HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/28/2001 AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
August 28, 2001
6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
Maplewood City Hall
1830 East County Road B
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes: August 14, 2001
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
a. 3M Building #255 Building Design Changes-John Olfelt, 3M Company
6. Design Review
a. 5-8 Club (Beau's), 2289 Minnehaha Avenue - Food Services, Inc.
b. Walgreen's (former Burger King), 1706 White Bear Avenue - Semper ~
Development
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Board Presentations
9. Staff Presentations
a. Reminder: Ananth is scheduled for September 10 city council meeting.
b. CDRB representative needed for the September 24 city council meeting.
c. Discussion Item: September 11 CDRB meeting cancellation/rescheduling
due to the primary election.
d. Informational Item: An Introduction to Urban Design article
10. Adjourn
p:corn-dvpt~cdrb.agd
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 28, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
I1.
III.
ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina
Tim Johnson
Craig Jorgenson
Linda Olson
Ananth Shankar
Present
Absent
Absent
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand,
Assistant Community Development Director
Shann Finwall, Associate Planner
Recording Secretary:
Lisa Kroll
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 14, 2001
Chairperson Ledvina noticed a change to Roman Numeral III. Approval of
Minutes. It should read Board Member Olson moved approval of the minutes
instead of Chairperson Ledvina. And it should read Board Member Johnson
seconded, instead of Board Member Olson seconded.
Board Member Shankar moved to approve the minutes of August 14, 2001.
Board Member Olson seconded.
Ayes -- Ledvina, Johnson, Olson
Abstention -- Jorgenson
IV.
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The motion passed.
Ayes - All
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-28-2001
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
3M Building #255 Building Design Changes
(600 Carlton Street)
Secretary Ekstrand stated there were proposed changes made to the original
plans for the building exterior and landscaping. These include a change in the
treatment of the proposed roof detailing and dock area. The dock area is
proposed to be painted to match the brick and roof detail added similar to on the
main building on the west elevation.
Mr. Olfelt made some changes to the front facing which is the west side and the
south elevation of the dock area. He felt the brick was not the best way to go
due to structural reasons. He had revised the plan to carry the roofing element
on the dock. The texturing on the brick itself is similar. He had hoped the board
would agree it blends nicely. There were going to be some complications with
the roofline. There is a scissors lift on the loading dock roof. The roof base
would have a lot of alterations they did not count on. Adding the roof element
and blending the texture was a good solution to the design. Mr. Olfelt proposed
to remove the rubber seal along the entrance to the dock and put a slopped roof
on to give them the shelter to match the roofline. The area in front of the garage
door gets removed. Metal sheeting would be put over the trusses.
The landscaping has changed to six red splendor crab apple trees on the street
side, oak trees and a variety of spirea to use on the east side.
John Olfelt, representing 3M came forward.
Mr. Olfelt brought some samples of the proposed building exterior. He also
brought some color schemes to show the Board Members. The color scheme for
the roofing has not been decided on yet, but should be within the week.
Board members mentioned they liked the samples of color schemes shown but
would like to see the final color scheme 3M decides on.
Board Member Shankar made a motion that the Community Design Review
Board approve the revisions to the previously approved plans for 3M Building
#255 at 600 Carlton Street. The approval is based on the new revised elevation
submitted by the applicant and the new site plan and landscaping plan date
stamped August 20, 2001. With the added clarification that the color of the brick
shall be a light tan color as shown by the applicant. One of the color schemes
(A) or (B) shown on sheet 9 of the applicants revised plans shall be followed.
Board Member Olson seconded the motion. Ayes - All
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-28-2001
3
VI.
DESIGN REVIEW
a=
5-8 Club (Beau's Food and Spirits) - Food Services, Inc.
2289 Minnehaha Avenue
Ms. Finwall reported that Food Services, Inc., has proposed to purchase,
remodel, and expand Beau's Food and Spirits. The planning commission did
recommend approval of five land use requests associated with the proposal at
the August 20, 2001, meeting. Including a comprehensive land use plan
amendment, a rezoning, two conditional use permits, and a parking lot setback
variance. Food Services, Inc., is requesting approval of the proposed
architectural and landscaping design. The exterior of the building will remain
stucco to be painted a taupe color with wood shutters around the windows to be
painted with burgundy accents.
