Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, July 25, 2006 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 27, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Maplewood Mall Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment - 3001 White Bear Avenue b. Carpet Court - 1685 Arcade Street 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. July 6, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting - Linda Olson b. July 10, 2006, City Council Meeting - Matt Ledvina 9. Staff Presentations: a. Sign Code - "Outdoor Television" Definition b. Draft Tree Ordinance Update c. Roles and Responsibilities of PC and CDRB 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 25,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Joel Schurke Board member Ananth Shankar Present Present Absent Present at 6:13 p.m. Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Hinzman moved to approve the agenda. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes -Hinzman, Ledvina, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for June 27, 2006 Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of June 27, 2006. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes --- Hinzman, Ledvina Abstention - Shankar The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Maplewood Mall Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment - 3001 White Bear Avenue (6:06 - 7:40 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Tina Volpe, Director of Marketing for the Maplewood Mall, is proposing two billboard-style signs on the east and west elevations of the mall. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 2 Ms. Finwall said the signs are called wallscapes and are constructed of BriTex, which is a white, flexible and durable vinyl substrate material. The signs will advertise the mall products (I.e., Simon Gift Cards, etc.), mall tenants (I.e., Old Navy, etc.), and ultimately could advertise the "products" sold by the tenants. The owners of the Maplewood Mall, Simon Property Group, and its subsidiary partnership owns or has an interest in 285 properties in the United States containing 200 million square feet of gross leasable area in 39 states plus Puerto Rico. Four of the retail properties are located in Minnesota including the Maplewood Mall and the Mall of America. Simon Property Group is proposing to install wallscape signage at 70 of these properties, including the Maplewood Mall. There are currently no other malls in the Twin Cities that have wallscape signage. Ms. Finwall said there was a correction in the staff report regarding the size of the proposed signs. The sign marked 750 square feet should be 665 square feet which would be located between PotBelly's and JCPenney and the sign marked 600 square feet should be 910 square feet which would be located between Sears and the mall entrance. Staff finds that the wallscape signs are compatible to the commercial nature of the neighborhood and the building. However, staff has concerns that these signs will not improve the relationship between the existing signs including: 1. The signs are large and resemble a billboard. 2. The signs will likely display products sold within the mall, rather than the stores located in the mall or the mall itself. 3. The signs are made of a vinyl material which is susceptible to wear and tear. 4. Approval of these signs could open the door to the mall refacing the signs with LED signage similar to the Myth's sign in the future. 5. The existing mall signs including the four monument signs, six of the seven wall signs and six directional signs are old and outdated. It's staffs opinion that the addition of the wallscape signs would not meet the intent of the comprehensive sign plan. Simon Property Group and the city would benefit more from an update of the existing signs at the mall. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the proposed comprehensive sign plan amendment to add two wallscape signs. Board member Schurke asked if staff could provide more of an explanation regarding number 4. in the staff report? Ms. Finwall said regarding the sign code, the refacing of signs with the same size would normally be called a reface and would not necessarily require approval by the CDRB, however, city staff would probably bring a proposed reface of a large sign like these wallscapes before the CDRB for an amendment to the comprehensive sign plan. Allowing these signs could open the possibility of the refacing of these signs with the same size LED sign. Board member Schurke thought that clarification should be made in the sign ordinance. He said this should not be an exception someone could use. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 3 Ms. Finwall said as an example of refacing a sign is when Dayton's changed to Marshall Field's and then Marshall Field's changed over to Macy's, staff didn't feel the need to bring those sign changes to the CDRB for an amendment to the comprehensive sign plan because basically the new signs are the same size and city staff approved those signs as a refacing with a sign permit. Board member Schurke said that is not an LED sign though. Ms. Finwall said correct. Board member Schurke said if in the event people were refacing signs with the proposal to use LED that is not refacing and would require coming before the CDRB for approval. Ms. Finwall said the city council has not reviewed the draft sign ordinance yet so there is still the opportunity to make amendments to the draft sign code. The CDRB recommended LED signs with moving and flashing lights be prohibited. Once a large sign is up however, the possibility of refacing it with the CDRB's approval is still there. Board member Schurke said the comment made regarding LED signs such as the Myth Nightclub sign caught his attention and that is why he brought the discussion up. Board member Hinzman asked what these signs would be classified as in the sign code, is it classified as a temporary sign, as a banner? If the CDRB amends the sign plan for the mall what would it involve for raising the total signage allocation for the mall in the future for possible sign refacements? Ms. Finwall said signs such as this on another facility (not this large) would be called a temporary banner sign and the city code currently allows a temporary banner up to 150 square feet in size and the banner can only be up for 30 days. Board member Schurke asked if there were any other examples of this type of signage in Maplewood? Ms. Finwall said this type of signage is nowhere else in Minnesota. Acting chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Ms. Tina Volpe, Director of Marketing for the Maplewood Mall, 3001 White Bear Avenue, addressed the board. She said they appreciated the board's time in giving them the opportunity to present the request. They provided an additional packet of information for each board member for tonight's meeting that provided information on the wallscape program which they are trying to implement at the Maplewood Mall. She said they compare this type of signage to more of a banner type advertising. This is something new that is up and coming in the industry. This would be the first of its kind in the state and no other shopping center in the state is currently implementing this kind of advertising program. However, at the rate Simon Property Group is doing this throughout the country they expect other centers will be implementing these programs at other centers in the twin cities. These types of signs have been installed in markets as large as New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Atlanta at premier centers in the country. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 4 Ms. Volpe said wallscapes will allow the mall to advertise the products and services that the mall and Simon Property Group offers. Ms. Volpe said this would also be an opportunity for the tenants and retailers to advertise their stores and products. This is the first step in partnering with the city regarding increasing the market value at Maplewood Mall and being able to be competitive within the industry. With the new shopping centers like Woodbury Lakes it's important to continue to draw shoppers into Maplewood Mall. Board member Hinzman thanked the representatives for their time tonight. He asked how often they would be changing the wallscape signs out? Ms. Volpe said when they are partnering with tenants in the mall to advertise there is a minimal 3 month requirement, possibly longer. Acting chairperson Ledvina said the applicant has proposed two signs on the building exterior at Maplewood Mall and he asked if they would be coming back before the board with additional exterior signs anywhere else on the mall exterior? Ms. Volpe said they don't have any other locations on the building exterior that would allow for this type of banner signage. These are the two locations that were selected for this type of wallscape program. She wanted to note the difference between a LED sign and a banner sign like this wallscape as well as a huge price difference. Board member Shankar asked if the city allowed you to advertise a "store" and not a "product" would you still be interested in this wallscape sign? Ms. Volpe said yes. She said to keep in mind that Champp's Sports may have a Nike shoe with the Champp's Sports logo on it or the GAP might have someone in denim jeans so in a sense the product will get advertised on the sign somehow. Board member Schurke asked if this is the first wallscape sign proposal in Minnesota for the Simon Property Group? Ms. Volpe said yes. Board member Schurke asked if this wallscape signage was proposed at the Mall of America since Simon Property Group owns that mall? Ms. Volpe said no not at this time. Board member Schurke asked what governs the choice of centers in terms of where you locate this wallscape? Ms. Volpe said Simon Property Group is looking at markets that are in the top designated market area or (DMA). If you are an advertiser or a marketer and you are looking at purchasing advertising, typically the big guys are going to go to the top DMA's across the country and that is how Maplewood Mall was selected because we are located in a top DMA. Board member Shankar asked if Maplewood Mall is the only property managed by Simon Property Group? Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 5 Ms. Volpe said Simon Property Group owns and manages Maplewood Mall, Mall of America, Miller Hill Mall in Duluth, and the Albertville Outlets. Board member Shankar asked if Mall of America would be in the top 10 designated market areas or OMA? Ms. Volpe said yes. Board member Shankar said but Simon Property Group has chosen not to have wallscape signs at the Mall of America? Ms. Volpe said at this time Simon Property Group has chosen not to advertise there. The Mall of America is managed differently than Maplewood Mall is. The Mall of America is sort of a city in itself and has a very different management structure compared to Maplewood Mall. The staff at the Maplewood Mall is not in touch with the management practices at the Mall of America. Board member Schurke asked if there had been any opposition to this type of signage at centers in other states? Ms. Volpe said they have not had a problem with most of the wallscapes that have been implemented. Springfield, Missouri is changing their sign ordinance to accommodate the program at the Battlefield Mall in Springfield, MissourI. The only center that they know had an issue in their community was Oehrlein Square in Oehrlein Park Chicago which is a very elite and upscale area within the Chicago suburbs that recently got approval to do the wallscape and it was installed last week. Board member Shankar asked what type of maintenance this type of sign requires? Ms. Volpe said the wallscape sign is very low maintenance. A sample of the product was provided in the packet sent to the CORBo The wallscape product is resistant to weather, wear and tear, and is fire resistant. The framing system, which is stainless steel is used to install the wallscape product and would be mounted to the brick wall with brackets. You don't see the frame of the wallscape when it is up because the weather resistive material wraps around the frame and snaps in place making the framing invisible. Board member Shankar asked how the sign is lit? Ms. Volpe said the sign will not be lit other than by the lights on the building exterior of the mall and by the lights in the parking lot. Board member Schurke asked how this wallscape product is different from a billboard sign? Ms. Volpe said that's a good question. It's not different from a billboard but it's a way to get their message out. She included information in the packet to the CDRB about the importance of advertising within the shopping centers and how it benefits the companies and retailers which helps to increase sales. She said it's getting harder and harder for marketers to get their message across because everything is getting so fragmented and advertisers are challenged everyday. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 6 Ms. Volpe said with mass media continuing to fragment into smaller and smaller pieces in demographics, marketers need to find new ways to get the advertising word out. People are finding advertising on television is more difficult because people have Tivo and DVR's which allow people to skip over commercials and the advertising. Consumers are becoming more empowered by asking to be put on do not call lists, having spam blockers on their computers, blocking calls and filtering information from advertisers. So marketers and advertisers are looking at alternative ways to get their message out and the wallscape sign is just another way of doing that. She said 62% of shoppers make purchasing decisions while they are in a mall. That includes whether there is a vehicle in the mall advertising a car dealership or car brand or advertising another product. That type of advertising is called experiential marketing which is the seeing, feeling and touching of a product in a non-threatening environment. Board member Schurke said from a market standpoint he finds the analysis interesting. The role of the CORB from a review standpoint is what the impact is aesthetically on the Maplewood community. If the argument is that there is too much visual noise out there in terms of marketing and we add more visual noise to rise above that personally it's a hard argument for him to buy into. He said he has nothing but the