HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/2006
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, December 12, 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 28, 2006
5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled
6. Design Review:
a. CarMax Auto Superstore - Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenues
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Resolution of Appreciation for John Hinzman
b. Community Pride Awards
c. Representation at the December 18, 2006, City Council Meeting - Items to be
Discussed Include CarMax
d. Cancel the December 26,2006, Community Design Review Board Meeting
10. Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2006
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina
Chairperson Linda Olson
Board member Joel Schurke
Board member Ananth Shankar
Present at 6:12 p.m.
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director present until 6:37 p.m.
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Schurke 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 28, 2006
Board member Schurke had two corrections to the minutes. On page 5, ninth paragraph, third
line, change f10vering to fovering. On page 6, in the sixth paragraph, reword the first sentence
to read Board member Schurke said that while driving down White Bear Avenue he would
suggest taking the entire fagade to the midway point of the north elevation to the opposite
corner of the building where Boca Chica's building ends. (still not sure that sounds correct)
Board member Schurke moved approval of the minutes of November 28,2006, as amended.
Chairperson Olson seconded.
Ayes --- Olson, Schurke, Shankar
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
2
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Carmax Auto Superstore - Northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenues
Mr. Ekstrand said Carmax Auto Superstore, and Bruce Mogren, the property owner, is
proposing to subdivide and develop the former Country View Golf Course property at the
northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue.
Mr. Ekstrand said Carmax would occupy a site at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and
Beam Avenue. There would also be three future development sites that would occur on the
remainder of the golf course property.
Two of these sites are identified on the site plan for office and development. The third site is
not yet identified.
The proposed Carmax used-car dealership would include two buildings. The first would be an
18,744-square-foot building for sales, service and display. The second would be a 750-square-
foot car wash. The majority of the site would be used for parking, primarily with sales inventory
parking. There would also be a .55-acre work-in progress area (WIP) surrounded by a six-foot-
tall concrete-block screening wall. This area would conceal cars not ready for display or that
are not suitable for sale on this lot.
The proposed showroom/service building would be attractively designed and would have
quality materials. It would be constructed of brick, glass panels, metal coping and dryvit
(exterior insulation finish system).
On December 5, 2006, the planning commission reviewed the proposed preliminary plat and
PUD and recommended approval of each.
The applicant is proposing two curb cuts for Carmax. The main access point would be a
driveway connection on Beam Avenue. This would allow right and left turns into the site and
right-turn exits only. Staff is recommending that there not be left-turn exits allowed from the site
onto Beam Avenue in order to avoid traffic congestion. Ramsey County must approve the left
turn movement into the site from Beam Avenue. The left-in movement may eventually need to
be removed if accident or operational concerns arise. This movement could still be removed in
the future if traffic concerns arise due to increased congestion or accidents.
There is a proposed driveway connection to Highway 61 from the sales lot. This driveway is
intended for use by sales associates to enter and exit with customers while test driving cars.
Staff needs to get input from MnDOT to see if they would allow this driveway. Mr. Bourdon's
opinion is that it should be moved to the north along new County Road D. It's unlikely that
MnDOT will accept this highway access.
Staff feels that deleting this access potential from Highway 61 would simply be safer. The
applicant is agreeable to this alternative, but would like to exhaust the possibility first for the
highway access.
Mr. Ekstrand introduced Mr. Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
3
Mr. Ahl went over the traffic impacts and the wetland area and the shoreland ordinance
considerations for this proposal on the overhead.
The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District requires a 75-foot average and 37.5-foot
minimum wetland buffer. The required buffer area is intended to minimize future impacts
resulting from development encroaching on the wetland areas. While adequate surface area is
available to meet the buffer requirements, obtaining a minimum 50-foot buffer along the east
side of the proposed wetland area/ditch section may be difficult without further encroachment
onto the parcel to the east and beyond the existing easement over the twin 48-inch pipes.
Given that one of the overall goals of this project is to obtain all wetland (and buffer)
replacement on-site, we recommend that the design use the 50-foot minimum as a goal, but
that the RMWD distance of 37.5 feet be considered acceptable if site conditions limit the full
50-foot distance in all areas. The average buffer around the entire wetland system, as
proposed, is approximately 110-120 feet. The City of Maplewood will be assuming the
responsibility of working with the watershed district in all wetland matters as part of the public
improvements for this plat.
Board member Ledvina asked if the 40% pervious area is based on the whole site or just the
area that's within the shoreland ordinance, and how does the site plan compare to the
requirement?
Mr. Ahl said the calculations are based upon an end of pipe analysis. The analysis doesn't
deal with specifically just the coverage area. The coverage area has pervious area. The city
thinks the pervious pavement area meets the standards in two other locations we have
approved but because of the analysis and how we have put it together with this site the end of
pipe runoff from this site is second to none in the city. It's that runoff treatment system that is
being put together for this site because of how the standards have grown and how we are
trying to improve the runoff quality. The infiltration system has to be spread out. The
groundwater tables are high. We feel the removal of the pipes and the creation of the ditch
system is part of the solution. The applicant has significantly invested in both the wetland and
water quality analysis.
Board member Shankar asked if there is the same pervious area requirement for the future big
box retail site on the east side?
Mr. Ahl said because that area is not in the shoreland ordinance area we don't have the same
pervious requirements, however because that is part of the overall site plan we are looking at
that runoff and trying to infiltrate flows in that area. Getting closer to the old railroad site the
soils change dramatically where the site changes to sand. It's almost like two different site
analysis points.
