HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/22/2005
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
November 22, 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: November 9, 2005
5. Unfinished Business:
a. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center - 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive
b. Ashley Furniture Design Reconsideration (Neon Lighting) - 1770 County Road D
6. Design Review:
a. Regions Sleep Center - 2688 Maplewood Drive
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan
b. Community Design Review Board Representation at the December 12, 2005,
City Council Meeting
10. Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22,2005
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:00 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 at 6:12 p.m.
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairperson Longrie moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes -Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson,
Shankar
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for November 9, 2005.
Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of November 9, 2005.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes ---Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson
Shankar
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center - 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive
Mr. Ekstrand said Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is proposing to
build an office/warehouse condominium development on the west side of Maplewood Drive
(Highway 61), in between the Acorn Mini Storage and the Hmong American Alliance Church.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
2
This item was heard at the November 9, 2005 CDRB meeting and the board moved to table
the proposal until November 22, 2005, so the applicant could bring back a revised landscape,
lighting plan, and photos of the building material colors. Mr. Ekstrand passed out revised plans
that staff received November 21, 2005.
Mr. Ekstrand said this project would consist of three buildings. Building #1, closest to Highway
61, would be a 9,120-square-foot, two-story building, Building #2, the center building, would be
a 13,440-square-foot, two-story building. The front of each building would have an office front.
The rear elevations would be the dock door and delivery areas.
Building #1, facing the highway, would have an office fac,:ade. The back side of Building #3,
facing the residential neighbors, would have a service fac,:ade with overhead garage doors.
The current plans are different from the original plans submitted by the applicant. The original
plans were presented to the neighbors at a neighborhood meeting this summer. The original
plans were for a four-building project of the same nature. The primary differences were that the
west elevation facing the neighbors had an office fac,:ade <now overhead doors) and the
proposed building setback was to have been 165 feet (now 250 feet). Some of the neighbor
replies and the applicant's narrative speak to this four-building layout.
The primary reason the applicant revised the plans was to address grading and drainage
concerns by the city's engineering staff.
Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Jim Kellison, President of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, 7300 Hudson Blvd,
Suite 245, Oakdale, addressed the board. Mr. Kellison said he didn't bring a revised
landscaping plan because when he last met with the CDRB he thought it was determined that
the landscape plan should be worked through with staff at the time that they are out at the site
doing some of the work. The landscape area in question is at the extreme west end of the
property which is adjacent to the residential area. When they get the survey stakes in the
ground and they can determine how many of the existing trees the neighbors want to save that
can actually be saved, then they will augment the plan to incorporate trees and plants into that
area to provide a very good buffer for the residents. The landscape plan the CDRB has
indicates that there is one row of trees there. They have since looked at the plan and feel they
will be able to plant a staggered row of trees so it will be twice as dense. Some of the
neighbors talked to him at the end of the last CDRB meeting and had asked if it was possible
to use an Italian cypress tree as opposed to the Blue spruce because it grows fast and is
shaped like a tall cylinder and is very dense and provides more privacy. A Blue spruce tree can
still be seen through and is a very slow-growing tree and only grows about six to eight inches a
year. Mr. Kellison said they will try to use the Italian cypress tree will do well in that area. If it
doesn't do well in that area, they will look at using another type of tree. They made the
commitment to the neighbors that if they want a fence or trees or a fence and trees in their
backyard then they will provide that for the neighbors so they have a better sense of privacy.
He said that's the long explanation as to why he didn't provide a revised landscaping plan for
the CDRB. Mr. Kellison said the revised lighting plan should be in compliance with the city's
lighting requirement. The sign plan shows how the signage will be shown on each of the
buildings, and he would be happy to review the sign plan with the CDRB.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
3
Board member Olson asked if any changes to the building elevations were made and if Mr.
Kellison had a color rendering of the building elevations?
Mr. Kellison said he brought a color rendering to show the CDRB. There were no changes
made to the building elevations. The only modification made was for the signage on the
buildings. Mr. Kellison passed the building sample material board around for the CDRB to
review, and he went through the details of the materials to be used on the building.
Chairperson Longrie asked if Mr. Kellison knew what color the lettering for the signage would
be?
Mr. Kellison said these units are being sold to individual users and the location of the signage
would be dictated by the association. The users would have to individually apply for the sign
permits on each condominium unit with the city.
Chairperson Longrie was wondering if the CDRB should give a general direction of what color
scheme the board would like to see on the signage so the tenants know in advance what is or
isn't acceptable? For example, hot pink lettering may not be approved by the CDRB.
