Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/28/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, November 28, 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: November 14, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Hillcrest Gateway Plaza -1698 White Bear Avenue b. Walgreens - Northeast Corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues c. Maplewood Market Place Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment - 1275 County Road D 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Representation at the December 11,2006, City Council Meeting - Items to be Discussed Include Walgreens 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Joel Schurke Board member Ananth Shankar Absent Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Olson moved to approve the agenda. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for November 14, 2006 Board member Schurke moved approval of the minutes of November 14, 2006. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes --- Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Hillcrest Gateway Plaza - 1698 White Bear Avenue Ms. finwall said Todd Vannispen, LLC, is proposing to construct a 1,762 square foot addition as well as fayade and lot improvements to the building located on the northeast corner or Larpenteur and White Bear Avenues. Mr. Vannispen represents several Subway Restaurants and purchased the property approximately two years ago with the intent of relocating the Sl. Paul Hillcrest Subway into this building. The Subway Restaurant was relocated into the Big Apple Bagel site within the building last summer. This will be the first "redevelopment' within the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment area. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 2 The city's capital improvement plan (2006 to 2010) calls out public improvements (road work and streetscaping) in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment area in the year 2010. The plan coordinates the financing and timing of major equipment purchases and construction projects and is based on goals established at the city council and management staff retreats. These goals are subject to change from year to year. Since the adoption of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan in 2004, the goals have changed and the city's proactive redevelopment efforts are now focused on the Gladstone Neighborhood. With that said, staff understands the financial constraints of redeveloping the site to reflect the "exact" goals for the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan and finds the proposed improvements are a good starting point for a change in the area. Board member Schurke asked if Calthorpe had any guidelines for the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan and if so, are they in place now? Ms. Finwall said the city council adopted the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan and the Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards in 2002. These were created by Calthorpe and commissioned by the Metropolitan Council's smart-growth development principles which were designed to help guide changes in an area to create a village center with an active street life that mixes shops, workplaces, housing, passive recreation, and civic uses. In essence the city council adopted those standards for this area by adopting the plan and urban design standards. The city created the mixed-use zoning district which implemented a lot of those design standards within the code itself. Chairperson Olson asked if the existing freestanding sign is consistent with those design standards? Ms. Finwall said the proposed refacing of the freestanding sign meets the nonconforming ordinance. The code allows the sign to be refaced at the same size which will improve the aesthetics and design elements and meets code. There are no design standards for signs in the Urban Design Standards, only in the mixed-use sign code which allows nonconforming signs to be refaced. Chairperson Olson asked if the city would allow a freestanding sign like that to be constructed now under these new design guidelines? Ms. Finwall said no. Board member Schurke asked if there had been community input regarding this proposal? Ms. Finwall said there was one comment from Mr. Frias, the owner of the Boca Chica Taco House. His comments were regarding his sign variance request and the current and proposed signage. Mr. Frias had requested a variance in order to retain two freestanding signs on his property to the north. Mr. Frias stated one of his hardships was the fact that the existing Garrity's Lounge/Subway sign which is a 192 square foot sign is built right up to property line. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 3 Mr. Frias stated the freestanding sign for Garrity's Lounge/Subway blocks the view of his Boca Chica freestanding sign so he had a monument sign constructed in addition to the freestanding sign which city staff allowed based on the condition that the large freestanding sign is removed. Chairperson Olson asked if Mr. Frias, the owner of the Boca Chica Taco House and his request for a sign variance was granted or denied at the city council meeting November 27, 2006? Ms. Finwall said the request for the two signs to remain on the property at Boca Chica Taco House was denied. Chairperson Olson was sorry to hear that. Ms. Finwall said Mr. Frias called city staff and indicated he didn't want to proceed with the sign variance request but then didn't follow up with a written request stating the city needed to formerly deny the sign variance request in order to meet the 60 day deadline requirement so there was no real discussion regarding the variance at the city council meeting. Board member Shankar said the building seems to be very close to Larpenteur Avenue. He asked what the setback requirement is and if the applicant meets that? Ms. Finwall said in the mixed-use zoning district commercial buildings can be constructed up to the right-of-way line and the proposed setback is five feet, which is approximately 15 feet from the actual curb of White Bear Avenue so it does meet the mixed-use zoning district setback requirements. Board member Schurke said it had been awhile since he had seen the Calthorpe Urban Design Guidelines and he didn't remember seeing anything regarding signage. Ms. Finwall said that's correct; there is nothing in the Urban Design Guidelines regarding signs. The city does have sign guidelines in the mixed-use zoning code. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Dick Krumm, RVK Architects, 7616 Currell Blvd., Ste. 175, Woodbury, addressed the board. He said he is here representing the applicants and they agree with most of the conditions listed in the staff report but not all of them. He presented the board with building material samples and colors they propose to use. He said the applicant doesn't have any problems with the landscaping requirements but has a problem with the rainwater garden requirement. They are confident they can work something out with city staff regarding that. He said essentially it's really a sump as opposed to a true rain garden. He said they would like to address the proof of parking and how the count was determined because those numbers were figured based on Garrity's Lounge remaining. Once this building is remodeled and redeveloped Garrity's Lounge and the Laundromat will be vacant and the space will be subdivided for new retail or office space. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 4 (For retail/office use city code requires 1 parking stall per 200 square feet and for a restaurant/bar use city code requires 1 parking stall per 50 square feet of space designated for patrons. The proposed retail/office space will encompass 5,020 square feet and the patron space for the existing restaurant and bar (Subway and Garrity's Lounge) encompasses 3,264 square feet. City code requires 90 parking stalls based on the existing uses in the building. The applicant is proposing 58 parking stalls which would be 32 parking spaces less than the city code requires. The applicant states that the bar and restaurant use have different peak parking hours allowing them to share parking, and the proposed 58 parking stalls will be adequate. Staff agrees that 90 parking stalls for this site are extreme, however, staff is concerned about the future tenant's parking needs in the building.) Ms. Finwall said staff had indicated in the staff report that the applicant should submit a commercial parking district document to be recorded on the property. The document will specify the following: city code parking requirements and the number of parking stalls proposed; 32 parking stalls (proof of parking) to be located on the site plan which can be constructed if and when the need arises; and the shared parking with varying peak parking hours. Staff had based that requirement on St. Paul's traditional neighborhood zoning district so this type of agreement could be something between the applicant and the city, and wouldn't necessarily have to be recorded with the county if that was a concern of the applicant. Mr. Krumm said that would be his understanding as well. He said if they are required to dedicate 32 parking stalls that would take out the entire easterly vacant portion of the property and make it un buildable. He would suggest dedicating 6-7 parking spaces verses the 32 parking spaces. Board member Shankar asked what the plan was for developing the easterly portion of the property you are speaking of. Mr. Krumm said there are no plans for the easterly portion of property at this time, there are a few people who have approached the applicant but nothing is on the table at this time but it would be for retail. They would like to discuss the request to add the EIFS treatment to the fayade on the north side of the building where they propose to bring the building back 20 feet. The recommendation is for the entire north fayade with the same treatment but that may be cost prohibitive. The budget for these improvements started at $200,000. Agreeing to the landscaping conditions and other additional items will cost more. Just adding the EIFS treatment will cost about $10,000 additional. He doesn't think the benefit outweighs the cost so they would like to come to some agreement regarding that. He said they would like to discuss the request for the bituminous area. He said they are requesting not to be required to do that until June 2008 to give the applicant more time to put together a package and not spend an additional $20,000 unnecessarily removing the bituminous and putting dirt, sod and an irrigation system in. Even if the applicant took the bituminous out and put dirt and sod in, the potential problem is the applicant is going to have to develop that area in the future and they are concerned about how that will work if it is all changed over to green space. (Staff had recommended that the CDRB require the removal of the unused bituminous as part of this design review. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 5 The bituminous surface is old and deteriorating and isn't needed for parking at this time. Removal of the bituminous will improve the aesthetics of the property and will increase the amount of green space on the lot considerably.) Chairperson Olson asked if they had planned to use that area for the staging of the construction. Mr. Krumm said that is the most logical area and would cause the least disruption. Chairperson Olson said based on that fact it doesn't make any sense to require the removal of the bituminous surface now. She asked if it was correct that they want to reduce the number of proof of parking spaces from 32 to 6 or 7 spaces? Mr. Krumm said yes. That is solely based on the fact that Garrity's Lounge is not in the future plans and that space will be retail or office. Board member Schurke asked if they have tenants identified for this building space? Mr. Krumm said no. Mr. Todd