HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/26/2005
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
6:00 P.M.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes: June 28, 2005 Minutes
5. Unfinished Business:
a. Maplewood Toyota Vehicle Parking and Sales Facility - Northwest corner of
Beam Avenue and Highway 61, across the street from the existing sales lot.
6. Design Review:
a. Woodlands of Maplewood - McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue
b. Walgreens - Northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
a. July 11, 2005, City Council Meeting
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Sign Code Revisions
b. CDRB Representation at the August 8, 2005 City Council Meeting
10. Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Board member John Hinzman
Board member Matt Ledvina
Chairperson Diana Longrie
Vice chairperson Linda Olson
Board member Ananth Shankar
Present
Present until 9:07 p.m.
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Shann Finwall, Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ms. Finwall requested the addition of the Annual City Tour under staff presentations.
Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for June 28, 2005.
Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of June 28, 2005.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes ---Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Maplewood Toyota Vehicle Parking and Sales Facility - Northwest corner of
Beam Avenue and Highway 61, across the street from the existing sales lot.
Ms. Finwall said on June 28, 2005, the community design review board reviewed plans by
Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, for a proposed one-level parking ramp. This would
be one parking deck over the existing parking lot at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and
Highway 61.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
2
Ms. Finwall said essentially the CDRB tabled this proposal so the applicant could improve the
quality of materials and design. Since the meeting, Mr. McDaniels' architects, BWBR
Architects, have met with staff and revised their plans to address the board's concerns and
recommended changes. The proposed ramp was initially proposed with smooth white
concrete spandrels (panels) on the upper deck. The board wanted to see a material with a
softer look. The architects have submitted two different revised plans. The first plan is a tan
colored concrete panel with a more muted look along with the red striping and the second plan
is a gray/white color concrete panel with the red striping which would match the existing
building located across the street. City staff prefers the tan colored panel since it's more
muted and softer in appearance. Steve McDaniels, the owner of Maplewood Toyota, prefers
the white panels with the red striping since it matches the existing building and is the Toyota
protocol.
Ms. Finwall said on June 20, 2005, the planning commission recommended approval of the
CUP. They added a requirement that a traffic study be done to evaluate the current problem of
traffic congestion at Beam Avenue and Highway 61 as it relates to Maplewood Toyota's
existing operation as well as the potential effect from the proposed parking ramp addition.
They also added a requirement that the easterly curb cut on the Maplewood Toyota site south
of Beam Avenue be clearly marked as an "exit only".
Board member Shankar said because he is employed with BWBR Architects, the architect for
Maplewood Toyota, he is going to abstain from the conversation and from voting due to a
conflict of interest.
Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Andy Hulcher, General Manager of Maplewood Toyota, addressed the board.
Mr. Tom Dornack, Project Architect for BWBR Architects, Lawson Commons, 380 St. Peter
Street, Suite 600, St. Paul, addressed the board. He said for the north lot they brought a plan
for the retaining wall and a sample of the retaining block they would use for the board to
review. The preference of Maplewood Toyota is to use the white smooth concrete spandrels
on the ramp with the red striping as originally submitted. They submitted two additional
revisions for the board to review. They are open to texturing the surface of the concrete to add
more interest but would prefer to go with the white smooth concrete finish. He presented
building samples for the board to review.
Board member Hinzman said the white painted concrete sample doesn't provide a lot of variety
in color and if it was a white aggregate product with some other colors in it he may be more apt
to choose that. He would agree with staff that the tan aggregate product provides a muted
appearance and more variety of color.
Board member Olson said after looking at the revised building samples she prefers the smooth
white panels rather than the textured product and she likes the red banding but would prefer
the red banding to be textured. After visiting the site again she thinks the white panel is a
better choice because of the Toyota protocol and the fact that the buildings need to speak to
each other. In her research she discovered there are only two other automobile parking ramps
in the Twin City area.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
3
Board member Olson said this parking ramp sets a precedence and that concerns her. She
has changed her mind since the last CDRB meeting and feels comfortable with the smooth
white concrete panels but would prefer to have the red band textured.
Chairperson Longrie said she likes the red banding because it ties in with the Toyota emblem
and seems to be the finishing touch on the building. It's important to look forward to the future.
The Toyota prototype is the white and red building products and she believes that's what
would look the nicest especially with the existing Maplewood Toyota building. She said she
likes texture and visual interest but thinks the smooth white building product looks the nicest.
Board member Ledvina said he likes the red stripe but would prefer it in a textured or
aggregate finish and he asked if that was an option at this point or did it have to be smooth?
Mr. Dornack said there are many ways the precast concrete company can do things but he
wants to confirm that the red stripe could be textured before that becomes part of the record.
He also wanted to state that for any other projects that would come before the city for
Maplewood Toyota they would prefer to stay with the corporate protocol for Toyota using the
white finish on their buildings.
Board member Olson said she is pleased with the efforts that Maplewood Toyota has gone to
take care of the concerns the board has had.
Chairperson Longrie agreed and she is happy with the landscaping additions that have been
submitted.
