Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/08/2007 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, May 8, 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: March 13, 2007 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Corner Kick Soccer Center - 1357 Cope Avenue b. Costco - North of Beam, South of New County Road D, West of Highway 61, East of Vento Trail 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Questions for Future Community Design Review Board Applicants b. Community Design Review Board Meeting Times c. May 22, 2007, Joint Meeting with the Community Design Review Board and the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission - Gladstone Streetscaping d. June 5, 2007, Sustainable Building Presentation e. Representation at the June 11, 2007, City Council Meeting - Items to be discussed include Corner Kick Soccer Center and Costco 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p,m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Demko Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Board member Matt Wise Absent Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Ledvina requested a staff update regarding the Clear Channel Outdoor LED Television Billboard under Board Presentations. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as amended. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Wise The motion passed, IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for March 13, 2007, Board member Ledvina had a correction to page 6, 3rd paragraph, last word in the paragraph, change West to East. Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of March 13,2007, as amended. Board member Wise seconded. Ayes m Ledvina, Olson, Wise Abstention - Shankar The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 2 VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Corner Kick Soccer Center - 1357 Cope Avenue Ms, Finwall said Mr, Ryan Manning, representing Corner Kick Soccer Center, is proposing an expansion and several changes for the soccer center at 1357 Cope Avenue, The proposal is for a soccer expansion including a regulation-sized soccer field and other interior improvements, 12,000 square feet of retail space and the addition of 83 off-street parking spaces to the site (including 27 underground parking spaces). They are proposing to use a variety of materials and colors with this project to make it attractive and compatible with the existing building. The proposed materials include rock-faced block, EIFS, prefinished metal siding and roofing and face brick columns and accents. As proposed, the colors would include tan dryvit or stucco, beige metal wall panels, two brown colors of rock-faced block, a dark red face brick and black store fronts and metal roof sections. Staff agrees that the proposed building additions would be generally attractive and would be compatible with the design and materials of the existing soccer center. However, it also is important to note that the west and north sides of the building will be very visible from English Street and from Highway 36, As such, the design of these elevations and their view from the public streets is critical. Staff is recommending that the project architect add more features and details to these elevations to help give these elevations more character and to break up the large wall areas, Such changes could be, but should not be limited to, adding windows or skylights (as shown on the south wall), vertical columns of brick or rock-faced block, additional horizontal banding and the planting of more or taller trees in the landscaping, The building elevations in the project plans show the painting of the concrete block on the existing building to match the rock face block on the building addition. The city will want to ensure that the wall panels and the concrete block on the existing building are in good repair and that they will match the building addition after the completion of the project. The applicant should revise the landscape plan to add plantings in the ponding area so it would be consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards. The plans should provide details on the sizes and types of shrubs that are proposed for the areas near the building and shall show the spruce and pine trees at least 8 feet tall at the time of planting (not 2'12 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped) as noted on the landscape plan, In addition to the above, the city code requires all landscape areas to have underground irrigation, and turf areas should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). Board member Ledvina asked if the planning commission discussed the potential concerns of this proposal and the future reconstruction of English Street and Highway 36? Ms. Finwall said yes that was discussed at length at the planning commission meeting May 1, 2007. Board member Ledvina said he wanted to make sure that was discussed at length so the board doesn't need to discuss it. He said he is concerned about the amount of impervious surface on this site and he asked if there was an impervious standard with the engineering department and if this had been reviewed by the Ramsey Washington Watershed District and what the status may be? Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 o J Ms. Finwall said this isn't located within the shoreland overlay district so city code doesn't specify a maximum impervious surface area. She referred the question about the watershed district to the applicant. Board member Shankar said it appears the site is either building or parking lot, he asked if there was requirement for green space for this site? Ms, Finwall said perhaps the applicant can give an estimate of green space on the site. There has been green space provided in the building and parking lot setback areas and the additional green space where the water retention pond will be located. Board member Wise said he noticed in the staff report that there was a suggestion for additional window features and he asked if staff considered the impact that would have on the neighbors in terms of the light that would be omitted? Ms. Finwall said staff requested additional window treatments but those would be facing Highway 36 and would not affect the neighbors to the south. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board, Ryan Manning, owner, Corner Kick Soccer Center at 1357 Cope Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the board. Mike Hoefler, Architect, Archnet, 12455 - 55th Street, Suite A, Lake Elmo, addressed the board. He said they reviewed the recommendations and have agreed to the terms that have been outlined in the staff report. Ken Roberts called us and stated he wanted them to review the English Street elevation as well as the Highway 36 elevation, which they have done. They brought drawings for the board to see this evening, The height of the building from English Street and Cope Avenue is about 20 to 22 feet high from the front of the building to grade. The elevation at the Highway 36 side is 35 feet tall to the eave so that is the difference between the two, The peak of the roof is 55 feet off the soccer floor which is based off the grade of the Highway 36 side. There was a traffic study done by SEH and that information was provided to the planning commission. It was determined that traffic would increase but it would not be a negative impact on the area. The review by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District is underway with the civil plans for the drainage and utilities. He said they have a sample materials board for the board to review and they appreciate the board's time and look forward to an exciting project. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to go through the materials for the board, (Mr. Hoefler described the building materials away from the microphone and camera). Chairperson Olson asked Mr, Manning if he was sure he had addressed the future parking overflow situation and that this plan would appease the neighbors based on the plans presented with this proposal? Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 4 Mr, Manning said yes, we will try to limit the mass entrance and exits to the site. We have three soccer fields, a store, and training facilities, in essence we are just adding one very large soccer field. It doesn't change the number of kids that will be playing per team. Commissioner Ledvina said he read the comments from the residents that live off Ide Court who are concerned about the aesthetics of this building and what they would see. He wasn't sure if the residents from Ide Court could even see the center, Those residents are almost a half a mile away from this site. Mr. Manning said he wasn't aware of any comments. Mr. Hoefler said there were a few comments from one resident regarding the lights shining into her home from the parking lot but that was all he was aware of, Some comments staff had included in the staff report from residents living on Ide Court were: 1. We already get music in our home from there in the summer and the lights are a concem, 2. Who will take care of the landscaping? The current state of the exterior and the land is poor, We wondered if they were going out of business, Will the new parking lot be rented out to semi and moving trucks to park too? 3. Concerns about the traffic being backed up on Cope Avenue and Highway 36, 4. Concerns about the trail crossing near their building for kids on bikes, older people and people walking dogs. Chairperson Olson asked if they had any comments regarding the landscaping in the staff recommendations? Mr. Hoefler said they can add pine trees to the site but as it is he thinks they are basically starting their own nursery with this project with the staff requirement to have 165 trees on the site. Nursery staff laughed at him when he went to get quotes for the number of trees that they are required to replace on the site with the landscaping plan. They could shift trees around but he said they are running out of space on the site other than to plant trees along the north edge. In fact they actually had a hard time spacing the trees on the site because there were so many trees required. Chairperson Olson asked if they had any concerns with the recommendations in the staff report? Mr. Hoefler said they reviewed the staff report and agree with the conditions and look forward to an exciting project and they want to be a good neighbor and will do a great job on this project. Chairperson Olson said she likes the idea of the Cal Wall and she isn't worried about the light being omitted to the west. This project will be a nice enhancement to the area. She thinks there are too many trees on this site and the landscaping plan looks too crowded, Ms. Finwall said the applicant was required to replace quite a few trees and it appears that much of the setback area is full of trees, There is room to shift trees to the north side of the site along Highway 36. Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 5 Chairperson Olson asked staff if they preferred trees be added to the site or would it be okay for them to shift trees that are already on the landscaping plan to the north side around the pond? Ms. Finwall said the board could recommend some of the trees on the landscaping plan be shifted to the north side. Chairperson Olson asked about the retention pond, the grading and if the soils had been surveyed yet? She asked if the soils in the area can absorb the runoff from this roof and from the site without causing damage? She asked if this is a decorative pond on the north side? Ms, Finwall said she would have to refer to Michael Thompson's engineering report in the staff report which states they shall show the pond overflow location, it should reflect a 10-foot safety shelf at i-foot below the normal water elevation. The drainage structure just upstream of the pond must have a minimum 3-foot sump in order to collect sediment and other pollutants. Board member Ledvina said the regional storm water flow is from the area and drains north under Highway 36 via a 24-inch culvert, so there is flow from that site, It will be treated by the pond but it will not be infiltrated in that location. Chairperson Olson asked if staff was looking for the materials that would be used