Mr. Ekstrand asked if Mr. Kellison anticipated the letters be lit letters, cabinet signs or
individual letters placed on the sign areas?
Mr. Kellison said in the past the signs have been individually illuminated letters or a channel
letter with an individually illuminated letter set up on that channel. As the developers of the
property, they are not fans of a box with a white plastic background with hot pink letters on it
for example. They have taken the position that it really becomes the purchaser's responsibility
to come to the city to obtain the sign requirements and to apply for a sign permit. Everybody's
signage is so different, and like a retail shopping center, it is the tenant's responsibility to apply
for the proper approval for the signage.
Chairperson Longrie said she assumed there would be some type of a governing document for
this property?
Mr. Kellison said there will be an association for this office condominium complex which will be
very similar to a homeowner's association.
Chairperson Longrie asked if within that document will there be a section that is specifically
looking at signage so the tenants know what is allowed under the signage document?
Mr. Kellison said the association document will have a section on signage with a sign drawing
stating all sign age must be contained within this area and all signage must meet city
ordinances and be approved and permitted through the city. They won't go any further than
that in the association document regarding signage. This is what they typically do for
developments such as this.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
4
Mr. Ekstrand said the sign plan should create criteria for the new tenants to follow which will
identify the type of sign, lighting, maximum size and width. The city hopes to accomplish a set
of guidelines for each tenant so they know what is allowed. Sometimes with centers like this
there is a uniform coloration on the signage such as all blue lettering with a white background.
It may not be the companies' color scheme, but staff has seen it with some signs in
Maplewood. Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Kellison's sign plan needs more work and there isn't
enough information for the CDRB to act on, but it's a good start. The ground sign is a very nice
looking sign and the wall signage placement looks acceptable to staff, but he would hope we
could establish a set of criteria defining what each sign would consist of for this office
condominium development.
Board member Shankar asked if there would be any lit signs on the west face of Building #3?
Mr. Kellison said the west face of Building #3 is the back of the building, so there wouldn't be
any signage on that side of the building.
Board member Olson said she was looking for specific language in the recommendations
regarding the signage but didn't see anything. She asked staff if this is something the CDRB
needed to act on separately? She said she wouldn't be against hot pink lettering if that was the
corporate color, but she would rather not see channel lit letters on one sign and a large backlit
sign for another. She would rather see sign consistence across the face of the office
condominium buildings, and she wasn't sure how the CDRB should handle this.
Board member Hinzman said he understands Mr. Kellison's reasoning as to why a revised
landscaping plan wasn't available, but he believes the landscaping plan should come back
before the board for review because this area is so close to the residential homes. He asked
staff for their feeling on the landscaping.
Mr. Ekstrand said he agrees the landscaping plan needs more work and the board needs to
see better details. Staff realizes the applicant wants to move forward on this plan and go
through the process with the city council. The landscaping plan could come back before the
board even after the applicant begins construction on this proposal with the stipulation that the
landscaping needs to come back before the CDRB with better detailed information. The city
would not issue a certificate of occupancy before the landscaping is complete. Staff would
recommend allowing the applicant to move forward with the rest of the process and
recommend that Mr. Kellison bring a revised landscape plan back for final review.
Mr. Kellison said he has been doing this for 30 years and has done several projects in
Maplewood and he is as good as his word, and his word is very good. Mr. Ekstrand is correct
in that they can't get a certificate of occupancy until the city gives them the go ahead. The city
holds a large amount of escrow money until the landscaping is completed according to the final
plan. He would be happy to come back before the CDRB with the final landscaping plan once
he has a better handle on what is going to happen on the site. Mr. Kellison said sometimes
things are put on the plan in "plan view" but until you are actually on the site and see how the
grading works out, it can be difficult to see how things will work out. He said he recently
finished a project in Woodbury where the neighbors were very concerned about the
landscaping on the project and after it was done, two neighbors drove up and said "thank you,
the landscaping was exactly what they were talking about and, they were very happy with the
end result."
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
5
Mr. Kellison also said he received a telephone call from the Woodbury City Planner and they
told him that was one of the best landscaping jobs they have seen to help screen commercial
property from the residential homes. He said those are the words they expect to walk away
with in Maplewood when they are done with this project. He said he would be more than happy
to spend another meeting with the CDRB once he has talked with the neighbors and sees what
they actually have to work with on the site.
Chairperson Longrie asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the board regarding
this proposal.
Nobody came forward.
Mr. Ekstrand said in condition number 6., on the first line that could be changed to read CDRB
approval rather than staff approval then.