There are three major alterations proposed to this building, including a new 620-
square-foot deck, relocation of the front door and a walk-out cooler. The deck is
proposed on the northwest side of the building towards Stillwater Street. It will
extend off the north side of the original building, maintaining the existing
nonconforming setback of 15 feet from the north residential property. It will also
come within 22 feet of the Stillwater Road right-of-way.
Surrounding the deck on the west side will be a 5-foot-high privacy fence with 1
foot of lattice on the top and the north side the deck will be screened windows.
The windows will look onto a proposed perennial garden to the north of the deck.
The entire deck will be covered with a decorative canopy similar to the
Minneapolis 5-8 Club's canopy.
The front door of this building will be relocated from the west side towards
Stillwater to the south side. The existing front canopy will be removed and a new
canopy will be installed to match the proposed deck canopy.
The walk-in-cooler is proposed on the east side of the building and will bump out
approximately 8 feet towards the east. The cooler will be painted to match the
building with lattice and vines on the sides to help screen the cooler. To the
south of the cooler is the proposed location of the dumpster enclosure which will
be constructed of cedar fencing with a cedar gate.
The parking lot will be expanded to the east side of the property and will come
within 5 feet of the east property line as well as 5 feet to the north property line.
The required setback for parking lot adjacent residential parking is 20 feet.
Therefore, variances are required for the expanded parking area. To screen the
parking area from the adjacent residential properties, the applicants are
proposing a 6-foot high cedar fence to be constructed along the entire east and
north property lines.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-28-2001
4
Regarding the landscaping, there are currently two existing large maple trees on
the lot. The applicants propose to save those two trees and propose an
additional 12 maple trees, 68 shrubs, as well as a perennial garden to the north
of the deck. The number of plants and species will vary due to the fact that the
Minnesota Department of Transportation must approve the landscape plan prior
to the installation, as a majority of the landscaping is in their right-of-way.
The lighting proposed for this project is a unique form of lighting designed to help
reduce the glare on residential properties. There will be seven wall lights to be
installed around the building and four fence post lights to be installed on the east
fence and will be located five feet up along the fencing so they will not extend
over the fence.
Staff feels that this proposal will be an asset to the community and recommends
approval.
Ms. Jill Skogheim representing Food Services, Inc., d/b/a 5-8 Club came forward.
Ms. Skogheim stated that the landscaping proposed vary because MnDot stated
they will not approve the planting of this many trees in the row. The trees may
not hang over into the right-hand turn lane because this could be a safety hazard.
Because of this they are planning on planting some viburnum hedges and
chokeberry bushes. Another concern is the salt spray that comes up from the
snowplow in the winter. It was a recommendation from the plant center to plant
the viburnum hedges and chokeberry bushes, as these are two hardy plantings
to survive conditions in the winter.
Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant if she had any concerns regarding the
conditions outlined in the staff report?
Ms. Skogheim replied no she did not.
Board Member Olson asked if there was only one handicap parking spot in the
parking lot?
Ms. Skogheim replied, no there were two handicap parking spots in spaces #31
and #32.
Ms. Skogheim stated she had a sample of the burgundy color that will be used
on the shutters. She also stated she has some additional photos of the
Minneapolis location which depict the taupe, burgundy, and forest green colors.
Ms. Skogheim added that the enclosure for the cooler and the dumpster will be
screened. The cedar enclosure will be finished with a natural sealer with no
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-28-2001
color; it will be a natural look. They have also proposed to screen the air
conditioners located on the east side of the building with bushes.
Board Member Shankar asked Ms. Skogheim how the surface water would come
down from the fiat roof.
Ms. Skogheim deferred that question to the architect.
Mr. Bruce Knutson, the architect and president of Bruce Knutson Architects,
1128 Harmon Place in Minneapolis came forward.
Mr. Knutson responded there are scuppers and drain leaders on the flat roof.
The existing runoff goes into a catch basin on the southwest corner of the
existing parking lot. And the new parking lot will have a water retention area and
a slow discharge, so the new parking lot will take care of the water runoff there.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if the Board Members had the most recent plan
changes?
