him tonight. There is one available on the Internet site and the information is updated constantly. The web site is www.Hartfordgrp.com listed under projects and click Maplewood and it should come up for viewing. He presented a color elevation for staff to put on the monitor. Board member Ledvina asked what product was being used for the exterior of the underground parking entrance? Mr. Sarver said exposed rock face block. Community Design Review Board 20 Minutes 10-26-2004 Mr. Hal Pierce, Director of Architecture for the Hartford Group, 12100 Singletree Lane, Eden Prairie, explained the exterior materials to the board. Board member Olson asked how they planned to vary the units throughout the development? Mr. Pierce said they would use three color palettes with one roof color and one window color. The eaves would be white, shutters would be brown and the metal railings would be black. Mr. Sarver said the units are all handicapped accessible so anyone that has a handicap visitor would be able to visit any of the units. Board member Olson asked if there were stairs or an elevator in the units? Mr. Pierce said the rambler units on the end will be individual units that will have an attached garage which are van accessible, each other unit will be two stories with a ground floor bedroom and bathroom and two, three or four bedrooms upstairs. There are no elevators. They will have indoor trash and recycling containers that would be moved out on trash day. Board member Olson asked where the utility meters would be located? Mr. Sarver said there is a bank of utility meters located inside the garage. Board member Driscoll said there appears to be a vent or something shown on the plans located on the side of the entrances and she asked what that was for? Mr. Sarver said those are magic packs on the building exterior and would be color coated to the exterior of the building. Mr. Sarver said it states in the conditions that they would have a 34-foot roadway to accommodate 10 feet for parallel parking and 24 feet for 2-way traffic. He said they would propose matching the dimension that was provided for Heritage Square Second Addition and that was a 25-foot-wide driveway with a 7-foot-wide parking aisle, which would net 32 feet. They could work with city staff to see if that is acceptable. They understand if this has already been approved for Heritage Square they would like to do the same. This is a strong element to the village concept. Board member Olson asked if Mr. Sarver could talk about the landscaping plan. Mr. Sarver said they are going to have overstory trees that would provide some screening to the upper level windows. They are limited to the type of tree they can plant because of the power lines. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked where the trail easement would be located. Ms. Finwall said the trail would be located south of the proposal within the pipeline easement. Board member Ledvina said this is a very nice site design and he likes the underground parking that is going to be provided, the design is attractive, the developer is very thorough in the design detail and he is pleased with the proposal. Community Design Review Board 21 Minutes 10-26-2004 Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she likes the mix of materials and the way they have been put together. She also likes the additional details that have been added to enhance the design. Board member Olson said she would like to complement the architect on this project because even in black and white it has interest, depth and substance and she likes the project. Board member Driscoll said the presentation is wonderful and this would be a nice addition to the development area. Board member Driscoll moved to approve the plans date-stamped October 1, 2004, for the proposed Wyngate Townhomes in the Legacy Village PUD. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following (changes made by the community design review board during the October 26, 2004, meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted): 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 revise the plans or do the following for staff approval. • Provide a 15-foot-wide pedestrian trail easement over the power line trail to the city for access and maintenance. The exact location of this trail shall be worked out with staff to assure proper connection to the sections of this trail on the Ashley Furniture and Heritage Square Second Addition properties. (The city will construct this trail, but the applicant must prepare the trail base according to the city engineer's requirements.) • Provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. • Meet all requirements of the engineering report by Erin Laberee dated October 14, 2004. • Revise the site plan to widen the northerly east-west