Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/13/2007 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, March 13, 2007 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: January 9, 2007 and February 13, 2007 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Ramsey County Correctional Facility - 297 Century Avenue South b. Caribou Coffee - 1700 Rice Street (Crown Plaza Shopping Center) 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Resolution of Appreciation for Joel Schurke b. Community Design Review Board Orientation c. Annual Report d. Election of Chair and Vice Chair e. Community Pride Awards f. Representation at the March 26, 2007, City Council Meeting - Items to be Discussed Include Ramsey County Correctional Facility, Annual Report, and Resolution of Appreciation for Joel Schurke 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 13,2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Demko Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Board member Matt Wise Present (new board member) Present at 6:03 p.m. Present Absent Present (new board member) Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Staff Absent: Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Finwall requested discussion under staff presentations 9 g. McDonald's Restaurant on Minnehaha Avenue for a rooftop light beam request. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda, as amended. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes -Demko, Ledvina, Olson, Wise The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for Januarv 9, 2007. Board member Ledvina had a correction to the January 9, 2007, minutes on page 2, 4th paragraph, delete the last two words como from. Chairperson Olson had corrections to page 3, 6th paragraph, sixth sentence, add a comma after the word proposal, and on page 4, third paragraph, fourth line, the sentence should read In fact she would like staff to ask that three dimensional cad plans be submitted with the application. On page 5, yth paragraph, capitalize the words Board Member. On page 6, first sentence, separate the words incompliance to in_compliance. Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of January 9,2007, as amended. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson Abstentions - Demko, Wise Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 2 Approval of the CDRB minutes for Februarv 13. 2007. Chairperson Olson had corrections to the February 13, 2007, minutes on page 3, 2nd paragraph, after Chairperson Olson insert the words prior to Mr. Anondson arriving tonight. On page 11, 2nd paragraph, second line, after the word thought remove the word it- Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of February 13, 2007, as amended. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes --- Olson Abstentions - Demko, Ledvina, Wise Ms. Finwall said Board member Ananth Shankar is absent and we have two new board members here tonight who are unable to vote on the minutes. Typically we would have to table the approval of the minutes but in this case, staff would say it would be appropriate to move the approval of the minutes along due to an unusual situation. The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Ramsey County Correctional Facility - 297 Century Avenue South Ms. Finwall said Bruce Thompson, with Ramsey County's Property Management Office, is requesting approval of the expansion plans for the Ramsey County Correctional Facility. This proposal would consist of a 56,500-square-foot addition to the existing 130,837-square-foot facility. Board member Ledvina asked staff if the driveway would be closed off or is the request in addition to the current driveway? Ms. Finwall said when the new driveway is constructed during the reconstruction of Century Avenue they will be closing the north driveway. Board member Ledvina asked about the dumpster enclosure? Ms. Finwall said she was not the author of the staff report and was unaware there were concerns regarding the trash enclosure. She said in recommendation number 8. it states, Any trash that is kept outside shall be kept in the rear of the building and out of the public's sight or shall be kept in screened enclosures as code requires. She said perhaps the applicant could address that issue as well. Board member Ledvina said that would be fine. It says it's and/or kind of condition and if it is a code requirement, then we should state that in order that they provide proper screening. Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 3 Board member Wise said the staff recommendation on page 6, item 9. states The row of trees that are along the street frontage which are proposed to be extended northerly, shall be further extended across the driveway opening when the existing driveway is removed. One of the opposed citizen comments on page 7, under number 3. was a concern that the people that live on Oakwood Road will not be happy about the new driveway and at least the resident gets to look at trees when exiting the neighborhood. He asked if it's possible that the road configuration could be re-Iooked at by a civil engineer to address the view line concern because he read the recommendation to extend the row of trees across the driveway to protect the residential view to the facility. He said if the street lines up you would be opening up the full view to the correctional facility which mayor may not be approved by the residents once they realize what that would do. Ms. Finwall said the purpose for the new driveway is to align with the road located across the street in Woodbury called Oakridge. This would allow for better traffic movement. It's always a good idea to have roadways and driveways aligned for better traffic movements. Once you remove the area of trees they will be a full view of the facility as they are driving along a public road. But in this case the city finds that the public safety issue outweighs the screening issue. Board member Wise asked if it would be possible to curve the road to alleviate the concern of the Woodbury resident? Ms. Finwall said you would want it to intersect the driveway and road directly across the street from one another. Also it should be noted that its individuals driving in a car that will now view the building, not a house across the street. Board member Wise said at the top of page it states the city code doesn't regulate parking for correctional facilities. He asked how that analysis took place and what is adequate parking for a facility like this in light of the massive addition? Ms. Finwall said the city parking ordinance doesn't clearly address several uses. For example, we don't clearly address parking for senior housing so some work needs to be done on the parking ordinance, but for a correctional facility like this, the city staff depends on recommendations by the facility as far as the number of employees, number of visitors, and the fact that most of the people confined to this building aren't driving or if they do drive they park there for the weekend. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Bruce Thompson, Assistant Director of Property Management for Ramsey County, 660 Government Center West, 50 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, addressed the board. Mr. Thompson said AI Carlson, the Superintendent of the Ramsey County Correctional Facility is here to answer questions. An architect from BWBR Architects and a civil engineer from Louck's is here to answer design and civil questions. Regarding the roadway, the redesign of the entrance road isn't part of this project. That's part of the Ramsey County Public Works Century Avenue project. It's a joint project with Washington County and the City of Maplewood to redesign Century Avenue. One of the reasons Ramsey County Public Works is proposing to relocate the driveway is because Century Avenue will now be a divided highway. Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 4 Mr. Thompson said there will be a right-turn in and right-turn out only and that doesn't help the facility or the Woodbury residents on the other side. The reason they match up is so that traffic can go both directions. Chairperson Olson asked if the driveway would be part of this project now or is it going to be deferred until the roadway is improved? Mr. Thompson said the driveway will be deferred the Century Avenue project is scheduled for construction in 2009 and is currently in design right now. Chairperson Olson asked if it was correct that the road to the north will be closed and the internal road will be retained? Mr. Thompson said that road will be abandoned. The roadway on the west will be improved as part of this project for access to the back side of the facility. Our intent is to have most of the delivery vehicles come in on Lower Afton Road rather than Century Avenue. Regarding the landscaping, the Ramsey County Correctional Facility has a certified nursery on site. We are proposing to have all the trees, shrubs and grass will be supplied by the Ramsey Correctional Facility and staff. The one issue that we have is regarding the condition for 2Yz inch caliper trees. We typically have access to 1 Yz and 2 caliper inch trees so instead we would like to meet or exceed the total number of caliper inches by using additional trees and we hope that meets the board's approval. Chairperson Olson said Maplewood has a new tree preservation plan that calls for a substantially higher ratio of plantings than the previous plan. She asked staff if the tree preservation ordinance is in compliance with the current landscape plan? Ms. Finwall said the Ramsey County Correctional Facility is proposing to use 1Yz inch and 2 inch caliper trees which would require approximately 17 new trees. If they followed the current city landscape ordinance using 2Yz-inch caliper trees that would require planting only 10 trees. Mr. Thompson the county will plant as many trees as the city wants. The trees are readily accessible to us and we have the crew to maintain the trees and plants on the site. The only other issue we want to point out is we do not plan to have an irrigation system. The reason we don't have an irrigation system is because the work house crew will do all of the watering of the trees, shrubs and grasses. It's the kind of operation where we have the labor readily available so it makes more sense not to have a sprinkler system. We have no other issues with the staff recommendations. Board member Ledvina asked how the trash will be handled? Mr. Thompson asked to have AI Carlson answer that question. Mr. AI Carlson, Superintendent of Ramsey County Correctional Facility. He said the trash is located behind the building and it's screened from Century Avenue by the building itself and it's quite a distance off of Lower Afton Road. We believe we are in compliance with the trash ordinance because it is located behind the facility. Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 5 Chairperson Olson asked if the civil engineer could address the board regarding the issues of the roadway? Mr. Carlson said the roadway issues are part of the Ramsey County Public Works' project and not part of this project. The civil engineer here tonight can talk about the site plan with respect to the ponding and things like that but not necessarily regarding the roadways. Ms. Jessica Colin-Polarski, Civil Engineer for the project with Louck's Associates, addressed the board. She said there will be 47 parking spaces to the south. Improvements to the water quality will be accomplished with three rainwater gardens. Rainwater gardens are going to handle the new roof area for the building and the new parking and whatever other natural runoff it takes on. These rainwater gardens are being worked on under the City of Maplewood's direction and the Ramsey-Washington Watershed District. There will be a new water and sanitary sewer service to the new addition. The only new storm sewer will be constructed for the rainwater gardens. Chairperson Olson asked if the architect could talk about the building exterior and show any building material samples that you may have. Mr. Mark Litgatis, Project Manager with BWBR Architects, addressed the board. He reviewed the building material samples and explained the concept they are proposing to use on this project along with assistance from Mr. Craig Peterson, the Project Designer. Mr. Craig Peterson, Project Designer with BWBR Architects, addressed the board. The overall concept dealt with how to marry the two buildings together. With the expansion and the existing building we had to recognize the distinctions of the two buildings. The scale and overall size of the expansion is quite a bit larger than the existing building and that has a lot to do with height and modern mechanical systems that naturally grow with the building. The planning concepts within the building create a larger footprint as well relative to the existing structure. How to deal with the overall massing and scale of the two together was one design issue that we looked at. Also the window patterning and some of the architectural character of the existing building differs from the proposed