highest wish for success for the Maplewood Mall. Staff brings up a good point regarding beautifying existing signage or making improvements to the existing signs rather than making an investment in the banner advertisement of these wallscape signs. Personally he does not see how advertising Visa or the Simon gift card on these wallscape signs will help the community of Maplewood. Ms. Volpe said the product being advertised is Visa on the Simon gift card which is sold in the Maplewood Mall by Simon Property Group. It's just one example of a product that could be advertised on the wallscape, it could be an advertisement for Children's Place or the GAP. Board member Schurke asked if there was an update regarding the condition of the current signage at the mall and what the plan was to update the signage? Ms. Volpe said as employees of the Maplewood Mall they notice the things that need to be upgraded and updated every day. They have a five-year plan for Maplewood Mall. What Simon Property Group looks at is what areas or markets are going to allow them to go above and beyond. Simon Property Group looks at the wallscape program as the first step. If Simon Property Group is able to implement something like the wallscape program they look at that as a positive relationship between the city and the mall to upgrade the exterior. But if Simon Property Group is not able to participate in things such as the wallscape program Simon Property Group is going to say "isn't the Maplewood Mall located in the city that would not allow them to get a permit to implement the wallscape program?" Mr. Jad Murphy, General Manager, Maplewood Mall, 3001 White Bear Avenue, addressed the board. Mr. Murphy said if Simon Property Group were to replace the monument signs along White Bear Avenue those would be brought up to date and made into digital signs such as what was done at the Myth Nightclub. The future for signage is in digital media. The mall would come to the CDRB for approval for digital media signage but that is in the future and is very expensive to do. This wallscape sign is an opportunity for the mall to have advertising at a lower cost but still have a high impact. Woodbury Lakes is a very nice shopping facility which has caused sales to go down at Maplewood Mall and the mall is trying to bring sales up in a tasteful way. He said Simon Property Group would be willing to apply for a temporary sign in order to test this type of sign at the mall. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 7 Mr. Murphy said one of the biggest problems that could happen within the Twin Cities is if this wallscape program is not approved in Maplewood other cities "will" approve it. It "will" drive traffic in other cities and not having this wallscape sign will decline the sales in the Maplewood Mall. Mr. Murphy said he is not saying this wallscape is going to increase the sales by a certain percentage but it "will" drive more sales to the mall. The wallscape sign on the mall exterior gives the consumers the opportunity to see something advertised from White Bear Avenue, South lawn Drive or Beam Avenue because these signs are this "big". Monument signs don't drive sales like the wallscape sign would. Ms. Volpe said one thing Simon Property Group looks at with any renovation or improvement to the center is the return on the investment. So if Simon Property Group were going to upgrade the exterior signage and the monument signs at the mall Simon Property Group will want to do something that is going to give them a return on their investment if they were going to invest a lot of money in something. Simon Property Group does not look at everything the same way at the mall but the mall does enhancements to help the mall look better because it's the best thing for the center. She said they agree the exterior signage needs to be upgraded. The new regional centers are implementing these types of things. Board member Hinzman said he looks at the wallscape sign as a "temporary banner". The sign will be up for a limited time, it's made of a material that is not meant for an extended time. Under the current sign ordinance banners can be up for 30 days. When he compiles the facts it appears this is a temporary banner sign to him. He has a concern that if the board were to designate this as a sign and amend the comprehensive sign plan it really raises the amount of signage on the mall that could be transformed in ways the CDRB may not see as acceptable in the future. He wouldn't be in favor of amending the sign code for this wallscape sign. He would be in favor of looking at this as a temporary sign banner for 30 days but he doesn't think the applicant would be interested in that because it would be a significant investment for a limited use. Board member Shankar said he would have been more sympathetic to this proposal if the wallscape signs were related to the anchor stores in the mall such as for Kohl's, JCPenney, Sears and the new Macy's store but the fact that the wallscape signs could be for Simon gift cards or advertising Visa the next thing could be an advertisement for a Rockport shoe at Florsheim or a lawn mower at Sears and he is concerned how that is going to look on the building fa9ade of the mall. Acting chairperson Ledvina said he interprets these wallscape signs as a billboard in terms of how they are designed. With the comprehensive sign plan for the Maplewood Mall the CDRB is responsible for looking at the signs and how the signs interact with the architecture of the building and if the signs compliment each other and he doesn't think the wallscape signs are complimentary to the architecture of the mall building by any means. He said he sympathizes with the business needs of the mall and the desire to maximize the marketing of the tenants in the mall but for the larger concern of the city he feels these wallscape signs are very much out of place here and he is not in favor of this proposal. Board member Shankar said this signage may fit better in areas like the example in the packet in Georgia because of the location and the fact that the mall in Georgia has a freestanding sign but the wallscape sign on the front of the Maplewood Mall doesn't appeal here like it does at the malls in Georgia as seen in the examples shown in the packet the CORB received. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 8 Board member Hinzman agreed with those comments. Board member Shankar said people know what anchor stores are at the mall whether they are coming from Hudson, Wisconsin or White Bear Lake. The applicant stated these wallscape signs would draw people to the Maplewood Mall who would be driving in the vicinity to visit the other tenant stores but he doesn't buy that statement. He believes the anchor stores draw people to the mall and people will visit the other tenant stores while shopping at the mall. The development in Woodbury pulls customers because of the specialty stores and the other strip malls hold anchor stores such as JCPenney and Kohl's etc. Board member Schurke said he would not presume to know the marketing and advertising business better than the applicants do. The most important thing to relay to the applicant is that there is a design expectation in this community which the CDRB is setting a standard for and the CORB is trying to not allow variances to that. One thing referenced in the staff report is the idea to replace the monument sign with a LED sign. He said he wanted the applicants to clearly know that currently the draft sign ordinance is disallowing the use of those types of signs in the City of Maplewood. He has been to other communities around the country and the issue of trying to subdue signage and keep it quieter makes it more conspicuous in his opinion because it draws your eye to the signage in a pleasant way. Most of the advertising today is in such a high volume it's almost difficult to get your message above the advertising volume. From a design standpoint he would challenge the applicant to take the comments from the CDRB and staff to see what can be done to address the issues at hand. Board member Hinzman recommends denial of the proposed comprehensive sign plan amendment to add a 665 and a 910 square foot wallscape sign on the east and west elevation of the Maplewood Mall located at 3001 White Bear Avenue. Denial is based on the fact that the wallscape signs will not improve the relationship between the existing signs as required by the sign code for a comprehensive sign plan. Board member Schurke seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Schurke, Shankar The motion to deny passed. Ms. Finwall said the applicant can file an appeal with the city council within 15 days in writing and then it would go to the city council for review. Staff thanked the applicants for their time. (The applicant told staff they planned to appeal the board's decision to deny the proposal.) b. Carpet Court -1685 Arcade Street (7:40 - 8:02 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Gary Blair is proposing to develop a 7,848-square-foot retail/warehouse carpet store on a vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). Mr. Blair wants to relocate his existing Carpet court store in St. Paul to this new location. The building will consist of approximately 3,966 square feet of retail space and 3,882 square feet of warehouse/storage space. As proposed, the building would have steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, cultured stone wainscot, and a metal roof. On July 18, 2006, the planning commission reviewed the current proposal and recommended approval of the rezoning, public vacation, and building setback variance. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 9 Ms. Finwall said the planning commission recommended two additional conditions of approval including a hammer-head turnaround to be constructed off of the loading dock driveway and a driveway access to be constructed on the north side of the parking lot onto the remaining portion of the service road. Board member Hinzman asked if this was just a concept plan the last time the CDRB reviewed this last year or earlier this year? Ms. Finwall said correct. Board member Hinzman asked if staff or the applicant could point the differences out from the concept plan and the proposal today? Ms. Finwall said the applicant added the stucco corner treatments as suggested by Board member Shankar and the applicant added a decorative cultured stone entry way at the suggestion of another board member. If there were any other changes the applicant would have to point those out. Board member Schurke asked if there had been any other input from the community other than what is shown in the staff report? Ms. Finwall said the comments received by staff via e-mail, telephone, or by mail have been included in the staff report. There was a visitor who spoke at the public hearing at the planning commission meeting July 18, 2006. His name was A. L. Brown, (representing the District 5 planning council for St. Paul which covers the area directly south of Larpenteur Avenue). He spoke regarding the building elevations and the safety of the vehicles entering and exiting the site. The Palmes who live next to the property and Randy Bacchus of Bacchus Homes also spoke at the public hearing. Board member Shankar asked if the applicant is proposing stucco or EIFS and would there be any joint lines in the stucco because it appears to be one continuous material. Ms. Finwall said the applicant can address that. Acting chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Robert Blair, 1940 Grey Cloud Trail, addressed the board. He said he is the son of Gary Blair, the owner of Carpet Court. He said he was excited to present the proposal. He said this is very good design which is a vast improvement from the other plans they presented to the City of Maplewood. The overall site design is also improved with many plants, shrubs and trees. They have a video presentation to show the CDRB. The landscaping will help attract nature such as birds and butterflies which was chosen for that reason as well as to add color to the site. He said they feel the complete building and site design is more than just acceptable, they feel this plan is "outstanding" and they hope the CDRB wiU feel the same way. He distributed a handout to the board members and said he hoped the handout along with watching the video presentation would answer questions the board may have. He then asked for the video presentation to begin. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 10 The board members said they were happy to see the applicant had prepared a video presentation and stated they thought this was the first time they had seen a video presentation. (The video presentation is shown on the video tape of the CDRB meeting but was not transcribed for the minutes.) First Robert Blair reviewed some of the concerns of the planning commission and pointed them out on the model they provided of the proposed store they had for their presentation. Regarding the building exterior finishes, on the south side of the warehouse they addressed having different types of finishes. He said stucco is considerably more expensive compared to metal siding and they didn't find a benefit of using that because of the cost. They found if they used stucco it would look like too much stucco and would also look too bland and simple. The CDRB stated during the concept plan review that they didn't like the look of a stucco box. They found that the metal siding adds visual interest and gives more texture to the appearance and detail to the building compared to using the same building material throughout. On the north side of the building they have no screening requirements because of the commercial building next door. He pointed out where the existing trees are on the adjoining property next to their building and how the large trees would screen this property. Regarding the berming in the staff report, the berm would be four feet tall and have shrubs on top. That isn't a great location for a berm because it would screen and block the front of their building. This is on Highway 61 and could obstruct the view for vehicles turning into and out of the site. The city code states: in no case is a developer or owner required to replace more than 10 trees per acre. The land shown is Yo of an acre meaning the maximum tree requirement would be 8 trees. They currently have 11 trees planted on the site which is three more than the requirement. If