Board member Hinzman agreed.
Board member Olson moved to approve the parking-ramp plan revisions, the lighting plan and
the landscaping plan date-stamped July 15, 2005, and July 21, 2005, for the proposed parking
ramp for Maplewood Toyota at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. The
applicant shall comply with the following conditions: (changes made by the CDRB during the
meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted)
1. Submit cOR'lplctc revised mR'l~ desigA ~Ians to staff for a~proval, '....ith briElge details
showing cOAsistency iA dcsigA, solor aAEl materials all around tt-Jo struGture. Tt-Jo
plans reforonced above de~icted OA the west. The approved color shall be the
smooth white taR option with 2 textured red strip aggregate spaAElrols.
2. Submit a detailed lighting plan to staff for approval showing the proposed fixture
design and pole heights. There shall be no lights that shine toward the west. There
shall be no lights mounted on the west of the proposed ramp that shine to the west.
3. Submit a revised landscaping plan to staff for approval that states that the proposed
evergreen trees would be at least six feet tall and be balled and burlapped.
4. Submit an irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of
the cost of completing the landscaping and site lighting.
5. These items must be provided before the city shall issue a building permit.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
4
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson
Abstention -Shankar
The motion passed.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Woodlands of Maplewood - McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue
Ms. Finwall reported Mr. Chris English, representing Integra Homes, is asking the city to
approve plans for a 28 unit townhouse development. He has prepared a site plan that shows
28 townhouses (in 14 detached townhomes and seven twin homes) in a development called
The Woodlands. It would be on an 8.2-acre site on the east side of McMenemy Street, north
of Kingston Avenue and south of the Hmong Church. The applicant's designer has told staff
that each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick
veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. The planning
commission approved requests 1-5 of the staff report at their July 18, 2005, meeting.
Ms. Finwall said it should be noted that the city allows no parking on 24-foot-wide streets,
parking on one side of 28-foot-wide streets and along both sides of streets that are 32 feet
wide. In this case, the developer is proposing to construct the new public street (Kingston
Court) and the private driveways 24 feet wide and then the city would not allow parking on the
street on driveways. The project has not shown any areas for proof-of-parking spaces within
the development. This is something that the final project plans should show. Locations for
such parking could be north of Kingston Court near Unit 20, north of Kingston Lane near Units
7 and 8 and along Edgemont Lane near Units 10 and 11. These are locations that the city
could require the developer or the homeowners' association to add more parking if it becomes
necessary.
Board member Shankar asked if staff is recommending a cul-de-sac next to unit 4, and asked
how people would get to units 1, 2, and 3?
Staff said that question would be better addressed by the applicant.
Board member Olson said the police department stated the street should be renamed to
eliminate confusion with the street names and she asked what the name of the street would
be?
Ms. Finwall recommended the applicant address that question.
Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Brian Bourassa, MFRA Engineering, Plymouth, addressed the board. He displayed the
original layout from the previous proposal and then displayed the new design to represent the
changes in the design layout. This represents the additional property Integra Homes acquired
to add to the development layout. The name of the new street will be Sophia Avenue per the
Police Department's request. With the redesign of the plan they were able to design some
hammerhead turn arounds and a large cul-de-sac on the plan.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
5
Mr. Bourassa said regarding staff's suggestion for additional visitor parking Integra Homes will
be adding some additional visitor parking stalls on the plan in the areas staff suggested.
Board member Ledvina said he is concerned with the large cul-de-sac on the plan. It is shown
on the plan to be 120 feet curb to curb in terms of the diameter. In his neighborhood they have
a huge cul-de-sac with a tremendous amount of asphalt. He personally measured his cul-de-
sac and it measured 96 feet curb to curb. He estimates the proposed cul-de-sac to be 12,000
square feet of asphalt on the plan and he believed a much smaller intersection could be built
there. He doesn't understand the need for a cul-de-sac of that size. If it can be reduced it
should be reduced and it would be a benefit to the project.
Mr. Bourassa agreed with that comment. Staff recommended a cul-de-sac of this size and
that's why it's shown that way on the plan. In the past Integra Homes has used planters in the
center of the cul-de-sac or island area. He's not sure if this is common practice in Maplewood
or if it's allowed but that's a possibility.
Board member Hinzman said the Kingston Court right of way comes close to the homes to the
south. He asked if there was additional land acquired for this right of way or was that the way
the property line is presently?
Mr. Bourassa said additional land was acquired in order to meet some of the requirements
from staff as well as to meet the objectives of Integra Homes.
Board member Hinzman knows this is the second time the plans have been redesigned for this
proposal and he appreciates the work and effort that has gone into preparing this proposal. He
is looking at the double frontage with the existing lots to the south. He wondered if Integra
Homes had thought about taking the southern street and flipping the street design to the north
so there would be a street adjacent to the church area which would cause less of an impact.
The existing homes to the south would then back up to the new town homes rather than
backing up to asphalt.