shared private roadway to ~4 32 feet to accommodate a-0-feet for the parallel parking and `'^ f=~,~~~faT 2-way traffic. • Provide verification of recorded cross easements between this site and the surrounding properties where access is shared. • Provide asite-lighting plan in accordance with city ordinance. • Provide engineered plans to the building ofFicial for all retaining walls that exceed four feet in height as measured from the bottom of the footing. • Provide shrubs on the top of all sections of retaining wall that are over four feet in height. Community Design Review Board 22 Minutes 10-26-2004 • Provide sod, not seed, with the exception that the site may be seeded from a line 25 feet south of the southerly building to the south property line. • Provide evidence that the final plat for Heritage Square Second Addition is recorded, thereby extending the Wyngate site 80 feet to the west as proposed. • Centoinorc try ho Lont r~~ itcirdo. • Provide handicap-accessible parking according to the building official's requirements (Chapter 41 of the State Building Code). • Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters, subject to the requirements of the community design review board. 5. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: • Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any required revisions. • Provide in-ground lawn irrigation as shown on the plans. • Install traffic and address signs, subject to staff approval. • Construct the entire northerly east-west shared private roadway and the easterly shared north-south private roadway if these have not been constructed prior to occupancy. Construction shall be subject to the requirements of the city engineer. 6. The community design review board shall review major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. Board member Ledvina offered a friendly amendment to change bullet number four to read 32 feet instead of 34 feet and strike the 10 feet and 24 feet. Also to strike the bullet for screening of trash and recycling containers because the applicant said they would be housed inside the garage. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes -Driscoll, Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None. Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-26-2004 IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Sign Code Survey Results 23 Ms. Rose Lorsung, Planning Intern, reviewed the sign code survey results. Ms. Lorsung said on September 21, 2004, city staff attended a luncheon for the WBABA and presented more information and surveys to business members as well as board and city council member Marvin Koppen. In October 2004 the city received 50 surveys, 20 from the website survey, and 30 from the 200 mailings. In order to interpret the responses, they were coded and inputted into statistical software (SPSS) and the variables were compared and analyzed. The city recently met with the Minnesota Chapter of the National Sign Association to discuss their model sign ordinance. With the research, marketing, and sign code survey responses, the city will begin revising the sign code of ordinances. Ms. Lorsung stated staff would like to bring the sign code revisions back to the CDRB on November 23, 2004. The board offered some suggestions to city staff before returning with more information on November 23, 2004. b. Community Design Review Board Representation at the November 8, 2004, City Council Meeting Board member Ledvina will represent the CDRB at the November 8, 2004, city council meeting. The only CDRB item to discuss will be University Auto at 1145 Highway 36. c. Ms. Finwall said the city council passed the Summerhill Senior Cooperative proposal at 935 Ferndale Street North. Ms. Finwall updated the board on Gladstone X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Design Review for the CVS Pharmacy APPLICANT: Velmeir Companies LOCATION: 2168 and 2180 White Bear Avenue DATE: November 2, 2004 INTRODUCTION On October 26, 2004, the community design review board (CDRB) reviewed a proposal by Velmeir Companies to redevelop the Oasis Market and Fina Lube site located on the northeast corner of County Road B and White Bear Avenue. The redevelopment will include the construction of a 13,013-square-foot CVS Pharmacy. The item was ultimately tabled by the CDRB until November 9 in order to allow Velmeir Companies time to revise the proposed site and building plans to address concerns addressed by the CDRB. DISCUSSION CDRB Concerns During the October 26 CDRB meeting, the CDRB expressed the following concerns with the proposed CVS Pharmacy proposal: 1) building elevations required more architectural detail, especially considering the prominent location of the development near city hall and the community center; 2} decrease the impervious surface; 3) insufficient