Board member Ledvina asked if the pervious bituminous pavement area followed the line of
the shoreland area or if it extended throughout the site?
Mr. Ahl said the pervious pavement extends outside the site.
Board member Schurke asked on page 3 the traffic study done by Brandon Bourdon states
that the left turn in to the site may have to be moved.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
4
Board member Schurke said he drives this intersection often and knows the challenge of this
area driving away from the mall heading to the west. He asked if we could require a time
limited left hand turn in to the site from the eastbound traffic on Beam Avenue? Is there
anything like that in Maplewood?
Mr. Ahl said he's not aware of any time limited turns in Maplewood, however there are some in
St. Paul. The current left hand turn into the old Country View Golf Course site has to be
removed. The new left turn in will be moved. Because of the traffic signal the city felt there
would be too many vehicles making U-turns at the signal so we would rather have another left
turn going across to avoid the U-turn movement. At County Road 42 in Burnsville by the
Burnsville Mall they have used this type of turning system for almost 20 years now. That is a
safer access point because you can see traffic in front of you. A left turn out is restricted and
that is when accidents occur. If vehicles want to drive east bound they can use the new County
Road D. MnDOT puts a restriction on all of them. Just north of here off Highway 61 MnDOT
came to the city about requiring the three car dealerships to put a left turn in southbound on
Highway 61 so the city designed and built the new frontage road into the dealerships. This was
necessary so the transport trucks could safely unload their transport trucks. The city put a
provision on that if something were to happen that we didn't foresee we notify them if a
situation becomes a serious problem then we will remove the frontage road but the city doesn't
foresee that happening in the future.
Chairperson Olson said on page 10 of the staff report there is a comment regarding the
Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority that stated the have an interest in the
development of the property to the east of Carmax. The RCRRA owns a portion of the
abandoned rail line to the east of the larger development area which they may purchase
additional abandoned rail property along the same corridor from Maplewood.
Mr. Ahl said actually the citizens of Maplewood own that. The city is in negotiations with
Ramsey County but no purchase price has been agreed upon to sell it back to Ramsey
County. This would part of a future consideration for the Rush Line Corridor if it were to ever
happen in the next 25 to 50 years. There is a trail connection which is the Bruce Vento Trail
extension and it's built there. The city gave Ramsey County Parks an easement for the trail
and built that under a grant partnership last year.
Board member Schurke said there is also a comment by Steve McDaniel's, which states the
city should be aware of traffic concerns with the proposed driveway connections to Beam
Avenue and Highway 61. He said the proposed westerly curb cut on Beam Avenue is very
dangerous being that it is so close to the intersection. The driveway connection to Highway 61
may be hazardous. What are the adverse issues if we disallowed that turn entirely with no U-
turn at that intersection?
Mr. Ahl said if we restricted the U-turn we would have a lot of violations. People would also
drive into the site trying to make a turnaround. Mr. McDaniel's is the owner of Maplewood
Toyota. The intersection improvements at Highway 61 and Beam Avenue are going to help the
traffic situation. The city is going to be adding turn lanes on the west side as well if you are
driving east bound from Maplewood Toyota and from the west side there will be a right tUrn.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
5
Mr. Ahl said currently if you get behind a car that wants to go straight on Beam Avenue from
Maplewood Toyota you would get held up trying to turn onto Highway 61. The signal lights are
short and if you don't make it through the first time you have to wait until the sign light goes
through a whole cycle before you can get through the intersection. With the traffic changes
there will be a dedicated turn lane. Those road improvements are part of this whole
development and hopefully will be done in the fall of 2007.
Board member Schurke asked if the planning commission reviewed the traffic study and if so,
did they make any comments?
Mr. Ahl said the planning commission had some of the same questions that the board has.
Board member Schurke said the reason he is so concerned about this is that he has
experienced major traffic backups at this area and is concerned this proposal will add to the
traffic problems that exist. He looks at introducing a turn lane to this and he thinks this will be a
mess.
Mr. Ahl said we are making dedicated turn lane movements at Beam and Highway 61.
Additional lanes are needed whether a development happens here or not because of the
current traffic problems. The city was required to forecast 20 years in the future and the traffic
in this area will probably double the traffic in 20 years so the city is putting a 20 year traffic
design into this intersection. After those improvements you will see a tremendous
improvement.
Board member Schurke asked what the estimated traffic count would be for turning left turn
into the Carmax site.
Mr. Ahl said it's possible there could be a few hundred vehicles turning into the site per day
during the peak hour which would break down into 10 vehicle turns per hour.
Mr. Ahlleft to attend another meeting in Maplewood so Mr. Ekstrand continued with his report.
Mr. Ekstrand reviewed the landscaping and lighting plan. He said the landscaping plan looks
fine. The applicant told staff before the meeting that the lighting plan will now meet the .4 foot-
candles at the property line. The signage plan meets the city code, even though staff had
comments regarding some of the signs which were included on page 5 of the staff report but
the applicant can discuss that further. Staff recommends approval of the Carmax proposal.
Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to come forward and address the board.
Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Joe Jagdmann, Real Estate Manager for Carmax, residing at 12800 Tuchahoe Creek
Parkway, Richmond, Virginia, addressed the board. He thanked the board for their time this
evening and thanked Mr. Ahl and Mr. Ekstrand for their time and work on the staff report and
have been helpful in this process. He introduced three other members representing Carmax
that will give a report and are available to answer questions. A short presentation was given
regarding how many Carmax stores and in how many states Carmax is located as well as
other various details he discussed at the planning commission meeting.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
6
Mr. Chuck Patterson, Architect for Carmax, residing at 3000 Royal Boulevard South,
Alpharetta, Georgia, addressed the board. He thanked the board for the opportunity to speak
regarding this proposal. He discussed the operation of Carmax and the building design. He
said the building is divided into three components; a sales building, enclosed service area, and
a freestanding car wash. There is also a presentation area where you drop a car off to get it
ready for service and then it is prepared for sale. There are also three parking lot areas. One
lot is for employees and customers to park, there is a completely secured sales area so
customers cannot enter the lot and drive a car away, and third there is parking area for the
work in progress area (WIP) where vehicles are stored temporarily while they are prepared
before going out to the sales lot to be sold. There is a computer kiosk located in the showroom
where the sales associate would go because every parking space in the inventory sales lot is
bar coded so a sales associate knows exactly where a car is on the lot. You find a car you
want to test drive and you go and get a sales associate who will get the keys, they will ride in
the car with you by driving the car to the embassy security gate, drive through the gated area,
the sales associate would switch places with the customer and the customer can take the
vehicle for a test drive. When the customer returns with the test driven vehicle the customer
would get out of the vehicle and the sales associate would drive it through the security gate
and back to the assigned bar coded parking place.
The service building is enclosed, there would be no work done on cars outside of the sales
building. The building has a high speed roll-up door on the outside of the building and as soon
as the car enters the building the door shuts, there is no noise that filtrates outside of that
building. Carmax does not use any outside loud speakers; the sales associates use pagers,
which is not your typical sales facility. The building plan has been updated since the board
received the staff report. The main change is the addition of the car wash building and the six
foot tall masonry wall that surrounds the (WIP) building. He handed revised plans out to the
board. The main building exterior is a concrete based product called quick brick. The main
advantage to using quick brick is that you don't have to build a backup wall and a brick veneer
wall. It has the same look as using a brick wall. The dark red and light red brick are the same
material. The size is 4" high by 16" but comes center scored and has a look of jumbo brick.
There is an EIFS band that will wrap around the entire sales building and to break up the long
expanses we added pilasters. The showroom is surrounded by a curtain wall system so it
stands out from the rest of the building. The mechanical rooftop units will be screened with a
continuous wall with the same EIFS material as the top of the parapet.
Mr. Patterson said regarding the site lighting fixtures they will be 25 feet tall and in a bronze
colored aluminum fixture. They have reconfigured the lighting plan to meet the .4 foot-candles
to meet the city ordinance. The down lights will shine down to eliminate glare.
Board member Ledvina asked if they considered the use of additional building materials on the
car wash building such as using EIFS or any type of cornice?
Mr. Patterson said they didn't consider the use of additional building materials since it's such a
small footprint, similar to the service building with a lower parapet so they don't propose to use
a decorative treatment. Their opinion is it would make the building look too short or too squatty.
Board member Ledvina asked if they had a new photometric plan for the board to review this
evening?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
7
Mr. Patterson said yes and handed a revised lighting plan out to the board.
Board member Ledvina asked why the light standards were spaced 50 feet apart along the
west boundary?
Mr. Patterson said that would be the display lot and because Carmax wants the car lot lit well
they want to use as many lights as possible. The lights are so closely spaced in order to meet
the .4 foot-candles on the internal car lot.
Chairperson Olson asked if Carmax had taken in to account the existing streetlights along
Highway 61 when working on the photometric plan?
Mr. Patterson said no.
Chairperson Olson asked about the drainage from the car wash building and if they anticipated
soapy water getting into the nearby wetland area? She is curious how Carmax anticipated
managing the inventory car lot if one of the driveway cuts were removed from Highway 61 and
moved to County Road D?
Mr. Patterson said the car wash facility uses a reclamation tank. They reclaim over 98% of the
water that is used on the site. Once the used water goes through the system it goes through
an oil/water separator before it goes out to the stormwater system. As far as the entrance to
the site goes, if the driveway cut is moved to County Road D it wouldn't be an issue because
that driveway isn't accessed by customers, it's only a test drive lot.
Chairperson Olson asked if the main entrance to Carmax would be located off of Beam
Avenue?
Mr. Patterson said yes.
Board member Schurke asked if Carmax would consider adding elements to the east elevation
such as some functional window glazing, maybe to introduce daylight with the use of some
windows across the top of the building to add more daylight and break up the building facade.
Mr. Patterson said one of the operational concerns for Carmax is that east side of the building
is a service building. Obviously Carmax doesn't want functional windows down low so that you
can look into the service building while cars are being serviced but we can look into that as an
option. One thing Carmax did is to try to break up the fayade by adding pilasters to the flat face
of the building. It would be nice to put window glazing there but the function is a service facility
so he doubts Carmax would like windows there. Remember one thing that will soften the
building fayade is the landscaping however that would be farther away on the (WIP) wall.
Board member Schurke said a fellow architect Frank Lloyd Wright designed a gas station in
Cloquet, Minnesota, that has fully day lit service bays or skylights. The people that work there
say they enjoy having them because it gives the ability to see fully inside the car engines when
they are working in natural daylight.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
8
Board member Schurke said he doesn't like the pilasters from an aesthetic standpoint because
that looks like ornamentation to him and he would rather see something else to break up the
building fayade so the back of the building doesn't appear to look like the back of the building.
Mr. Patterson said he wasn't sure how Carmax would add skylights with a facility like this. One
advantage is the location of the car wash which would help screen the view driving down the
new road that cuts through the site because it would block part of the view. Any change to the
building facade would benefit the employees rather than a vehicle driving down the new road
through the site.