Mr. Bourassa said after meeting with the residents and staff this plan was the preferred plan.
They realize it creates double frontage lots but that was the preference of the neighbors to the
south. They spent a lot of time out in the field thinking of the design but because of the pond
location there was a problem trying to snake the road in and still develop a logical lot design for
the proposal. This is the plan the neighbors to the south are supporting.
Board member Hinzman asked how it is determined which trees are removed from the
property?
Mr. Bourassa said the bulk of the site is being graded. They did a tree inventory on the entire
site. They are working with a certified arborist and will identify prior to construction the trees
that are healthy and that have the capacity to stand a move. They will transplant all the trees
that can be transplanted, which is about 150-200 trees on this site. They will be planting
landscaping to buffer the south property line behind the Monn's Villa neighborhood as well as
on the west side of the property buffering McMenemy Street. The landscaping plan will be
difficult. Staff has stated they would prefer to have some strong language in the developer's
agreement to ensure the landscaping and trees are taken care.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
6
Mr. Bourassa said this would ensure any concerns the neighbors have during construction and
if the landscaping or trees should die it would be Integra Homes' responsibility to replace it.
Board member Ledvina said the east boundary shows a retaining wall. He asked if that
retaining wall was to preserve the trees and what the height of the retaining wall is going to
be?
Mr. Bourassa said the neighbor with the large oak tree is real close to the property line and
Integra Homes is going to be working with the homeowner along with the arborist to ensure the
tree is trimmed and cared for before and during the construction to preserve the trees.
Mr. Michael Villari, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, Lino Lakes, addressed the board.
They have not submitted plans for the retaining wall along the east property line yet but would
submit that to the city staff and engineering department. It appears that retaining wall would
be about half a foot tall ranging up to about four feet in height along the east side. There
would be some additional significant retaining walls along the ponds that are even taller.
Board member Ledvina asked if the goal was to not have any significant grading on the east
side?
Mr. Villari said that is correct.
Board member Shankar asked what the width of the roads would be?
Mr. Bourassa said the width of the public street is 26 feet wide curb to curb but the width of the
road at the entrance is larger because of the median in the middle. The private street from
curb to curb is also 26 feet wide. For clarification the cul-de-sac is at a 60 foot radius.
Board member Olson asked if they were proposing any sidewalks in this development?
Mr. Bourassa said they will have a paved private trail connection in the development. At the
planning commission meeting the sidewalk issue came up and at some time in the future Mr.
Ahl said there may be a trail corridor that would connect along the east side of McMenemy
Street. But there are no sidewalks in this development.
Board member Olson said if individuals in this development wanted to walk to the bus they
would have to walk on these narrow roads because there are no sidewalks.
Mr. Bourassa said there is a trail connection from Kingston Avenue to this area as well. He is
not sure if there is a bus route on McMenemy Street but he believes there is.
Chairperson Longrie said regarding the large cul-de-sac in the center she asked if there is a
potential for a planter to be put in the center to decrease the amount of impervious surface?
Ms. Finwall said yes. The 60 foot radius is indicated in the city's subdivision ordinance and the
city engineering department supports a 50 foot radius and as small as a 45 foot radius. The
large cul-de-sac is surprising to staff and she isn't sure why the city engineers recommended
the 60 foot radius. Maybe it could either be reduced in size or a planter could be used to break
up the amount of asphalt.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
7
Board member Olson said she is concerned about fire trucks or school buses not being able to
maneuver around in the area and if there were a planter in the middle of the cul-de-sac she is
concerned the planter would cause a problem for those vehicles trying to turn around.
Ms. Finwall said she wasn't sure and said that is something the city engineer would have to
clarify. Staff could follow up on that for the board.
Board member Shankar said if it needs to be a 60 foot radius they could use some colored
concrete or brick in the center to break up the expanse of the asphalt cul-de-sac.
Board member Ledvina said if the city could get by with a smaller radius cul-de-sac he would
recommend changing the plan to eliminate as much asphalt as possible.
Board member Shankar asked if the roads are 26 feet wide why wouldn't the applicant make
the roads 2 feet wider and allow for on-street parking on one side of the street and eliminate
the visitor parking?
Mr. Bourassa said that's a good idea but they would like the opportunity to investigate that
possibility and how that would affect the area. They would also have to make sure they could
meet the setbacks and check on the plantings in the area.
Board member Hinzman said he thinks that's a better idea than having small visitor parking
spots put in small areas.
Mr. Bourassa said they would take a look at that and report back to city staff on their findings.
Chairperson Longrie said you still need to make sure there is room for people to walk around
whether there are kids living here or not. We are moving towards a more livable walkable
community.
Board member Hinzman said with the size of the development they have done a good job with
the design and the connections within the site.
Board member Shankar said the colored elevations look like stucco but isn't the intent to use
horizontal siding?
Mr. Bourassa deferred that question to Ron Lillestrand.
Mr. Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, Dayton, addressed the board. He said his
daughter usually handles this information but is not present this evening. These buildings will
have vinyl siding along with stone and brick on the building exterior.