expansion with window patterns as a response to a modern or contemporary thinking on the corrections building. Some of those fairly substantial differences lead us to utilize a material that is not a match in terms of the type of material but is one that we feel is appropriate for a building that is a different architectural precast. Some of the issues are durability but also the opportunities that the material afford in terms of dealing with the scale and mass of the building. The vertical joint pattern that you see is nicely compatible with the vertical window patterns on the new expansion. The architectural precast allows us to create some substantial deep reveal patterns, horizontal, across the exterior elevations. As staff described, the intent of the differing material is to capture the overall palate of the existing building and work with some of the darker and lighter tones of the brick. This is brought into the new expansion in a way that is compatible so the buildings relate but also utilize the color as a way to deal with the massing. He said as the building is capped with an architectural metal system it will allow the screening of the mechanical penthouse and add light. He said that is a summary of the design strategy for this building. With regard to the material, we have a couple of samples here to look at. He passed some samples around to the board members. Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 6 Chairperson Olson asked if they could discuss the types of security at the facility and the types of inmates that are housed there? Mr. Carlson said the Ramsey County Correctional Facility is classified as a minimumlmedium security facility. Minimum security means inmates can work "outside" the facility such as on the golf course, at the nursery, with the engineer staff, and with the grounds crew. Medium security inmates work inside the facility with the laundry, in the kitchen and maintaining the floors etc. The average stay at this facility is 39 days so even though inmates are classified as medium security they are usually released in a short period of time. The reason we don't allow the medium security inmates to work outside isn't because they are dangerous, it's because they may not return back to the building so we have a classification system which takes several factors into account. The facility is rated for 316 inmates and we have a variance for 48 additional inmates equaling 364 inmates. Last year we averaged 386 inmates so we are over our variance capacity for the year. Our highest inmate number was 460 last year. We also have 50 women at the Roseville VOA facility that are contracted there. The intent is to bring the 50 women back to the correctional facility when the building addition is completed. If you add 50 on top of the average daily population from last year we are up to 440 inmates so we will be well above our capacity. When the facility is done the capacity will be past 556 so it will give us a little bit of room for future growth. You don't want to operate at full capacity; you want to operate at about 90% which allows for fluctuations in the inmate population. It also allows us to classify inmates and separate them if there are issues that arise. Board member Ledvina said he thinks this is a nice plan and he is happy with the proposed addition. He would concur with the staff comments and their assessment of the building elevations. He thinks the slanted roof element is a nice feature to bring in natural light. There is a lot of function that is required with this building which dictates design. You don't necessarily want to match the brick that is on the building and this is a nice compliment to what exists. Overall he is very satisfied with the proposal and he thinks they will do a good job with the landscaping. They will lose some landscaping with the driveway relocation but that will be readily replaced and it will improve the traffic safety in and out of the facility as well as the Woodbury neighborhood to the east. Chairperson Olson said she is excited about the concept of the correctional facility doing their own landscaping and using their own resources. Board member Ledvina said he wants the applicant to resubmit landscaping plans to compensate for the smaller caliper of trees and that should be subject to staff approval. Board member Ledvina moved to adopt the plans date-stamped February 5, 2007, and the photometrics plan submitted at the March 13, 2007. communitv desiqn review board meetinq for the expansion of the Ramsey County Correctional Facility, located at 297 Century Avenue South. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following requirements: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, .the applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit for the proposed expansion. Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 7 3. The applicant shall remove the temporary office building as part of this facility expansion. 4. Before qettinq a buildinq permit, the applicant shall submit a revised photometrics plan showinq that all new freestandinq Iiqhts maintain a heiqht of 25 feet or less as measured from qround qrade to the top of the lumen. Sito lights sholl bo dosigne4-&e tho light sourco is not viciblo off site, sholl not couco ony gloro beyond the property lines ::md not exceed moximum light intensity requirements of the city ordinance. 5. Before qettinq a buildinq permit. the applicant shall submit a revised qradinq and drainaqe plan which addresses all issues as spelled out in the citv enqineerinq review dated Januarv 2, 2007. 6. The expansion to the south end of the parking lot shall be installed with the proposed building expansion. 7. The location of the future garages behind the building is approved. The applicant must submit the design of these buildings to the community design review board for approval before construction. 8. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing the caliper inches of the trees to be replaced. The plan must reflect that the total caliper inches of trees replaced equals 25 as required by city code. 9. Any trash that is kept outside shall be kept in the rear of the building out of the public's sight as required bv citv code. Or shall be kept in scro8flBd enclosures os coEle requires. 10. 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 city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. 11. When the Ramsev County Public Work's Department completes the relocation of the driveway, the row of trees and shrubs that are along the street frontage which ore proposed to be oxtended northerly, shall be further extended across the driveway opening when the existing driveway is removed. 