Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/13/1999BOOK 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD April 13, 1999 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes - March 9, 1999 Approval of Agenda Unfinished Business Design Review a. Comprehensive Sign Plan Revision- Crown Plaza, 1700 Rice Street b. Election of 1999 Chairperson and Vice Chairperson Visitor Presentations Board Presentations Staff Presentations CDRB Volunteer Needed for the April 26 and May 10 Council Meetings. Adjourn p:com-dvpt~cdrb.agd WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms\cdrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MARCH 9, t999 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Marvin Erickson Present Marie Robinson Absent Ananth Shankar Absent Tim Johnson Present Matt Ledvina Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 12, 1999 Boardmember Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of January 12, 1999, amended to change B. 2. (on page 2) to read".., building-color scheme for approval by staff." Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Ledvina seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. VI. DESIGN REVIEW A. Building Additions--Carver Elementary School, 2680 Upper Afton Road Mark Hayes, ATS&R Architects, was present representing the North St. PauI-Maplewood- Oakdale School District. Mr. Hayes said the storage room addition, with an outside entrance, is primarily for miscellaneous outside storage. He affirmed that the room was not designed for storage of lawnmowers, snowblowers, etc. Mr. Hayes estimated that 80 percent of the storage would be gym items such as portable platforms and chairs. He said this 900-square- foot addition is designed so that it can be converted into a classroom if necessary. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 03-09-99 -2- Mr. Hayes said he recently was directed to not include the "partition enclosure" for the gym in the bidding documents. This is actually a pocket that receives the folding wall which bisects the gym. However, he did want this pocket to be included in the design review at this time. Boardmember Ledvina recommended the Community Design Review Board approve the plans stamped February 19, 1999, for the construction of a 900-square-foot storage-room addition, a 64-square-foot gymnasium partition-door enclosure and a concrete loading-dock extension at Carver Elementary School, 2680 Upper Afton Road. The property owner shall repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this project. Boardmember Johnson seconded. Chairperson Erickson asked if the pipe handrail on the loading dock was removable. Mr. Hayes said it was permanent. Ayes--all The motion passed. B. Lighting Ordinance Review Secretary Tom Ekstrand summarized the staff report. He recommended a .4 foot candle of light intensity at the residential lot line. Mr. Ekstrand felt the "biggest problem" was being able to see a "glaring bulb" and proposed revising the code to require concealment of the light source including the lens. He didn't feel it was critical to require a lighting plan unless the property abutted residential property. Chairperson Erickson thought the requirement, in the ordinance, to install "exterior site" lighting referred to lighting that was on the building rather than parking lot lighting. Boardmember Ledvina said this was discussed by the planning commission and the feeling was to not limit the lighting to just parking lots but consider the entire project. Mr. Ledvina clarified that the intent was not to require lighting but to set a standard for lighting that the applicant did propose. Mr. Erickson thought there might be some problem with identifying the foot candle power as .4 and suggested writing it out. Boardmember Ledvina said 0.4 was a more typical way of expressing it. Boardmember Ledvina commended Mr. Ekstrand on the ordinance and said it was "a nice piece of work" that provided guidance on an issue that has been noted in previous applications. Boardmember Johnson moved the Community Design Review Board adopt the code amendment which changes the requirements for multi-family and nonresidential site lighting. Boardmember Ledvina seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 03-09-99 -3- C. Election of 1999 Chairperson and Vice Chairperson Boardmember Ledvina moved the Community Design Review Board table this item until the next board meeting because the vice-chairperson was not present. Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. D. 1998 Annual Report Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the annual report. Boardmember Ledvina asked if it would be appropriate for the board to consider some goals or things they might like to do during the coming year. Mr. Ekstrand referred to a current Zoning News issue he received that has an article about facade colors, design materials, etc. when site planning for large retail establishments. He thought this might be of interest to the board and will copy and send the article to the members. Chairperson Erickson wondered how to influence contractors to use recycled and/or long- lasting materials in their construction. Boardmember Ledvina thought the board could make suggestions. He felt the applicant does end up with a better design after having been before the review board. Secretary Ekstrand mentioned an application he received from Pep Boys. He said the building is a combination of rock face and plain concrete block. Mr. Ekstrand said the inclination is to reject the plan or require something better. He advised the board to not worry about rejecting a proposal. Mr. Ekstrand said he sometimes tells an applicant that he will not recommend approval of the design, but the applicant insists on submitting the proposal to the board. Chairperson Erickson admitted that he was influenced by staff's recommendation. Secretary Ekstrand told the board they could choose to focus on a special interest area anytime during the year. Chairperson Erickson asked if the board wanted to state any goals. He asked that the board be notified of any upcoming conferences or seminars that would be beneficial to board members. Mr. Erickson cited the need for new boardmembers to have any available training they feel would be necessary. Boardmember Ledvina felt that setting a goal without all the boardmembers present to discuss it would be inappropriate. He suggested considering this at a future meeting. VII. Boardmember Ledvina moved the Community Design Review Board approve the 1998 annual report. Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 03-09-99 VIII. -4- BOARD PRESENTATIONS February 8, 1999, City Council Meeting: Boardmember Ledvina reported on this meeting. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. Secretary Tom Ekstrand said, at this time, there were no board items on the next two city council meetings. Boardmember Erickson will attend the April 12 council meeting if a representative is needed. Boardmember Ledvina asked to have the staff report, along with the review board minutes, available for the representatives at the city council meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Sign Plan Revision - Buy & Save at the Crown Plaza Shopping Center 1700 Rice Street April 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION Stuart R. Deudng, of Nash Finch Company, is requesting an arnendment of the sign plan for the Crown Plaza shopping center. Mr. Deudng would like to install two cabinet-type signs for the new Buy-n-Save store presently located at the south end of the complex. The approved sign plan requires that all signs be individual-mounted signs (called channel letters by the sign industry). Refer to the maps on pages 4-5, the applicant's letter on pages 6-7, the supporting letter from the landlord on page 8 and the sign details (separate attachments). BACKGROUND Past Actions October 12, 1989: The community design review board (CDRB) approved the sign plan for Crown Plaza. February 28, 1994: The city council revised the sign plan dropping the requirement that all the tenant signs must be illuminated. Current Sign-Plan Criteria The current sign criteda for Crown Plaza (from the February 28, 1994 revision) is as follows: For consistency, all wall signs for the Crown Plaza tenants shall be individual letters, except that the florist sign may be a cabinet sign. Sign height shall not exceed 36 inches. Signs shall not extend closer than 36 inches to the sides of the tenant's store front. These signs shall be placed on the designated sign band. 2. Signage for the two automotive buildings shall comply with Condition One. 3. Burger King signage shall comply with code. 4. Signs are not allowed on the awnings. CODE REQUIREMENT Section 36-366 of the sign code requires a comprehensive sign plan for shopping centers. DISCUSSION The purpose of requiring comprehensive sign plans for shopping centers is for uniform, consistent signage among tenants. Approving the two cabinet signs would be contrary to this goal. Presently, all of the