Board member Ledvina said the service part of the building is on the north half; couldn't you
work with the southern half?
Board member Schurke said that may be a good compromise. The east, west and south
elevations need to read like you are rotating around the building. The north end has a little bit
of glazing because of the garage doors. The rest of the building looks like the rear of a big box
retail building and he thinks could use some window glazing.
Chairperson Olson agreed especially since this entrance on Beam Avenue is going to be the
main entrance, assuming the majority of the traffic will be coming from the east.
Board member Shankar said he is concerned about the west elevation right off of Highway 61
where people are going to be looking at the building. To him the elevation reads as two
separate buildings. You show a brick block and an EIFS block and he doesn't see a blend of
treating the building as one and the west elevation concerns him. Maybe they could introduce
some banding of the EIFS to make that appear as one building and not two different buildings.
Chairperson Olson asked if the trash enclosures would be contained within in the (WI P) area?
Mr. Patterson said the enclosures will be iatrical to the (WIP) wall that will face the customer
employee lot simply for access to the waste area and will be totally enclosed by a wall and
opaque gates.
Chairperson Olson moved onto the landscaping discussion.
Mr. Josh Porehn, Landform, 100 N. 6th St., Minneapolis, addressed the board. He discussed
the landscaping issues. He said the new tree ordinance has been reflected in the landscape
plan. They will replace 2000 caliber inches of trees based on the new Maplewood Tree
Ordinance which is a pretty aggressive tree replacement plan. One thing that will help with the
board's concerns with the building elevations is the landscaping on the east side which over
time will help screen the building that direction. There are quite a few shrubs, evergreen
shrubs, plants and perennials to be planted which will give visual interest throughout the year.
Ginny Gaynor from the Maplewood Nature Center gave a list of invasive species in the staff
report that are troublesome in Maplewood and Landform plans to change out the plantings we
had planned to use for another plant shown on Ms. Gaynor's list.
Board member Schurke asked if the tree count included the trees on outlot B? What
percentage of the trees are you replacing currently on the Carmax site?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
9
Mr. Porehn said the tree planting count includes the trees on outlot B. The current Carmax site
has 17 existing trees and we are required to replace 500 caliber inches of trees or roughly 200
trees just for the Carmax site. Landform is proposing 160 trees on the Carmax site itself but
since we are taking on the project as a whole some of those trees would be planted on outlot A
near the existing wetlands and the regional storm water pond.
Chairperson Olson asked how they propose to implement the planting? Will this site be graded
on the west side of the site and then you would plant all the substantial trees now or do you
plan to not plant anything until later?
Mr. Porehn said if Carmax is the only portion of the site that gets developed and everything
else remains as is we would plant 160 of the 200 some required trees on site and we could
begin immediately planting the landscaping on outlot A or hold off until some of the other sites
got developed. Landform basically wanted to show on the plans that there is a place for the
landscaping as a whole when the time comes but all the landscaping won't specifically fit just
on the Carmax site.
Chairperson Olson asked when construction would start because she wondered when they
would plant the trees and landscaping on the site?
Mr. Jagdmann said it's Carmax's expectation they will meet all the landscaping and tree
replacement requirements by planting the trees on the Carmax site or on outlot A. They will not
be putting off the plantings with respect to the tree replacement on the Carmax site. The
landscaping will happen "as" we develop the Carmax site. The timing for developing the
Carmax site is uncertain. We also recondition vehicles, which takes a significant amount of
effort but won't happen on this site. Carmax is working on finding a companion site so there is
some coordination that still needs to take place. We are committed to doing all the required
landscaping at the time we start the construction. In general, we are in agreement with staffs
recommendations. We changed the customer/employee parking space width from 9 feet wide
to 9% feet wide in order to meet the city code. We have screened the rooftop units. Regarding
condition number 8 in the staff report, we want to check the grades along County Road D at
the site before we commit to moving the gated security entrance from Highway 61 and hope to
report back to staff before the city council meeting. Regarding the wetland buffer, there may be
some adjustment of the green space of the wetland buffer to the adjacent site but we will meet
the applicable requirements overall.
Board member Ledvina said he didn't get an answer to this question earlier but he wondered
what the extent of pervious bituminous paving is.
Mr. Dan Lessor, Landform, 100 N. 6th St., Minneapolis, addressed the board. Mr. Lessor said
typically you see pervious pavers used on projects which are a series of bricks that have
gravel between them. Landform is going to use a pervious bituminous mix which is typically
asphalt minus the smaller particles in asphalt that don't allow water to infiltrate into the mix.
Board member Schurke asked if they had ever used that type of system in this climate before?
Mr. Lessor said he hadn't. The best example of this bituminous system is at the Ramsey
Washington Metro Watershed building in Little Canada where this is used in their parking lot.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
10
Mr. Lessor said the Watershed District said this bituminous system decreases the amount of
ice on the parking lot because beneath the bituminous mix is an 18-inch to 3-foot section of
gravel which traps heat which in turn helps melt the first layer of ice faster.
Board member Schurke asked if he had ever used a grass paving system?
Mr. Lessor said no he had not. The grass paving system makes it hard to remove snow from
the area in this climate. The paving system gets caught on the snow blades and rips things up
and that's when dirt gets down into the subgrade and doesn't allow infiltration.
Board member Schurke asked what percentage of the (WIP) area would be used?