landscaping on the overall site as well as insufficient screening (in the form of landscaping or fencing) on the east side of the site, adjacent the residential properties; 4) the signage proposed is too large; 5) lighting is too bright and does not meet city requirements; 6) dumpster enclosure location is too close to adjacent residential property; and 7) the need for a security camera on the east side of the building. Jim Lavalle of Velmeir Companies agreed to bring these concerns to the representatives of CVS Pharmacy, revise the plans, and present the revisions at the November 9 CDRB meeting. Applicant Changes Building Elevations The revised plans show additional architectural detail on the east and north elevations. The east elevation will have three banded windows and EIFS arches above the brick. The north elevation will have a brick wainscot with the remainder of the elevation as EIFS material. Staff recommends that the windows and arches, or at a minimum the arched EFIS detailing, be added to the north elevation as opposed to the proposed brick wainscot and EIFS. The only additional architectural detail added to the two front elevations (south and west) is the addition of trim above the banded windows. This limited detailing does not address the CDRB's concerns over the plain appearance of the building. As you recall, CVS Pharmacy's proposed St. Paul development located in the Midway area was used as a comparison during the October 26 CDRB meeting. The design element the CDRB appreciated most about the proposed Midway CVS Pharmacy were the proposed windows and how they added vertical variation to the facades. During the October 26 CDRB meeting the applicants stated the reason for the proposed window styles and heights at the Maplewood CV5 Pharmacy are due to the fact that the pharmacy needs to display items under the windows. However, the windows proposed for the Midway location are located approximately 4 feet from ground grade, and encompass a majority of the exterior elevation. It is not clear to staff why this scenario would work in the Midway location and not in the Maplewood location. Therefore, after hearing the CDRB's concerns regarding the need for additional architectural detailing on the proposed Maplewood CVS building, and reviewing the proposed Midway CVS Pharmacy proposal, staff recommends a condition of design review approval be the addition of windows on the front facades {south and west) which are similar to that proposed at the Midway CVS Pharmacy {vertical windows beginning at a four-foot height and extending upward on the entire fagade of the building). Impervious Surface The applicants are proposing to reduce the amount of impervious surface in two ways. First, they will reduce the number of parking stalls from 77 to 69. As you recall from the previous staff report, city code requires a total of 65 parking stalls for a retail development of this size. Therefore, the proposed development will exceed city code parking requirements by four parking stalls. Second, they will increase green space on the site as follows: 1) within the curbed inlands located on the northwest and southeast corners of the building; 2) within the curbed area on the west side of the east entrance and the south side of the north entrance; and 3) around the proposed freestanding sign located on the southwest corner of the site. These areas will have increased landscaping as described below. Landscaoina/Screenin The applicants have revised the proposed landscape and screening plan to meet city staff's and CDRB's recommended changes including: 1) the construction of a two to four-foot high berm with the planting of 17 black hills spruce and additional shrubs and perennials along the east side of the property; 2) an increase in the number of deciduous trees on the site from nine to twelve; and 3} an increase in the overall green space and landscaped areas with an additional 41 shrubs and 287 perennials, for a total overall of 130 shrubs and 638 perennials on the site. Sianacae No sign changes were proposed with the revised plans. The city's sign code specifies that all multi-tenant buildings (buildings with five or more tenants) must be reviewed by the CDRB for approval of a comprehensive sign plan. All other signs are approved administratively and must comply with the sign requirements of each specified zoning district. This site is located within the business commercial zoning district. Within this zoning district and at this location (corner lot) the applicants are allowed up to five signs. The size of the wall signs are limited to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the sign is attached. Freestanding signs are limited to 25 feet in height (height can be increased with increased setbacks), must maintain a 10-foot setback to all