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.