Board member Olson asked how staff felt about the comprehensive sign plan for item number
7. on page 7?
Mr. Ekstrand said he would suggest leaving that condition stand as is. Normally the CDRB
does approve such things, but staff is fine with it either way. His largest concern is that the city
establishes uniformity in the types of signs for all of the occupants.
Board member Hinzman said with the comprehensive sign plan he would agree that uniformity
is the key issue, and he would be comfortable making an amendment to condition number 7.
that there is some sort of uniformity established for signage on the site to be determined and
reviewed by staff.
Chairperson Longrie said she disagreed, and she would like to see all the signage come
before the CDRB for review.
Board member Olson said she thinks the wording needs to be expanded on for the
comprehensive sign plan. She is concerned that the first applicant comes to the CDRB with a
particular type of sign and if the CDRB approves the sign, you then set a precedent for
everyone else who will be coming to apply for a sign permit for their tenant space. She doesn't
know if the city is in a position where they can say specifically that this is the only sign you
should be using for their sign.
Mr. Ekstrand said he doesn't want to have individual tenants come before the CDRB and tell
the board what they want to do with their sign. He believes the city should establish the
guidelines and let the tenants know upfront what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in
the city of Maplewood regarding signage.
Board member Olson asked if it would be appropriate to ask staff to come forward with a
suggestion for products, style, and format regarding signage for the CDRB to review?
Mr. Ekstrand said he could provide examples of signage in other centers or developments, but
usually developments come to the city and say this is what they want to do with their sign and
the CDRB or staff reacts to the request.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
6
Chairperson Longrie said when she used to work for Target Corporation the operating
documents would have a section in them regarding the signage specifically set for the tenants
with parameters for the signage, and it would give alternate choices that the tenant could work
with within the governing documents. It was in conformity and already approved by the city. In
this case, the CDRB would be the one approving the signage because they have already
reviewed the language and signage options provided in that document with choices for the
tenant to work within.
Board member Shankar would recommend that the intermediate band that is shown on the
east, north, and south elevation be extended all the way around Building #3 to improve the
look of the building. Otherwise the wall looks too tall with the appearance of nothing going on.
This would improve the wall without looking like there is punched out openings where the dock
doors are to be located.
Board member Olson said she likes that idea because it gives the building a look of uniformity
on all sides.
Board member Shankar said he understands they will not be doing that on Building #1 and #2,
but he is not concerned about that because Building #3 faces the residential area.
Mr. Kellison said they can accommodate that request to add the banding to make it look more
uniform.
Board member Shankar moved to approve the site plan date-stamped October 11, 2005, tile
laFlelssaping plan date stamfiloel October 17, 2005, and the Iiohtino plan date-stamped
November 21, 2005. Approval is subject to the applicanUdeveloper complying with the
following conditions. (changes made by the CDRB if added are underlined and stricken if
deleted.)
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Comply with all conditions of Chuck Vermeersch's engineering report dated October 17,
2005.
3. Obtain necessary permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation before the
issuance of a building permit.
4. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District before the
issuance of a building permit.
5. Provide fencing on the top of all retaining walls that exceed four feet in height. The
fencing shall be a black chain link fence at least 3.5 feet tall.
Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must be designed by a structural
engineer, and the applicant must obtain a building permit.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
7
6. The applicant must provide a revised landscaping plan for sta#--CDRB approval that
provides a landscaping/screening plan, including a double row of trees along the west
boundary, prior to the issuance of a building permit, which provides a visual screen that
is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall upon installation. If the double row of trees
does not accomplish this, additional screening must be provided. This screen shall be
an all-season screen that may include decorative fencing, berming and evergreen trees.
This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the property and shall extend from
there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line of Building #3. This plan may take
into account existing vegetation and existing screening.
7. Obtain approval of a comprehensive sign plan from the community design review board
before any sign permits may be issued.
8. Submit a complete lighting plan to staff for approval. The site lights, west of Building #3,
the westerly building, shall be turned off after 10 p.m. unless required to be on by the
police department for security reasons. The lights on the west side of Building #3 shall
also be of a design that conceals the lens and bulbs of these light fixtures. Light-
intensity maximums must meet code requirements.
9. Provide a revised landscaping plan to staff for CDRB approval for the area along the
street frontage, increasing the amount of plantings in this area. This shall be provided
before the issuance of a building permit.
10. The applicant must provide an in-ground irrigation system as required by code. The
area around the pond does not need to be sprinklered.
11. The rear elevations of all buildings, and any parts of the side elevations that are rock-
face block, must be painted to match the front building colors.