property lines, and can be up to 300 square feet in area. In addition, a freestanding sign located on an intersection must meet the city's visibility requirements and CVS Pharmacy 2 November 2, 2004 maintain a 25-foot triangular clearance from the intersecting rights-of-way. It is not clear if the proposed location of CVS Pharmacy's freestanding sign meets the setback and visibility requirements. During the last meeting, the CDRB expressed concern over the size of the proposed signs in relation to the size of the proposed building and the surrounding properties. While the city's sign code does not require approval of single-tenant building signs by the CDRB, the city's CDRB ordinance does state that the CDRB is charged with reviewing the general architectural considerations of a commercial site including the colors and materials to be used in the site, the physical and architectural relationship of the proposed structures with existing and proposed structures in the area, and the appropriateness of "graphics" to be used on the site. The ordinance further states that the CDRB may recommend any actions that it deems reasonable to its action of approval. Because of the prominent location of this site near city hall and the community center, site location on two major intersections, and adjacent residential property, city staff finds it reasonable for the CDRB to make recommendations on the size of the freestanding sign as part of its action of approval. The plans submitted by the applicant show two styles of freestanding signs, one is a pylon sign which is 24 feet in height and the other is a monument sign 5 feet, 10 inches in height. In this location CVS Pharmacy is proposing the pylon sign to be located on the southwest corner of the site. Staff finds, however, that the physical and architectural relationship of the proposed monument sign would more clearly relate to the size and style of the proposed building as well as the surrounding structures and properties in the area. Therefore, staff recommends a condition of design review approval be the removal of the proposed pylon sign from the site and replacement with the monument sign. The plans submitted show seven wall signs on the building, and three wall signs on the drive- through canopy. Again, city code allows five signs overall on this site. With the proposed freestanding sign, the applicants would be allowed four additional wall signs. These wall signs would be limited in size to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the signs area attached. The applicants may also have two on-site directional signs up to 10-square-feet in area on the building which advertise the location and nature of the building not readily visible from the street, such as the drive-through. According to city code, the applicants must reduce the number of the proposed building wall signs from seven to four and the number, and possibly the size, of the proposed drive-through signs from three to two. Staff finds city code requirements for wall signs reasonable and does not recommend added conditions regarding wall signs to the overall design review of the site. Li htin The revised photometrics plan shows the light illumination meeting the city code requirements of .4-foot-candles at all property lines. However, there is still no specification on the style and height of the lights. In addition, there are now three more freestanding lights, two of which are located on the east side of the drive-through, adjacent the residential property. Because this site is in a prominent location on a major intersection and near city hall and the community center, the style of lighting is an important element of design review. Also, staff still has concerns about the possibility of over-lighting on this property, particularly because it is adjacent residential and is proposed to be a 24-hour-operation. CVS Pharmacy 3 November 2, 2004 A condition of design review approval should be a revised lighting and photometrics plan which specifies the height, style, and photometrics of all outdoor lights. The ultimate scenario is for the applicant to submit the style of light to the CDRB during the November 9 meeting for approval. If time does not allow this, a condition of design review approval should include a revised photometrics plan to be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan should ensure that the lighting proposed on the site does not create light glare and nuisance to the surrounding residential properties to the east and meets with city code requirements. Security Camera The revised plans do not specify a security camera located on the east side of the building. As recommended by the CDRB, the applicants should strongly consider the installation of an exterior security camera located on the east side of the