on the retaining wall? Ms, Finwall said staff was referring to the engineering department's review of the grading plans, The plan points to where the retaining wall would be located in the center of the parking lot near the drive aisle, engineering requested a guard rail fence to be required on top of the wall on the north side of the retail parking ramp. The city also may require a fence at the top of the retaining wall to be determined by the building department due to the height of the retaining wall, and that a permit is needed for a retaining wall over four feet in height and a licensed professional shall design such walls. So far the applicants have not specified the material to be used for the retaining wall if that is a concern of the board, Board member Ledvina said the board could request the applicant submit the retaining wall material subject to staff approval. Chairperson Olson said that would be appropriate. She said she was very grateful to see the perspective elevations; it was much easier to understand the plan showing the extensions and the jet outs, particularly over your windows. She knows that's an extra effort on the applicant's part and she thanked them for the additional effort put forth, Board member Shankar asked what the dark vertical lines were and what they represent as shown on the elevation. Mr, Hoefler said those four dark vertical lines represent downspouts. Board member Shankar asked why the downspouts weren't the same dimension from the brick pilasters in all four bays? Mr. Hoefler said they can be. Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 6 Board member Shankar asked why the downspouts weren't dividing the Cal Wall and the metal panel at that location? Mr. Hoefler said the downspouts will be in the middle of the piers. Board member Ledvina asked if that meant the downspouts wouldn't be seen? Mr. Hoefler said they will be pocketed and flush with the block, Board member Shankar asked why the architect chose to use EIFS on the south side but the applicant still wants to use the metal panel on the west and north side? Mr. Hoefler said they have proposed the elevations to match the existing facility, They are not reclading the existing soccer field facility, 90% of the south elevation is covered with the new elevation, Board member Wise asked for clarification regarding the signage. He asked if the applicant only had one tenant, how many signs would they be allowed? Ms. Finwall said the city code requires a multi-tenant with five or more tenants to have a comprehensive sign plan which would be approved by the CDRB. Board member Wise asked if the applicant only had one shop would the signage go through staff for approval and how many signs is Corner Kick entitled to? Ms. Finwall said this is located in the M-1 light manufacturing zoning district so within that zoning district they would be allowed signage based on the largest wall surface area according to the sign code. If they had under five tenants they would be required to meet city code and obtain permits for approval from staff, Board member Wise said he is concerned about the comments made by the residents on Ide Court and their visibility of Corner Kick. He is also concerned about the signage on the building. He said he lives near Super America and is aware of the impact their backlit signs have on the neighborhood. He didn't think the new trees would block the lit signage. Mr. Hoefler said at this time there aren't any tenants, however, he said they would comply with the sign ordinance and at that time, they would bring in the sign drawings and apply for permits for approval from the city. Ms. Finwall said the Corner Kick expansion requires a CUP because it's located within 350 feet of residential property. While it's not the CDRB's responsibility to make conditions on the CUP, it's certainly something that staff could look at as far as the CUP, adding a condition that all signage shall come back to the CDRB regardless of the number of tenants. Chairperson Olson and Board member Wise said they would support that idea. Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 7 Board member Ledvina said he thinks the south elevation will work well and it is compatible to the surrounding land uses. He thinks the west elevation is very nice with the changes the applicant has made, but he is still very concerned about how the added building height is going to look on the north elevation. When you are going to have a building with a 55 foot vertical impact, it's a concern. He understands that is the lower part of the site, relative to Highway 36 and there will be a lot of plantings, He likes the design concept but looking at this from the north this is really a large building, Board member Shankar said the applicant said they are using the metal panels because there are metal panels on the existing building, but he is not convinced that is the right thing to do. He thinks that all the metal panel on the north elevation is doing is accentuating the verticality of the building and make it look like it really is 55 feet tall and he is concerned about the transition between metal panel and the Cal Wall. He feels the EIFS on the south side that the applicant has proposed would be more appropriate on the north and west side. Especially when you put it along side a Cal Wall translucent panel. He proposes to get rid of the metal panel on the north and west wall and substitute it with EIFS. Mr. Hoefler said the intent isn't always to construct things that are of a higher cost. Our design was outlined around the existing building to pick up on the metal panel, raise the rock face masonry and create piers to break up the north wall and to engage in metal. We provide and install metal on some very high end buildings, It's not an inferior product; it's viewed as such, because of the application on big buildings that look like pole barns but this is a metal ribbed system that isn't the same corrugated type. The intent is to create something to tie into the existing building and to carry things through. Chairperson Olson said she didn't have a problem with that. She wasn't thrilled with the original