Mr. Jagdmann spoke regarding that. He said they are going to use the entire (WIP) area. The
purpose of the (WIP) area is three fold. One, the (WIP) area receives vehicles that have been
dropped off by a transport truck. The transport truck will come into the site, unload on the lot
and drive off, the vehicles will be brought through the presentation lanes, checked in and any
minor work that needs to be done is completed and the car is put out on the lot. Secondly,
when a car is purchased and the paperwork is completed, the car will be run through the car
wash and be presented to the customer in the presentation lane. Third, the vehicles that
Carmax purchases from customers would be stored in the (WIP) area before they are loaded
on a transport truck and either delivered to an auction house for dealers to bid on or the
vehicles are brought to another site to be reconditioned, so this is a fairly crowded area.
Board member Schurke asked iflhere were any delineated parking spaces in the (WIP) area?
Mr. Jagdmann said there won't be any delineated parking spaces. We will pack that area to the
fullest without blocking the fire lanes.
Board member Schurke said from a calculation standpoint he is interested in knowing if any of
that area was calculated for the parking requirements.
Mr. Jagdmann said it shouldn't have been calculated that way.
Board member Schurke said this corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61 is in the shoreland
area and is one of the gateway entrances into Maplewood. There was one negative comment
to this proposal and there may be more once they see another dealership is being built on
Highway 61. There have been substantial investments made in aesthetics in other dealerships
along Highway 61 that have not been made to the Carmax dealership proposal in his opinion.
He would like to see something dramatic done in this area as well. For example, the Schmelz
Countryside dealership and the Audi dealership built beautiful car dealerships. Those
dealerships as well as others have set the level of aesthetic quality pretty high which sets the
bar pretty high. He said he would love to see something dramatic done here on this site as
well. Especially since this is in the shoreland area. Maybe Carmax could look at swapping out
some of the parking in the (WIP) area in order to leave the corner of Beam Avenue and
Highway 61 more natural and place a larger investment into the landscaping in the
intersection/corner making a larger buffer area. He is also concerned about bunching the trees
together in the outlot areas in order to meet the tree requirements.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
11
Board member Schurke said he would like to see the planting of trees done proportionally on
the site. As we look at PUD's or larger sites that are broken up into separate parcels the city
should request the planting be done in proportion to the area being developed. Because there
are no current plans for the surrounding outlot areas the city may not see all the trees planted
at all or we may see the trees bunched together in one location which creates a very unnatural
and unbalanced site. There has also been a significant investment made to the south side of
Beam Avenue and he has seen this site regain nature. There are now egrets, bald eagles,
water fowl and other animals due to the very little disturbance to the site to the north and with
this redevelopment this may have an adverse affect on this whole area.
Board member Schurke said he would like to see a reduction in the lighting here. Most car
dealerships along Highway 61 are lit up at night. If we are thinking of buying a car it would
probably be done during the daytime. He wondered if Carmax would be receptive to shutting
the lights off at a certain hour in the middle of the night when the lights aren't needed or maybe
even dim the lights down when business is closed. He knows Carmax has worked hard on this
plan but he believes this is a prominent site and it deserves careful attention to detail.
Mr. Jagdmann said Carmax is willing to look at a solution with staff for massing some
landscaping in the Kohlman Lake shoreland ordinance area. One of the reasons the
landscaping is clustered together on the perimeter of the lot and away from the car lot is that
trees create problems for cars. The birds are attracted to the trees, therefore they sit in the
trees and their droppings fall onto the cars, sap drips on the cars and leaves fall on the cars
making it difficult to keep the cars clean. The lighting is brighter in the sales lot compared to
the customer/employee lot. The brighter the inventory the more the customer can see what to
contemplate purchasing. Carmax intends to dim the lights to a minimal level for security in
order to operate the security cameras. Carmax invests a lot of money to have a secure lot. The
embassy gate helps keep a securer dealership which helps keep the lowest possible prices on
vehicles. There will be a significant natural area recreated on this site between the newly
created wetlands and the buffer between Lot 1 and Lot 3 and the remaining outlot A will be
enhanced from its current state.
Chairperson Olson asked if he had any other questions or concerns in the staff report?
Mr. Jagdmann said we are willing to work on additional augmentation of the building elevations
along the west side of the building to make it appear to be one building and along the east side
to insert additional window glazing along the south portion of the east side which is the
presentation lane area.
Board member Shankar said the building materials board show brick number 1 and brick
number 2 to be similar but the elevation plan shows a color difference. He asked if it would be
possible to either tone the color of brick number 2 down or to darken brick number 1?
Mr. Patterson said the brick is called quick brick which has 4 different colors and these two
bricks are representative of the two colors that closely match the graphic representation for the
Carmax building. Carmax would like to keep the color as consistent as possible rather than
introduce a blended color. The quick brick comes in shades of dark blacks mixed with reds. It's
more of a graphic representation rather than the actual material itself.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
12
Board member Shankar said the glass appears to have a blue tint to it, did you consider using
a dark blue band instead of the yellow band to match the window tint better?
Mr. Patterson said the yellow accent band is somewhat of a corporate prototype for Carmax so
that's the reason for that decision.
Chairperson Olson asked to have a discussion regarding the Carmax signs and the placement
of the signs.
Mr. Jagdmann said Carmax agree with staff's recommendation regarding the signage. We
would like to show the signage to staff for approval. The "Store Champion" sign is a preferred
parking spot for the employee which is like a perk or employee motivation. The row signs are
useful in identifying cars in the sales lot because the parking spaces are bar coded and
indexed by row, letter, and space number.
Mr. Ekstrand asked what the landscaping plan was for the ponding area outside outlot A and
who would intend to do that landscaping?