building. Drive-Through and Dumpster Enclosure Location The revised plans show the drive-through remaining on the east side of the building and the relocation of the dumpster enclosure from the northeast corner of the site to the east side of the building. While the new dumpster enclosure location is more desirable than the originally proposed location on the northeast corner of the site, and the addition of added landscaping along the 20-foot-buffer between the pharmacy and residential property will help screen the drive- through and dumpster enclosure, city staff still has concerns regarding negative impacts these uses will have on the adjacent residential property. After the October 26 meeting city staff recommended to the applicants the following scenario to address these concerns: Shift the building closer to County Road B allowing roam on the north side of the building for the drive-through and the dumpster enclosure. This scenario would require the removal of the front 15 center parking spaces (most of these parking spaces could be relocated to the north side of the building and signed for employee parking only), it would bring the building within 42 feet of the County Road Bright-of-way (as opposed to the proposed 83 feet), and it would reduce noise, odor, and lighting nuisances which may be created by the drive- through and dumpster enclosure locations on the east side of the building. Staff realizes this is a major site plan adjustment and brings it to the CDRB's attention for discussion. If this revision is not made, the applicants should be aware of the city's noise ordinance which prohibits nuisance noise from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. The applicants must ensure they abide by this ordinance and reduce the noise created by the drive-through and trash pick-up during these hours. The applicants must also submit elevations of the proposed dumpster enclosure to ensure it is at least 6 feet in height, constructed of building materials which are compatible to the building, and has a 100 percent opaque gate. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped November 3, 2004, for the CVS Pharmacy located at 2168 and 2180 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: CVS Pharmacy 4 November 2, 2004 a. Revised gradingldrainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in the Chuck Vermeersch's October 18, 2004, memorandum including the implementation of high end treatment structures to provide pretreatment of water runoff before discharging from the site and plans for the installation of asix-foot-wide sidewalk to be installed along County Road B. b. Revised site plan showing the following: 1) Shift the building closer to County Road B (approximately 42 feet to the County Road Bright-of-way). 2) Relocate the drive-through, dumpster enclosure, and front center 15 parking spaces to the north side of the building. c. Revised elevations as follows: 1) Revised north building elevation showing the relocated drive-through, removal of the brick wainscot and addition of brick/EIFS arches to match the east elevation. 2) Revised west and south elevation showing the addition of vertical windows, similar to those proposed for the St. Paul Midway CVS Pharmacy. Windows should begin at a four-foot height and extend upward on the entire fagade. 3) Dumpster enclosure elevations showing that the enclosure is at least 6 feet in height, constructed of building materials which are compatible to the building, and have a 100 percent opaque gate. d. A revised lighting and photometrics plan which shows the style, height, and number of exterior lights. The plan must ensure all freestanding lights maintain a height of 25 feet or less, that the overall illumination from outdoor lights does not exceed .4-foot-candles at all property lines, and that the outdoor lights do not pose alight nuisance to the adjacent residential property. e. The submittal of a response action plan regarding underground leaking petroleum tanks on the site, and proof of the acceptance of that plan and proposed clean up measures by the MPCA prior to issuance of a building permit. f. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on county right-of-way for the driveway access, utility work, and sidewalk. g. Watershed district approval. h. Proof of recording the city's August 27, 1990, resolution vacating 30 feet of the utility easement located on the north side of the property. (This resolution was never adequately recorded.) i. Proof that all three lots are combined for tax purposes. CVS Pharmacy 5 November 2, 2004 j. A revised freestanding sign plan showing the following: 1) Location of the freestanding sign to be in compliance with the city code setback and visibility requirements (10-foot-setback to all property lines and a 25-foot-visibility triangle from the intersecting rights-of-way). 