elevations but the way they have been revised and the materials that have been submitted this evening, she feels comfortable with the proposal. She doesn't have a problem with metal panels being used on this building. She isn't threatened by the height and the size of this building because it's such an open expanse on Highway 36, The north side of the building will face traffic on Highway 36 and she is comfortable with the design as it is presented this evening. Board member Shankar said even though the building elevation on the north side will face traffic; that will be the elevation that most people will see as they drive by. Board member Ledvina said at one time the CDRB spent a lot of time on the design of Menards on Highway 36 which is a similar size building. Even though this building has a little bit of a different scenario it is still important to have the building look nice from Highway 36. It's hard for him to picture the scope of this structure vertically. They have done a very nice job on this building and he likes the improvements the applicant has made, but he is cautious about the vertical impact of the building, especially on the north elevation. Chairperson Olson said the proposal for the soccer center is a substantial addition and impact to the neighborhood and if the board had been presented with the original proposal she would not have been in favor of the proposal but with the Cal Wall she thinks they made an effort to make this addition much more appealing. Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 8 Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 6, 2007, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) and the buildinq elevations submitted at the May 8, 2007, community desiqn review board meetinq for Corner Kick Soccer Center. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code, This approval is subject to the applicant or contractor doing the following: (additions to the motion are underlined and deletions are stricken). 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a grading permit or a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city has not issued a grading permit or a building permit for this project. a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans, These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, retaining wall, tree, sidewalk, driveway and parking lot plans, The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code, (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Including building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information, These shall include the normal water elevation and 1 OO-year high water elevation for the ponds. (b) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer, The ponds or basins shall meet the city's design standards and shall include best management practices and rainwater gardens wherever practical. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1, This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" native vegetation rather than using sod or grass, (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city and a fence on the top to help prevent falls. Retaininq wall desiqn and materials are subject to staff approval. The applicant is encouraqed to tier the retaininq wall and add landscapinq alonq the front, tiers, and the back of the wall. (f) Show the required sidewalk along Cope Avenue, Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 9 (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees, The spruce and pine trees shall be at least eight feet tall (not two and one half (2'12 ) inches in diameter). (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (5) The project engineer shall submit to the city a storm water management plan, including drainage and ponding calculations, for the proposal. (6) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions as required by the city engineer and as noted by Michael Thompson in the memo dated April 23,2007, b, Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporated or shows the following details: (1) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance, Specifically, the developer or contractor shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (2) The location of all large trees on the site. (3) That all new trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (4) The planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding areas with native grasses and native flowering plants, The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of people mowing into the pond. Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 10 (5) The plantings proposed around the building shown on the landscape plan date-stamped April 6, 2007, shall remain on the plan. (6) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged plantings or tree beds). (7) No landscaping being put in the Cope Avenue boulevard, The contractor shall restore the boulevard with sod. (8) The relocation of some of the everqreen trees currently called out in the landscape plan aElffiRg of m~on troos (BI::!ck Hillc CprtIBe-BF AHBtfiafl..-pifleB) along the north side of the building and along the south side of the site. These trees are to be at least eight feet tall, and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows wherever possible. The contractor shall place the trees on the north side of the addition to help break up the larqe expansive wall and the south side of the site to reduce the effects of motor vehicle headlight glare onto adjacent residential properties, (9) An underground irrigation system for all landscape areas, d. Submit revised north building elevations and material samples and color schemes for the building addition to staff for approval. The revised building elevations for the west aRB north sides should include placinq the downspouts in the center and inteqral (flush) to the piers. moro foaturos and dotailc to hol~ t!:leso olovatiefl&-R'loro chor::!ctor ::!nd to bro::!