Ms. Finwall stated the last date that revisions were proposed was on August 22,
2001.
Mr. Knutson clarified that the drawings were not revised at the same date.
August 21,2001, was for sheets A1 through A5, and A6 through A8 were revised
on August 22, 2001.
Board Member Shankar made a motion to approve the plans date stamped
August 21, 2001, sheets A1 through A5, and date stamped August 22, 2001, for
sheets A6 through A8. Food Services, Inc., d/b/a 5-8 Club shall do 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 permit for the parking lot expansion, the city
engineer must approve a final grading and drainage plan. This plan shall
include water retention calculations and the location of all existing trees on
the site to be preserved and the means of protecting the trees.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must supply the city with
the following:
(1)
A revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the
following details:
(a) Obtain approval from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation and Ramsey County to install landscaping
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-28-2001
within the Stillwater Road and Minnehaha Avenue rights-of-
way. Any required landscape revisions in these areas must
also be approved by the city.
(b) Location of all existing trees on the site to be preserved.
(c)
Perennial garden details to be located on the north side of
the deck.
(d) An underground lawn irrigation system.
(e) In addition to the above, all common grounds shall be
sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds).
(2)
A revised site plan showing a parking bump out on the north side of
the parking lot to accommodate backing up vehicles parked in the
two most northerly parking stalls.
(3)
Trash enclosure details to include at least a 6-foot-high cedar fence
enclosure with a cedar enclosable gate or at least a 6-foot-high
stucco wall enclosure with a cedar enclosable gate.
(4)
Elevations and footing details of the proposed 6-foot-high cedar
fence.
(5)
Final exterior walk-in cooler elevations to show the cooler painted
to match existing building, lattice runs, with vine plantings.
d. Prior to certificate of occupancy the applicant must:
Complete all required exterior improvements including landscaping
and underground irrigation, parking lot, screening fence, exterior
lighting.
(2) Install stop signs at both driveway exits.
e. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
(1)
The city determines that the work is not essential to the public
health, safety or welfare.
(2)
The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for
the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of
the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be
completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter,
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-28-2001
7
or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the
spring or summer.
(3) The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete
any unfinished work.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
Board Member Olson seconded the motion.
Chairperson Ledvina clarified that there were other plan sheets in this set, plan
sheets T1, S1, S2, L1, date stamped August 21, 2001, and those are included in
this motion as well.
The motion passed. Ayes- All
Ms. Finwall confirmed to Chairperson Ledvina this will go to the city council
September 24, 2001.
Walgreens (former Burger King) - Semper Development
706 White Bear Avenue
Ms. Finwall stated that Semper Development is proposing to develop a
Walgreens at the old Burger King site. The proposal includes demolishing the
existing approximately 4,600 square-foot building and constructing a 15,035
square-foot drugstore with a drive-through pharmacy. The building will include a
corner entry with stucco finish and glass box tower. The remaining elevations
will be constructed of face brick. This design is Walgreens' standard building
design as seen constructed in several other cities within the metropolitan area
(most recently at 1965 Donegal Drive in Woodbury and 1401 Maryland Avenue
East in St. Paul).
The city has adopted the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study and the Hillcrest
Village Smart Growth Concept. The proposed Walgreens falls within both of
these study areas. Both the study and the concept are based on pedestrian-
friendly developments with human-scale elements. As Walgreens would be the
first development within these areas, care should be given to the design of this
building. Staff feels that a Walgreens on this site would be an asset to the area
only if the Smart Growth Initiatives are considered. As it stands, however, staff
feels that the Walgreens proposal falls very short of that. Therefore, staff is
recommending denial of the three requests due to the fact that the proposed
building location leads to an auto-oriented development. And that it is setback
from the White Bear Avenue right-of-way with parking situated toward the front of
Community Design Review Board 8
Minutes 8-28-2001
the store. The building elevations, staff feels, lack human-scale architectural
elements such as pillars, arcades, awnings, and shop windows at eye-level.