Mr. Porehn said 160 of the over 200 required trees for the Carmax site are accounted for on-
site and approximately 40 of those required trees are sitting on outlot A. The rest are shown on
outlot A. Trees from the other sites are not being discussed tonight. Each of the sites
contribute slightly to the trees on outlot A. Lot 3, east of the Carmax site has some trees shown
on outlot A which would be on that site but because we don't have anything planned for that
site we didn't want to show trees on the plan since we don't know what is going to be
developed there.
Mr. Ekstrand said thank you for the clarification.
Board member Schurke asked who owns outlot A?
Mr. Ekstrand said Bruce Mogren owns it.
Board member Schurke asked if the intent was to deed it back to the city?
Mr. Ekstrand said the city would have an easement over the land but Mr. Mogren would
maintain ownership over it. Staff wasn't sure what the current arrangement was but it would be
under the city's control.
Chairperson Olson asked if it wasn't practical to plant trees on outlot A because some of those
trees shown on outlot A would be transferred to Lot 3 and she asked for clarification on that.
Mr. Porehn said he didn't mean that trees would be planted and moved to Lot 3, he meant that
since we there isn't a concept plan for that site yet we don't know where we would have green
space or where trees could actually be planted on the site yet.
Chairperson Olson said basically you designed trees to go on outlot A that should be relocated
to Lot 3. When the Carmax site is developed will you be able to plant the trees on outlot A?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
13
Mr. Porehn said yes. There are some proposed expansion areas of the wetland that we would
have to stay away from so they can do construction and the trees wouldn't get damaged.
Chairperson Olson said when the Carmax site is developed you would only develop that site
and everything else would have to wait?
Mr. Porehn said no.
Board member Schurke asked if staff would be able to count the drawn in parking spaces
within the (WIP) area as meeting the parking requirements for code?
Mr. Ekstrand said Carmax has far exceeded the parking ordinance so staff didn't consider the
(WIP) area.
Mr. Jagdmann said Carmax sized the parking lot based on estimated sales numbers and the
peak number of sales we plan to have along with the 80 to 100 employees Carmax will have.
Carmax will need every parking space on the site. We changed the plan to 9%-foot wide
parking spaces and we are going to reallocate space on the site without a major change and
plan to end up with the same number of parking spaces as we did with the 9-foot wide parking
spaces. Regarding the landscaping plan, it's Carmax's intent to plant the 160 trees on our site
and plant the 40 or so other trees on outlot A or on Lot 3, but we can't plant all the landscaping
for the entire project all at the same.
Board member Schurke asked why the applicant had to change the size of the parking spaces
from 9%-feet wide or 9-feet wide?
Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant was asked to increase the size of the parking spaces on the
site to 9%-feet wide to meet the parking ordinance.
Board member Schurke asked how many parking spaces the applicant lost increasing the
parking space width to 9%-feet wide?
Mr. Ekstrand said he wasn't sure how many parking spaces were lost.
Mr. Jagdmann said they lost 18 parking spaces on the site to meet the city ordinance of 9%-
feet wide parking spaces.
Chairperson Olson said she was okay with that.
Mr. Ekstrand said earlier when he asked the question regarding the landscaping for outlot A he
wanted to clarify that he didn't think it was the applicant's responsibility to fill the site with trees
as shown on the landscaping plan. Each applicant that develops the other sites will have to do
the landscaping on each of the sites.
Chairperson Olson appreciated the clarification.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
14
Board member Shankar said he's comfortable with the south building elevation along Beam
Avenue, it's the west elevation he would encourage the applicant to try and integrate the brick
into the other portion. On the south elevation he would like to see them introduce a horizontal
mullion at the top of the dark brick above three feet above the floor to tie it across.
Board member Schurke said he thinks the intent is to balance the windows from top to bottom
in terms of having the glazing the same dimension. He sees the aesthetic point of having a
horizontal line extending across.
Board member Shankar said there is something about having a tall, skinny piece of glass, that
extends upward and goes down to the floor that he thinks needs to tie in with the other element
of the darker brick band.
Board member Schurke personally he likes to have the transparency of seeing the whole thing
because it reads like a showroom, which is what it is.
Chairperson Olson wondered if that was a safety issue in terms of cars driving through the
glass. On the one illustration it's more attractive to have the two panel glass equally sized. On
the other illustration she can see Board member Shankar's point. It's all in the perception.
Board member Schurke wanted to get the board members opinion regarding balancing the
tree planting requirement if there is 2000 caliber inches of trees or about 200 trees, and there
are 160 trees going on the Carmax site and 40 trees planted on outlot A. The ability to
maintain proportionality of the trees in the event that the other areas don't get developed and
then if they follow the requirements, the trees can be planted together which creates a
bunching affect and creates a look of highly dense plantings as well as the look of no trees
planted in the other areas. He also respects the applicant's comments regarding not wanting
trees planted in the parking areas so cars are kept clean from tree debris. He would like the
applicant to get creative in the landscaping at the corner of the site at Beam Avenue and
Highway 61 in the shoreland area.
Board member Ledvina said there is a conflict with the intended use of the site. The applicant
needs to store a lot of vehicles on the site. The landscaping is concentrated along the edge of
the site but the rest of the site is either asphalt or buildings. The applicant doesn't want trees
planted in the parking area in order to keep the vehicles clean of tree debris. Remember that
requiring the applicant to plant more landscaping in the corner of the lot to make a larger buffer
area would mean Carmax would have to lose more parking spaces so he isn't sure there are
any alternative choices to be made.