12. Provide cash escrow, in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the
landscaping and exterior site improvements, before the applicant shall obtain a building
permit.
13. All customer parking spaces must be at least 9% feet wide. Employee parking spaces
may be nine feet wide if signs are posted identifying them as employee parking only.
14. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans. Minor
changes may be approved by staff.
15. The west elevation shall match the east. north and south elevations incorporatinq a
CMU band at half the heiqht of the walls so it wraps all the wav around the entire
buildino.
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Longrie, Olson, Shankar
Abstention - Ledvina
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
8
This item goes to the city council on November 28, 2005.
b. Ashley Furniture Design Reconsideration (Neon Lighting) - 1770 County Road D
East
Mr. Ekstrand said on October 25, 2005, the community design review board (CDRB) discussed
the neon accent lighting on the Ashley Furniture store. This issue came up during the board's
recent review of The Myth nightclub across the street from Ashley Furniture. While reviewing
the proposed neon lighting on The Myth, the CDRB noted that the new Ashley Furniture store
had neon lighting that was not part of their approved building design. The CDRB felt that The
Myth was a suitable use for displaying neon. The board felt that it fit in with the type of
business they were operating. The CDRB did not necessarily feel that way about a furniture
store.
The CDRB subsequently moved to have staff inform the owner of Ashley Furniture that they
must either:
eRemove the neon accent lighting, or
eSubmit a request to the CDRB that the board accept the neon accent lighting as a
revision to their approved architectural plan.
Mr. Ekstrand said that Michael Diem, of Architectural Network, the architect for the Ashley
Furniture building, has requested that the CDRB accept the neon lighting that has been
installed on the Ashley Furniture store. He explained to staff that this is trademark accent
lighting for Ashley Furniture stores. He also feels that their use of neon is considerably softer in
appearance since it is concealed lighting, not exposed like other businesses in this area.
Buildings in the area with exposed neon are The Myth, Arby's, Maplewood Best Western and
the BP filling station at County Road D and White Bear Avenue.
While reviewing this matter for CDRB consideration, he found "notes to the file" documenting
that he and Mr. Diem had discussed the addition of a "band of neon in the front parapet cove
detail." He accepted this change as a minor revision to the approved plan. The e-mail from Mr.
Diem had stated, however, that he was requesting approval for a neon band in the front
parapet cove detail of the building not around the perimeter of the building as is now in place.
Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. David Baillie, Furniture Outlets USA, DBA Ashley Home Stores (Ashley Furniture),
addressed the board. He said to clarify, the neon lighting is not on the west side of the building
towards the Town and Country town homes and it is not on the dock area. It stops on the
corner.
Mr. Ekstrand said he did not see any lighting on that side but he thought the lighting was burnt
out in those areas.
Mr. Baillie said as far as turning the neon lighting off, he thought the city ordinance says the
neon lighting needs to be shut off at 10 or 11 p.m.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
9
Mr. Ekstrand said he wasn't sure the city ordinance specifically states the neon lights need to
be off by 10 or 11 p.m. he said he was recommending the neon lighting be turned off at the
close of business.
Mr. Baillie said The Myth nightclub across the street leases parking space from Ashley
Furniture so the nightclub has more parking available for their customers. He doesn't see a
reason to shut off the neon lighting. He looks at the neon lights as helping security in the
parking lot for the customers from The Myth. He said Ashley Furniture has only had one
security problem that occurred when somebody threw rocks at the EIFS on the Ashley
Furniture building but that was before The Myth opened. He said as long as people will be in
the parking lot, he would like to keep the neon lights on for security.
Chairperson Longrie asked if there were any other lights on the building exterior besides the
neon lights?
Mr. Baillie sand there are wall sconces on the building and the glass block at the two entrances
are illuminated. He said the lights are on a timer and shut off at 11 p.m.
Board member Olson said she believed the lights were on later than 11 p.m. because she has
driven by that area at 12 midnight and the lights were still on but they were off by 2 a.m. She
said she has several issues with the blue neon lighting on the Ashley Furniture building. The
first issue is that the neon lighting that the CDRB approved for The Myth nightclub is a subtle
blue neon light and The Myth shuts the neon lighting off when they are not doing business.