The design does not reflect the pedestrian-oriented town center concept
envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. The landscape plan
shows scattered landscaping throughout the site, basically as a compliment to
the parking area itself. This design does not contribute to the natural
environment and the community sense of place as envisioned in the Hillcrest
Village Redevelopment Area with features such as street trees with grates and
landscaped plaza with seating and bicycle storage.
The signage proposed includes a 25-foot-high freestanding sign. This design
detracts from the pedestrian character envisioned in the Hillcrest Village
Redevelopment Area.
Staff does not feel there are any unique hardships or circumstances that warrant
approving the proposed 3-foot parking lot setback variance. Staff recommends
denial of Semper Development's proposal to construct a Walgreens drug store at
1706 White Bear Avenue.
Board Member Olson asked Ms. Finwall if the primary recommendation was
against the building itself or the parking?
Ms. Finwall answered the recommendation was to deny the proposal as
submitted due to the fact that it does not meet the goals of the Hillcrest Village
Redevelopment Area.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if anything came out of the White Bear Avenue
Corridor Study relating to building design elements?
Secretary Ekstrand commented that the study mainly focused on streetscapes
and elements such as pedestrian-ways, street lighting, landscaping, street
widths, and medians. It didn't get into elements of building placement as much
as the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area study did. The Hillcrest Village
Redevelopment Area encourages buildings close to the street right-of-way with
parking in the rear as illustrated on page 25 of the report. Mr. Tim Rood from
Calthorpe Associates submitted that design to illustrate the type of layout for
Walgreens that would meet the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area objectives.
Board Member Olson stated that in her opinion the alternative layout is more
appropriate for the southern end of Hillcrest. In this particular location it is very
automotive-oriented and is not very pedestrian-friendly in this part of the city.
Secretary Ekstrand said that is the challenge right now, this is the first
opportunity we have had to look at a sight for redevelopment with these
objectives in mind. The city council has accepted this concept and has directed
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-28-2001
staff to go ahead and implement the studies. The points you made are true; the
first building we implement will be the toughest and will set the tone for the next
buildings developed.
Mr. John Kohler, the architect for Semper Development representing Walgreens
came forward.
Mr. Kohler stated that based on a number of the comments made, Walgreens
had some very specific guidelines and criteria that they work with when they
design their stores, and the plans in the packet are not really the prototypical
dimensions for a store. This store was actually narrowed and lengthened to fit on
the site. One of the primary criteria that Walgreens has for their buildings is that
the parking be adjacent to the front door. It does not need to be between the
street and the front door; it needs to be adjacent to the front door. That did not
come about from someone's preconception in some corporate office of what
might or might not work. It actually came about through stores that Walgreens
built. A good example of that would be in Edina at 50th and France Avenue
where they built the store right on the street and the parking was behind the
store. What they found is that store does not work because of those
circumstances. When that lease is up, the building will be a vacant store until
somebody else moves in. You are selling a service and a convenience and if
you make customers' park in the back of the store and walk all the way to the
front, they won't go into the store. People go to a store that is convenient and
fast to get in and out of.
This is the site plan that Walgreens has approved. They would love to have
more room to build a larger store. If they had another piece of property to the
north, VValgreens could pull the building up and have the parking to the north.
This site does not allow for the building to be closer to the street.
Board Member Shankar asked Mr. Kohler why it shows on the site plan to have
parking in the back of the store if it did not work at the other store in Edina?
Mr. Kohler replied, the architects are trying to get in as many parking spaces
possible to meet the city requirements. The parking in the back of the store will
probably be used as employee parking. The city ordinance requires 75 spaces
for a building this size, but Walgreens would only need about 60.
Board Member Olson stated that she agrees with Mr. Kohler, as a customer who
is going to get a prescription, she wants to park in the front of the store and get
her prescription as quick as possible and leave. She felt that parking in the front
of the building is very important for this type of establishment.
Board Member Shankar asked Mr. Kohler if there were any Walgreens with two
store entrances?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-28-2001
Mr. Kohler replied, no there are not, and he suspects the reason would be for
loss prevention reasons.
Chairperson Ledvina asked how the square footage of this building relates to
other Walgreens stores?