tenants have the individual letter signs required--this includes the sign on the old florist space that was mentioned in the 1994 sign plan revision. The applicant gave two primary reasons as justification for the cabinet signs. First, the proposed cabinet sign is their trademark identification sign. Mr. Deuring feels that they need to display the cabinet-type sign to be readily recognized by the public and not confuse them by a different sign style. He wants the proposed Buy-n-Save sign to be recognized as the same store chain seen elsewhere. Secondly, he feels that the proposed sign would give a neater and more organized impression rather than separate letters that appear to "wander across the store front to less clear effect." Staff can appreciate the applicant's wish for consistent Buy-n-Save signs on all of their stores. The city's goal, however, is to maintain consistent signs on the shopping centers for aesthetic reasons. Furthermore, staff feels that the signs can be fabricated as individual channel letters as most signs are these days. The applicant's second point about wanting to give a neater and more organized impression by using a cabinet sign is not valid. Looking at the existing signs on the Crown Plaza will show that individual channel letters do not give a messy impression. In conclusion, staff does not support this proposed revision. Furthermore, staff recommends that the CDRB amend Condition One to delete the provision allowing the florist sign to be a cabinet sign. The florist sign is no longer in place. The Crown Plaza now has the opportunity for fully consistent signage on their complex. RECOMMENDATIONS Deny the request by Stuart R. Deuring, of the Nash Finch Company, that the city revise the comprehensive sign plan for the Crown Plaza shopping center to allow two cabinet-type signs for the Buy-n-Save store. Denial is because cabinet signs are inconsistent with the style of signage in use at Crown Plaza and would be noticeably different which would be contrary to the purpose and intent of the city's sign code. B. Revision of the comprehensive sign plan for the Crown Plaza shopping center as follows (deletions are crossed out): For consistency, all wall signs for the Crown Plaza tenants shall be individual letters ' thor th~ fi .... t o,~ ...... y ............ ~,,. .... ~,, n height shall not exceed 36 inches. Signs shall not extend closer than 36 inches to the sides of the tenant's store front. These signs shall be placed on the designated sign band. 2. Signage for the two automotive buildings shall comply with Condition One. 3. Burger King signage shall comply with code. 4. Signs are not allowed on the awnings. Appeals The applicant may appeal the CDRB motion to the city council. must be received within 15 days of the CDRB's motion. The city code states that appeals p:secl 8\buynsave.sgn Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Applicant's letter dated March 17, 1999 4. Landlord's letter dated March 15, 1999 5. Sign details (separate attachment) Attachment #1 LITI'LE CANADA COUNTY RD. FENTON AVE. KINGSTON ~ Sandy Lake SKILLMAN AVE. ~: MT. VERNON DOWNS AVE. BELLWOOD AVE. SUMMER AVE. BELMONT LN. SKILLMAN Rose,awn Park RIPLEY AVE. "I- ~dgeHon Pork AVE. SUMMER GSTON ~ BELLWO AVE. AVE, LOCATION MAP 4 Attachment 2 i WESTERN STATE BANK '1 m m PROPOSED SIGN LOCATIONS BURGER KING ;ERVICE BUILDINGS CROWN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER · LARPENTEUR AVENUE LOCATION OF THE BUY-N-SAVE STORE --~-(~ : SITE PLAN Attachment 3 NASH FINCH COMPANY EYecutive Offices March 17, 1999 Community Design Review Board City of Maplewood Maplewood, Minnesota 55119 .j J HAR19 19SB Jlli Re: Application for Variance - Maplewood Sign Ordinance Dear Board Members: This letter is respectfully submitted in support of Nash-Finch Company's application for permission to vary from applicable sign ordinances requiring the use of individually mounted channel lettering in the City of Maplewood. Nash-Finch Company seeks approval to use a lighted unitary canister form of sign for its new Buy.n. Save Store in Crown Plaza Shopping Center. Nash-Finch Company seeks this variance for a number of reasons. One of the most important of these is that this conceptualization of the service mark was adopted after careful review and consideration, and is the form Nash-Finch has chosen to use for what we hope will be a significant number of stores operating under this format around the country. Initially, this mark will also be in use in Brooklyn Park and Albert Lea, Minnesota