Vannispen, one of the owners of the property, addressed the board. He said they have not marketed the space yet and they have been approached by other potential tenants but nothing is set in stone yet. Their goal is to have a client base that is representative of any other new development such as national retailers or Class A tenants. Board member Schurke said he would suggest the applicant consider a bike rack somewhere on this property. Regarding the entry doors under the Billy Kirk sign and the tailor shop, there is no covering over them and he likes the canopy effect that you have elsewhere on the building. He asked if they could add a small canopy over each one of the entries because he believes it marks each doorway as the entry spot. Mr. Krumm said there is a canopy that goes across the front of the building and we are taking that off to change the fayade. Board member Schurke said he wouldn't object to the applicant's request for financial relief regarding the request to add EIFS treatment on the north side of the building. Heading south on White Bear Avenue he would be most interested in breaking the view line to the north elevation so that the majority of the concrete block is not left exposed. A compromise may be to take it to the mid point on the north elevation rather than extending it to the rear of the building. Board member Shankar said the north elevation is all concrete block anyway. Mr. Krumm said that's correct. Chairperson Olson asked if they are proposing to paint the concrete block? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 6 Mr. Krumm said we are going to bring the EIFS down 20 feet and paint the concrete block beyond that. That fayade is on the property line and the neighbors have parking right up against that building face and that's why we aren't carrying the EIFS down to the ground. That wall has damage from cars hitting it and there are wheel stops there but we have no idea of damage done. Chairperson Olson said that's a valid point. Board member Schurke asked if that had been addressed with the design of the building with stopping the EIFS 4 feet off the grade? Mr. Krumm said yes. Board member Shankar said the EIFS should be wrapped to the north elevation but how much EIFS should be wrapped could be discussed. Board member Schurke said while driving down White Bear Avenue he would suggest taking the entire fayade to the midway point of the north elevation to the opposite corner of the building where Boca Chica's building ends. Board member Shankar asked if he meant adding one more layer of EIFS? Board member Schurke said yes. Board member Shankar said he could agree with that. Board member Schurke said the city has had a couple of projects that have been gateway locations to the City of Maplewood and he thinks there is a strong value for a rainwater garden from a public education standpoint so he would strongly encourage the applicant to work with city staff to figure out a way to make this work effectively. Staff can assist you in identifying plants that will sustain the area. Maplewood has put a lot of time and effort in trying to raise awareness of storm water management issues in the community and the lack of wetlands in Maplewood so from a prevention of future pollution of surface waters this is a message that gives you a chance to further reinforce what Maplewood is trying to do as a community. Chairperson Olson said she thinks something could be worked out with staff. Board member Schurke said one thing that is upsetting to him is that people are not maintaining their properties and he commends the applicant for stepping forward and redeveloping this property. At the same time, the avoided costs of having to rip up the bituminous surface and replace it with dirt or seed begs to question what type of repairs can be done to the current parking lot? Can the lot be repaired and patched until it can be replaced in June 2008? Mr. Krumm said the parking surface is not repairable. We are just asking for additional time to develop this site before we spend the money to redevelop the property and not have to spend $20,000 to tear the bituminous out and replace it. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 7 Mr. Krumm said bringing landscaping out to the east side of the existing structure and getting rid of the weed trees that are there will go a long way to clean up the site. Chairperson Olson asked if this is a permeable surface right now? Mr. Krumm said some of it is permeable. Engineering wise there is a base under it. Nobody has dug it up to see what is underneath it so he wouldn't necessarily say it is permeable. Board member Schurke asked staff for input regarding their request to not have to rip up the bituminous surface to give the applicant some relief? Ms. Finwall said the problem is that it is difficult to enforce removal of the old bituminous at a future date. There is also nothing planned for the redevelopment of that site so the city could be looking at the bituminous surface for longer than June 2008. Board member Schurke said as a compromise we could request that the applicant take a 20 foot strip of property adjacent to Larpenteur Avenue from the property line and either have the applicant landscape that or put the rainwater garden there for a visual buffer from Larpenteur Avenue to this property. Maybe they could do this as the extension of the sidewalk and landscaping with small shrubs or something. He doesn't want to design it for the applicant. Mr. Krumm said regarding extending the sidewalk, there are huge gas apparatus' that stick up along the curbline that typically would be where you would have a sidewalk. There may be a compromise in terms of doing a portion of the front of that but they are still concerned about the risk of adding green space that would impede the future development if its looked at as green space. Board member Schurke asked what the gas apparatus is? Mr. Krumm said as part of the distribution system there are three eight-inch diameter pipes that come up and go back down right where the sidewalk would be. Board member Shankar asked how do you plan to access the site because of the gas apparatus? Mr. Krumm said access would be shared with the rear property plus there is a curb cut to the east side of the property. Chairperson Olson asked if they would object to Board member Schurke's recommendation to remove a 20 foot strip of the old bituminous along Larpenteur Avenue? Mr. Krumm left the microphone and discussed it with the board members to point some thoughts out on the site plan. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 8 Chairperson Olson asked if it would be sufficient to state that the applicant should remove the old bituminous (leftover section) on the rear of the property before June 2008 and include that statement in the minutes. Then the applicant would know the city is going to be watching them Ms. Finwall said correct. Board member Schurke moved to approve the plans (design review) date-stamped August 17, 2006, and September 26, 2006, and the Tenant Sign Criteria (comprehensive sign plan) dated August 17, 2006, for the Hillcrest Gateway Plaza located at 1698 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading, building, or sign permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: a. Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in October 4, 2006, engineering review. b. Revised site plan showing the following: 1) Removal of a 20-foot strop of the old bituminous surface starting from the second drive way access on Larpenteur Avenue extending east to the third driveway. 2) Verification that the proposed 200 square foot dumpster enclosure is large enough to hold dumpsters and recycling bins for the entire building. 3) The site plan shall also specify that the remainder of the old bituminous will be removed by June 2008 and show the location of 7 proof of parking stalls. 4) Location of a bike rack near the building entrance. c. Revised north elevation showing the EIFS banding (currently proposed for 20 feet on this elevation) be extended for a length of 40 feet of the north elevation. d. Submittal of a commercial parking district document which specifies the following: city code parking requirements and the number of parking spaces proposed; 6 parking spaces (proof of parking) to be located on the site plan which can be constructed if and when the need arises; and the shared parking with varying peak parking hours. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 9 e. Revised landscaping plan showing the following: 1) Three maple trees (representative of Maplewood) to be located in the front of the property, one replacing the imperial honey locust tree at the White Bear Avenue entrance, and two to be located on either side of the first Larpenteur Avenue driveway. 2) Three additional ornamental trees to be located along White Bear Avenue, in between the freestanding sign and the maple tree described above. 3) The addition of 20 more shrubs to be located along White Bear Avenue, in between the freestanding sign and the maple tree described above. 4) Seeding the rear 105 feet of the lot, after removal of the old bituminous. 5) Water tolerant plants to be installed in the rainwater garden. These plant materials must be approved by the city's naturalist. 6) Additional shrubs and perennial flowers around the base of the freestanding sign. 7) Landscaping including trees, shrubs and if possible a rainwater garden to be located in the required 20-foot green space along Larpenteur Avenue which exists due to the required removal of the old bituminous. 8) The location of underground irrigation. f. A lighting and photometric plan which shows the style and location of all proposed wall lights and the light illumination of all exterior lights, including the illuminated freestanding sign. The light illumination must not exceed .4-foot-candles at all property lines. g. Revised tenant sign plan with the following additions: 1) Wall signs are allowed on the west elevation and are to be centered over the tenant space. 2) Wall signs are allowed on the south elevation for the corner tenants and must be placed over the exterior patio for Suite 102 (Subway) and on the front parapet wall of Suite 101. 3) Wall signs are allowed on the east elevation for all tenants but must be placed within the designated sign is located on the parapet wall of Suite 101. These wall signs are limited to 18 inches in height. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 10 4) All tenants are allowed signage on the freestanding sign located on the White Bear and Larpenteur Avenue intersection. Signage on the freestanding sign limited to 18 inches in height for each tenant. 5) The freestanding sign is limited to 25 feet in height and 192 square feet in area. h. Revised freestanding sign elevation and sign site plan showing the following: 1) Only one freestanding sign is permitted on the property. 2) The freestanding sign is limited to 25 feet in height and 192 square feet in area. 3) The freestanding sign is allowed to be constructed up to the property line, but no portion of the sign must encroach into the right-of-way. i. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on county right-of- way for the driveway access, utility work, and sidewalk. j. Watershed district approval. k. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. d. Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color. e. Install all required outdoor lighting. f. Install the required eight-foot-wide sidewalk along Larpenteur Avenue, extending from the existing sidewalk on White Bear Avenue, along the entire side of the building, to the second driveway entrance. g. Remove a 20-foot strop of the old bituminous surface starting from the second driveway access on Larpenteur Avenue extending to the third driveway. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 11 h. Remove the two freestanding signs advertising the Laundromat. i. The applicant consider adding a bike rack and entry canopies on the two entry suites shown on the White Bear Avenue elevation that currently do not have canopies over their entry doors. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. The remainder of the old bituminous located on the east side of the building must be removed by June 2008. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. This does not need to go to the city council. If the applicant decides to appeal any of the CDRB's decisions they can submit an appeal to city staff within 15 days of this approval. Appeals are heard by the city council for the final decision. b. Walgreens - Northeast Corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues Ms. Finwall said Semper Development, representing Mogren Landscaping and Walgreens, is proposing to construct a 14,738-square-foot Walgreens retail store with a drive-through pharmacy on a vacant lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. The proposal includes subdividing the 2.83-acre lot into two lots. The western lot will be sold to Semper Development for the development of the proposed Walgreens and the eastern lot will be retained by the Maplewood Financial Center (Premier Bank) for future development. The property is zoned and guided in the city's comprehensive plan as Limited Business Commercial (LBC), which allows for offices, medical or health-related clinics, day care centers, or similar uses. In order to operate a retail store and pharmacy from the newly subdivided western lot, the proposal also includes a request for a comprehensive land use plan and zoning change to Business Commercial (BC). The planning commission recommended approval of the lot division, comprehensive use plan change, and zoning map change at their November 20, 2006, planning commission meeting. The CDRB should review and make a recommendation on the design issues. Final action on this proposal is scheduled for the December 11, 2006, city council meeting. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 12 Chairperson Olson asked about the staff recommendation to install a new sidewalk because of the reconstruction of White Bear Avenue and staff is asking for additional landscaping in the area and she sees those two in conflict and she asked staff for their thoughts on that. Ms. Finwall said the sidewalk would be located within the right-of-way and the landscaping would not be. Chairperson Olson asked if the reconstruction of White Bear Avenue wouldn't extend beyond the right-of-way? Ms. Finwall said correct, it will extend within the 10-foot-wide easement which the city is requiring from the applicant. The engineering department states the reconstruction of White Bear Avenue will include some improvements and modifications to the turn lanes along Beam Avenue which could interrupt the sidewalk proposed along Beam Avenue. They are suggesting the applicant submit escrow to be held until 2008 rather than constructing the sidewalk at this time? Chairperson Olson asked how far back on Beam Avenue that reconstruction will go to affect this site? Typically when reconstructing an intersection they don't go more than 50 feet, would they be going all the way back to the park? Personally she would like to see the sidewalk constructed up to the area of reconstruction and then they can finish the sidewalk after White Bear Avenue is complete. Ms. Finwall said she didn't have the answer to that question. Board member Schurke asked if the scale of the sign that Walgreens is proposing is comparable to what CVS Pharmacy has? Ms. Finwall said yes. Chairperson Olson asked if Walgreens is proposing directional signs for the drive through pharmacy? Ms. Finwall said she was assuming they are. Board member Schurke asked if there were any comments received by staff from the public regarding this proposal? Ms. Finwall said 39 property owners were surveyed and one property owner responded. Linda Barber, 2040 Beam Avenue, said she was in favor of the Walgreens retail store and pharmacy. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. John Kohler, Architect with Semper Development, 821 Marquette Ave, #600, Minneapolis, addressed the board. He displayed the building materials and samples for this Walgreen's proposal. He said they are going to be doing a combined access and utility easement which will help the entire area and the future parcel for the bank. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 13 Mr. Kohler said because of the 10 foot easement we are going to move the trees back 10 feet. Rather than putting the landscaping in and disturbing it we are playing it safe so there is no problem. At the previous CDRB review in 2005 the entry tower was at a 45 degree angle before and now we have squared the tower up. Previously the CDRB wanted the awning removed and wanted to extend the entryway so it would be covered when you enter the store and you would be protected from the weather. Staff recommended extending the windows which can be done with spandrel glass which could go down to the top of the brick face. The signage was removed from the north and east sides of the building. (Mr. Kohler went through the building material samples with the board.) Mr. Kohler asked if they could have an electronic sign on the freestanding sign so they could have a changeable copy area instead of having to manually go and change out the letters and numbers? Ms. finwall said the City of Maplewood does not allow flashing/blinking signs. Mr. Kohler said the sign wouldn't flash or blink but we would prefer to have an electronic sign rather than having a person go change the letters and numbers, plus it just looks nicer. Walgreens is also connected to the amber alert system and can flash emergency information and a photo on the electronic screen. Ms. finwall said the board had this discussion a few months ago when an applicant requested an electronic sign which would remain constant and steady and the board determined that was a code enforcement issue. for instance, if there was a new