The blue neon lighting for Ashley Furniture is a very bright blue neon light and it can be seen
from Sam's Club across the freeway. You can see the neon light from County Road C, and
from the top of the hill where County Road D is being extended, and you can see it when the
trees are in full bloom. The backlit entrance lights to Ashley Furniture are also very bright and
she would think that the light coming from the light panels from either side of the doorways
would be sufficient enough to light up the parking lot. She said that Mr. Ekstrand was not
aware that prior to the CDRB meeting with Ashley Furniture the CDRB had turned down a
request by Buffalo Wild Wings to have neon lighting in the city of Maplewood, but the CDRB is
moving in the direction of not approving entire neon belly bands on any building in the mall
area in the future. The issue for her is that the blue neon lighting is too bright and the lighting
does not get turned off when the building is closed and has remained on much later than she
would expect. The brightness of the neon lighting has been and will affect the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Mr. Baillie asked where the residents Board member Olson speaks of are where the neon
lighting is affecting them because the new town homes next to Ashley Furniture are still being
built.
Board member Olson said many of the homes in this area are not built yet, but her point is the
neon lighting is visible for at least one mile in all directions and it's very bright. She has an
issue with this and would like the neon lighting turned off when Ashley Furniture closes for
business. She realizes that the neon lighting at The Myth and the lighting at Ashley Furniture is
inappropriate and is much too bright, especially when you can see it over a mile away.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
10
Board member Hinzman asked if the preference of the board was to eliminate the blue neon
lighting completely or just limit the hours the neon lighting can be left on?
Board member Olson said her personal preference is to have the neon lighting turned off when
business is closed. She doesn't want the neon lights on at 12 midnight. She doesn't think it is
appropriate that the residents on County Road C should have to see the blue neon lights from
the Ashley Furniture building when the residents look across Markham Pond. As she stated
before, the blue neon lighting can be seen for more than a mile from the north, south, east and
west directions.
Board member Ledvina asked if it would be possible to reduce the intensity of the blue neon
light by turning down the transformer or something of that nature?
Mr. Baillie said he doesn't know that answer. The neon band of lighting is on all of their Ashley
Furniture buildings and is a signature mark along with the glass block and the awnings, etc.
When they laid out the soffit area it was a concern that the neon light was not seen directly, so
they went back and redesigned the soffit area so it was not as visible. They designed the neon
lighting so it appears more of a wall wash verses a blue neon light standing out. They really
didn't realize they had done anything wrong until they were contacted by Tom Ekstrand. At the
point and time the building elevation issues were under staff review, the people at Ashley
Furniture were told it was okay by Tom Ekstrand to have the neon lighting.
Chairperson Longrie said she appreciates the fact that the representatives of Ashley Furniture
came before the CDRB tonight. The crux of the matter is that Ashley Furniture had received
approval from staff to have the blue neon lighting on the front building elevation, but it appears
that the amount of blue neon lighting on the building is greater than the area it was approved
for. According to the staff report it states "Mr. Diem requested approval for a neon band in the
"front parapet cove detail" of the building, not around the perimeter of the building as is now in
place. So the ultimate question is was the approval of the blue neon lighting more extensive
than what was noted in the file and was the installation of the blue neon lighting more
extensive than what was actually approved by staff. How can the CDRB rectify this situation
once the board gets the answer to those questions.
Mr. Baillie asked where the CDRB thinks the front of the Ashley Furniture building is because
they have three store fronts and this is a very unique building. They had to move and redesign
the placement of this building three times because of the setback and other issues.
Chairperson Longrie said that may indeed be where the crux is then if there are three fronts to
a building and the approval was for blue neon lighting on the front of the building. Then the
question is where is the front of the building? The CDRB is facing the question of how to solve
this problem in a way that is agreeable to everyone. She asked Mr. Baillie if he would be
agreeable to turning the neon lighting off at 11 p.m.?
Mr. Baillie said he doesn't have a problem with that. However, he has to go back and see
when the timer shuts the lights off. At one point and time it says signs have to shut off at 12
midnight and he knows the lights are on two different clocks for the sign and the lighting on the
building.
Chairperson Longrie asked what time Ashley Furniture closes for business?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
11
Mr. Baillie said business closes at 9 p.m.
Chairperson Longrie said Mr. Baillie said Ashley Furniture has a leasing agreement with The
Myth nightclub to share the Ashley Furniture parking lot for overflow. Is the parking agreement
set up for weekends, certain nights or just when there is a concert?
Mr. Baillie said the parking agreement is set when The Myth has a concert and needs
additional parking for overflow.
Chairperson Longrie asked if there are other lights on in the parking lot?
Mr. Baillie said yes.
Chairperson Longrie asked if he knew the hours the parking lot lights were left on?
Mr. Baillie said he isn't positive but he believed the lights come on by a photo eye when it gets
dark and a timer shuts the lights off, but he wasn't sure of the exact times.