in the form described above. If our depiction of the mark in Maplewood cannot be consistent with its depiction elsewhere, questions will arise in the minds of consumers whether the Maplewood store is one they know and associate with Nash-Finch Company's marketing program or is a less satisfactory imitation. Another reason for our request is our need to adhere to the design integrity of our service mark, with the words Buy.n. Save held together against a yellow background within an oval framework. Depicting the mark with separate unconnected letters will make a much less cogent impression upon the passerby, especially with the stylized "n" in the midst of the other letters. Without the unifying background and oval framework, the individual letters will appear to wander across the store front, to less clear effect. We believe the signage will make a much neater and more organized impression as a single integrated canister, than it would as separate letters across the front of the building. Also, if our signage for this mark in Maplewood must vary from depictions elsewhere, the strength of Nash-Finch Company's mark is invariably compromised. It is axiomatic in trademark law that a trademark is made stronger by usage that is , i, .... ~consistently in compliance with specifications adopted by its owner. As a new mark, ~ .... .:~ ....... .', ', N isfa ":' ., L ~. L-,,= ~ · :~,.. (,~£-,Sq,~-1234 6 Customer Sat ction is/iLY/SdYS First.'' Community Design Review Board 03/17/99 2 Buy.n. Save is more in need of this protection than other well established marks that may appear in individually mounted channel letters. In addition, we note that our neighbor in the Shopping Center, Burger King, has at least one lighted unitary canister sign in lieu of individually mounted channel letters. To permit Burger King to use unitary canister signs and deny Nash-Finch the same consideratiov would appear to be unfair. We are confident that our proposed signs will enhance and not detract from the vibrant commercial setting presented by the businesses in the Crown Plaza Shopping Center. We respectfully urge that you permit us to depict our own business's name there in lighted unitary canisters, rather than requiring us to use individually mounted channel letters. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, NASH-FINCH COMPANY Stuart R. Deuring, Attorney Attachment 4 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT March 15, 1999 Community DesiKn Review Board City of Maplewood Maplewood, MN 55119 Dear Board Members: This letter is being t~ritten urging the members of the .V. aplewood Community Design Review Board vote to allow hash Finch Company erect si~nage on their end-~.ap space in Crown Plaza Shopping Center that is no1 ~n ,,ompl latlc~~ ~vJt!l Ctlr'FeIl~ Sigl~ ()r(Jlltlill['(?S [(or the o f Map I ~:,wwod. hash Finch is a highly resp(~,cted and well-known retail and wholesale gro[:¢']' wilh slore.s thr'oughoul the M~dwest, and x~ilh ils l~t~a(i(tt~arlers ~n th~, Twin Cities. hash Finch ~s looking to erect Iwo cabinet-type Fin(.h's gr(~c'ery stores. One si. gn would be local,.d ,~,n th~~ front of the apace and the (other sign would t)(:-' locate(l on the e~d of the. buitdlllg fa(t]~g iu a s(:,~t.h- erly dir(.,tion, hash Fill(:h is oct:ups'lng the end-('ap position of lhe spa~.e or signage. The signs will be of high quality and taste, wi ] I only make lhe (::~'nt,.r look more fashi(,nab!e and attra(:tive. (Trowil Plaza as they are oooupying in excess of 12.000 square feel. Th,'=' gr~,c:er'7 >:1:()re wi 1 1 draw many (:flat orn~:r's 1 tiat wi I i only tie ID tt~,: cot:her tenants in the c'enter, an(t hash Finch feels that the proper Irt conclusion, BFW Company (Landlord) is supporting hash Finc'h's request in asking that lhe member's of the Community Design Rex'iew Board strongly consider approval and al lo~' the pla{:ement of two stylish cabinet-type signs on their spa~:e in (;r(m,n Plaza. Thank you for your time and consideration. (~k.)=Augf/st ine] ' Property Malinger (7 £! . Mr. Jerry Clapsaddle Corporate Archit. ecl , ?