Chairperson Olson said she is concerned about the redevelopment of Beam Avenue and
Highway 61. If the applicant extends the plantings beyond the right-of-way the plantings could
get destroyed. The road reconstruction could affect whatever gets planted in the corner of the
property. Site lines can be a problem as well if larger trees are planted on the edge because of
the slight angle of Beam Avenue intersecting with Highway 61 . At the same time she would like
the applicant to add more landscaping at the corner of the property. She is disappointed in the
use of pervious bituminous system instead of the pervious pavers and she also wished the
applicant could extend the paving system closer to the building.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
15
Board member Ledvina said he has spoken to Chuck Ahl about this before and he disagrees
with staff regarding how staff counts the pervious bituminous pavement system within the
shoreland ordinance. If you go back to the intent of the ordinance this was an area that was
within the shoreland ordinance where there were pervious areas that were grassed and
percolating into the subsurface to the ground water. We would never allow cars to be placed
on grassed areas within the shoreland ordinance and now you are allowing Carmax to park
cars in an impervious area and he doesn't agree with that. You can call that pervious material
and waive that requirement but to him that is a misinterpretation of the ordinance and he thinks
if Carmax wanted to go that route they should need a variance. However, that is a land use
issue and isn't a role of the CDRB.
Chairperson Olson thought she understood this site would have pervious pavers and now she
understands it's a pervious bituminous system which is disappointing because that might have
solved some of the board's issues that were raised this evening. She also believes a pervious
paver system provides more penetration than a pervious bituminous system.
Board member Ledvina said just because this is in the shoreland district and will have a
pervious bituminous system that doesn't mean it's set up to work for a certain number of years.
It will clog and it will not be maintained and it will be impervious after a matter of time. We have
to remember our next generation and the future of the area. His opinion is this isn't an
appropriate interpretation or application of the ordinance requirement as it was intended.
Board member Schurke said that may be one rationale but his rationale is driven from an
aesthetic standpoint in terms of infiltration rates. We are paving over a shoreland district area
to provide more parking and from an aesthetic standpoint that is counter intuitive. The Ames
Lake Development located at the tail end of the Phalen corridor was just completed and it
made the newspaper because it took out a parking lot to create a wetland and we are taking
out a wetland for a parking lot for a car dealership.
Board member Ledvina said he doesn't want to lose perspective of the whole site and he
knows the applicant is doing a good job with the rest of the site with ponding and other things
but when you look at how this site is addressed he doesn't agree with it. It's a difficult site and
a difficult choice of development and the whole site is a challenge for the city and the
developer.
Chairperson Olson said she understands the trade off and appreciates the effort that has been
put in to putting in the mitigated wetlands by the developer on the south side of County Road
D.
Board member Ledvina said even if Carmax was using a pervious pavement system he still
doesn't agree with the concept of parking vehicles in a shoreland area when you are
concentrating storm water coming off the vehicles that will have a higher degree of runoff then
if it were a planted or landscaped area as he believed was intended with the original shoreland
ordinance. Staff has a different opinion how that ordinance should work.
Board member Schurke said this is a challenging site. He isn't sure how the developer is going
to fit everything on the site. He would like to limit the amount of left hand turns off of Beam
Avenue and maybe the hours that left hand turns can be made. Maybe employee and delivery
trucks could be required to not make left hand tUrns.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
16
Chairperson Olson said for her that raises a load limit concern for her because trucks cannot
drive on Hazelwood Avenue due to weight restrictions, the trucks would have to drive on White
Bear Avenue and turn on Beam Avenue.
Board member Ledvina suggested that concern is outside the focus of the CDRB and is a site
use issue, the CDRB is to focus on the site design. Regarding requiring the applicant to ensure
employees and truck deliveries don't turn left, that is something either the planning commission
or city council could control, but not the CDRB.
Chairperson Olson thanked Board member Ledvina for keeping her on track regarding what
the CDRB's role.
Board member Schurke said he would agree with Board member Ledvina's assessment.
Board member Ledvina said the south elevation is fine. He would like to see some window
glazing added where appropriate on the east elevation. Second story window glazing would be
nice in the customer service area. He would agree with Board member Shankar's comments
regarding the west elevation tying the EIFS into the south part of the building because it looks
like two different buildings. The car wash building is smaller and has a lower height but the
building looks like a brick box and needs something like a glass block banding. He knows the
developer doesn't want focus brought to the car wash building but it needs some additional
architectural treatment.
Mr. Ekstrand said looking at the site plan the east side is the only visible side, maybe they
could use pilasters as staff had suggested.
Chairperson Olson said if it's within the enclosed brick wall area there won't be any visible
sides to the public.
Mr. Patterson said the wall of the car wash building will only be visible on the east wall. The car
wash building is proposed to be 19 feet tall and the masonry wall will be six feet tall.
Chairperson Olson said she liked staffs comments regarding the use of pilasters at each end
of the building.
Board member Schurke liked the comments from Board member Ledvina regarding adding
glass block.
Board member Shankar said he thinks they could use a band of darker brick along the top.
Board member Schurke had a question regarding the signage of F1; he asked why they would
need a sign that says Carmax Vehicles only beyond this point, because it says Do Not Enter
there? Which seems like a conflicting message to him.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
17
Chairperson Olson moved to approve the plans date-stamped October 20, 2006, and plans
date-stamped December 12, 2006, for the proposed Carmax Automobile Dealership. Approval
is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions:
1. This approval is good for two years. After two years, the design-review process shall be
repeated if the developer has not begun construction. Substantial site grading and site
preparation shall be considered to be the beginning of construction.