Board member Olson asked if there was any way possible to reduce the intensity of the neon
light?
Mr. Baillie said he wasn't sure if the transformer can be reduced or not. There is a certain tag
voltage so you can change what the actual spark is, but most sign companies that you talk to
people complain that the neon light isn't bright enough so they want to have a better gas and a
higher intensity, but that is something he would have to call the sign people and ask about. If
they had to replace the neon lighting for a dimmer light it would be very expensive.
Chairperson Longrie said if the CDRB asked your preference would it be to either turn the
voltage of the neon lighting down or turn the blue neon lighting off?
Mr. Baillie said they would prefer to shut the neon lighting off at 11 p.m. or something like that
but he would have to go back and see the configuration of the circuitry and how the lighting
works and what the easiest solution would be.
Chairperson Longrie asked if he would be open to tabling this issue now and getting the
answers to the questions that the CDRB has and bringing the answers back so the CDRB can
come up with a solution that everyone can live with?
Mr. Baillie asked which solution the CDRB was heading towards and what the board's thought
was? He said they were not trying to be sneaky and go behind the city's back with the neon
lighting. Ashley Furniture thought they had the proper approval from Tom Ekstrand and he
things the building is very attractive and the neon looks nice in this setting. He said the Ashley
Furniture building in Shakopee is bordered with 694 feet of red neon lighting.
Chairperson Longrie said if indeed Ashley Furniture has gotten approval for the blue neon
lighting for all three front building elevations, then the CDRB can't really tell Ashley Furniture
they have to do something different unless they volunteer to do it. Maybe there needs to be a
better clarification by staff on this.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
12
Chairperson Longrie said she understands the statement in the staff report that the neon
lighting was approved for the front parapet cove detail of the building, but exactly what front
parapet cove detail are we talking about, and if there are three fronts to the Ashley Furniture
building, how does the board know what was actually approved?
Mr. Ekstrand said it may have been the applicant's intention to call all three sides of the
building the "front elevation" when referring to the addition of the blue neon lighting. But when
he read the notes in the file regarding this, the front of the building to him is where the front
door or entrance to the store is. He knows when you have a multi-street frontage lot a person
may consider all street fronts the "front" of the building because all sides of the building on
street fronts are designed to have attractive fronts on all views.
Chairperson Longrie said maybe the CDRB and staff could dig out the old staff report/packet
and look at the elevations and see how it calls out the different sides of the building and see if
it calls out one side of the building in particular as the "front" of the building to give the CDRB a
better idea.
Mr. Baillie said they had to put awnings on the Ashley Furniture building because of the design
of the walkway to highlight the northeast corner of the building. To say this is the front of the
building and this is the side of the building etc., is difficult, and everyone has a different
interpretation. He said just look at how many roads run next to this location.
Chairperson Longrie said she understands the issue completely, but before the board can
make a recommendation or action they have to fully understand what the approval was for and
what it was entailing because if the CDRB asks you to do something different than what the
approval was, that puts the city in jeopardy of you coming back and saying you are being
forced to do something you don't have to do.
Mr. Ekstrand said he didn't know if it would ever be clear what was actually proposed by
Ashley Furniture and what staff understood was proposed by Ashley Furniture or what was
actually approved. Neon lighting had not been an issue in the past. If he was asked one year
ago if Ashley Furniture could wrap their building in neon lighting, he would have said it looks
fine to him. There is some vagueness of how the request for neon lighting was proposed to
staff, but he personally doesn't consider four sides of a building to be the "front" of a building.
He considers the "front door" the front of the building, which is probably where one would
assume the neon lighting would be.
Board member Hinzman said he doesn't think the CDRB is going to firmly establish the front of
the building either. He personally doesn't see an issue with the neon lighting. He has seen this
building along with the Ashley Furniture in Woodbury and he personally finds the building
attractive and not offensive. He understands that the board would appreciate it if the intensity
of the neon lighting could be reduced. This is a very intense area around Maplewood Mall and
he knows Board member Olson feels very strongly about this, and he respects her opinion, but
he doesn't have an issue with neon lighting on this building.