12. All work shall follow the approved plans. Staff may approve minor changes. Board member Wise seconded. Ayes - Demko, Ledvina, Olson, Wise The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on March 26, 2007. Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 8 b. Caribou Coffee -1700 Rice Street (Crown Plaza Shopping Center) Ms. Finwall said Anxon, Inc., has purchased the Crown Plaza Shopping Center at 1700 Rice Street. Anxon, representing Caribou Coffee, proposes to construct a freestanding Caribou Coffee building in front of the shopping center, adjacent Rice Street. The building will be 1,861 square feet in area and will include a drive-through window. Board member Ledvina said he noted on the sign plan that the applicant submitted a maximum clearance type of arm and he isn't sure it's actually needed and he asked staff to comment on that. Ms. Finwall said Board member Ledvina is referring to the clearance arm which traffic would go under prior to entering the drive-thru and staff assumes that is in regard to the canopy on the side elevation. Perhaps the applicant could address that further when they come forward to speak. Board member Wise said regarding the drive aisle, in terms of cars stacking, he noticed there is parking designated on the north end of the site and he wanted to know what the stacking would be back to the last parking stall in the event that someone parks there and is unable to get out. Ms. Finwall said she would request that the applicant address that. As to the possible stacking along the area ensuring these vehicles can exit and perhaps it could be signed as employee parking or something. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Bill Dillion, Project Representative from Anxon, Inc., addressed the board. We also have Jeff Johnson here from Caribou Coffee to answer questions. We apologize for the lack of communication. We have a couple of sign corrections as far as locations and if you have any questions we would be happy to answer them. Chairperson Olson asked if Mr. Dillon could address the items that have already been brought up such as the overhead sign, the stacking of the parking, and the issue of only having two exterior signs mounted on the building as opposed to the three signs you have proposed? Mr. Dillon said the stacking issue and parking space is a good catch, obviously we are attempting to maximize the parking and the intention is for employees to park in those parking spots and it's possible we could sign it that way. Regarding the three signs, we have signs planned for the south and the west, Caribou Coffee would prefer to have an additional sign on the east, staff has recommended two signs and in order not to proceed with this project we will abide by that. If there is an opening for a possible third sign we would like to discuss that. Mr. Dillon turned the next question over to Jeff Johnson with Caribou Coffee to answer. Mr. Jeff Johnson, Caribou Coffee, addressed the board. He said regarding the sign clearance arm on the west elevation that is needed to protect the standing seam awning from vehicles hitting the awning. Similar to a fast food drive-thru establishment that clearance arm is needed for both drive-thru pick up windows to protect the customers while they reach out the window to get their order at Caribou Coffee. Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 9 Mr. Johnson said with this standing seam awning, which is a nice decorative element, we want to make sure it gets protected. Regarding the stacking issue, we have a number of Caribou Coffee locations configured this way. Typically the average wait for a beverage in the drive- thru is 2 minutes. 80% of our business is done before 11 :00 a.m. which is a non-competing time for other uses in the center. At this particular shopping center there aren't that many businesses open at that time of day. If there was an issue, an employee parking sign would be an option or we have had a temporary parking sign or a 15 minute parking only sign posted. There are a number of ways we could sign that area if required. Tonight we submitted revised north elevation plans showing the trash enclosure location as well as carrying the decorative stone wainscot around the back to try to meet staff's recommendations. The other elevation depicts the building materials used for the trash enclosure and the intent to meet the 100% opaque requirement and trash enclosure size requirements in order to meet the code. Chairperson Olson said she saw a retaining wall on the plans and she asked if there is an existing retaining wall or would you be constructing that on the north side of the site? Mr. Johnson said that is an existing retaining wall on the bank property. Board member Ledvina said the ships ladder on the north elevation seems to be a non- standard design to access the roof and he wondered if that could be eliminated. He feels that negatively impacts the elevation with the break and the parapet wall. He hasn't seen a ships ladder on the side of a building in many years and roof access is normally gained internally and he would like to see that design element eliminated. Mr. Johnson said the removal of the ships ladder is addressed on the revised elevations but the architect has not removed the break in the parapet wall. We do have ships ladders at a number of Caribou Coffee locations, one of which is the new Caribou Coffee location on White Bear Avenue at the old Hardee'sIFazoli's building. Chairperson Olson said that's a good catch by Board member Ledvina because she is concerned the ships ladder could be a security issue for Caribou Coffee in this location on Rice Street. She asked the applicant if they had any samples of the building materials to show the board? Mr. Johnson handed building material samples to the board to pass around. Chairperson Olson asked if they had any comments on the landscaping? Mr. Dillon said they plan to comply with the landscaping recommendations. Board member Ledvina said he thinks this is a nice building, it has high quality materials, it's a small building and the design is nicely integrated, he likes the pitched roof element, he thinks the concept of bringing the building out to Rice Street is good and allows a pedestrian friendly feel on Rice Street. His biggest concern was the north elevation but because of the improvements we have discussed tonight he doesn't have anymore concerns. Chairperson Olson asked staff if there was a sidewalk along this area of Rice Street and if not are we recommending one be installed? Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 10 Ms. Finwall said there isn't a sidewalk in this location and we are recommending a sidewalk in condition 2. b. (Alan provided a revised sidewalk plan to staff during the discussion.) Chairperson Olson asked if there was a MTC bus stop here? Ms. Finwall said a bus runs along Larpenteur Avenue. Chairperson Olson said that was why she asked about the sidewalk, she was thinking of the potential pedestrian access but she is glad to see the sidewalk has been added. Board member Ledvina asked if staff had reviewed the revised plan? Ms. Finwall nodded no. Board member Ledvina said then we should reference that in the recommendation tonight. Chairperson Olson asked if the other freestanding buildings in this area have two signs? Ms. Finwall said city code would require two signs per street frontage if it were a freestanding building. Chairperson Olson said she was thinking of the Burger King in this location. Board member Ledvina said Burger King is on a corner which allows them more signage. Caribou Coffee is not on a corner. Chairperson Olson said she would personally not be opposed to having a sign on the north side but she deferred that to the other board members. Board member Ledvina said it isn't unreasonable to ask for that but that is a code consideration and if you are at that location already you know you are at Caribou getting coffee so he doesn't see the need for it. Board member Wise said the third sign would not be on the north side, it would be on the east side, which faces the center. You are going to access the site right away and you would be in the parking lot already so he doesn't see the need for the third sign. This is a good plan with a sharp looking building. Even though the wait in the drive-thru is only 2 minutes, people could be in a rush to get in and out and showing some sort of "Employee Only Parking" sign would be a good idea. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped January 19, 2007, aRt! the photometrics plan date-stamped February 9, 2007, and the revised north elevation and civil enqineerinq plans submitted at the March 13,2007. community desiqn review board meetinq for the Caribou Coffee development within the Crown Plaza Shopping Center at 1700 Rice Street and the Tenant Sign Criteria date-stamped February 28, 2007, for a comprehensive sign plan amendment for the Crown Plaza Shopping Center. Approval is based on the findings as specified in Section 2-290(b) (1)(2)(3) of the city code (community design review board ordinance) and is subject to the applicant doing the following: Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 11 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 or building permit, the applicant shall submit to staff for approval the following items: a. A revised grading and drainage plan which complies with the city's engineering review dated March 5, 2007. In addition, the grading and drainage plan must reflect a 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the entire Rice Street property line. The sidewalk grade should be generally above the back of curb grade along Rice Street and shall not exceed a 2% cross slope. There should be a minimum 4-foot wide boulevard (max 4:1 slope) between the back of curb and west edge of walk and a minimum 1-foot wide flat bench (max 4%) off the eastern edge of walk (property side). b. A revised site plan which shows a six-foot-wide sidewalk along the entire Rice Street property line. c. Revised elevations showing the following: 1) East, west and north elevation showing the proposed dumpster enclosure. The dumpster enclosure must be designed to screen all trash and recycling dumpsters on the site, be 100 percent opaque, be at least 6 feet in height with a closeable gate, and be constructed of materials which are compatible to the building. 2) North elevation showing additional design features as presented at the March 13. 2007. community desiqn review board meetinq and the elimination of the ships ladder and closinq the qap in the parapet wall. Elomontc to motch tho othor throo olovotions including tho oddition of ~osciblo, oddition of ctono, or tho oddition of weedon posts. d. Revised landscape plan which shows the installation of underground irrigation for all new landscaped proposed with the Caribou Coffee development. e. Comprehensive sign plan for the Crown Plaza Shopping Center is approved as follows: 1.) For consistency, all wall signs for the Crown Plaza tenants shall be individually-illuminated letters. Sign height shall not exceed 36 inches. Signs shall not extend closer than 36 inches to the sides of the tenant's store front. These signs shall be placed on the designated sign band. 2) Sign age for the two automotive buildings shall comply with the same size and spacing criteria as noted in condition one. 3) Burger King signage shall comply with code (two signs for each street frontage ). Community Design Review Board 12 Minutes 03-13-2007 4) Signs are not allowed on the awnings. 5) Shopping center wall signs are allowed above the store tenant space on the north (above the windows), west and south elevations only. 6) Wall signs for the automotive building are allowed on the west side of the buildings only. 7) Two freestanding signs are allowed for the Crown Plaza Shopping Center. The freestanding sign on the interior of the parking lot is allowed at 336 square feet in area, 39 feet in height. The sign on the southwest corner is allowed at 144 square feet in area, 24 feet in height. 8) Wall signs for the Walgreen's retail store and pharmacy located on the south side of the Crown Plaza Shopping Center is limited to the center of the smooth faced manufactured limestone facades on the west and south elevations. Wall signs to meet Crown Plaza tenant sign criteria as described above. 9) Signs for the Caribou Coffee located along Rice Street on the west side of Crown Plaza Shopping Center is limited to two wall signs which must meet Crown Plaza tenant sign criteria as described above; one menu board sign which is 8-feet high and 28 square feet in area; and three dimensional signs which are 4.5 feet high and 4 square feet in area. The applicant must submit a revised tenant sign criteria which reflects these requirements. f. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required landscaping. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. The applicant or owner shall complete the following before certificate of occupancy is issued for the Caribou Coffee building: a. Complete the parking lot improvements. b. Complete the lighting improvements. c. Install all required landscaping and underground irrigation. d. Construct the required dumpster enclosure. e. Construct the 6-foot-wide sidewalk along the entire Rice Street property line. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow a certificate of occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 13 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. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. Siqn the three parkinq stalls located on the northwest corner of the site. adiacent the north entrance to the drive-thru. as emplovee parkinq on Iv. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Demko, Ledvina, Olson, Wise The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Chairperson Olson said we have two new board members and she asked Matt Wise and John Demko to give an introduction to the board. Matt Wise said he comes to the CDRB by way of the Target Corporation working in real estate. His background is in law and he has been with the Target Corporation for 4 years. The interest to serve on the CDRB comes via Mayor Diana Longrie who also has a law background and had worked for the Target Corporation in the real estate field. He has lived in Maplewood for four years and has made a number of observations regarding design and sign age while living here and because his wife and friends pushed him he decided it was time to lend some of his expertise and volunteer to serve on the CDRB. He said he looks forward to serving on the community design review board. John Demko said he has been a Maplewood resident for 14 years. After noticing some of the building designs in Maplewood, instead of complaining about things he decided to apply to volunteer and try to make some improvements so he hopes to be a good addition to the CDRB and make some changes. He works for Collins Electric in St. Paul in the construction field and is looking forward to working with the community design review board. Chairperson Olson presented them with their own engineering ruler. She said the board welcomes you both to the community design review board. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Resolution of Appreciation for.Joel Schurke Ms. Finwall said Joel Schurke served as a board member on the community design review board for one year, from February 13, 2006, until February 13, 2007. Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 14 Staff requests that the community design review board members recommend that the city council adopt this resolution of appreciation at the March 26, 2007, city council meeting. Board member Ledvina moved to recommend the resolution of appreciation for Joel Schurke at the March 26, 2007, city council. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Demko, Ledvina, Olson, Wise The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on March 26, 2007. The board members said they appreciated Joel Schurke while he served on the CDRB and he will be missed. b. Community Design Review Board Orientation Ms. Finwall said on February 12, and February 26,2007, the city council appointed Matt Wise and John Demko. Mr. Wise replaced John Hinzman and his term will expire January 1, 2008, and Mr. Demko will replace Joel Schurke and his term expires January 1, 2009. The city council reappointed Matthew Ledvina and Linda Olson to the CDRB for another two year term expiring January 1, 2009. Staff has attached new CDRB membership orientation materials which are intended to outline the objectives, review process, responsibilities, and scope of authority of the CDRB. The information will be helpful in assisting new Board members Matt Wise and John Demko with their new responsibilities as well as serve as an update to existing board members. Ms. Finwall went over the packet of orientation materials with the board aloud. Chairperson Olson said she would like to bring up for a topic of discussion regarding the starting time for the CDRB meetings. The other city meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. and she was wondering if as a board we should discuss starting the CDRB meetings at 7:00 p.m. to coincide with the start times of the other groups. Ms. Finwall said she would add that on the next CDRB aqenda. c. Annual Report Ms. Finwall said the city's community design review board ordinance requires that the CDRB submit a report to the city council once a year. The report is intended to outline the CDRB's actions and activities during the preceding year. Also, the report may include recommended changes, including, but not limited to, ordinance andlor procedure changes. Board member Ledvina and Chairperson Olson felt the board accomplished a lot last year. Board member Ledvina moved to recommend the 2006 CDRB annual report to the city council. Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 15 Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson Abstentions - Demko, Wise The motion passed. This item goes to the council on March 26, 2007. d. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Ms. Finwall said the city code requires that the community design review board elect a chairperson and vice chairperson the beginning of every year. The 2006 chairperson was Linda Olson and the vice-chairperson was Matt Ledvina. Chairperson Olson said she felt the election of chair and vice chair should've been done in January and not the third week in March. Board member Ledvina agreed with that comment. The board decided to go ahead with the nominations despite Board member Shankar's absence. Board member Ledvina nominated Linda Olson as Chairperson on the CDRB. Board member Wise seconded. Ayes - Demko, Ledvina, Wise Abstention - Olson Linda Olson accepted the nomination. Chairperson Olson nominated Matt Ledvina to Vice-chairperson on the CDRB. Board member Demko seconded. Ayes - Demko, Olson, Wise Abstention - Ledvina The motion passed. e. Community Pride Awards Ms. Finwall said former Board member Joel Schurke had requested that staff research Little Canada's Community Pride Awards for possible implementation in the City of Maplewood, particularly in relation to design awards for new or modified commercial and multi-family buildings. Staff has included attachments and information relation to community pride and design awards. These award programs represent good background information for a similar type of design award program in the City of Maplewood. Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 16 Ms. Finwall said if the CDRB is interested in implementing such a program it would be beneficial to include this information in the board's annual report to the city council. If adopted by the city council, the board can then design criteria for the program. Board member Ledvina said he is reluctant to implement something like this. There are a lot of other opportunities for these types of recognitions through Smart Design awards, the AlA, and through Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, etc. He wondered what the staff resources would be to implement a program like this. The city is really taxed with this scenario. He likes the idea but wondered if there other organizations that are covering this and are there other outlets or ways these projects can be recognized? His biggest concern is staff resources and staff's time to implement this. Chairperson Olson said it should be as simple as possible and it should be related to the city limits. Her concept would be for a plaque or certificate and it could be mailed to the address to post in the lobby if they wanted to. There could be some recognition during the annual city tour to tell the group why the recognition was awarded. Board member Ledvina said he thinks we do a good job of recognizing internally to the city when we do tours what the really good designs are so he doesn't think that's lost but we work to promote and hold those designs up to other developers and the applicants showing this is a model situation. You want to promote positive feedback but his concern is that it's a duplication of something already being done. Chairperson Olson asked how much of the city resources in terms of staff energy and research would be available for this. Do you think this information could be easily picked out in the CDRB annual report or put in the city newsletter as a recommendation? The whole thing is that it circles back to staff resources and staff time? Ms. Finwall said staff would envision this award with a large spectrum of possibilities. At a minimum in Hastings, their board makes a recommendation of 5 possible award winners and then votes on them. The winning designs would be awarded with a plaque or certificate and a notice would go in the city newsletter and also mentioned at a city council meeting. Ms. Finwall said if we wanted to take it further we could go to the site and research the building materials. Basically it depends on the level of the program the CDRB is interested in. Board member Wise said he agrees with Board member Ledvina's comments. For example, the Smart Growth Award, you've got the US Green Building Council that you can get lead certification for and you can get those design recognitions through 1000 Friends of Minnesota. Would we be duplicating similar efforts? He recalled Maplewood is hiring a Code Enforcement Officer, would this be part of their job responsibilities? If Maplewood were to model after Little Canada and the maintenance of these sites, Maplewood could utilize Little Canada as a resource if this was something Maplewood was going to do. He is concerned city resources are being utilized for something like this. It's great from the standpoint of working for a major retailer like Target to get these certifications and be a member of the community but how do you balance that? There are programs in place that have demonstrated that they work and Maplewood would be trying to model ourselves after that. He isn't sure how enthusiastic someone like Caribou Coffee would be who says their building was designed to Maplewood's standards when it's already designed to AlA certifications. Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 17 Board member Ledvina said if we are going to do a program like this we should do it right and really not just take a bunch of designs that one person likes. It should be a bigger community who defines what represents a good project that should be nominated to win an award. He is uncomfortable if given the responsibility to come up with the best designs and then opening up to what his criteria might be. A lot of it is subjective and it's kind of difficult to get your arms around it and he wondered how we would evaluate each of the projects in the city. If Maplewood does do this, we need to do it right and we would need to be able to answer the question why we selected this project over another project. Chairperson Olson said she would recommend citizens within the city via the city newsletter and via the website and any other potential outreach method that may be practical. Secondly, it appears to her looking at this list on the surface that the Smart Growth Design Awards might be for the planning commission and the American Institute of Architects (AlA) may be in the CDRB's purview. The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Landscape Ecology Awards Program may fit into the new Environmental Committee's purview. The Historical Preservation Award may be under the Historical Commission purview. So it seems like this could be broken down into the various committees that already exist. Each board member would be asked to come up with 3 examples they really like. As far as the criteria goes, that could get sticky and she doesn't have any good ideas at the moment other than we would follow our existing design standards. Some of it may be subjective but if 25 people in the community like a particular design that should get the CDRB's attention but she doesn't think we should be reviewing all of these issues. This applies to the entire State and the focus of this should be for the City of Maplewood, as diverse as it is, as spread out as it is, and as unmanageable as it is, we should be focusing on our own backyard and it should be the focus of this program. We could look at the criteria that's looked at for these other award programs but those mayor may not be awarded anything in the City of Maplewood. Maybe we don't want to do everything, maybe we could do a scaled down version of this. Ms. Finwall said these items were included just for your information to show the various award programs and how they function. If the CDRB is interested in this staff would be happy to do more research to determine the amount of staff time associated with these programs. Particularly with the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed program and the Hastings Historic Preservation programs, these are similar types of programs and maybe look into the city's CDRB's ordinance and grab a hold of some criteria from the ordinance or the intent that we could look at as far as making those nominations and further discuss this when board member Shankar is available. Staff understands the concerns that have been raised. As a staff member it is difficult to do everything that is best for the city. This would be a very good program in that it would shed light on the work that the CDRB does and some of the buildings the CDRB has approved so with that it could be some good news both for the city website and in the city newspaper. Staff will do more research and bring that back. f. Representation at the March 26, 2007, city council meeting - Items to discuss include the Ramsey County Correctional Facility, 2006 CDRB Annual Report, and Resolution of Appreciation for Joel Schurke. Chairperson Olson volunteered to be the CDRB representative at the March 26, 2007, meeting. Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 18 g. The rooftop light beam request for McDonald's on Minnehaha Avenue Ms. Finwall said McDonald's located on Minnehaha Avenue and Century Avenue has requested that the city approve the installation of rooftop light beams on the restaurant. These light beams are florescent lamps that are installed directly on the mansard roof and are covered with white or yellow plastic caps. (Staff showed the CDRB photos of the McDonald's on Cope Avenue during the day and night). Apparently the McDonald's on Cope Avenue installed these light beams on the rooftop without the city's knowledge about 1 year ago. With the request for the lights for the McDonald's on Minnehaha Avenue that's how the situation was brought to staffs attention. This type of exterior improvement would be considered a minor building project request and would be under $200,000. City staff would put together a staff report and submit it to the CDRB and to the City Council. Due to some concerns with Ashley Furniture's neon lighting on their building exterior last year, city staff didn't feel comfortable approving the rooftop lights at McDonald's on Minnehaha Avenue administratively so staff wanted to bring it to the board's attention to get some direction. One purposes of the city's lighting ordinance is to eliminate problems with light glare, reduce up light and prevent over lighting of a site which is particularly important when a commercial property is adjacent residential. Ms. Finwall said Mr. Henry made this rooftop light beam request and he brought this to city staff's attention that the Cope Avenue McDonald's already had these light beams on their building. Staff went to the Cope Avenue McDonald's and found that those rooftop lights produce a lot of light glare and staff didn't feel they were appropriate on that building. For this reason staff is concerned about approving Mr. Henry's request administratively. Does the CDRB feel staff should review these light beam request administratively through the minor building project review? Or does the board feel the CDRB would like to formally review this proposal? Lastly, what additional information should be submitted to process the request? Staff thought they should submit a photometrics plan as well. Chairperson Olson said she thinks this request should be part of the CDRB's review. She would rather not have building lights approved administratively because that is a design element and it would affect the neighborhood. She likes that McDonald's is going back to the French fry design but she doesn't like the lights on the rooftop. She would like to see the existing light beam lights at the Cope Avenue McDonald's turned off and she would deny the request for the lights at the Minnehaha Avenue McDonald's. If this were presented to be added to a building around the Maplewood Mall area she would absolutely deny the request because we don't need to see these types of lights here or anymore light glare around the mall. She deferred comments to the other board members. Board member Wise said he would agree with Chairperson's Olson's analysis. Given the fact that this Minnehaha Avenue McDonald's is close to residential based on the light pollution that is coming off the photo of the Cope Avenue McDonald's in the evening wouldn't make him happy to have to live next that as a resident. He would bet after a photometrics plan is done it will prove there will be light glare onto the neighboring properties and that these lights are an unnecessary design element assuming that there is adequate lighting on site for security based on previous design approval of the site. He would say to deny this request. Board member Demko asked if the McDonald's on Cope Avenue had the lights on the rooftops approved or were the lights installed without approval? Community Design Review Board Minutes 03-13-2007 19 Ms. Finwall said the lighting was installed after the building plans for an addition were approved by the city and they also did a double drive-thru lane. However, the lights were installed without the proper city approval and were not reflected in the plans that were approved. So the lights were not formally approved and unfortunately staff does not drive by that area in the evening and didn't know that the lights had been installed. Board member Demko asked if there had been any complaints from residents close to the Cope Avenue McDonald's regarding the lights? Ms. Finwall said no but keep in mind that the McDonald's on Cope Avenue is commercial in nature and not that close to residential homes. Chairperson Olson said the lights aren't as offensive as they would be closer to residential but it would be important to maintain a consistent policy regarding these lights and she doesn't see a need to install these types of lights at this McDonald's on the corner of Minnehaha Avenue. Board member Ledvina said it's paramount to protect our residential neighborhoods. The city has lighting standards and he believes McDonald's should be required to have a photometrics plan to achieve the criteria needed as it relates to light glare. He said he takes a softer approach to this as "accent" lighting. If these lights were toned down he may not be that concerned if it were in a commercial area but we need to go through the proper process when things affect neighboring residential areas that "could" be impacted. Ms. Finwall said staff will relay the board's comments to the applicant at McDonald's on Minnehaha Avenue and if they want to proceed with the light request staff will require that McDonald's proceed with the formal request with the city and staff will bring this back to the CDRB and staff will also address the existing lights on the rooftop of the Cope Avenue McDonald's. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m.