2. Only the Carmax plans are approved. The developers for the three future lots in the
planned unit development must submit complete plans for review of those properties.
3. The applicants' shall obtain city council approval of the planned unit development and a
final plat for this project.
4. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met.
5. The applicants shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District and Ramsey County.
6. The building elevations for the car wash building shall be quick brick to match the main
building. As required by the community design review board, the applicant shall revise
the car wash design to add decorative pilasters to match those on the main building, or
other detailing to enhance this structure.
7. The outward-facing facade of the six-foot-tall screening wall shall be brick to match the
building.
8. The site plan shall be revised for the city engineer's approval relocating the Highway 61
driveway to the north at County Road D. This driveway shall be located as far east as
possible. This driveway shall remain gated at all times except when needed for vehicle
test drives which is its proposed and permitted use.
9. The final location and design of the Beam Avenue access shall be subject to the
approval of the city engineer and by Ramsey County.
10. The proposed pervious pavement within the shoreland boundary area shall be subject
to the approval of the city engineer.
11. The proposed lighting plans that were submitted to the community design review board
on December 12, 2006, are approved.
12. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing.
13. The applicants shall comply with all requirements of the Maplewood Engineering Report
from Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson dated November 21 , 2006.
14. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan-review
reports as follows:
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
18
. The Stormwater/Wetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November 22,
2006.
. The wetland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor
dated November 22, 2006.
. The watershed district comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21 , 2006.
15. The applicants shall:
. Install reflectorized stop signs at the proposed exits onto Beam Avenue and
County Road D.
. Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas.
16. The applicants shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit
for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for
the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow.
17. The signage plan is approved with the elimination of the following signs since they
would not serve any purpose, would be excessive or otherwise as noted:
. Sign E2, "Enter with arrow" since this driveway will not be allowed and public
access should not be implied at this entrance, even if this driveway is relocated
to County Road D.
. Sign F, "Do Not Enter" should be eliminated but may be relocated to the limited
use entrance when moved to County Road D.
. Sign E1, "Entrance with an arrow to the Beam Avenue driveway" seems
excessive and not necessary.
. The internal, on-site traffic directional signs serve a purpose for directing
customers within the site. Some signs, listed on the signage site-plan legend
have not been shown as to their locations. These are the "Store Champion"
signs, "Caution" flag signs and car wash signs. These may be fine, but the
applicant should provide additional data showing where they would be placed for
staff approval. These signs should be small in scale enough to serve a purpose
on site but not be so large as to be very noticeable from the street.
18. All roof-top mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the building unless they are
screened from view.
19. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide additional plantings in the southwest
corner of the site to enhance this highly-visible corner of the property.
20. The applicant shall submit revised building elevations for staff approval to provide
additional glazing on the west side of the building on the customer service area.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
19
21. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Board member Ledvina seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar
Nay - Schurke
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on December 18, 2006.
Board member Schurke voted nay because even though he agrees the applicant did a great
job trying to meet the intent with a difficult site he disagrees with the fact that the applicant is
going to build on the shoreland ordinance area.
Board member Ledvina agreed with those comments and he wished staff had made another
determination.
A Carmax representative dropped off a handout regarding the use of the bituminous paver
system so the board could better understand the bituminous paver system process.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Board member Schurke said he knows the intent of having a board member present at the city
council meeting is to communicate how the board voted on a certain proposal but he is very
reluctant to serve as the CDRB representative after sitting in the city council chambers waiting
to speak on a proposal item until 1 :30 a.m. The CDRB is a volunteer board and sitting in the
city council chambers all night waiting to speak on a proposal item is a large time commitment.
He wondered if there was a way to move the public hearing items ahead on the agenda or
something so we don't have to sit there all night waiting to give a short presentation. He
wanted his comments communicated to staff and the city council. He also felt the city council
meetings end far too late and should end at a more reasonable hour. The other board
members agreed with him.
Board member Shankar was scheduled to be the CDRB representative at the December 11,
2006, city council meeting. He couldn't be at the city council meeting all night therefore he
asked staff to call him % hour before the Walgreens proposal so he would come in to give his
presentation. However, due to the late hour staff didn't call him and therefore gave the
presentation for the Walgreens proposal at Beam Avenue and White Bear Avenue. Because
board member Shankar didn't come for the presentation he volunteered for the December 18,
2006, city council presentation.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-12-2006
20
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Resolution of Appreciation for John Hinzman
John served as a member of the community design review board for one year and eight
months, from March 28, 2005, to November 22, 2006.
Board member Ledvina moved to recommend that the city council adopt the resolution of
appreciation at the December 18, 2006, city council meeting.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Schurke, Shankar
The motion passed.
Board member Ledvina said he appreciated John's expertise and the opportunity to work with
John during his tenure on the CDRB. John will be greatly missed and the board encouraged
John to reapply in the near future because he was a great asset to the community. The other
board members echoed those comments.
Chairperson Olson said she would be available to sign the document that goes to the city
council when staff prepares it.
b. Community Pride Awards
Board member Schurke proposed that the Community Pride Award discussion be
tabled until the next CDRB meeting because Ms. Finwall was not present.
Board member Shankar said he preferred the award be called the Community Design
Award and the other board members agreed.
c. Representation at the December 18, 2006, city council meeting for Carmax
Board member Shankar volunteered to be the CDRB representative.
d. Cancel the CDRB meeting for Tuesday, December 26, 2006.
The board agreed to cancel the CDRB meeting of December 26, 2006.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.