Chairperson Longrie said she remembers the last time the board reviewed this proposal the
board had a lengthy discussion regarding the building exteriors and making changes to the
exterior.
Mr. Lillestrand had three different building product samples that they would propose using on
the building exterior which includes vinyl siding, cedar shakes, asphalt shingles, and window
shutters.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
8
Mr. Lillestrand said at the previous CDRB meeting his daughter had discussed some building
exterior changes and additional colors to use but she was unable to be here tonight. Some of
the employees are on vacation and his draftsman was called away unexpectedly so he is not
as organized as he would like to be. He said they ended up acquiring some additional
property and may be designing more twin homes than they originally planned. They will be
redesigning some of the buildings so for these reasons he would like to bring the revised
building elevations and building colors back to the board for review with some of his staff.
Chairperson Longrie asked if she understood Integra Homes would like to come back to fully
present the revised building design and building colors. If that is the case she said she had
some additional questions to ask about the design so she would hold those questions until
they come back with the revisions.
Mr. Lillestrand said that's what they would prefer to do.
Chairperson Longrie said she would support tabling the building elevations until Integra Homes
wants to come back to the board with the revisions.
Board member Shankar asked if the CDRB would be reviewing just the site plan, landscape,
grading and drainage plans then?
Chairperson Longrie said that's what it sounds like. If the applicant is willing to alter the width
of the private and public drive aisle to minimize the cul-de-sac width as well.
Board member Ledvina said he is wondering about the cul-de-sac on the southeast corner and
why there isn't a curve in the road instead? There is no conflict in terms of traffic in that area.
When a new development is proposed you have to look at the development as a whole and he
believes some of the impervious surfaces could be made smaller.
Board member Hinzman agreed.
Board member Ledvina said he wasn't present for the previous meeting for this proposal but
he thinks this is a nice plan. He especially likes the side loaded garages. He is concerned
about the positioning of units 21 and 22. Maybe they could be staggered a bit to add more
character.
Board member Hinzman said this is a difficult piece of property to develop with the topography.
From a design standpoint he would prefer to see the private street moved to the north but he
understands the neighbors prefer this plan. He thinks this will be a nice subdivision.
Board member Shankar said even if the cul-de-sac is reduced to a 45 foot radius perhaps they
could consider using a 10 foot circle radius with a alternate material other than asphalt with
either colored concrete or brick.
Board member Olson said she remembered seeing this proposal before and she thinks this
plan is much improved. She appreciates the developer's efforts to work with the neighbors.
She is concerned about pedestrian traffic and the need for sidewalks.
Board member Shankar asked if there was a minimum width for sidewalks?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
9
Ms. Finwall said the minimum sidewalk width in Maplewood is six feet wide.
Board member Olson said she thinks a four foot wide sidewalk would be sufficient.
Board member Ledvina said this is a PUD and the city doesn't have to follow the ordinances
with a planned unit development like this.
Board member Shankar suggested the road between McMenemy and the cul-de-sac be 24
feet wide with a four foot wide sidewalk for a total of 28 feet wide. The private road could be
28 feet wide which would allow parking on one side of the street.
The board agreed that was a good idea.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the project plans (site plan, landscape plan, grading
and drainage plans one l3uildiAg elevations) for the Woodlands of Maplewood townhouses on
the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston 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 CDRB during the 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 approve final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall include: streets, grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree
sidewalk and driveway plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and
shall also meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo
dated July 11, 2005.
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) A revised site plan showing the following:
(a) That the units alonq the north property line are scatted to break UP
the Iinearitv.
(b) The public road at 24 feet wide UP to the cul-de-sac, alonq with a 4-
foot wide sidewalk runninq from McMenemv Street to the cul-de-sac.
(c) All private roads to be 28 feet wide with parkinq allowed on one side.
(d) Review the concept with the enqineerinq department of reducinq the
amount of impervious surface on the western cul-de-sac bv the
installation of a center landscape island or the reduction in the radius,
or the possibility of the installation of different color or materials.
(e) Review the concept with the enqineerinQ department of removinq the
southeast cul-de-sac.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
10
(3) 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.
(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.
(e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than
four feet tall require a building permit from the city.
(f) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city
engineer.
(g) Show the drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide
the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design
shall accommodate the run-off from the surrounding areas.
(h) Show details about the proposed pond fencing including the
materials, gate, height and color.
(4) 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, transplant, save or replace
large trees.
(c) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted and
replacement trees. The new coniferous trees shall be at least eight
feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills spruce and Austrian pine.
(d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans shall
show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(e) Show additional tree planting for screening along the south and west
property lines of the site.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
11
(5) The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
(a) A water service to each lot and unit.
(b) The repair and restoration of McMenemy Street and Kingston
Avenue (including curbing, street, and boulevard) after the contractor
removes the existing driveways, connects to the public utilities and
builds the new streets, trails and driveways.
(c) .'\11 dri'lO'....ays at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to t-Javo
parking on one side of the e;troet or driveway, thon it must be at loast
28 foet wide.