Mr. Kohler stated this store is slightly larger because it had to be elongated to fit
on the site, the store is 15,035 square-feet and most stores are about 14,600
square-feet. A general store would be 105' X 138' in dimension and this store is
97' X 155'.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Kohler if the building was set back to meet the
125-foot-deed requirement?
Mr. Kohler replied there is a requirement in the title work that sets it back that far.
Both the city attorney and the attorney at Semper Development said the
expiration is in 2009, and the attorney's feelings are they can most likely get a
title insurance company to insure over that because it is so old. That wasn't the
driving force for why this building was back that far. It was something that
Walgreens thought they had to meet, which they did meet. VValgreens would not
have approved the site if the building was way up and the parking was in the
back as it was depicted in the previous plan, and it was not received well.
Ms. Finwall stated that the convenience of parking in the front of the building
would replace a development with a sense of place as envisioned in the Hillcrest
Village Redevelopment Area. The convenience could still be achieved by placing
the doors toward the rear and front of the building and incorporating architectural
features to the White Bear Avenue side that will achieve a more pedestrian-
friendly development. This can only happen when developers are willing
contributors to the concept. ^ strong precedent will be set if we allow the first
development within the smart growth area to be built with parking in the front.
Mr. Raleigh Nelson, one of the two owners of the former Burger King restaurant
at 1706 White Bear Avenue came forward.
Mr. Nelson said he is a bit shocked at the denial of the Walgreens proposal. He
said he knows the area very well running the Burger King for many years. If the
building were to be put forward like staff is requesting, it would be great if the
other buildings were forward. But it is going to stick out and look intrusive and
nobody walks in that location. Once and awhile you may see a kid riding a bike
around there. If this proposal does not go through, we are still sitting with a
building with parking in the front. He does feel that Walgreens would add to the
area and it would certainly be a better building than what is there right now. It
would line up and work with the existing buildings that are currently there.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-28-2001
Board Member Shankar asked staff what the time frame for the Hillcrest Village
implementation for this concept was?
Secretary Ekstrand said it is going to be ongoing for many years. St. Paul, which
has the Hillcrest Center, has a team of real estate people looking into time-
tables. What types of businesses can be supported in this area, and how many
residential areas can be supported in this area. This could be a 20-year project.
Board Member Olson asked the staff, who put these plans together and how
bound are we to these two alternatives?
Secretary Ekstrand said the met council gave a grant to the City of Maplewood
and St. Paul to be part of this. The grant is for architectural and design services.
The company that drafted this is a multi-group team. The two main facets, other
than the met council who is coordinating this, is a group called Calthorpe and
Associates out of California and also one in Minneapolis called HGA. Two of the
lead people from those two firms were very interested in submitting their
recommendations to the staff on Walgreens proposal to give suggestions on
implementing the smart growth objectives. The council has given the staff the go
ahead to try to strive to accomplish what is being shown in the plan.
Board Member Olson asked staff if they have chosen between the two Hillcrest
Village alternative plans given?
Secretary Ekstrand replied no they had not. A highbred is going to be decided.
Probably in September in their meeting at the met council, they will discuss
between Maplewood and St. Paul what alternatives and features of each were
liked. The consultant would then put together an alternative plan C with the best
parts of each scenario.
Board Member Olson asked if there were any comments that she could make as
a resident of Maplewood regarding the Hillcrest Redevelopment Project?
Secretary Ekstrand said he has some forms in his office that can be filled out and
staff would welcome input from anybody.
Board Member Olson stated she has a real problem with one of the plans of
blocking off North St. Paul read and felt that would be a real mistake. The idea of
pushing businesses forward towards the read and moving parking to the back of
the buildings was done in North St. Paul and did a lot of damage to the
companies there because of that. The idea of eliminating the parking in the front
and forcing parking to the back, will make this a narrow, unfriendly corridor. She
also felt putting the entrance of Walgreens at the corner of the building right on
White Bear Avenue and having the parking in the back will make for a dangerous
area for pedestrians or bike riders.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-28-2001
Chairperson Ledvina commented he thinks it is very hard to make the transition
from what exists currently to what is envisioned in the future 5-10-15 years down
the road.
Board Member Olson said she has grown up in this area and feels this is the
wrong place to start pushing a new concept plan. She likes the proposed
Walgreens site, and she dislikes the Calthorpe alternative.