Board member Olson said when Ashley Furniture first came to the CDRB, the board agreed
this building was attractive. She reads the front parapet cove to mean the arched area over the
front doorways, not the fascia or banding that goes all around the building.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
13
Board member Olson said she would've been okay with having the neon lighting over the peak
area of the front door only based on the statement of the front parapet cove detail. Her feeling
is the board has gone through the process with the Ashley Furniture building elevations and
the lighting plan, and the board thought the lighting plan that was provided was sufficient. The
neon lighting is a pretty strong addition to the building. As this area of the mall continues to
intensity in development and more and more lights are added, the board will be in opposition to
the tenants requesting more lights because of the board's feeling about the dark sky at night
policy. This area is already flooded with lights, and it's only partially developed. The board is
headed in the direction to not approve neon banding around any more structures in the
Maplewood Mall area because it is just "too" much. She is looking to the future and what the
CDRB approved for the Ashley Furniture building for their exterior lights on the building, in
between the awnings, along the sidewalk and the very strong presence that the front entry has
with the lighting. If Ashley Furniture had proposed a band of neon lighting at the initial CDRB
meeting, she would have recommended limiting the band of neon lighting to the peak above
the front door, and she wouldn't have allowed it anywhere else. The neon lighting isn't visible
in the daytime but it's very visible at night, and after she drove around the area and through
different neighborhoods, she noticed how intense and how visible the neon lighting at Ashley
Furniture actually was.
Mr. Baillie said you don't think of things like that until you start driving around. He said he drove
around the Maplewood Mall area and noticed the neon lighting on the Red Lobster building. He
said he would bet you can see the Red Lobster neon lighting even more than you can see the
Ashley Furniture neon lighting.
Board member Olson said she disagreed with that statement because of the facing and
positioning of the Red Lobster neon lighting on the building.
Mr. Baillie said that is Board member Olson's opinion. He said they didn't come into this project
to trick the city, and as a representative of Ashley Furniture, they think the neon lighting is an
architectural accent to the building and it highlights the building to make it look nice. He doesn't
think the neon is too intense or offensive to people.
Board member Shankar said the neon lighting is on the building already. If the building closes
at 9 p.m. then we should have the applicant make sure the neon lighting is completely turned
off by 9:30 p.m. There is no reason to leave the neon lighting on until 11 p.m. like the applicant
stated if business hours close at 9 p.m. If the applicant is agreeable to that condition, then that
is what the board should recommend.
Board member Ledvina said he agreed with Board member Shankar. The CDRB talked about
the dark sky at night policy, and to require lights at commercial properties to be turned off at
night helps achieve the dark sky at night policy. He isn't sure the neon lighting gives any
additional security to the Ashley Furniture building for the customers from The Myth nightclub
for overflow parking. If Ashley Furniture needs additional lighting for security, they should talk
to the city about adding more wall park lights to the building exterior. The blue neon lighting is
intense but is not displeasing. He would like the applicant to investigate alternatives to reduce
the intensity of the neon lights. He feels with the neon lighting turned off the wall pack lights
and other lights in the area will serve as good security for the area.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
14
Mr. Baillie said if they reduce the intensity of the blue neon lighting and it costs $15,000, they
won't look at that option. The neon lighting was an expensive architectural element to put on
the building. He said you can't just paint the neon lighting to tone down the intensity. Neon
lighting gets dimmer as it ages because neon loses its lumens as it is left on. The neon lighting
on the Ashley Furniture building is about 6 months old, and 1 year from now the lighting will get
dimmer. If you ever notice a section of neon lighting that was just replaced, you can really tell
where the newly replaced section of neon is because it's much brighter.
Board member Olson said she is comfortable with that explanation. If this neon lighting is
replaced, she would like it to be softer, not as intense neon light and not as bright.
Board member Hinzman moved to approve a revision to the Ashley Furniture building design
that allows the blue neon accent lighting that is in place on the building. The applicant shall
investioate wavs to diminish the intensitv of the blue neon accent liqhtino and staff shall report
back to the CDRB on the findinos of the applicant. This is conditioned on the neon lights being
turned off at 9:30 p.m. the one of /\Ghloy Furniture's busiFloGG hours.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson,
Shankar
Board member Olson thanked the applicant for coming before the CDRB.
c. Regions Sleep-Health Center
Mr. Ekstrand said Pope Architects is proposing to build a 7,084-square-foot, one-story building
at 2688 Maplewood Drive. This building would be sleep-health center for Regions Hospital.
The proposed building would have an exterior of brick, cement-board siding and asphalt
shingles on a hip roof.
Mr. Ekstrand handed out the engineering report dated November 17, 2005, by Erin Laberee,
Assistant City Manager, and the revised staff recommendations dated November 22, 2005.
Mr. Ekstrand said the planning commission recommended increasing the parking space width
from 9% feet wide to 10 feet wide.
Board member Shankar asked if we really need 10-foot-wide parking spaces for a sleep
center?