(d) The street and the driveways shall have continuous concrete curb
and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not
needed.
(e) The developer or contractor shall post the streets and driveways with
"no parking" signs to meet city standards.
(f) The public streets and private driveways labeled on all plans.
(g) The common area labeled as Outlot B on all plans.
(t-J) Areas for proof ef ~arking eft of the streets wherever ~essible.
(6) The design of the ponding areas 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 a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the
following details.
(1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the
vegetation within the ponding area.
(2) The addition of eight-foot tall trees and/or fencing for screening along the
west and south sides of the site.
(3) The developer shall install landscaping in the ponding areas to break the
appearance of the deep hole and to promote infiltration. Such
landscaping shall be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown
on the project landscape plans.
(4) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement).
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
12
(5) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the
landscape plan date-stamped February 1, 2005, shall remain on the
plan.
(6) A concrete walk from the driveway to the door of each unit.
(7) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall
include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the
ponding area 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 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.
(8) 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).
(9) The contractor shall restore the McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue
boulevards with sod.
(10) Adding more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines)
along the west and south property lines 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 and
west.
(11) Show the in-ground lawn-irrigation system, including the location of the
sprinkler heads.
(12) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be
consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans.
(13) Show the landscape or ground treatment for the areas between the
driveways of the double dwellings.
d. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this development.
e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.
f. Submit a site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show the installation
of at least seven street lights and how the lighting on the buildings would add to
the site lighting. This 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 and from adjacent
residential properties.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
13
g. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed
utility plans.
h. Present to staff for appr-o'/al solor builEling elevatieAs or builEling material sam~les
of all elovatieAs of the tevmhouses. These elevaticJAs shoulEl shoVl that the
townhouse will Ra'le oarth tOAOS, greon or gF:::lY colored ViAyl sidiAg and a
wainscot of I3rick or stono. These elovations also shoulEl show or include (but are
not limited to) tho colors of all materials, any st-Juttors, wiAElow griEls, the style and
materi<lls of balcoAY railings, and provido moro dotail <ll3out the brick or stone
acconts and the waiAscotS.
i. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) at the
time of the building permit for each housing unit.
j. 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, outlots, the private utilities, signs,
landscaping and retaining walls.
k. 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 and sod all turf areas.
c. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building and its rainwater
garden(s).
d. Install the required concrete curb and gutter.
e. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exits onto McMenemy Street and
addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install
"no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff.
f. Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including the plantings
around each unit and around the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all
landscaped areas (code requirement).
g. 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
Minutes 7-26-2005
14
h. Install a six-foot-high solid fencing or additional trees along the west and south
property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the
townhouses from the existing dwellings. These additional materials are to ensure
there is at least a six-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.
i. 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.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
6. Provide city staff with a sign and landscape plan for the entrance and island at
McMenemy Street. The monument sign shall be no more than six feet tall and shall
have materials that are consistent with and architecturally compatible with the buildings
within the development. The landscapinq shall be compatible with the extreme
conditions of the location and the materials shall need little or no maintenance.
7. Buildinq elevations are not approved with this desiqn review. All final buildinq
elevations must be approved bv the community desiqn review board.
Chairperson Longrie seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson,
Shankar
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on August 8, 2005.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
15
b. Walgreens - Northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues
Ms. Finwall said Meer Construction and the Maplewood Financial Center, representing
Walgreens, are proposing to construct at 14,480-square-foot Walgreens Pharmacy on a
vacant lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. The plan also
shows a future three-story office building to be located on the east side of the lot, toward the
Maplewood Heights city park.
The planning commission reviewed and recommended approval of the comprehensive plan
and zoning map change at the July 18, 2005, planning commission meeting. The community
design review board (CDRB) should review and make a recommendation on the design
issues. Final action by the city council is currently scheduled for August 8, 2005.
Chairperson Longrie said it looks like the curb cut off of Beam Avenue doesn't line up with the
center island and the 13 parking spaces.
Ms. Finwall said the applicants could address that.
Board Olson said it appears the applicant is able to meet the parking requirements only by
reducing the size of the parking stalls and she asked if that was an issue for staff?
Ms. Finwall said staff is recommending that the applicant revise the site plan to meet the city
code requirements for the parking stall width and length or apply for a variance.
Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Scott Regan, Meer Construction, 11800 - 95th Avenue North, Maple Grove, addressed the
board. He is here to represent Maplewood Financial Center in these proceedings. The court
case has been decided and they prevail and they are allowed to build any lawful building for
any purpose.