Chairperson Ledvina said his thought on how to make the transition is perhaps a
compromise in the parking scenario. It is a matter of fitting a proposal to the area
and perhaps this proposal does not fit in the area.
Board Member Shankar commented he felt the plans lacked landscaping and he
is not saying the building has to be pushed all the way to the front of the street,
he is willing to compromise but would like to see a site plan with a few different
scenarios with parking and landscaping.
Chairperson Ledvina said, what is proposed is somewhat spartan for what he
would expect for a redevelopment of this site. He would like to see some
interesting architectural features put into this design, such as a pitched roof
element and maybe a clock tower near the entrance. If proposals were in
consideration of potential development of Walgreens at this site, he would like to
see those types of elements incorporated into the proposal.
Board Member Olson agreed she would like to see some height added to the
building, adding some decorative elements, and perhaps reconfigure the entry
and make it more side walk friendly. Maybe there are some things that could be
done to make the plans more acceptable to everybody so the whole thing would
not have to be thrown out.
Chairperson Ledvina is also inclined to agree with the staff recommendation from
a philosophical standpoint.
Mr. Kohler said "this proposal is going to the city council".
Board Member Shankar made a motion that the Community Design Review
Board deny the following requests associated with Sempler Development
proposal to develop a Walgreens at 1706 White Bear Avenue for the following
reasons:
The city council has endorsed and accepted the smart growth principles as
illustrated in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Concept plans. These plans
were developed by Calthorpe Associates from smart growth workshops held
by the Metropolitan Council for the Hillcrest Village. The proposed store is in
the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area.
Community Design Review Board 13
Minutes 8-28-2001
2. The objectives of the Smart Growth Redevelopment Concept are to create
developments that encourage pedestrian-friendly and pedestrian-accessible
projects, where the building is the prominent feature when viewed from the
street, not the parking lot.
Semper Development's proposal to develop a Walgreens store at 1706 White
Bear Avenue does not meet the above-mentioned smart growth principles for
the following reasons:
The proposed building location leads to an auto-oriented development in that it is
setback from the White Bear Avenue right-of-way with parking situated toward
the front of the store. This design does not reflect a pedestrian-friendly
environment as envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Concept with
buildings constructed closer to the street and parking situated toward the rear of
the building.
bo
The building elevations lack human-scale architectural elements such as pillars,
arcades, awnings, and shop windows at eye-level. This design does not reflect
the pedestrian-oriented town center concept envisioned in the Hillcrest Village
Redevelopment Area.
The landscape plan shows scattered landscape areas in an attempt to decorate
the parking lot. This design does not contribute to the natural environment and to
the community's sense of place as envisioned in the Hillcrest Village
Redevelopment Area with features such as street trees with grates and
landscaped plaza with seating and bicycle storage.
The signage proposed includes a 25-foot-high freestanding sign. This design
detracts from the pedestrian character envisioned in the Hillcrest Village
Redevelopment Area.
e. There are no unique hardships or circumstances that warrant approving the
proposed 3-foot parking lot setback variance.
m
fe
The architectural features on the proposed design would need to be
enhanced to improve the aesthetics of the site. (Added as an amendment
by chairperson Ledvina.)
The board would be willing to look at a compromised site plan where the
building is moved closer to White Bear Avenue and should also
incorporate some pedestrian-friendly features. (Added as an amendment
by Board Member Shankar.)
Chairperson Ledvina seconded the motion. Ayes - All
The motion carried.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-28-2001
]4
Ms. Finwall said this item would go to the city council meeting on September 10,
2001.
VII.
Visitor Presentations
No visitors present.
VIII. Board Presentations
No board presentations.
IX. Staff Presentations
Co
Matt Ledvina is scheduled for the September 10, 2001 city council
meeting as a representative for CDRB.
Ananth Shankar is scheduled for the September 24, 2001 city council
meeting as a representative for CDRB.
Due to primary election night the September 11, 2001 CDRB meeting is
cancelled and therefore will hold only meeting for the month of September.
do
Tom Ekstrand introduced an informational article called: An Introduction to
Urban Design.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m.