they added all the trees that were shown that would be 27 trees. Which he said is a forest and is 19 more trees than the maximum that can be requested. They are not against planting trees but have a problem with some of the tree locations and quantity. Trees adjacent Highway 61 and Larpenteur Avenue could cause a traffic safety concern for their customers. Any berms or trees adjacent Highway 61 will block the view of traffic turning the corner. A car exiting would not have a clear view of traffic and Carpet Court doesn't want any liability issues. In addition to the two maple trees and the nine evergreen trees they would agree to put four evergreen trees on the northwest property line. Four full grown evergreen trees is all that you would be able to plant there without having a problem. That would be five trees 15 feet apart on the northwest corner so he assumed that was what was considered. It was mentioned that they should move the rainwater garden for the easement which they can do and submit that for the proposal and permit requirements. He said Carpet Court's attorney and a representative from Wick Builders is here to answer any questions that he cannot. Acting chairperson Ledvina said the CDRB is interested in the building materials being used. Gary Blair went through the building materials board as well as the small building proposal model. The roofing material and the accent trim would be burgundy which would give more character. They would be cream colored stucco with bump outs to add more character and break up the upper elevations. The cultured stone is a stacking stone and would attach to the building material and would also be used on the pillars. The cultured stone product was at 30 inches high previously but was increased to 48-inches high. He said they like the look of the product but it's expensive. He said anything that looks as outstanding as this is expensive. They will also have a keystone block at the top of the arches centered in the entry ways to the doors set in the brick. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 11 Robert Blair said there are comments from other manufacturers regarding how they felt about the building and they have seen a lot of carpet stores and decorating centers and they said they don't usually see anything this nice. Board member Shankar asked if the stucco had controlled joints? Robert Blair said it will be a flat surface and will have no joints other than the bumpouts. Mr. Mark Young, Wick Builders, Amery, Wisconsin, addressed the board. He said there would be controlled joints running horizontal for expansion but not above the windows. Acting chairperson Ledvina asked if there would be stone ledges under the windows? Mr. Young said yes. It would be built on a four foot concrete frost wall, with wood frame exterior, the plywood, felt, wire mesh and the stucco, and stone wainscoting. Board member Schurke asked how they would describe the relationship with their neighbors and he asked if the applicant had responded to any of the concerns expressed in the staff report. Robert Blair said he has not spoken with the neighbors but his father Gary Blair had. From what he understood Mrs. Palme had a problem with the building proposal but her husband did not. From what he understood their adult son lives with them and he has issues with the building as well. Robert asked his father Gary to speak further on this. Mr. Gary Blair, owner of Carpet Court, addressed the board. He said he spoke to the Palmes when they first started the idea of constructing a building on this site. The Palmes were concerned the building would block their view. This new plan brings the building back considerably so it won't block their view. He spoke to Mr. Palme who said he thought the building looked good. Mrs. Palme came to the public hearing at the planning commission meeting along with her son and they both expressed their displeasure with the building. He hasn't had the opportunity to speak to them to find out what their issue with the building is. The Palmes were also concerned about the upkeep of the property. He told the Palmes when the building is approved and built the natural growth of the property would be removed. The other neighbor is Mr. Bacchus of Bacchus Homes whom he spoke to about five years ago. One of his concerns was the driveway and the success of putting the connection between their driveway and the street to allow them to exit more safely onto Larpenteur Avenue. Before Bacchus Homes had to exit 15 feet from the intersection and now they would be 60 feet from the intersection. He said he spoke to the church and they had no problem with the building proposal. He hasn't spoken to the people at the group home yet and isn't sure who to contact there directly. Robert Blair said Carpet Court sent out personalized letters to the neighbors within 500 feet which equals 80 homes but received no responses and they were hoping to receive the responses before attending any city meetings. But city staff received 4 responses to their letter. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 12 Mr. Randy Bacchus, Bacchus Homes, 1701 Arcade Street, addressed the board. He said he brought up some issues at the planning commission meeting and he will bring those up at the city council meeting. There are a few things he is not comfortable with but he wants to make sure if this proposal is going to go through he wants to bring some of these issues up. Regarding the stucco and siding, he would recommend that the stucco be required on all sides of the building exterior especially if the cul-de-sac goes in some day. He said the Bacchus Homes building has vinyl siding and has been there for 50 years. He has been thinking of putting James Hardie siding on to make things look more vibrant. Robert Blair said the stucco would be too much to look at on the building but he believes you can change the color or texture to make it look nice and breaks things up. He is concerned the metal roof will look like a pole barn and not like something at the city hall building. He agrees the berm is a safety concern and is a bad idea. One of the issues they have had with their driveway is the access onto Highway 61. It's a bad intersection and unless you have a stop light there it could be a safety issue. His trees border the property and he is okay with not adding additional trees there to screen this side of the property. He is concerned the roots of the large trees on his property could get damaged by trucks driving on the property. Acting chairperson Ledvina said it would have been nice to have minutes from the past meeting to see what was discussed by the CDRB during the review of the concept plan for Carpet Court. Board member Shankar said he appreciated the color renderings and building model prepared for the meeting tonight. He is concerned about the stucco going down this far. His suggestion for these pilasters is that they continue the same banding and then there should be cultured stone. The porticos should have the same band that they are showing behind. He thinks they should use the same burgundy color and clad the corner with metal to separate all the beige that is going on. He recommends the window frames be burgundy. Board member Schurke said when the CDRB reviewed the concept plan before he had a very strong opinion of the building then. He thinks this site is like forcing a square peg in a round hole. He still feels the same about building anything on this site and this use is a bigger question for him and he doesn't approve of this proposal. He appreciates the effort that the applicant has made presenting this. He doesn't feel this building is an augmentation of this site on Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street. Acting chairperson Ledvina said the land use is business commercial and that is not something for the CDRB to dispute. He knows last time board member Schurke thought this was a gateway into Maplewood and he understands the concern here. He feels the applicant has made "some" improvements and staff has made strong recommendations regarding the building elevations and between those things this proposal is workable in his opinion. Board member Hinzman said when he looks at the other new buildings that have been built along Highway 61 this building doesn't measure up to those. He doesn't know what can be done to improve this plan. If you look at the other businesses and business condos the CDRB has approved along Highway 61 they are of better quality than this proposal regarding the exterior. This proposal would be fine in an industrial area but along Highway 61 which is more of a business commercial strip he doesn't feel it fits in. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 13 Board member Hinzman said the applicant has done "some" improvements to the building and he appreciates the efforts made but he still feels this building doesn't measure up. He said if the CDRB approves this building what is the CDRB setting themselves up for in the future for future developments and design reviews. People will look at this building and say this was an acceptable standard for the CDRB before. He appreciates the additions that board member Shankar brought up but he still doesn't feel this building meets the standards. Board member Schurke said this is really Arcade Street and not Highway 61. He lives on Arcade Street and consistently this has been referred to as Highway 61. This is a designated highway but this is Arcade Street which is important from a residential standpoint to convey the message that this is a residential street. This happens to be an intersection where a commercial use evolves as you go further north on Highway 61 but Arcade Street bumps over and becomes Arcade Street again. Think of this as a neighborhood and the relationship of the site changes. When he looks at the Regions Hospital Sleep Health Center building on Highway 61 that is a gorgeous building compared to this proposal in his opinion. From the standpoint of design qualities and design expectations he has a different standard and has a higher expectation for the community and does not endorse this building as a design standard of quality for the community. He would concur with the statements made by board member Hinzman. He appreciates the comments made by board member Shankar as a way to steer this building design but personally he doesn't think this building is steerable in this location. Mr. Gary Blair said he understands personal opinions and views that some of the board may have. If you have the opinion that this building looks like a pole barn he can understand that because he would feel the same way but we are not talking about a pole barn here which should be obvious from watching the video presentation. As far as the metal siding goes, he noticed the Science Museum, the prison, and the new LDI 3M building all have the same metal siding which is run horizontally. They are planning to use a very similar metal siding here and it will hold up much better. If you want to make this building look like a barn you can make it look like a barn but they are talking about making this building look very nice and they are very proud of what has been designed. Regarding the Regions Hospital Sleep Health Center building on Highway 61 he agrees that is a very nice building however, the landscaping is in question and he showed a photo of the landscaping conditions on the screen. Then there is Forest Products at the corner of Highway 61 and County Road C which was a very difficult site for this person to build on this site just like his situation. Five years ago the CDRB wondered how the Forest Products building would be able to be built on that site. The Forest Products building is a box building and five years ago he came to the CDRB with a box design and the CDRB said they didn't like the building and that they should make changes to the plan. He said he has had the changes made to the building so it doesn't look like a box anymore in his opinion. Carpet Court wants a building that is very attractive and they feel this proposal is very attractive and goes beyond what personal opinions might indicate. They are putting over $500,000 into this building and feel the building looks good. People come all the way from South Dakota and North Dakota to buy flooring from Carpet Court. They are hoping to get this building approved so they can build it and move from St. Paul to Maplewood and build a building to be proud of. Acting chairperson Ledvina thanked Gary Blair for his comments. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 14 Board member Shankar said he can make a motion but the overwhelming feeling is the overall character is not in keeping with the neighborhood and he would l'1ave to defer to the other board members. Acting chairperson said the applicant is requesting an action by the board and he thinks an action can be made by the CORBo Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped June 15, 2006, for the Carpet Court development to be located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). Approval is subject to the following conditions: (changes or additions are underlined and deletions are stricken.) a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Revised engineering and grading plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering report dated July 10, 2006. 2) Revised building elevations showing the following: a) North: This elevation should match the south showroom elevation and be constructed of stucco and cultured stone wainscot, aOO fllAGtioAing or false windows. b) South: The siding and wainscot on the entire south elevation (showroom and warehouse) should be constructed of stucco and cultured stone wainscot. c) East: Window frames to be burqundv to match roof color. Provide a 4-inch protrudinq band at a 48-inqh heiqht at both arched openinqs. d) All corners of the building to have 48-inch high cultured stone with protruding 4 inch band to match at walls. Provide steel panels (color to match roof) above these corner cultured stone pilasters. 3) Revised site plan showing the following: a) A hammer-head turnaround to be located on the west side of the loading dock driveway. This turnaround must maintain at least a 20-foot setback to the west property I!ine and at least a 15-foot setback to the Larpenteur Avenue right-of-way. b) A driveway access on the north side of the parking lot onto the remaining portion of the service road. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 15 4) Revised landscape plan showing the following: a) Relocation of the rainwater garden out of the required roadway easement. All plantings proposed in the rainwater garden to be approved by the engineering department. b) Five more evergreen trees, in addition tp the nine evergreen trees proposed, to be planted 15 feet on center on the entire length of the west and northwest property line. c) Berming and Landscaping along the Highway 61 property line to include two or moro foLJr feet i:lililh SOrFR6, l'larticLJlarly on the 60LJtheast cornor ef 19i1ili:lway 81 and ~arpenteLJr AvenLJe. These berms should bo heavily laAElEcaped with shrubs, aOO perennials, and In adElitioA, and at least five deciduous trees (at least 2.5 inches in diameter ).shoLJld be plantaEl illl this araa. d) Landscaping along Larpenteur Aven!Je to include six more deciduous trees (at least 2.5-inches in diameter), in addition to the two maple trees proposed. 5) A revised lighting plan which reflects the freestanding lights do not exceed 25 feet in height as measured from the ground grade to the top of the luminaries. In addition, the applicant should consider some sort of motion detection light over the west loading dock. 6) Obtain a permit from Minnesota Department of Transportation for any use or work within or affecting the Highway 61 right-of-way. 7) Watershed district approval. 8) Combine the two lots for tax purposes. 9) Submit samples all building materials to staff for ,approval. 10) 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 and will be used by the city in the event the required exterior improvements are not complete. c. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 16 4) Install all required outdoor lighting. d. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior impro'lements. 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. e. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director <Ilf community development may approve minor changes. Acting chairperson Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Shankar Nays- Hinzman, Schurke The motion did not pass. This item goes to the city council on August 14, 2006. Board members Hinzman and Schurke expressed their disapproval of the proposal earlier in the discussion. Acting chairperson Ledvina commended the applicant for their nice video presentation, handouts, and model of the building proposal. The board stated th$y would appreciate future applicants providing such extensive presentations to assist the CDRB in understanding what the building and the site would look like. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Olson was the CDRB representative at the July 6, 2006, city council Meeting. Linda Olson was absent this evening and could not give a report. b. Board member Ledvina was the CDRB representative at the July 10, 2006, city council meeting. Items discussed included Legacy Village Townhomes at CO\lnty Road D and Kennard Street which was denied but is coming back for future consid\3ration and the 5-8 Tavern and Grill Parking Lot Expansion at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue, which was passed by the city council ayes all. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 17 c. CDRB Representation for the city council meeting on August 14, 2006 Board member Shankar will be the CDRB representative at the August 14, 2006, city council meeting. The only CDRB item to discuss is Carpet Court, 1685 Arcade Street. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Sign Code - Outdoor Television Definition Ms. Finwall said in April 2006, city staff requested that the CDRB give an interpretation of the city's sign code in regard to electronic message board signs. The interpretation was requested based on two sign proposals received by staff. The first proposal was by Plaza TV at 1918 Beam Avenue. They requested the addition of a 34 square foot electronic message board sign to be installed on their existing freestanding sign. The city's existing and proposed sign code prohibits signs which blink or flash. Electronic message board signs have the capability of blinking and flashing. Plaza TV requested the sign on the condition that it remains constant and steady. The second proposal was by the Myth Nightclub at 3090 South lawn Drive. They requested and installed a 230 square foot light-emitting diode (LED) sign. This type of sign is similar to an outdoor television and has the capability of displaying millions of colors and video displays on the screen. During the CDRB's review, and based on the city attorney's comments, it was determined that the new style of electronic message board signs (LED signs - outdoor televisions) was different enough from anything that has come before that it needed its own category in the sign code. Board member Schurke said staff and the legal staff did a good job on this. He reminded staff of what he brought up earlier in the meeting regarding the refacing of signs. The board thought this was pretty straight forward and moved forward to make a recommendation. Board member Hinzman moved to approve an amendment to the March 1, 2006, draft sign code pertaining to LED or outdoor television signs as follows (language added is underlined): Definitions: Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 18 Prohibited Signs: Signs that have blinking, flashing, fluttering lights, make noise, or change in brightness or color includino, but not limited to, electronic messaoe board sions. f1ashiro sions. and video board sions as defined in this chapter; except for electronic message boards that display only time and temperature or similar public service messages according to the requirements specifically outlined in this chapter. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. Ms. Finwall said she would have the city attorney look at the decency standards regarding what is appropriate signage and what is not at the request of the board. b. Draft Tree Ordinance Update Ms. Finwall said the city council created the environmental committee in the summer of 2004. The environmental committee was created to examine and deal with environmental issues within the city. An area of particular concern with the city council was the examination of the city's existing environmental ordinances by the environmental committee. On July 10, 2006, the tree task force finalized a draft tree ordinance. This ordinance has been reviewed by the city attorney's office with oversight from the environmental committee. The planning commission discussed this at their July 18, 2006, meeting and shared their concerns and questions with the environmental committee. Ms. Finwall introduced Dale Trippler the chair of the Environmental Committee. A synopsis of the board's comments is as follows: Acting chairperson Ledvina felt regarding the tree fund - the ordilnance should ensure that developers or homeowners plant as many replacement trees on the property and to be able to pay into the tree fund and not plant any trees, or pay in and plant minimal trees. Acting chairperson Ledvina is glad that the environmental committee is revamping the tree ordinance to ensure protection and replacement of trees. Acting chairperson Ledvina felt that the wetland ordinance should state that you can't fill in a wetland. If you do fill a wetland in you need a variance. Board member Hinzman felt if an applicant does not save a tree which was scheduled for preservation in the approved tree preservation/replacement plan, the replacement of that tree should be at a higher rate than the regular tree replacement. Board member Schurke felt as a developer he wanted to ensure that the new tree ordinance does not make the threshold for redevelopment in Maplewood too strict. There should be an incentive or a bonus for replacing more trees than the tree replacement calculation requires. He asked who determines the amount of money to be paid into the city's tree fund for replacement trees? He said this should be clarified. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 19 Board member Schurke wondered how practical it ends up being when you require a developer to have a certain number of trees on the site if you look ahead at what the trees will look like full grown and the drip line of the trees. It's really more than just requiring the trees be replaced there are other factors to consider. You have to look at the width of the trees, potential root problems and the destruction that tree roots can cause as well as overcrowding by over planting. He likes that Carpet Court brought in a model of what their proposed building would look like as well as a model of a full grown tree along with the tree canopy and what it would look like on their property. Board member Schurke said he appreciates the fact that Maplewood now has recycling every week as opposed to the every other week. The board members said they applaud the work and the efforts that the environmental committee members have done. Mr. Trippler said he would pass the comments on that were maCile from the CDRB to the environmental committee. c. Roles and Responsibilities of PC and CDRB The planning commission and community design review board recently asked staff to review the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CDRB. Specificallly, it was pointed out that there should be clarification as to which group should be reviewing which parts of development requests and providing comments on a variety of site-related development improvements. On July 7,2006, CDRB chairperson Linda Olson attended the planning commission meeting to discuss the overlapping responsibilities between the PC and the CDRB. Mr. Dale Trippler, planning commissioner, spoke regarding the roles. and responsibilities of the PC and CDRB. Mr. Trippler said he appreciates the work the CDRB does on the board. He agreed with a comment made earlier by one of the board members regarding how it was very nice to have a model for the commission and board to see what a proposal would look like because it's sometimes difficult to imagine what a proposal would look like especially from blueprints. He said it would be a nice if the city fostered the requirement for applicants to provide a model to assist the commission and board in understanding what the proposal would look like when the project was complete. The PC identified these items as those that are most often looked at by both groups which include parking, screening, lighting, landscaping, rain water gardens, site grading and drainage. It was determined that it is appropriate for both groups to discuss these things but that both groups want to review and discuss parking issues. It was determined that the CDRB mostly reviews screening, lighting and landscaping issues. Mr. Trippler is very concerned about the width of the parking stalls and felt this is an issue that needs to be discussed by both groups and consider requiring wider parking stalls on a consistent basis and having proof of parking just so there can be wider parking stalls rather than having narrower parking stalls and having more of them on the site that may not be used or necessary. Mr. Trippler said he would recommend the CDRB and PC keep doing what they have been doing during their meetings and when the parking ordinance is worked on input should be given from both groups. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-25-2006 20 Board member Schurke said the other concern is regarding land Elconomics and the cost of buying land to pay for parking that mayor may not be needed t~ make the project viable. Board member Schurke said this was something the company he works for reviewed during their visit to the development called Excelsior on Grand in St. Louis Park and the Kensington Development in Richfield. A unique situation is when a business onl~ needs additional parking spaces during a busy time such as over the lunch or dinner hour at a restaurant. At the Kensington Development in Richfield he noticed from 11 :30 a.m. until 1: 15 p.m. for the food venues which drove the parking needs. Before and after that parking wasn't necessary. This is a difficult situation for businesses and developments in busier areas and it would be a lot easier for businesses to buy open land in the middle of a cornfield and have the space they need to open a business but to have a business in a busier area malkes it more viable but also more difficult to meet the standards or requirements of the city. The city needs to take an active/proactive role. He asked if the planning commission has oversight for the land use plan for the City of Maplewood? Mr. Trippler said the planning commission has the responsibility of r~vising the comprehensive land use plan every ten years and will need to start working on thlllt in the next few months. The comprehensive land use plan needs to be revised in 2008 which is a monumental document. When the Gladstone Task Force went out to review almost 16 developments almost everyone on the Gladstone Task Force Committee was iml!lressed with the Excelsior on Grand development in St. Louis Park. After seeing that development that was something many task force members wanted to see built in the Gladstone Redevelopment area, others thought it was too much for the area but incorporated some of the ideas in the master plan. Board member Shankar said the new Best Buy recently opened and the old Best Buy building and parking lot is not being used anymore. He wondered if there was a way to stipulate the developer dig up the old parking lot and landscape it before they llIre allowed to occupy the new building? Mr. Trippler said he thinks the city should try to reduce the amount of land that is being required for parking. The city has been trying to encourage applicants to provide proof of parking and have land available if a business discovers they need l'jdditional parking. The city discusses with applicants the idea of using pervious surfaces. That has helped reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and the need for rain water gardens. Underground parking garages or parking garages underneath buildings is also encourage<ll because it minimizes the amount of land that is needed for parking and saves on stormwater l'\.lnoff problems. Ms. Finwall said the CDRB will soon start working on the parking ordinance revisions and then ask the PC for their recommendations. The CDRB thanked Mr. Trippler for his time this evening. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.