2) Freestanding sign elevation limiting the size of the freestanding sign to 5 feet, 10 inches in height, 5 feet, 9 inches in width, with exterior materials to be compatible with the building. k. 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. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. d. Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color. e. Install all required outdoor lighting. f. Install the required six-foot-wide sidewalk along County Road B. 4. 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 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. 5. Wall signs are not included in the design review of the CVS Pharmacy. All proposed wall signs must meet city code sign requirements and will require a separate sign permits. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CVS Pharmacy 6 November 2, 2004 REFERENCE INFORMATION 51TE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 1.71 acres Existing Land Use: Gas Station and Oil Change Business SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Napa Auto Parts (zoned Business Commercial, BC) South: County Road B and Wonder Bread Outlet Store across the street (zoned Business Commercial, BC) East: Emma's Place Townhomes (zoned Business Commercial, BC and Multiple Dwelling Residential, R-3) West: White Bear Avenue and Healtheast Clinic across the street (zoned Business Commercial, BC) PLANNING Land Use Plan: Business Commercial, BC Zoning: Business Commercial, BC CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Design Review Section 2-290 of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. CV5 Pharmacy 7 November 2, 2004 Application Date The city received the complete applications and plans for this development on September 22, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by November 21, 2004. P5Sec11\CVS Drugstore 11-9-04 CDRB Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. 11-3-04 Existing Conditions 5. 11-3-04 Site Plan 6. 11-3-04 GradinglDrainage Plan 7. 11-3-04 Utility Plan 8. 11-3-04 Demo Plan 9. 11-3-04 Landscape Plan 10. 11-3-04 Exterior Elevations 11. Engineering Memorandum 12. Ramsey County Public Works Memorandum 13. Fire Marshall Memorandum 14. Building Official Memorandum CVS Pharmacy 8 November 2, 2004 ~..~ ^ 2229 ~ 1745 1~755~ J I ~ ' ~J X229 L, i _ 2223 LAURIE RD ---~ ._. 2225 ~~ - -_ ~~~1)~ ~~ J ~~ -~ zs _ ~~N ~YKc ~, w - 2215 ~Oye ¢ _ V ~ U.1`t (7~ T~wN th~1~~ m ' ~~ w 2200 i ,. H - -, jF7NA ~ ~~ - - - 2165 -_ -"- l lam' LTN `f J I_ l i I~'~~~ 21 q6 ---.. C- °Rx5~r9m°C° I i d COUNTY ROAD 8 ~r~.~ ~... ~ 17~54J f ~ lI,am' ~ ~~ 1258' '~6g - =F774 -- - -~ 1747 ' 1755 --- rt't5 r- 1'71 ~ 1 1 -- BURKE AVE 1 [421 I 1' ~ ~~ 176 2125 N W E S CRG ~vk~sr~ P~iY~ ~.~ laao 1s1o X134 J ~APLEN+~p ~>~ -~ -7 nn Attachment 1 x^210 u 2 L_ r i~ L ' '.2194 C A ~~182 Z ~ ~ ~2 1a~ ~ .:1849 ~'~ L lsso ~ Location Map K7 1746 1;..54 175E ~~. ---1774 1'fi5 ,1747 1755 ~~ --1x71 _ vso 1742 ~ i756 ' ~'~ 2125, IYI N W E S w u w F COUNTY ROPD B r~ ~- r::.~ ~. ;_ i f6L'44f "~ ~` vlrf )i}:i~-: ~, ,,,vvv** C~ _..- IMt i 2i0~J__ Attachment 2 _z ~~ ~,'~ ~~ ~. C .zio zz ~. ~ 25 ~4 z tg? ~17r-R'~ ias 1849 i&50 785 Zoning Map t3 «sn ~~'c _~1 <1aa 2,ez 21;' 18n1 1849 746 1754'. '1~7^758 'i7G4~ ---i-774 1: '' 747 1765 -1x55 - - t'71 ~?U F:K[. EVE 42 1760 170. 212.5 N W E S 1E5D 1°5£ ,~ ~I 1 Land Use Map ~r~cn a ;»a 3~0..o..ooi~ ~6'~~4~s~~~~ ~~II qq{{12122 'LI666IPiI~ls~y im~~£ ~'g i~l~ :III ~~ Attachment 4 .2r Ri' ~ i }g ~'~~~ ~~~~ s~3 ~'~ ;6~ :Q 2j~;~ c~p9 ~~: Iii ~'t 3f'~'~. e(;€ $ s •~ pt .~t . 12~2e- X22 ~ 6i i°; d9Y f~ a::g sp a 4 4 i ~~g i ~ 2 IEgf~ 2223 ? ~ 3,Iri 6[2! sf ep2 af 9 ~ 8~ i26 ~ , ~ ~ ~ , 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~: ~ z,~s'p tsf m; :2 r 2 ~ . : I 'j -,- _ _ .~.-. ~~ _-~ ~- ~~- WHITEEpM`BEAR AVE -1--I P - ° , ~ z2,ooa A~r !"' , ~I~ CO RD 6~ - I 26,500 ADT i ` mm€ W .-. •--- ~a _ a ~ --- -~ a~ ! ~ ~ ~_~ .-__. - n - lII ~ m~= ~ al;~ ~_~ ~ I e~®~ ~~ I ~ a u o --~~ ~ 32 ~~ a ~ •,~ i. ~ ~ a ;,i C ;~ r, .m 2 ~ -„ ~ ~ Ei f E i __ J y ~ ~ k p. C III ~~. d~`~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ S ~; y I , " < -.._ 3 I ~ ~ Pvc snN inFY R <~ ~- ~-.~ ~-• .•- '_ f Y $' i' - _-~- _ .~ v o ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ a ~. fi S i e$i '. I'~ I I I I I I I I I~ ~ ~ ~,I a I~ I I I I I I I ~I = Et i~ ~2 2 E ~ r ~ s ~ ~(c~ T ~~ ~ ~~ o- ~ ~ fio`3a ~~ r~ e ~ 3 5 ~ S.E ~ c a~~~,' ~~' ~ ~ ~~'-` 3 E { 3ti 11.6t {s 4' f 4 ss ~ ~ 2 r~ ~y ~ ~: Ji.. _ z. s ,a ift .3 - r'~( ~fE~ ~~ m 11-3-04 Existing Conditions Attachment 5 p , n ~ z § s'$( $ ' ; !• ; i4'sj~ ft; ` 7~ :~9 ~° ji~f $~° w '§ • s ~ 4 ~ '~ i - 8~lse ~~ i i.. _ i ~ ~Sg;;~ ~ ~ z ° si ' 4 ~ i '' 3" . 3 r~ y ~ r ;i [ 1 ~p. ~a i {~f qt slit s~~~' i ~ ~f.$8.~° ii ! ~ ~$ i ~~;;i ~F j .~ j tt i ! {. ic( .. 