Mr. Ekstrand said that was only a request of a planning commissioner. The code states the
parking space width shall be 9% feet wide for this type of use. Employee parking can be 9 feet
wide.
Board member Shankar asked what the reason was for the recommendation for a 10-foot-wide
space versus the standard 9% foot wide parking space?
Mr. Ekstrand said the 10-foot-wide parking space was recommended because a comment was
made that dings get put in car doors with 9%-foot-wide parking spaces.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
15
Mr. Ekstrand said a parking space at 10 feet wide is very generous these days although that is
what is recommended for retail parking due to more space being needed to get in and out of
cars with packages. Some people are more conservative than others.
Board member Olson said she would recommend 10-foot-wide parking spaces because these
people will have an overnight bag or luggage and maybe even medical equipment with them.
Getting out of their car may be easier and give them more space if there were wider parking
spaces at this sleep disorder center.
Board member Ledvina said the CDRB tries to reduce the amount of impervious surface in
developments and widening the parking spaces only increases the amount of impervious
surface.
Mr. Ekstrand said that's a very good point. This is within a shoreland district and the applicant
is meeting a bonus to go beyond the 30% maximum impervious surface coverage that would
normally be allowed in this area. It could go up to 50% coverage if they were providing
adequate on-site methods of collecting storm water and purifying it. The applicant is at 40%
coverage now. Ms. Laberee's engineering report covers that information, and she makes some
recommendations regarding these issues.
Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. James Johnson, AlA, Project Manager for Pope Associates, 1255 Energy Park Drive, St.
Paul, addressed the board. This is a residential-looking facility. Parking is needed for a
maximum load of 12 patients and 7 employees on a nightly basis.
Board member Hinzman asked if the parking needs are sufficient if parking is reduced?
Mr. Johnson said yes.
The CDRB agreed this is a very attractive building.
Chairperson Longrie said she is comfortable with the 9%-foot-wide parking spaces and the
number of reduced parking based on the number of employees and visitors to this building on
a nightly basis. She would prefer to reduce the amount of impervious surface as Board
member Ledvina said.
Board member Hinzman moved to approve the plans date-stamped October 27, 2005, for the
proposed Regions Sleep-Health Center at 2688 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the
applicant/developer complying with the following conditions: Revised plans date-stamped
November 22, 2005. (Changes made by the CORB 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. Comply with all conditions of Erin Laberee's engineering report dated November 17,
2005.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
16
3. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District before the
issuance of a building permit.
4. The applicant shall work with staff to eliminate or reduce the number of parking stalls in
the back of the building. This area shall be redesignated as "proof of parking." +He
a~~licant shall make overy attempt to proviele 10 foot ,,"ide parking stalls as suggested
by tho planning commiElElion. Handicap parking stalls shall comply with ADA
requirements.
5. Provide a revised parking lot screening plan for staff approval for the rear parking lot
that provides screening that is at least six feet tall and 80 percent opaque on the
north/northeast and south/southeast sides. This requirement may be waived or
lessened in scope subject to the elimination or reduction in size of the back parking lot
and its redesignation as "proof of parking."
6. The applicant must provide an in-ground irrigation system as required by code. The
area around the pond does not need to be sprinklered.
7. The design of the trash enclosure shall be submitted to staff for approval. The materials
and colors of the enclosure shall match the building.
8. Provide cash escrow, in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the
landscaping and exterior site improvements before the applicant shall obtain a building
permit.
9. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans. Minor
changes may be approved by staff.
Board member Ledvina seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson,
Shankar
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on December 12, 2005.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Chairperson Longrie said there is a CDRB vacancy and interested candidates can go the city
website and download an application form if they are interested in applying. Chairperson
Longrie is stepping down as Chairperson of the CDRB to become the new Mayor of
Maplewood in January 2006.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-22-2005
17
Chairperson Longrie was the CDRB representative at the November 14, 2005, city council
meeting and the only CDRB item to discuss was the Edgerton Manor 2021 Edgerton that was
passed by the city council.
Board member Hinzman will represent the CDRB at the November 28, 2005, city council
meeting. The only CDRB item to discuss is the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center at 2483 and
2497 Maplewood Drive.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan
Mr. Ekstrand said the CDRB received a Gladstone mailing that they should refer to
regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Concept plan. There will be a joint meeting
between several city boards and commissions to discuss the Gladstone Redevelopment
Area on Monday, December 19, 2005, at 6:00 p.m.
b. Board member Olson will be the Community Design Review Board
Representative at the December 12, 2005, city council meeting.
The only CDRB item to discuss is the Regions Sleep-Center at 2688 Maplewood Drive.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.