Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/23/2005 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday,August23,2005 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: August 9, 2005 Minutes 5. Unfinished Business: Best Buy -1765 County Road D 6. Design Review: None Scheduled 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: August 22, 2005, City Council Meeting 9. Staff Presentations: Sign Code Revisions 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Board member Matt Ledvina Chairperson Diana Longrie Vice chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Absent Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Olson requested additional discussion regarding Ashley Furniture to be added under Board Presentations. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for August 9, 2005. Board member Olson had a correction to the minutes on page 9, the first paragraph, fourth line, rephrasing the words You AeeEl SeFR8 to Best Buv has. Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of August 9, 2005, as amended. Chairperson Longrie seconded. Ayes ---Ledvina, Longrie, Olson Abstention -Shankar The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-23-2005 2 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Best Buy - 1765 County Road D Ms. Finwall said on August 9, 2005, the CDRB reviewed plans for Tim Palmquist, representing Best Buy, for a new 45,243 square foot Best Buy store to be located at 1845 County Road D (Town Center shopping center). The proposal includes the demolition of the existing Frank's Nursery store within the center and relocation of Best Buy's current store into the new building. The CDRB approved the design review of the proposal, excluding approval of the elevations, which were tabled for revisions. The CDRB requested that the applicant revise the building elevations to add design features to help break up the large expanse of the walls and include the use of more quality building materials. Since the meeting, the architects, WCL Associates, Inc., have revised the elevations to address these concerns and are now proposing four revised elevations. The revised building elevations have been labeled in the staff report as 3. a., 3. b., 3. c., and 3. d. to help differentiate between the revised building elevation plans. City staff finds the elevation variations that include the parallel vertical EIFS bands 3. a. and the motif EIFS design labeled as 3. d. to be the most appealing. City staff recommended revisions to the elevations and were included in the staff report. Board member Shankar asked what percentage of the back elevation would be visible from the freeway? Ms. Finwall said the rear of the building is adjacent to the Slumberland parking lot which is an open expansive area but it would be best for the applicant to address that question. Board member Ledvina said the building elevations show the exterior lights on the building as being yellow in color and he asked what staff's opinion was regarding "yellow" lights being used? Ms. Finwall said the yellow colored light fixture blends in with the yellow on the Best Buy sign and goes along with the modem theme in her opinion. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Paul Anderson, AlA, WCL Associates, Inc., 1433 Utica Avenue South, Suite 162, Minneapolis, addressed the board. Mr. Anderson reviewed the building revisions with the board. Mr. Anderson said the yellow lights are a Best Buy trademark, which adds a little bit of sparkle to the building. The blue wedge on the building and the yellow Best Buy sign are also trademarks. Staff had mentioned the front door location in the staff report being shown in the incorrect location. He checked further with his group and was told the front door location is shown on the plans pretty close to where it will be placed, it may be off 1 foot or so, but it is represented pretty fairly on the plans. Board member Olson said on the current Best Buy building there are red angled light fixtures and the new building proposes to use small yellow lights that look like small boxes. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-23-2005 3 Mr. Anderson said the red lights on the existing Best Buy building shine up and downward on the building. The new yellow lights are a round curved light and the light fixture will shine up and down because the intent is to highlight the piers on the building. The light will also shine downward onto the sidewalk area. Board member Olson asked how much light would reach the sidewalk on County Road D? Mr. Anderson said none of the light would reach the sidewalk on County Road D. Board member Olson asked if there will be street lighting along County Road D in that location? Ms. Finwall said she wasn't sure. Board member Ledvina presumed there would be lighting in that area of County Road D. Board member Olson said currently there are no light poles in that area and whether or not it's planned for the upgrade or not, she wasn't sure. Board member Olson said she understood at the city council meeting last night that there would be a stop light installed at that intersection. Ms. Finwall asked if Board member Olson was concerned there would be adequate light at the sidewalk? Board member Olson said correct. Ms. Finwall said these issues can be addressed with the 2009 County Road D roadway improvement. She was not certain if there was street lighting presently at this location, however, normally there is at least 1 street light at every intersection particularly along County Road D. The Best Buy lighting plan doesn't show additional lighting along the sidewalk or trail. Board member Olson is concerned the uplights towards the top of the building would direct light upwards rather than downwards. Part of her thought process is for the dark sky theory that you aren't illuminating the sky and for safety reasons she would like more light to reach the ground for the safety of the pedestrians in and around the rear of the building. Mr. Tim Palmquist, Project Development Manager, Best Buy, 7601 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, addressed the board. Best Buy has switched the type of light fixtures in their new buildings and they are now using a design light fixture so they don't have to have a screen made for the light fixture. The light can be directed both up and down or up only or down only so that can easily be changed. Board member Olson asked how large the yellow light fixtures would be? Mr. Palmquist said the light fixtures are about 18 to 24 inches wide and then the light will project about half the width. Board member Shankar asked what the backside of the wedge is constructed of? Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-23-2005 4 Mr. Anderson said the backside of the wedge is usually painted the same blue that is used on the Best Buy sign. Board member Shankar asked if it was made of EIFS? Mr. Anderson said it is typically made of a metal panel or a rubber membrane that is painted blue. Board member Ledvina asked what the reason was for using two different materials in the blue EIFS and the blue metal panels and if it was possible for the wedge to be made of the metal panel? Mr. Palmquist said they left the wedge element as EIFS because that is what 95% of the entrance elements are. It could be made of metal and they have used metal panels in other Best Buy projects around the country. Board member Ledvina said the blue band that goes around the whole building is EIFS and maybe that is what ties things to the wedge. The staff report states on the north elevation that the loading dock wall should be constructed to match the building. He asked if that would be possible? Mr. Anderson said that's possible. Mr. Anderson displayed an updated building elevation where they created three piers across the loading dock wall to try to break up the wall with brick and EIFS. Board member Olson asked with staffs request for additional cornice details what would you propose to use on the Best Buy building? Mr. Palmquist said in preparing these building elevations they spoke to staff about that and he suggested the cornice details be very simple to keep things looking very modern. A cornice is more traditional to him and in order to keep things more modern he would recommend keeping it simple. Board member Olson complimented Best Buy for providing the board with additional building elevations to choose from. Board member Ledvina said he likes the changes that were made to the building elevations. He likes the blue metal panels, the banding, and in terms of which plan he prefers he prefers the horizontal elevation 3. a. In his opinion, building elevations 3. b. and 3. d. are too modern looking and he feels you would get tired of looking at the design. Chairperson Longrie said she showed several people the building elevations and both she and the others chose the very modern motif design of 3. d. The second choice was 3. a. Everyone thought the building elevations were innovative, modern and thought the building looked a bit like art deco. They liked the blue band and the blue color on the building which helped tie into the blue wedge. Board member Shankar said he sees the interest in the motif design of 3 d. but he thinks the building will become dated very soon. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-23-2005 5 Board member Shankar said he agreed with Board member Ledvina that his preference is 3. a. however, he is not in favor of the ribbed metal panel on the top of the building because that gives the building an industrial feel and appears to look like a warehouse. He believes with the horizontal EIFS that would conflict with it and he would suggest that the metal panel be flat with joints at 4-feet on center rather than the ribbed panel Best Buy has proposed. Board member Olson said she prefers building elevation 3. c. Her second choice is 3. a. She believes building 3. d. will become dated very fast, building 3. b. did nothing for her, and 3. a. was almost too horizontal. She liked building elevation 3. c. because it had a combination of horizontal and vertical elements on the building design. This will be a long building and she liked this combination of building materials. Board member Shankar said in his opinion buildings like building 3. c. are built all over the city in terms of metal precast panels and in his opinion that looks like a warehouse building and he wants to stay away from the appearance of a warehouse building. Board member Ledvina agreed with those comments. Board member Olson said she would recommend that the light fixtures shine downward to enhance the pedestrian safety around the building. She would like to see the top cap or cornice 12 inches in height and silver in color rather than a painted blue cornice. Chairperson Longrie said in looking at the building elevation 3. a. to put the silver cap along the top tends to accentuate the horizontal lines even more. She likes the idea of a silver cap for building 3. d. because it would tie in with the horizontal lines but she is afraid you would get too many horizontal lines with the building elevation 3. a. and it may be too much. Board member Shankar said if you introduce a silver top cap between the blocks of blue that would detract from the blocks of blue. In his opinion the whole thing should remain blue as shown on the design. Board member Ledvina agreed. He thought the lights should be lowered as they are shown on the front elevation but he would defer that decision to the architect to have the lights shine upward and downward. The point is to accentuate the piers of the building and he believes the lights are only accent lights, not utility lights. Chairperson Longrie and Board member Olson agreed. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the building elevations marked as 3. a. showino the EIFS in the horizontal pattern. date-stamped August 16, 2005, for the Best Buy store to be located within the Town Center shopping center at 1845 County Road D. Approval is subject to the following revisions to the elevations prior to issuance of a building permit: (changes to the motion are underlined and deletions are stricken.) 1. Location of tAe fFOnt door must refloct the true location of tAO Eleer as specified on the site plan. 2. Removal of eMU material and replasemeFlt with brick. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-23-2005 6 1.~. Brick piers added to the loading dock screening wall. a. Cornice elements on tOfil of tl:1e building. 2. 40- All roof scuppers must be built into the brick piers and not be on the exterior of the elevation. 3. a., Lowerino the vellow Iioht fixtures on the west. north. and south elevation to be consistent with the east elevation. 4. e. Clear anodized metal profiled (vertical) panel to be substituted with a clear anodized metal flat panel with ioints no closer than 4-feet on center. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. VI. DESIGN REVIEW None. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Ledvina was the CDRB representative at the August 22, 2005, City Council Meeting The only CDRB item to discuss was Best Buy, 1845 County Road 0, which passed by a 4 to 1 vote. b. Follow up discussion regarding the neon lighting at Ashley Furniture Board member Olson requested an update on the discussion that took place at the August 9, 2005, CDRB meeting regarding the blue neon lighting on the Ashley Furniture building. She asked if Ashley Furniture would be turning off the neon lighting during the hours the building was not open as she requested at the past meeting. Ms. Finwall said she expressed the concerns of the board to the Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand who worked on the Ashley Furniture project. Mr. Ekstrand spoke with the representative for Ashley Furniture but she did not know the end result and will follow up with Mr. Ekstrand and bring further information back to the next board meeting regarding the blue neon lighting that the board had concerns about. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-23-2005 7 IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Sign Code Revisions Ms. Finwall said after several months of sign code revision input from the CDRB, staff presented the board with a revised draft sign code during the June 28, 2005, CDRB meeting. City staff requested that the CDRB review the draft code and submit individual comments regarding issues that still need to be addressed. The following sign code discussion took place: 1. Prohibited Signs: Signs attached or supported on a permanently parked vehicle or semi-trailers intended to advertise a business, product, or service. The board thought this could be a real challenge. The board thought the city may want to define the word "permanently". Staff will look into this and come up with clearer language. 2. Prohibited Signs: Signs that advertise a product or service not sold on the property except for billboards or other off-site signs where specifically permitted in this chapter. The board felt if the city didn't have this there would be a proliferation of signs which wouldn't be good for the community. 3. Wall Signs for Multi-Tenant Buildings: The board agreed the tenant should be allowed signage where their tenant space is and if they want additional signage on the end unit they could apply for a variance. That way the city would have some control over the design of the sign. 4. Sign Definition: (Should we consider including neon or other striping as part of the sign?) Board member Ledvina said that is an architectural element and should not be considered part of the sign. Other board members agreed with that decision. 5. Mixed-Use Zoning District - Projecting Signs: (Do we want to set a minimum sign height above the right-of-way/street?) The board decided they do not want to set a minimum sign height above the right of way/street because staff pointed out that the building department would check that according to the building code. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-23-2005 8 6. Sign Height: The board decided they don't want to consider allowing decorative caps on top of monument signs to be able to exceed the required height by 10 percent for a more decorative finish. Those decorative caps should be included in the maximum height of the monument sign. 7. Can the allowable sign allocation from one frontage be transferred to another frontage? The ordinance does not appear to clarify this. The board decided the sign allocation should not be transferred from one frontage to another footage. Staff will look into this further and make it clearer. 8. Garage Sale Signs: (Clarify the one foot from sidewalk or trail language so that it is clear that we are not talking about the space between the sidewalk and/or trail and the street pavement. ) The board decided this should be consistent with the other requirements. 9. Off-Site Real Estate Signs: Board member Ledvina said he would support staffs recommendation for off-site real estate signs. The other board members had differing opinions. Staff will come up with some kind of compromise and further discussion will have to take place regarding this at a later date. Board member Olson recommended the city attorney review these sign code revisions before bringing the sign code revisions to the city council. Ms. Finwall said after conclusion of these items, staff will begin the next phase of the code revision which will include a public relations campaign to inform, educate, and gain feedback from the public on the proposed changes. A timeline of the sign code revisions will be put together and brought back in late September or some time in October. b. Reminder that because of the primary elections on Tuesday, September 13, 2005, the next CDRB meeting is Wednesday, September 14, 2005. Currently there are two CDRB items to review that evening. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m.