Mr. Barton Schultz, Engineering Consultant on this project with Houston Engineering, Inc.
addressed the board. He said they met with city staff on Friday, July 22, 2005, and have since
revised the site plan to address the parking stalls, revised the lighting plan to meet the
maximum foot-candle, and revised the landscaping plan. He went through the revisions to the
plans aloud with the board. He said they have ten foot wide parking spaces along the building
and the other spaces are nine foot wide. Mr. Schultz said currently the curb cuts go onto
White Bear Avenue and staff has asked that they make this a combined access and they aren't
saying that is a bad idea except given the relationship with the landlord for them to be the front
person to propose this they fear would tie them up in litigation for another year. They originally
met with planning 1Y:z years ago to discuss this project. They submitted their proposal April of
2004 and this has been tied up in litigation since that point. For them to propose this as a
shared access even if it makes total sense they fear this would tie things up in litigation for
another year.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
16
Mr. Matt Regan, Meer Construction, 11800 - 95th Avenue North, Maple Grove, addressed the
board. Regarding the underlying fee ownership verses the 99 year lease they hold on this
property staff has made a recommendation and requirement that they need to dedicate the 10
feet along White Bear Avenue. He has spoken with his attorneys about that and the attorneys
response was it would be very difficult to have the fee owner agree to that.
Mr. Regan said if there is a way to work with staff in some type of legal capacity they would
give the rights that they have with the lease The City Attorney could practice the eminent
domain powers to widen the road. They are more than happy to work with the city and staff to
give what rights they have for the 10 feet. In 2008 Ramsey County is going to widen White
Bear Avenue to a 6 lane roadway. They have a memo from Dan Soler, Ramsey County Public
Works, who reviewed this project and states the accesses are fine as is.
Board member Olson asked about the sidewalks?
Mr. Schultz said the Beam Avenue sidewalk would connect to the sidewalk on White Bear
Avenue.
Chairperson Longrie asked about the curb cut on Beam Avenue?
Mr. Schultz said the existing curb cut there was an easement given in the 1970's for
connection to the strip mall from Beam Avenue.
Mr. Regan said as part of the lease the lessor gives them a 40 foot easement onto the property
to the north for ingress and egress.
Chairperson Longrie said that brings her back to her original question if they can adjust the
Beam Avenue curb cut to line it up with the driveway entrance on the north property.
Mr. Schultz said in order for them to straighten this they have to take out a portion of the fee
owner's curb cut, which may be an issue. It was an issue when they were draining this site but
do to their relationship with the fee owner they did not want them to use his catch basins even
though they would be handling water from the fee owner's site. That's why they have a mirror
image of the catch basins that already exist on the north property shown on the plan.
Chairperson Longrie said if they move the curb cut to the east they wouldn't have a wide
enough drive aisle.
Board member Shankar asked why they couldn't move the future building to the east and then
move the parking lot over.
Mr. Regan said the parking lot in the city park to the east of the building encroaches onto the
leased property and they were hoping they could preserve the city's parking lot by putting the
building there. The curb cuts pretty much line up with the curb cut with the bank lot so it
makes sense. They would have to cut into the hill a little bit when they do the excavation work.
They would like to do the excavating for the office building along with the excavation for
Walgreens and get things done all at the same time. They would like to come back to the city
with the plans for the office building during next construction time.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
17
Board member Shankar said you don't have to move the whole building over he said you can
move just the west face of the building over to the east by 5 feet or so and then the center
island gets moved to the east by five feet.
Ms. Finwall said there is also an opportunity to reduce the width of the drive aisle to 24 feet,
currently it's 25 feet wide and they could reduce the length of the parking stalls per the city
code when they are adjacent a curb or landscaped area from 19 feet to 15.5 feet long so there
are some opportunities to change things.
Chairperson Longrie said it's important to make sure the curb cut and the curbing for the
parking of those 13 stalls are lined up. She is concerned that the applicant is stating the
parking at the city park is encroaching upon the future office building property.
Mr. Regan said that is something they will address when they bring the office park proposal to
the city for review next year some time.
Chairperson Longrie said she was glad to see the landscaping plan was revised because she
thinks it's important to have the additional trees along Beam Avenue and White Bear Avenue
to tie this corner into Premier Bank's site. She is happy the sidewalk issues have been worked
out as well. She wondered how the building elevations were revised and the differences from
what was presented in the CDRB packet they received.
Mr. Robert Brunjes, ConsultanUProject Architect on this project, addressed the board. He said
it's been noted that this Walgreens proposal is similar to another Walgreens building built
farther down on White Bear Avenue in the Hillcrest Area in St. Paul. The footprint and general
design are very similar. This is relative to the Walgreens prototype and Walgreens from time
to time makes changes to the building design. The primary distinction between the two designs
is the manufactured limestone veneer that is about 1 foot high by 2 feet long. It is the intent
that these appear to be a quarried limestone. The brick pilasters are expressed on the north
and east side to break up the elevations and add more visual interest, they are projected out
about 1 or 2 inches from the building and have a limestone cap on them. The green awnings
are a standing seam awning. The trash compacting and recycling area will be made of brick
and eight feet tall. The dumpster enclosure will have a cedar gate.
Chairperson Longrie asked if it was correct that the plans for the monument sign have not
been submitted yet?
Mr. Brunjes said the signage was submitted with the initial application for Walgreens.
Board member Olson asked if someone could address the plans for the freestanding sign?