manager or the business was sold, they wouldn't necessarily know the sign requirement in the city and could change the sign to flash and blink. The board determined the sign ordinance as it stands does not allow electronic signs without a variance. Mr. Kohler said we just wanted an answer to that question. Regarding the sidewalk, Walgreens was thinking the escrow money would be for the sidewalk along White Bear Avenue and now they heard staff say it was for the sidewalk along Beam Avenue? Ms. finwall said she talked to Erin Laberee, assistant city engineer, and she said it would be an escrow for the Beam Avenue sidewalk. The sidewalk on White Bear Avenue is existing and could remain. If it needs to be reconstructed that would be accomplished as part of the White Bear Avenue road improvement itself. Chairperson Olson asked what the reasoning was for the assistant city engineer to not install the sidewalk in the area where there will not be any construction to the east? Mr. Kohler said it's escrow for 150% of the building. It would be Walgreen's preference to put the sidewalk in and be done with it. Board member Schurke said the value of the sidewalk would be put into escrow and at a future date when the road construction was complete, the sidewalk would be put in. Ms. finwall said the engineering department was requesting escrow for the entire length of the sidewalk so there seems to be some confusion as to why that is being requested when it is White Bear Avenue that is being reconstructed. This is something to work out with the engineering department. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 14 Board member Schurke asked staff where the recommendation was in the staff report regarding the glazing of the spandrel glass. Ms. finwall said that's represented on page 11 item 4 b. 4. Board member Shankar asked if the entire window would be spandrel? Mr. Kohler said the glass above would remain clear and the glass that would take up the rectangle below would be spandrel because that is the back of the cabinetry in the store. Board member Shankar asked what color the glass would be? Mr. Kohler said the clear glass would be clear with a light tint, and the lower glass would be complimenting the stone or the color of the brick with a horizontal frame. Chairperson Olson said that glass is only two feet off of grade and she is concerned about the damage that could be done to it. She asked if that could that be raised to a level of three feet? Mr. Kohler said the windows at 2 feet off grade would begin after the brick wainscot. If you started the glass 3 feet from grade then you would want to raise the base course all the way around. Board member Shankar asked if they would have a sidewalk next to the building or if there would be landscaping against the building? Mr. Kohler said no, Walgreens has found nationwide that putting landscaping close to the building causes problems with brick or stone when irrigation hits the building which stains the brick and the heat of the brick in turn burns the landscaping out. You would also be allowing moisture to go down next to the foundation which is not a good idea. Board member Schurke asked what Mr. Kohler's opinion was regarding the use of the spandrel glass? Mr. Kohler said he isn't sure it's necessary. It's to add more of a pedestrian friendly feel but we would prefer not to do it. Board member Schurke asked what Board member Shankar's opinion was regarding the spandrel glass? Board member Shankar said he would prefer the spandrel glass over the use of the brick. He asked what the height of the horizontal mullion was that divides the clear glass from the spandrel glass and he asked what the height would be from the sidewalk? Mr. Kohler said it's above a person's head at about seven or eight feet in height and it's even with the top of the entrance doors. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 15 Board member Shankar asked why they couldn't extend the windows under the fourth canopy that says One Hour Photo? Mr. Kohler said you could put spandrel glass there but behind there they have interior fixtures on that wall and on the front area they are trying to get natural light into the store. Chairperson Olson said she would be okay with that because you get kind of a step down effect further east on this west elevation. She also understands the need for a dark room for the one hour photo developing. Board member Schurke said the one thing aesthetically that doesn't work for him is the canopy over the drive up entry. There is a small space at the rear of the building where there is a standing seam metal roof on the north elevation. A covered entry is a smart thing to do but he thinks it warrants a horizontal line there. Mr. Kohler said we can take that roof off or make that a flat roof. That is the problem with looking at something in elevation that is going to be a long ways back. Board member Schurke said that would be his preference to have that be a flat roof. From the canopy standpoint you have a gable that doesn't seem to have any correlation to the rest of the building. Mr. Kohler said that is strictly for rain. Board member Schurke said his preference would be to playoff the canopies off the front of the building and instead of shedding water at the vehicles that are entering the drive you would shed the water away. Mr. Kohler said we could shed it out and turn it and go the other way. Chairperson Olson said she doesn't want to drive under a canopy that is going to drop down on the roof of my car. Mr. Kohler said there would be gutters so the rain wouldn't come down onto the cars. Board member Schurke said the functional aspect aside, it was more the aesthetic impact of seeing that on the building elevation. He wonders if you need some directional signage coming off of Beam Avenue if you are sharing that as a drive lane accessing MGM Liquor to avoid traffic conflicts. Mr. Kohler said they can put up small directional signage that say drive-through exit only. Board member Shankar asked if the red brick is jumbo size and the tan brick modular size? Mr. Kohler said they are both jumbo size. The tan brick band will be soldier course. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 16 Board member Shankar asked if there is a parapet wall and is there any rooftop equipment? Mr. Kohler said there is a three or four foot tall parapet wall and there will be rooftop equipment that is about three feet tall. You won't see any rooftop equipment. Chairperson Olson asked if they have any questions about the grading and drainage on the site? Mr. Kohler said there has been discussion regarding drainage but they will be installing storm sectors and improving water clarity runoff. Board member Schurke asked what Walgreen's opinion was regarding installing a bike rack? Mr. Kohler said they are fine with that as long as it doesn't block the sidewalk. It would have to be located in the northwest corner or the southeast corner but there is space for a bike rack. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped October 2, 2006, for the Walgreens retail store and drive-through pharmacy to be located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 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 grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in the November 20, 2006, engineering report including, but not limited to, the granting of a right-of-way easement along White Bear Avenue and the submittal of an escrow to the city to ensure construction of a six-foot-wide sidewalk along the entire length of Beam Avenue to be complete by the city in 2008. 2) Revised site plan showing a six-foot-wide, sidewalk extending the entire length of Parcel A and Parcel B along Beam Avenue and a bike rack to be located near the building entrance. 3) Revised landscape plan showing the following: a) Twenty more shrubs and forty perennial plants to be planted along Beam and White Bear Avenues. b) Re-establishment of any distributed land on Parcel B with sod or native prairie grasses. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 17 4) Revised elevations as follows: south and west windows constructed two feet from the sidewalk with the bottom half of the window (portion of the window two feet from sidewalk to top of door elevation) shall be spandrel glass with vision glass above; east-drive through standing seam roof to be linear in elevation rather than gabled. In addition, show all elevations with proposed roof-top equipment to verify that the roof equipment will not extend beyond the parapet walls. 5) A revised lighting and photometrics plan which shows that the overall illumination from outdoor lights does not exceed .4-foot-candles at all property lines. 6) Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on county right-of- way for the driveway access, utility work, and sidewalk. 7) Watershed district approval if revisions warrant a new review. 8) 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. c. Signage on the property is part of the design review approval and is subject to the following sign criteria: 1) One freestanding sign to be located on the corner of Beam and White Beam Avenue. Freestanding sign to be a maximum of 15 feet in height, 60 square feet in area, maintain a 10-foot setback to all property lines and comply with traffic visibility requirements. 2) Two Walgreens wall signs to be located on the south and west elevation. Signs to be constructed of individual letters with a maximum letter height of two feet and must be centered within the manufactured limestone fayade. 3) Two one hour photo signs and two pharmacy signs to be located on the south and west elevation. Signs to be constructed of individual letters with maximum letter height of 1.5 feet, and must be centered within the manufactured limestone piers, above the windows. 4) One drive-through pharmacy directional sign to be located above the standing seam metal roof on the south elevation. Sign to be constructed of individual letters with a maximum letter height of 1.5 feet. 5) One interior entrance tower neon sign, 22 square feet in area. d. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 18 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and underground irrigation. 4) Screen the rooftop mechanical equipment. 5) Install all required outdoor lighting. e. 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 improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. f. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on December 11, 2006. c. Maplewood Market Place Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment - 1275 County Rd D Ms. Finwall said Mike DeWeese the owner/operations manager for Subway and Oppidan, Inc., owner of the Maplewood Marketplace, are requesting a comprehensive sign plan amendment for the Maplewood Marketplace located at 1275 County Road D. The amendment is requested in order to allow tenant signage on the south elevation. On June 14, 2005, the CDRB approved the design plans for the Maplewood Marketplace development. The development consists of a 12,600 square-foot multi-tenant building with a bank and several retail/restaurant tenant spaces. The CDRB also approved a comprehensive sign plan for the development. Board member Schurke asked how many more of these sign requests would be allowed on this north elevation? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 19 Ms. finwall said there has been one other request on the rear or north elevation. There are six tenants. The bank has adequate signage so staff doesn't believe there would be any other requests from the bank. Staff would anticipate there could be possibly five requests for signs. Chairperson Olson asked if there had been any citizen feedback from the people that live in this area? Ms. finwall said no we have not. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Mike DeWeese, Owner/Operations Manager for Subway, 166 N. Concord Exchange, 2nd floor, South St. Paul, addressed the board. He said we are trying to improve the visibility to the north bound traffic on Highway 61. The monument sign that was put in place which is much smaller than they had originally proposed and you don't really get good visibility until you get closer to the building heading north on Highway 61 because of the building elevation. If we can get permission from the city for the wall signs on the south elevation we can get the visibility from the highway or for people exiting from the highway which would be good for all of the tenants. Right now all you see is the back of a building Board member Shankar asked if you have determined the exact location of the sign? Mr. DeWeese said it's depicted on the plans where they would like the signage to go. The lettering would be 36 inch high channel letters. Board member Schurke said relative to Highway 61 and the view line he has been curious who would be moving in to the tenant spaces. He is concerned that the entire building gets wrapped in signage. The CDRB just rejected two of the proposed signs for Walgreens. In this case he is concerned about the sign treatment. for example, he is concerned when he sees the signage for the Gladstone Window and Door down Highway 61 in their new location because he thinks that is a particularly ugly sign treatment on a building. He said he thought that was approved pre-sign ordinance. This is just a concern for him. He understands the need for the signage but how many times is it going to be requested for double signage on a building. If you look at the wall signage as a total for this whole building, when do we hit the limit on the current sign ordinance, are we a long ways off or are we getting there? Ms. finwall said we are a long ways off considering the sign ordinance would allow wall signage up to 20% of the gross wall area of the tenant space. Board member Shankar asked what other signage is on the building? Mr. DeWeese said besides Subway there is a nail salon that just moved in there and there is a fantastic Sam's hair salon. Board member Shankar asked how he would feel about lowering the sign lettering to the gray band and not on the tan band? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 20 Mr. DeWeese said we could do that, it's better than not having a sign there at all. On the front or south elevation it is above the awnings. That would probably give more consistency with the rest of the other tenants too. The board agreed that would be a good idea. Board member Schurke said he thinks the signs should read as secondary signs and should be smaller in scale. The larger sign should represent where the entrance to the building is and it would cost less as well having smaller signage. Mr. DeWeese said we could scale the signage down. Board member Shankar said he was thinking of 24 inch high channel letters instead of 36 inch channel letters. Board member Schurke moved to approve the request for a comprehensive sign plan amendment for the Maplewood Marketplace located at 1275 County Road 0 based on the following conditions: 1. Sign criteria date-stamped May 3, 2005. 2. Sign elevations date-stamped October 24, 2006. 3. Revised sign criteria plan showing the following changes: a) Each retail tenant is allowed two signs (one to be installed on the front of the tenant space and one to be installed on the rear of the tenant space. The proposed 5,000 square foot bank is allowed three signs including two wall signs (one to be installed on the front of the bank and one to be installed on the drive-through canopy), and one on the freestanding sign. b) Maximum height of individual letters on wall signs not to exceed 24 inches. Installed on the north elevation of the building to be clear and said signage to be located within the gray band immediately above the windows as shown on the north elevation renderings submitted. c) No signage allowed on awnings. d) One freestanding sign is allowed at the intersection of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. freestanding sign to be 9 feet high and 75 square feet in area. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 21 VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS The board members stated their regrets that John Hinzman, former board member, had resigned due to time commitments. He will be missed and the board and staff enjoyed working with him during his tenure. There will be a formal Resolution of Appreciation in an upcoming board meeting. The board will be advertising for openings to serve on the CDRB in early 2007. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Shankar will be the CDRB representative at the December 11, 2006, city council meeting - The only board item to discuss is Walgreens at the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. b. Ms. finwall stated John Hinzman was scheduled to be the CDRB representative at the November 27, 2006, city council meeting. Staff told him it was not necessary to attend the meeting because the applicant for Boca Chica Taco House withdrew the sign variance request. c. Ms. finwall stated Board member Schurke had asked staff to check into an award program that the City of Little Canada has. Staff found out that the City of Hastings has a similar award program. The Historical Commission in Hastings nominates a certain number of buildings or additions in Hastings and nominates one person to receive an award for renovations or additions which keep with the historical character of a building. The award nominations are presented to the Hastings City Council for formal approval and recognition. The City of Little Canada has a similar program where the public can nominate a building or addition that is superior or innovative and an award is presented. If the City of Maplewood is interested in pursuing a program like this staff will bring more information back to the board to discuss it further. This could be something that is put in the CDRB Annual Report and brought to the city council for approval. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m.