(ash t inch Company 8 80 MINNESOTA AVE (651) 484-5506 LITTLE CANADA, MN 55117 · FAX (651) 484-5701 Attachment 5 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner 1998 Community Design Review Board Annual Report March 22, 1999 INTRODUCTION The city code requires that the community design review board (CDRB) prepare an annual report for the city council. I have attached the 1998 annual report for review. COMMITTEE ACTION March 9, 1999: The CDRB moved to forward this report to the city council for their acceptance. RECOMMENDATION Approve the community design review board's 1998 annual report. p:~misscell~cdrban n. rep (6,2) Attachment: 1998 Community Design Review Board Annual Report MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Mary Erickson, Chairman 1998 Community Design Review Board Annual Report January 29, 1999 INTRODUCTION In 1998, the community design review board New Development Proposals 14 Expansions and Remodeling 9 Sign Reviews 5 Code Changes 0 Variances 1 Miscellaneous _6_ Total 35 (CDRB) reviewed 35 items: This table compares the number of items reviewed in the last five years from 1993-1997: Year Number of Items Reviewed 1993 49 1994 54 1995 57 1996 31 1997 53 ATTENDANCE Board Member Meetings Attended (of 14) Ma~ Erickson 13 Made Robinson 12 Ananth Shankar 13 Tim Johnson 10 Matt Ledvina 11 DISCUSSION In 1998, there was a drop from the previous year in the number of development proposals submitted for review, however, the number of reviews were up from 1996. Last year was a time for controversy with proposals such as the Bulk-Storage warehouse addition on Lakewood Drive south of the railroad tracks, the Delavad Convenience Store/Fuel Station on the comer of Highway 61 and County Road C, four cellular-telephone monopoles and two highly-controversial Ramsey County proposals--the Battle Creek Aquatic Facility and the recently-approved Family Service Center. Each of these items stirred considerable neighborhood concern and objection. Other development proposals included the new Metcalf/Mayflower building, Maplewood Eye Care Clinic on 11th Avenue, Cardinal Pointe Seniors Housing, Gervais Court Seniors Housing and new office buildings for Tony Sampair of Remax Realty and an office building east of Dr. Pariseau's 11th Avenue dental office. Joe's Crab Shack, a seafood restaurant west of the Olive Garden was approved but later dropped by the applicant as a non-viable project. The CDRB has directed staff to investigate changes in the site-lighting requirements for discussion in a forthcoming meeting. The board wants to look into whether the city's lighting requirements are still appropriate or if revisions are warranted. The board is dedicated to promoting attractive development in Maplewood and will continue to require quality building designs in 1999. p:¥nisscelAcdrbann.rep (6.2) 2 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MARCH 9, 1999 D. 1998Annual Report Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the annual report. Boardmember Ledvina asked if it would be appropriate for the board to consider some goals or things they might like to do during the coming year. Mr. Ekstrand referred to a current Zoning News issue he received that has an article about facade colors, design materials, etc. when site planning for large retail establishments. He thought this might be of interest to the board and will copy and send the article to the members. Chairperson Erickson wondered how to influence contractors to use recycled and/or long- lasting materials in their construction. Boardmember Ledvina thought the board could make suggestions. He felt the applicant does end up with a better design after having been before the review board. Secretary Ekstrand mentioned an application he received from Pep Boys. He said the building is a combination of rock face and plain concrete block. Mr. Ekstrand said the inclination is to reject the plan or require something better. He advised the board to not worry about rejecting a proposal. Mr. Ekstrand said he sometimes tells an applicant that he will not recommend approval of the design, but the applicant insists on submitting the proposal to the board. Chairperson Erickson admitted that he was influenced by staff's recommendation. Secretary Ekstrand told the board they could choose to focus on a special interest area anytime during the year. Chairperson Erickson asked if the board wanted to state any goals. He asked that the board be notified of any upcoming conferences or seminars that would be beneficial to board members. Mr. Erickson cited the need for new boardmembers to have any available training they feel would be necessary. Boardmember Ledvina felt that setting a goal without all the boardmembers present to discuss it would be inappropriate. He suggested considering this at a future meeting. Boardmember Ledvina moved the Community Design Review Board approve the 1998 annual report. Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed.