Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, October 24, 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: September 19, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Legacy Village Town Homes - Southwest Corner of County Road D and Kennard Street (Legacy Village) b. Boca Chica Taco House Sign Variance Request - 1706 White Bear Avenue (Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area) 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. Board Member Attendance 9. Staff Presentations: a. Tree Ordinance Update b. Minnesota Planning Conference Update c. Representation at the November 13, 2006, City Council Meeting -Items to be Discussed Include Public Hearing for Boca Chica Taco House Sign Variance 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:00 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 Present Present at 6:11 p.m. Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Finwall deleted item 9. c. from the agenda. Board member Hinzman moved to approve the agenda as amended. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CORB minutes for September 19, 2006 Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of September 19, 2006. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes --- Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson Abstentions - Shankar The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Ms. Finwall updated the board on the agenda items that were scheduled for the CORB meeting October 10, 2006, that had to be cancelled due to a lack of quorum. The next CORB meeting will be on Tuesday, November 14, 2006. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Legacy Village Town Homes - Southwest Corner of County Road D and Kennard Street (Legacy Village) Community Oesign Review Board Minutes 10-24-2006 2 Ms. Finwall said the Hartford Group, the master developer of Legacy Village, is proposing to develop the final phase of townhomes at Legacy Village. This proposal is for 91 townhomes which would be located on the south side of County Road 0 between Hazelwood and Kennard Streets. The exception to this site is that the southwest corner of County Road 0 and Kennard Street will be developed with an office building as required by the approved PUO (planned unit development). Ms. Finwall said the city council approved this proposal at their meeting on October 23, 2006, on the condition that the CORB approve the design plans. The board didn't have any questions for staff. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Frank Janes, of the Hartford Group, addressed the board. The only comment he has is regarding number 19 in the conditions on page 7 of the staff report which states the applicant shall utilize 'through the wall" venting to minimize the many roof penetrations that are potential for these buildings. The buildings have been designed already so he is not sure if they can go back and change that in the plans or not. They have tried to do as many through the wall vents rather than through the roof, but there will be "some" roof penetrations. Chairperson Olson asked if the dormer windows were decorative or are they going to be functioning windows? Mr. Janes said those windows are decorative elements and are to provide more interest to the roof line and exterior of the building but there will not be a third floor. These units would be around 1,600 to 1,700 square feet and would be two stories. Board member Schurke asked if the building exterior color scheme changed from the last time we reviewed this proposal because previously the board was concerned about the color schemes and the order of colors on each of the buildings. Mr. Janes said they added more colors for the building exterior to add more variety. The intent is to not have two of the same color buildings facing each other. Mr. Janes said he didn't bring a revised color rendering for the board. Chairperson Olson said the board has been concerned about the retaining walls on the site, has anything changed with the walls? Mr. Janes said anything over the required four feet in height would require a building permit for a retaining wall. The retaining wall would have a fence along the top for safety and the wall would be professionally engineered. Chairperson Olson asked if he had any samples of the fencing material that would be used on the retaining wall? Mr. Janes said no. The wall would be a standard decorative rock face retaining wall block. He did not bring any samples of the fencing they would use or the retaining wall block. Board member Schurke said he thought the board recommended the retaining wall be tiered? Community Oesign Review Board Minutes 10-24-2006 3 Board member Ledvina said that's true and that is represented in condition 18 in the staff report. Chairperson Olson asked if she understood correctly that the applicant would be providing a revised landscape plan for staff approval? Ms. Finwall said that is correct. The applicant should provide a more detailed landscape plan to staff for approval showing more detail around the ponding area. Mr. Janes said that would be provided as part of the building permit process for staff approval. Chairperson Olson asked if he understood there will be some very unhappy residents in the area when those trees are taken down for this proposal? Mr. Janes said he read the letters so he understood that but this proposal has been part of the overall plan from the beginning and we think when all is said and done this will be a very nice development. Chairperson Olson asked if there was any way they could recycle the trees and lumber that is to be removed as part of this proposal? Mr. Janes said they will be subcontracting the tree removal. A tree contractor they used in the past on a different project brings the tree removal to the City of St. Paul which is recycled and used to heat the buildings in St. Paul. This way there is a financial incentive for people to recycle the tree waste and wood chips. Board member Schurke said recently the City of Maplewood did a utility project in his neighborhood off Maplecrest Park where they spaded out the trees from the median and temporarily planted them in the park. When the work was done the trees were replaced in the median. He asked the developer to check into doing the same thing for this project. The value of planting an adult tree compared to planting young trees is invaluable for the site. Board member Shankar asked how many color schemes there will be for the building exteriors? Mr. Janes said originally they had two colors and now there may be up to four colors to work with. Board member Shankar asked where the utility meters would be mounted on these buildings? Mr. Janes thought the utility meters would be on the back side of the units where the tuck under garages are and be screened by landscaping or another appropriate material. Chairperson Olson said the board likes to see where the utility meters will be mounted but that is not shown on the plans. The board has experienced disappointment after a development is complete and the board sees where the utility meters were put and often times stick out like a sore thumb and are not properly screened. Community Oesign Review Board Minutes 10-24-2006 4 Mr. Janes said as part of the building permit process we can make sure that issue is dealt with appropriately. Board member Ledvina said there is a condition in the staff report under number 9 to ensure the utility meters are screened properly. Board member Schurke said he would like the developer to find another way to vent the units other than through the roof especially where the roofs are visible from a public right of way. That could be addressed in the conditions under number 19 on page 7. Mr. Janes said it's impossible to have all the venting done through the walls and not through the roofs. In this case he wanted to ensure that would not be a condition they have to follow. Where it "can" be vented through the wall, they will vent it that way, where it can't be vented through the wall they will have to vent it through the roof. Board member Schurke said maybe staff could pass along the company's name that did the tree spading for the Maplecrest Park area to the developer so they can consider using that service in the project to remove trees and replanting them. Chairperson Olson said she would like staff to approve the fencing design and product that would go along the top of the retaining walls. Ms. Finwall said that would be acceptable. Mr. Janes said that is already represented in condition 18 in the staff report. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped September 11, 2006, for the Legacy Townhomes. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: (Additions to the conditions are underlined.) 1. Obtain city council approval of the preliminary plat. 2. All requirements of the fire marshal and building permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 3. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Oistrict. 4. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing. 5. All requirements of the city engineer, or his consultants working for the city, shall be met regarding grading, drainage, erosion control, utilities and the dedication of any easements found to be needed. All conditions of the Maplewood engineering report dated September 19, 2006, must be complied with. 6. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. Community Oesign Review Board Minutes 10-24-2006 5 7. Any identification signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city sign ordinance and the PUO approval. 8. The setbacks are approved as proposed. 9. The applicant shall: . Install reflectorized stop signs at all driveway connections to Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. . Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. . Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks. . Provide a plan for traffic signage subject to staff approval. . Provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval providing additional landscaping around the ponds. . Provide a screening plan to staff for approval for any visible utility meters on the outside of the building. No end units facing County Road D shall have meters. 10. The applicant shall submit an address and traffic signage plan for staff approval. 11. The applicant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. 12. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 13. A temporary sales office shall be allowed until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official. 14. The applicant shall work with staff to provide three crosswalks across Village Trail East to access the power line trail to the south. The applicant shall also provide three paved trail connections to the power line trail. This plan must be established before a building permit is issued. 15. All street lights shall match the design of the street lights already used throughout Legacy Village. 16. The applicant shall install wetland protection buffer signs at a spacing of every 100 feet around the outer edge of the wetland buffer. These signs shall comply with the city's approved design for such signs and shall say, "Wetland Buffer Area - Do Not Mow, Cut, Dump, Disturb Beyond This Point - City of Maplewood." 17. The applicant shall provide the color scheme for all buildings to staff for approval. Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-24-2006 6 18. The applicant shall stagger the retaining walls in a terraced fashion if they exceed a height of six feet. The applicant shall install a decorative, protective rail on the top of all retaining walls that exceed a height of four feet. This will be subject to staff approval. 19. The applicant shall utilize "through the wall" venting as much as possible to minimize the many roof penetrations that are potential for these buildings. Provide a plan to staff for approval for anv visible roof penetrations that are located on roofs facinq a public riqht-of-wav ensurinq materials used or locations do not take awav from the architectural character of the buildinq. Board member Schurke seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Schurke, Shankar b. Boca Chica Taco House Sign Variance Request - 1706 White Bear Avenue (Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area) Ms. Finwall said Alfredo Frias, general manager of the Boca Chica Taco House at 1706 White Bear Avenue, is requesting a variance in order to retain both freestanding signs on the property. The new freestanding sign (monument sign - 6 feet in height) was constructed earlier this year on the condition that the old sign (pylon sign - 25 feet in height) would be removed or that Mr. Frias obtain a variance from the city to keep both signs. Mr. Frias is requesting a variance from the sign code in order to have two freestanding signs on a property where only one freestanding sign is permitted. Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance to have freestanding signs on the Boca Chica Taco House property located at 1706 White Bear Avenue. Board member Schurke asked if there were sign standards addressed as part of the plan developed by Calthorpe? Ms. Finwall said not in the urban planning guide but it is addressed in the new mixed use ordinance and in the sign ordinance. Board member Ledvina asked what the distance was between the Garrity's sign and the new monument sign for Boca Chica Taco House? Ms. Finwall said she didn't know the exact measurement between the two signs. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Alfredo Frias, general manager of Boca Chica Taco House, addressed the board. He said Boca Chica is a family business operating at two different locations. He and Shann Finwall have talked at length about this request. This location is not doing well financially. We have been in this location for four years now. It's a tight place to turn into and the sign is being blocked by the Garrity's sign. He personally doesn't know how the city can leave those signs up because they are eyesores. He asked the city if he could put another sign up closer to the street which could only be six feet in height. The sign is seen from the north but not seen well from the south. Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-24-2006 7 Mr. Frias said at night the sign stands out because it's lit and Garrity's sign is not lit. He knew when he applied for the monument sign that he would be requesting a variance but he wanted to see if having two signs would improve his business. He said they have seen a slight increase in business. He thinks both of the signs are well done. He said we fixed up the foundation and landscaping around the signs as well. He said we do things first class when we can. The monument sign did increase business here but he believes the combination of the two signs are necessary. The six foot tall monument sign he has is not very big when you have to compete with the 25 foot tall Garrity's sign. He brought photos to represent what can be seen from both directions. He feels he is not getting the full use out of the one sign. Mr. Frias introduced his general manager to speak. Mr. Liston Smith, general manager of the Maplewood Boca Chica Taco House, addressed the board. He said before the six foot monument sign went up there were customers who said they drive by this location all the time and never noticed the restaurant there before until they saw the new monument sign which caught their attention. They use the larger pylon sign to advertise as well but the monument sign does not have that capability. They showed the photos on the monitor representing the different views of the area that were both obstructed and non-obstructed. Mr. Frias said the reason he is asking for the variance is that the business is not going so well and he is looking at every angle he can to increase his business. He understands there were redevelopment plans at one time to move the businesses closer to the street and that those have been put on the shelf for the time being. He is basically asking for a variance for a few years to give this location as much of a chance of survival as possible. If business got better after two years then he would take one of the signs down. Board member Shankar said you have been in business at this location for four years. Have the sales been the same every year? Mr. Frias said no the sales have gone down every year. He has a good product to sell here but he has high rent. He is trying to get the restaurant seen and visited by customers in the hopes of increasing business. Board member Hinzman said it sounds like when the monument sign was put up there was a positive response from customers. The photos show that the sign is visually blocked. The monument sign sounds like its helping so he doesn't know if he agrees with the argument that you need both signs up so he is not convinced a variance is needed to draw customers into the site. Chairperson Olson said she disagrees. She doesn't see the monument sign when she drives by and she only sees the pylon sign. The Garrity's sign shown in the staff report appears to be beefed up with thicker pylons and a wider face and looks taller than Boca Chica's sign. She said she is inclined to approve the variance request. This location is a difficult site because of the competition of the flashing electronic sign of Walgreen's. The pylon sign she sees driving down White Bear Avenue is what got her into Boca Chica at this location. Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-24-2006 8 Board member Hinzman said when he looks at a variance request he looks at the precedence being set for other properties and how we can differentiate this from other projects that may come up in the city. He doesn't know how we can treat this request differently from a similar request for a business on White Bear Avenue that could request two signs. Board member Schurke said he would agree with board member Hinzman. As a board the focus is for aesthetics. As a board allowing two signs on a property sets a bad precedence for other businesses. He doesn't think there is a clear logic regarding whether this business would be adversely affected by hardship. Board member Ledvina said he would agree with comments made by board member Hinzman and board member Schurke. He sympathizes with the business owner here but as a board we have to consider the precedence this sends for other businesses. The new monument sign is very nice and seems to be very effective in terms of identifying the restaurant from the north. He saw the distance between signs and estimates it is probably more than 100 feet apart. He could see if the two signs were very close to each other but he thinks there is sufficient distance apart from each other. What about other businesses that have hardships? He would support the staff recommendation to deny this variance for two signs on the Boca Chica Taco House property. Chairperson Olson said when the application comes in for a permit to upgrade the Garrity's sign as a board are we going to be in favor of a taller and wider sign? Board member Ledvina said that's a separate application and as a board we will take a look at that application on its own when it comes in. Chairperson Olson said I would be disinclined to approve the Garrity sign as I see it in the staff report now. Board member Hinzman said it seems like a pretty substantial modification that would not be covered under the grandfather clause. Ms. Finwall said as long as the square footage of the Garrity's sign isn't changed it would be considered a reface. Their current sign proposal is shown slightly larger and staff is recommending they reduce the size of the sign as it is shown currently in the report. Keep in mind it's a comprehensive sign plan that requires approval by the board so the board can make any recommendations they see fit at the meeting in November. Board member Shankar said he can't see a financial hardship if the applicant said when there was one sign business was better and with two signs business declined. Chairperson Olson said she would tend to believe the decline in business has more to do with economic conditions and not the functionality of having two signs on the site. Mr. Frias said when he built the monument sign he followed the city's sign regulations and kept the sign at 6 feet tall. He doesn't understand how Garrity's, Subway and the Laundromat can have a larger sign blocking the view of his sign. You as a board haven't approved their sign yet but if their sign was the same size as the Boca Chica sign he would understand that. Maybe he will leave the pylon sign up and take the monument sign down. Community Oesign Review Board Minutes 10-24-2006 9 Chairperson Olson asked if Mr. Frias thinks adding the monument sign along with the pylon really brought in more business? Mr. Frias said yes and I spoke to Ms. Finwall about that. Her interpretation of hardship is different than his. He has been operating here for four years now. The third year he lost $80,000 in business here. The fourth year he lost $90,000 in business here. We started to look at what we can do to get more customers here. We have advertised and used coupons. We have another store on the west side of St. Paul and we did the same type of advertising there. There is a lot of traffic on White Bear Avenue and often times people see the restaurant too late and can't turn in quick enough. The sales have gone up little by little. Right now he has a month to month lease and the owner even reduced his rent because he wants Boca Chica to stay here. He said he needs to get to the point where he "can" keep his business running here and right now he isn't at that point. The two signs he has aren't ugly. His signs would even compliment Subway and Garrity's sign and the entrance way into Maplewood. He said he knows there are future development plans for this part of Maplewood and the Hillcrest area but those are not in place yet. When the plans are in place he said he would do whatever was needed to fit in with the other business plans for the area. He understands the precedence being set but he believes the two signs have helped his business increase a little bit more. To him it's a hardship losing $80,000 one year and $90,000 the next year. Thankfully the West St. Paul location is doing so well. Chairperson Olson asked if the pylon sign was there when this restaurant was converted to Boca Chica? Mr. Frias said yes it was. When he first asked about moving the sign he met with a gentleman at the city and he asked why I wanted to move the pylon sign? Wasn't the sign there originally when Burger King was there? Yes, Burger King was there before but they are a national restaurant and everyone knows Burger King and knows where their locations are. Boca Chica is a family owned restaurant and they are trying to get this location known too. Board member Schurke said you are only a tenant of this property but not the owner of this property? Mr. Frias said correct. I own the restaurant, but the building itself is owned by another person. Board member Schurke said that concerns me even more because of the ability to control the ultimate outcome of what happens to these signs. Mr. Frias said if his restaurant were to move out the owner would have to decide which of the two signs would stay on the property. I want to stay in this location for a couple years more. I had a four year lease and now I am on a month-to-month lease with the property owner with a reduced rent. We have been good tenants and the owner wants me to stay here. We have been good to the City of Maplewood as well. It's a hardship for me and I am just trying to make this business work here. Losing $80,000 to $90,000 a year is hard to make a go of it when you lose that kind of money. I am looking for any break I can get to make this business survive here and bring in more customers. The two signs compliment each other on the property. Yes the other sign is visible but only at night because it's lit and colorful but during the day you don't see the pylon sign. Community Oesign Review Board Minutes 10-24-2006 10 Mr. Frias said during the day or night you see the monument sign because it's close to the street but you don't see it until you drive closer. The Pylon sign can be seen farther back and he is looking for every advantage he can to be seen. These buildings are the older style buildings where they are set back farther and he understands the plan is to move the buildings closer to the street. Chairperson Olson asked what he anticipated the cost was to remove the sign from the property? Mr. Frias said if he removed the monument sign he would put it in storage and it wouldn't cost anything. If he removed the pylon sign it would cost about $15,000 to move it and put it on the St. Paul site. Board member Schurke asked if the owner of the property is aware of the need to remove the pylon sign from the property? Mr. Frias said yes he is. He didn't want to bring the owner into the picture. The owner of the property has been very nice to me and I didn't want to drag him into this yet. As a matter of fact the owner has even given money to help with advertising the restaurant. Board member Shankar asked if he owns the Boca Chica building in St. Paul or is he just a tenant there too? Mr. Frias said he owns the building in St. Paul. This is the first time I have ever rented. I did have the opportunity to move the pylon sign closer to the street because it was a year later that the new ordinance started. But I didn't know the impact that would have. Board member Shankar said if you didn't have the restaurant in St. Paul that was doing so well I might see more of an economic hardship here. Mr. Frias said you can't bleed the St. Paul restaurant location to cover the Maplewood restaurant on White Bear Avenue or it will hurt both restaurant locations. The hope is to have both restaurant locations run on their own. That wouldn't make sense to move into a space and rent space for a restaurant just to lose money. The purpose of running a business is to try to make money at it. I can only finance the restaurant on my own for so long before I can't do it anymore. I am looking for a little help while I am trying to increase business for a few years until the restaurant is known in this location. My taxes are high here but I would like to stay here in Maplewood. Chairperson Olson said she is convinced there is an economic hardship at "this" site. We are not looking at how business is in the St. Paul location. Board member Hinzman said when you review the criteria of what a hardship is it specifically states economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. That can only be used as a portion of the variance request but not for all of it. Community Oesign Review Board Minutes 10-24-2006 11 Chairperson Olson said Mr. Frias has a unique situation. This is an unusual corner, there are unusual angles; it's on the corner of Larpenteur Avenue where it intersects with St. Paul. Sl. Paul has clearly not complied with the new Calthorpe plan when they built the new Walgreen's store on the corner. This is a unique situation and she would be inclined to give a one year variance for this request and revisit this in one year. Board member Hinzman said he isn't sure what standing a tenant has in this variance request when he is "not" the property owner. Ms. Finwall said Mr. Frias made the application, however the property owner is aware and is supportive of the variance request. Board member Schurke asked what the legal status of that sign is going to be if Boca Chica moves out of the building and the variance is granted, what happens then? Ms. Finwall said the sign remains as a variance to the property. Chairperson Olson said the sign obviously transferred from Burger King being in that building. Board member Schurke said he understands the history but it underscores his concern on precedence. Board member Ledvina recommended denial of the request by Alfredo Frias for a variance from the sign code in order to have two freestanding signs on the Boca Chica Taco House property located at 1706 White Bear Avenue. The city is denying the variance for the following reasons: 1. The property can still be put to a reasonable use with just one freestanding sign. 2. The existence of the large Garrity's/Subway pylon sign located at 1698 White Bear Avenue will soon be enhanced and refaced, which should increase visibility to the Boca Chica property. 3. The Boca Chica monument sign is not blocked by the Garrity's/Subway sign. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Schurke, Shankar Nay - Olson Board member Schurke said I know the City of Maplewood has used other surrounding businesses in the past for city functions and he would encourage staff to look into getting food from Boca Chica Taco House for city functions. Chairperson Olson said Boca Chica has been used for city functions that she has attended in the past. Chairperson Olson strongly felt this request deserved a 1-year variance due to the hardship expressed by the Boca Chica Taco House. Community Oesign Review Board Minutes 10-24-2006 12 This item goes to the city council on November 27,2006, for a public hearing. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Board Member Attendance Chairperson Olson requested that staff put together statistics regarding the attendance of board members. Ms. Finwall said the CORB meets the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. The packets get mailed or delivered the Thursday before the meeting. City staff appreciates all the hard work and dedication of the CORB members and staff realizes you are a volunteer board. Staff would suggest that board members either call or e-mail staff if you know you are going to be on vacation or unable to attend the meeting in advance so we can make board members aware of the situation. We want to prevent having a lack of quorum when we would have to cancel the meeting. Chairperson Olson asked if staff could put together a list of dates the CORB would be meeting throughout the year. Especially when a meeting date falls on a holiday or a day the city is closed. It would also be helpful with the upcoming holiday schedule so we can block out our calendars in advance. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Tree Ordinance Update Ms. Finwall said the tree preservation ordinance was passed by the city council on September 11, 2006, which was created by the environmental commission. The planning commission and community design review board members had the opportunity to give input on the ordinance. This ordinance will impact both commercial and multi-family developments. The community design review board was given the new tree preservation ordinance (11 pages) for future reference. Board member Schurke recommended the public relations person have a small paragraph printed in the Maplewood Review and City News regarding the new tree ordinance. b. Minnesota Planning Conference Update Ms. Finwall attended the Minnesota Planning Conference from September 27 - September 29, 2006, at Madden's resort in Brainerd and board member John Hinzman was there representing the City of Hastings as well. There were many presentations and interesting facts. Such as in the year 2020 in the United States there will be more senior citizens (people aged 55 and over) than school aged individuals than ever before in the United States. Community Oesign Review Board Minutes 10-24-2006 13 This will change the economics, housing and other things in the United States and will affect the City of Maplewood as well so as a city we should be aware of that fact. By the year 2030 there will be another million people in the metropolitan area. She also attended a seminar done by Rich McLaughlin who discussed "smart codes" which is a new way of creating codes and how city's deal with ordinances. She attended a seminar done by the Met Council and they went over the comprehensive plan. As a city we will begin working on revising the comprehensive plan which is required to be done by 2008. c. Board member Schurke spoke about an award given in Little Canada The City of Little Canada has a community design award that he thought would be worth checking into for the City of Maplewood. He asked staff to call the City of Little Canada to find out more about that. The project he saw was located in Little Canada off County Rd B2 between Edgerton Street and Arcade Street. There is a single family home built a few years ago with a community design recognition award on a stick in their yard because it was a project that was well done. One project he thought was well done in Maplewood is the renovation of the bathrooms at Spoon Lake park. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.