4 fi {{ e 1 $ ~~~~11~~~$~~li'~$~ii$~~1~e~!$i~~~i Si e 61 ~ ~ ~~~"? x i s i ge ~ ,~ ~ f `"~~ tff`i~`~44i dpi ~ije~.. = ~ c ° Ra z t .ilk e 3~! !F e3 ii lsl8l~~~ ~~"g~~~oo g Eg i ¢_! $` its ;i;~igii ~ it j {€I; ~S;' liS ~` F. I !@ Sep ~ :: a G III I I I ~{~v~ l P ~..~:~..o I - 'R ego ~g ~ = g' ! , i [i~ iti .k°' ~ i1e j: ~[. i,~d i ~ ~i! f$S` i a?` ix~~ 1 t - e~ ~` ~ t ~ ~~i f ~ : g 8 f ~ 1 ii6F F' ~ ~ t g N d y E 6~r', ~ e ~~~ z- - N ~ >T n .~ ~ I WN/TE BEAA AVENUE sgeoanor 5 - `~ !A ~i - ~._ 11-3-04 Site Plan Attachment6 _ !T'~`1f ! , !L=s78 ?!?i?$g lp~ ~!l(,i Yilf C $ ; k k6f-k k• !2 ~l s 1' :[' ~€ i qil€ I YI ¢L~~isT~ Sg~ + l $es $.q I~'! kk? is.' 9sg[? Y.¢3 `!_ ~Ip { ;k S ge {°'~l ~i Y9 g ~" }'• ~ ' S '°~ 3~k 's`. ~§:.~ = 1 .€'€~ t' i ,ll ~ai ,. 's ~ 55 ~f9 Y 3 $'k¢li $ '~~t ~ Y ;~ Y4~j li l9 €'$!!'.!Y ;, . -,1 ~ `e$~tdl~ {'l. €k i ~$$•!. t't! Y S Y ~ ~ i iy! pi~ 4~:~ #}` €idk iY~Yi ;~~! 3~! !ge ; t ~6~ ~tl Yt Il{ Yt i ~ _Y € € ! c g $ k i kYlES`E~~{l 1SpE ei~l ~~l`i{i!° :pS ~;e~: a.~. ~1g1 Ss (F g~~kl~l! $!II $ ~ ~I~SPf tl i~~ ~ 1 t' ~~~ 5 t l~ ~ °~ l a ~ iE t: t~~Pdli t ~•i ~ t; ~i~ 9 Y ~ ~ 3~ $~~ ~ ~ 2 _ 2 5 [ ! $ i ,S ill 6 i e 3 ~ .. Y `!cE § ~ 19 ~ !• x! t fie ! { I ~~! ~-$!~e !!•r ~ p~ " ~. cf li ~~ ~ 3: €: .': ?•= 3r~ fltls e i~ ~~ 5~ $.R ~ =, ~ s i$ g~t ixk 9~ III ~I I I I I IZ=f r I r ~.. lz~z z0 ~ s ~3 F~~ Y I f a$Iil S ,;•1 ~ isl!~!,{k dp F~ ~ 3 ~ i y i 3 is ~~ l3; £p i~si #h! ~5~}9 i.Yl fy Jd ~ x l { q ~9~ € }!}}9~ 141 ?~' ~ ~' ~ ' ` ' 3 3 ~# !}~i i~~~ s~?g f ~i ~ *~3 iiii' ` ~ 3 : E _ k3 ' a ° i' [ li fl €~ SR ~YlfF Y~€ R~ ~ i ~.(iS 5~ ? !{~ !k Igo €. ga` t! E S 3 }3 '. ~,~ IbT ® i= c i ° ~ .~ { { ! 3~ °i ~ ` !~~ ~; v, l a ~~ ~ i c° o ~ i !r ~ ' i ~.~ z~ _ ~ z -... ~ ' . ~~=s ~ ~~ z' ~ ~ ~~ o - a 9! g €, a~ ~~ ~ ` ~ r a' ~ ~ ~ _ ' ~~8 ' e 6~p, ~o p .. a~ __ i !e ~: IIIIIIIIIII:~ ~~; .11111 Ill f~, ~$~, E= € ~ ~ I€ ~ 6$~i ~ ~ _ I Y ~m ,~r-,~ $~~ w ~~ ~ ~ ~f+~ +I! ~i °'~:. l5 E F I ~ t ,~P ~ S ~ ~ J i „ 11-3-04 GradinglDrainage Plan fi D ¢ Z ~~ _ z ~° ~ ,~ s z~ EII,~~gi~ig~lii~t'c111lfgll~RiS~lttill R3~~ gFR ~~ ~;~ mere ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~'~ril , ...,=.o.o _ _ cF, y "s s" ~ =a Attachment 7 ~~g~ ~ ~ a i~s~~t ¢f~ sj tf ~~~~ i~t ~~ f3~ttt ~Y'EFE 3i~` I~t ~ iii l ~R= 3i II ~3g; iii `s 9!$tel t~~i it } ~;~ : It sa ~€ I i ?~~; [~ a ~R~f sess~ ~~~ a ~~ 1 S e~~~ t RR~ e s i ;~"€ 9 5~6 ~' iii 'C R ~~s6 !.9 $ ~ i .[~P ~+~ Its ~ ~~,{Lx~ ~"I E, ~ i~d gf ~ 1i~3'i s~E~ a ~'~ S $~~9$~ .3k €R ~ iii ig r ~'~~¢gp ,5 9e ~ i pp P z i~ a a it eeR - ~_ : ~i ~ FFd v r r- ~; S S .t m ~;,g ,gf tJ, i o[gq ~ iF is ~ P3;. ~~ ~ r"~iP ~.~ g. E ~ # to WHITE BEAR AVENUE ,tag sAOOUnm retaoonor t.~E= ~@~ 9P _ _ t~¢t ~' t: ~...... _ ._... ~ .; __. „ r_. _ ~ ~ _ I i ~ €~ ~ ~ , s ~ ~ AP ... ` - I - ... ~v ~_ - tPli J L _ ~ P I a 9 ,J - i ° ~ ~ b4~ - b 4 ._s~ ~ - ~, u ¢ ~ - _ moo, I , a ~Pt , _ ~ i W ~'._ ~ °~ o L b =sb ~F _._. (~ i p 11 ~ ~~ ... ~ oseE i FP a s 1~ {4 _ IIIIIIIII ~~' ~ ~ ~ , I~IIIIIIINI== k ~_ ~' ;s~ ~li tR~ ; E p~~ ~~~ a ,i ~: ~,' dR, - ~ ~ b 5Fy ~ _ ~~~~ i - 3 11-3-04 Utility Plan Attachment 8 _ _ a n _ sx a _ _ F y - - ~ - 3 c ~. ~ c w 3 v ° K F 11-3-04 Demo Plan Attachment 9 y s i r ~ ~ L~ - - z f 1g -" i EE~i F - ~ ~ , F ~ 6 ~~ ~ `~. ~ `;` ~ z jh:~',,i ~ e ~ 6R ~ ~~ e ~ ^az m 11-3-D4 Landscape Ptan Attachment 10 ~D qA q< a 0 ~I~~~, _° - n !i ~~ a ~ ~Y 4 ~ 4 4 ' u~ -. ~..-_-___ qo m p ~I ~1 ~ ~J ~ !i ICI I N I I ~ J i~ ~ ~~, -. ,,,,~6 ~. ~~ ~ ~' I ~~ a _~ J ~ „ a ~, - a 5 r 7_ ~~ 1 D J 0 ~ Q m n A D z u 44 ~ o ~ . G~ J _.__-~~ o ~_-_ ~o _~~~ ~ p e~ ~ ~~ ~~~ r- { 3 A~ ~€ ~o~ 6 610-~ ~= I'~ a> .Z 'm a D ` ~-l~--L--~ ~.__ d ~ D J O _ ^ 3F ~ _~., ~b~ ~~b~ a ° ~ " ' ~~' ~ z , A O D ~ ~ _ -_~~ b ~~ ~,~ = ' f ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i.: I.-. ~~ ~o®d®aoo~~F ~~~~~~~a99, ~z~ ~ ~ ~~, ~~, ~m ~@~~~~~ ~'~~~~~a~p~ h~~ C~~~ x ~~~~ ~ ~a~~~9 a s !e~ ~a~~ ~ iA~°~•i .~ i dis~~ 3 C "~ ~ ~~~~, a ~~d @a 3 11-3-04 Exterior Elevations Attachment 11 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: CVS Drugstore PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: October 18, 2004 Velmeir Companies is proposing to redevelop the property at the northeast corner of County Road B and White Bear Avenue. The site currently has automotive uses (gas station, car wash, and quick lube). Construction of a CVS/Pharmacy is proposed. The applicant or their representative's shall address the following issues: Drainage 1. The submittal does not indicate any water quality improvements for the redevelopment. At a minimum, the city will require (a) high end treatment structure(s) to provide pretreatment of runoff before discharging from the site. 2. The storm sewer configuration shows two discharge points from the site. Each will require a treatment structure. Alternatively, the storm sewer could be reconfigured to provide a