Mr. Brunjes said he doesn't have those plans in front of him.
Board member Ledvina said one of the conditions in the staff report is that the sign plans be
brought back to the CDRB for review.
Mr. Regan said because they don't have information regarding the signage details they are
willing to bring that information back.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
18
Board member Olson thinks this is an attractive building and she is glad to see some
development on this corner.
Board member Shankar said the richness of the limestone is impressive, however, he agrees
with Ms. Finwall that this is a very prominent location at the corner of White Bear Avenue and
Beam Avenue and perhaps the entry design at the corner and the 45 degree angle should be
looked at along with eliminating the awning. He feels that even though the east and the north
elevations are thought to be not visible he believes if you are driving west on Beam Avenue
you would see the east elevation of the building and if drive south you would see the north side
of the building. While he appreciates the brick pilasters that are shown on the elevations he
believes there needs to be more variety of building materials used on the east and the north
side. Maybe adding some additional limestone on those elevations would help.
Board member Hinzman said he agrees this is a very prominent corner and visible intersection
and to have a building with some stature is very important to the city. The building material
improvements to the Walgreens building are nice; however, it's the same prototypical building
that already exists at White Bear Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue and at 94 and White Bear
Avenue with a few modifications. He said there is a man in Hastings named Pat Reagan who
built the School House Square Development and he built the office over the retail space. To
have something more prominent at this corner and add stature to this location is important and
recommended the office building be located on the corner.
Mr. Brunjes said one of the design elements that is important to Walgreens is the tower
element because of the three dimensional element.
Board member Hinzman said yes but it's the same three dimensional element they built on
every Walgreens. The materials may be a little different but the form and stature of the building
is the same.
Mr. Brunjes said the primary design element that separates these buildings is the limestone
veneer which adds a lot to the design.
Board member Hinzman said it adds to the design but this corner needs more than limestone
added to the building. It needs more stature, design and presence at this intersection.
Board member Olson said the entrance to the Walgreens store has fluorescent light fixtures in
the tower and has a presence.
Chairperson Longrie said she doesn't like the awning over the front door and if you took that
off it would make the entrance more prominent.
Board member Shankar said the tower has a hollow element; it's not a true genuine
expression of any form. Just because this building design has been built at 10 other buildings
in the Twin Cities doesn't mean you have to use the same building protocol at this location in
Maplewood.
Board member Olson said the awning needs to stay over the door because living in Minnesota
you need protection from the elements for the visitors to this store. The awning is especially
nice for pedestrians wanting to get out of the elements.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
19
Board member Shankar said you could have the entrance setback without having an awning
over it so people would be protected from the elements.
Board member Olson said if the board thinks the building needs to be redesigned she would
like to see the peak element left on the building for protection.
Mr. Brunjes said it would be easy to develop a gabled structure over the tower to be consistent
with the design.
Board member Shankar said that gabled structure is going to conflict with the canopy because
both of them are going to be slopped surfaces.
Mr. Brunjes said he was thinking of a hipped gable that would cap the tower. It would add
elevation and prominence to the design. He would agree that if you are going to eliminate the
awning around the front of the entrance you want protection from the elements.
Board member Shankar said he has seen a few Super Americas that are all brick without an
awning but have a brick arch with a small recess behind so people can get out of the elements.
Board member Olson said she doesn't see Super America as offering the same kind of
services. She sees this store as serving the seniors that live in the apartments and people
walking to the mall. An awning and an air lock are important for this store.
Board member Shankar said in any case he strongly encourages the developer to redesign the
building to fit in this location at the corner at all elevations.
Board member Hinzman agreed.
Board member Ledvina agreed with those comments. He is also concerned about the
windows on the west and south elevations. This same issue came up in previous design
reviews with Walgreens. These windows are very high and are not a pedestrian scale. Board
member Ledvina said on the west elevation there is a window set that is left of the doors and if
it could be extended for the other window bays that would greatly enhance the appearance of
the building to have more glass in front. Walgreens may not want to do that based on how the
interior of the building functions but he believes this building should be more pedestrian
friendly.
Board member Olson asked if they could use limestone for the pilasters instead of the brick to
break up the expanse?
Mr. Brunjes said that's certainly possible. The limestone works with the tower of the entry and
it's repeated as you move around the structure. Studies would be required as you place
limestone on other places of the building.
The board members agreed they would like to have the building elevations and the signage
return for the board to review.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
20
Ms. Finwall said this proposal goes to the city council on Monday, August 8, 2005, and this
could come back to the board to review the building elevations and signage on Tuesday
August 9, 2005.
Mr. Regan said they would come back with a few different renditions for the board to review.
He said he built a drug store in Osseo that had large windows but the pharmacy put shelves in
front of the windows. They don't look good from inside the store and at night they really don't
look good from outside. If you try to put windows in some areas of the store it becomes a
security issue because of prescription drugs stored in the building.
Chairperson Longrie moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 17, 2005, for the
Walgreens Pharmacy to be located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues.
Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (changes made by the CDRB during
the 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. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for
approval the following items.
a. Proof that the applicants possess all requisite property ownership interest
required by Maplewood Code Section 44-1161 to initiate an amendment to the
zoning map, which said zoning map amendment is required for this design
review approval.
b. Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering
department requirements as specified to Erin Laberee's July 14, 2005,
memorandum, including but not limited to granting a 10-foot right-of-way
easement along White Bear and Beam Avenues on White Bear Avenue and a
shared driveway with the property to the north for ingress and egress to the site.
c. Revised site plan showing the following:
1) 1\ 10 foot right of way easement along VVhito Bear anEl 8eam Avenues.
1) Thirteen parkinq spaces located in the center of the lot. to the east of the
Beam Avenue drivewav, must be shifted to the east to ensure thev are not
located within the straiqht anqle of the drive aisle.
2) The parking lot maintaining a 25 ~foot-setback from the existinq right-of-
way casement as Elessril3ed abo'le as shown on the site plan date-
stamped Julv 26, 2005.
3) The rer'FlElval ef tt-Je existing driveway OR White 80ar /\venue and a shared
driveway with the pre~erty te tho north for ingress anEl e€lross te the sito.
4) All parking space length and width to meet city code requirements.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
21
d. Revisions to the landscape plan date-stamped Julv 26. 2005, to include the
followinq:
1) The additien of six deciEll,Jeus trees (2% inches iA Eliameter) ~lanteEl
appl'Gximately 30 feet en ceAter to se located OA tile west side of tt-Je lot,
aloAg White Boar .^Nonue.
2) The aElElition ef eleveA deciEll,Jeus trees (2% inches in Eliameter) planted
afl~l'Gximately 30 feet OA senter te be lesateEl en the west side of the lot,
along 'Nhite Bear Avenue.
3) The addition of foundation plantings around the Walgreen's building.
4) Additional shrubs and perennials along White Bear and Beam Avenues.
5) Sod or native prairie plants to be located within the future office building
portion of the development (east side of the site).
6) The size, number, and species of all proposed plants.
7) Underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping is sprinklered.
O. Re'liseEl elevatiens st-Je'lling a more Elr-eative builEliAg design. Suggested aesign
changos incluEle removal of the awning ever tt-Je fr-oAt Eloor aAEl re~lacemeAt with
a cell,JmnoEl and Elevered eAtryway; additienal Elesign elomeAts abe'/e the AOW
cO'lereEl ontryway to iAcluae gableEl roofiAg ana 'Nindows on both siaes ef the
entryway.
f. A revised lighting and photometrics plan which shows the style, height, and
umber of exterior lights. The plan must ensure all freestanding lights maintain a
height of 25 feet or less and that the overall illumination from outdoor lights does
not exceed .4 foot-candles at all property lines.
g. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on county right-of-way for
the driveway access, utility work, and sidewalk.
h. Watershed district approval if revisions warrant a new review.
i. 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.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
22
c. Install all required landscaping and an underground irrigation system for all of
Walgreen's landscaped areas. The future office building portion of the
development must be planted and maintained with sod or native prairie grasses
until the development of this portion of the property in the future. In addition, all
required trees along Beam Avenue (in front of the Walgreen's building and the
future office building) must be planted.
d. Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color.
e. Install all required outdoor lighting.
f. Install the six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the entire length of the south
property line, along Beam Avenue.
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. The future office building including architectural, landscaping, lighting, etc., is not
included in this review and must obtain all required city approvals separately.
6. Signs are not included in this design review of the WalgFOem: PharmaQY. All proposed
signs for Walqreens and the future office buildinq must be brought back before the
Community Design Review Board for approval.
7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Board member Ledvina seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson
Shankar
The motion passed.
Board member Ledvina said even though the board didn't review plans for the future three-
story office building to the east, he wanted to express his strong concern on a design which
has the first level as parking. He is having a hard time visualizing how that would look
architecturally and doesn't want that to look like an open space with columns and a building
above it.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
23
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Chairperson Longrie was present at the July 11, 2005, city council meeting and said the
only item to discuss was the political sign ordinance which was passed by the city
council on a 3 to 2 vote.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Sign Code Revisions
Ms. Finwall included a revision of the draft sign code for the board to review. The board
decided to review the sign code revisions and bring their requests for changes or
additions to staff at the CDRB meeting on Tuesday, August 9, 2005, and move the
discussion forward.
b. CDRB Representation at the August 8, 2005, City Council Meeting
Board member Olson volunteered to represent the CDRB at the August 8, 2005, city
council meeting. Items to discuss include the Maplewood Toyota parking ramp and
sales facility as well as the storage lot, the Woodlands of Maplewood for a 28 unit
development off McMenemy Street north of Kingston Avenue, and Walgreen's at the
northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenue.
c. Annual City Tour Reminder
Ms. Finwall reminded board members of the annual city tour on Thursday, July 28,
2005, at 5:30 p.m. meeting at city hall and returning around 8:30 p.m.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.