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.