single discharge from the site to the existing storm sewer on County Road B. 3. The proposed storm sewer connection to the County Road B system shall provide for the installation of a catch basin on County Road B near the southeast corner of the property to eliminate an existing drainage problem, and likelihood of standing water in front of the County Road B entrance. Utilities 4. The submittal does not show the proposed water and sanitary sewer connection locations 5. The applicant or their engineer shall coordinate utility work with Saint Paul Regional Water Service and Ed Nadeau, Utility Superintendent for the City of Maplewood. Traffic 6. The submittal reflects an improvement as related to traffic. The number of entrances to the property has been reduced from five to two, and the two entrances have been moved as far from the intersection as possible. Misc The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District for their review and approval. 8. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from Ramsey County From the scale of the plans submitted, it is not clear if sidewalk is shown along the south and west sides of the property. A sidewalk already exists along the White Bear Avenue frontage; areas along the driveway removals shall be restored. A six foot sidewalk will be required along County Road B. (Maplewood standard for sidewalk is a 6-foot walk located 7-feet behind curb). Attachment 12 Department of Public Works Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/L.AND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 aAnnserCOUMY St. Paul, MN 55102 • (651) 266-2600 • Fax 266-261x' E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Jeremy Strehlo, E.I.T. Loucks McLagan FROM: Danis oler, P.E. Ramsey Co~tn is Works SUB7ECT: CVS Pharmacy DATE: September 30, 2004 ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS 3377 N. Rice Street Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 484-9104 • Fax 482-5232 The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed redevelopment plan for the existing Amoco and Fina Lube site on White Bear Avenue at County Road B in the City of Maplewood. This property is proposed to be redeveloped with a new CVS Pharmacy on the site. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. 1. The use of the site will stay commet~ial/retail as it is today. This redevelopment of the site will not have a measurable impact on traffic operations in the area. The intersection of White Bear Avenue at County Road B is signalized. 2. The existing access configuration on White Bear Avenue and County Road B is proposed to change with the redevelopment. Currently White Bear Avenue has three driveways and County Road B has two driveways. All of these access drives will be closed. One new driveway will be constructed on both White Bear Avenue and on County Road B. These new access points will be on the north and east ends of the development located as far as possible from the intersection. This driveway configuration is acceptable and should improve traffic operations with the new site redevelopment. 3. The County will need to review the storm water plan in more detail including the connections to the existing storm water system. 4. The developer will be required to obtain a permit from. Ramsey County for construction on County right of way. The developer will also need permits for any utility work within County right-of-way. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. Cc:~hann Finwall`°- City of Maplewood Minnesota's Flrst Home Role County printed on rec7reletl paper with a minimum of 10%posLconsumer crontcnt tyssi Attachment 13 Project Review Comments Date: October 20.2004 From: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal Project: CVS Drugstore Building: New Building Planner: Shann Finwall Comments: 1. Monitoring all parts of the lire protection system and fire alarm system will be required 2. Installation of fire protection system (NFPA 13) 3. Installation of fire alarm system (I~'FPA 72) 4. Location of fire protection system needs to be accessible and clearly marked 5. Fire Department lockbox required to be mounted on the building the form for the lockbox can be obtained from the Fire Marshal Any questions or concerns please contact me. Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal City of Maplewood (651}-249-2804 Attachment 14 Memo October 12, 2004 From: David Fisher, Building Official To: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Re: CVS Drugstore Building 1. Accessible parking looks good. 2. The buildings are required to be fire sprinklered to meet NFPA 13. 3. Building is required to meet 2000 IBC, 2000 IFC, 2000 IMC, NEC State Plumbing code and the Minnesota State Building Code. I would recommend apre-construction meeting with the building department.