\( up tho 13rge--wa1l 3reac, SUBR 8fla.R~e&-€ould bo, but chotflEl-Ret-Be-tfm+ted to, 3Elfl.iJ:lg-wiFlElew&--eF--&kyl~t&-fas wewn on the-se~elumns or briGk-eHGck bceEl-Bleck, 3dditiooal R~nt31 b3nding 3nd tho plaffiiRg of moro or t31lor treos in tho bndscapffl~. All building materials and windows (including the frames and glass) shall be compatible with the existing building, includinq the proposed metal panels which should match the color of the existinq buildinq. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. f. If necessary, get any approvals and permits from Ramsey County. g. Get the necessary approval and permits from MnDOT. h, Provide city staff with design details (height, depth and materials) about the proposed retaining walls, including any fencing for those that are more than four feet tall. i. Provide for city staff approval the final photometric plan that includes information about the height of the proposed light fixtures and details about the style of the light fixtures. j. The owner shall combine all three properties into one at Ramsey County for tax and identification purposes and provide the city with documentation of this action, Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 11 k, Submit to the city a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount of the escrow shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work, 3. Complete the following before using the new parking lots or before occupying the building addition. a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards, Sod all landscaped areas, except for the ponding areas, which may be seeded, c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls, d, Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs along the driveways and drive aisles within the site and elsewhere, as may be required by staff. e. Paint any visible roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building, (code requirement) f. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan, All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. All light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. g. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage and meet all city requirements, (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site, (4) Install the curb and gutter, parking lots, sidewalk and retaining walls as shown on the approved project plans. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare, b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 12 The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the contractor finishes the new parking lot in the fall or winter or if the building additions are occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building additions are occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work, 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The planninq department Elirector of cemmunit}' EleveJej3fAem may approve minor changes. 6, This approval does not include signage, All proposed siqns must be approved by the community desiqn review board, comply with tho city:&-sign ordinanco, anEl-#1&-aftFlHeaffi must obtain 311 roEjtlfFeEl-siWlTeFffiil&-9oforo tho install3tien or roleBation of si~ Board member Wise seconded, Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Wise The motion passed, This item will go to the city council on June 11,2007, Chairperson Olson thanked the applicant for bringing in the sample material board because having the colored samples helps the board understand how the building is going to look, b. Costco - North of Beam, South of New County Road D, West of Highway 61, East of the Bruce Vento Trail Ms. Finwall said Costco Wholesale Corporation is proposing to build a 158,000-square-foot membership warehouse/retail building on the north side of Beam Avenue, at the easterly side of the recently approved Mogren Retail Addition planned unit development (PUD), The proposed store will include a 5,200-square-foot tire center and a 4,000-square-foot liquor store. There would also be a freestanding gasoline station for Costco members in the southwest corner of the site. The proposed building is attractively designed, but the entire building would be constructed of various forms of concrete block and precast concrete tip-up panels, Staff looked at three existing Costco stores in the Twin Cities. These were stores in St. Louis Park, Maple Grove and Coon Rapids. Each of these stores displayed more decorative exterior materials than the concrete block proposed. St. Louis Park's Costco building is predominantly jumbo red-colored brick with mustard-colored rock-face concrete block accents. The Maple Grove Costco building is predominantly brick with flag stone columns, rock-face block and EIFS (exterior insulation finish system), The Coon Rapids Costco building is predominantly brick with rock-face block, Staff feels that the quality of the building exterior materials should be upgraded to something more decorative than the varieties of concrete block proposed, Staff made the same recommendation with the recently approved Carmax building in this development. Their original building was to be all concrete block. Staff informed Carmax that there would be no staff support for that material, and they then redesigned the building to be brick. Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 13 Staff feels the same in this case and recommends that the applicant revise the proposed building materials to substantially enhance the building with brick, This should apply to the fuel- island canopy columns which are also proposed to be all split-face concrete block, Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board, Mr. Ted Johnson, President of T J Design Strategies, 2311 West 22nd Street, Oak Brook, Illinois, addressed the board, He is a consultant for Costco and acts as the development manager for the 14 Midwest states. He said Costco has applied for a parking waiver. Costco is proposing 733 parking spaces with the potential of 55 proof-of-parking spaces so Costco meets the city requirements. Costco has found that 733 parking spaces have been sufficient for Costco's 400 plus warehouse buildings this size and are very comfortable with 733 parking spaces. Should parking become a problem, space has been reserved on the site for the proof- of-parking spaces located on the east and the north side of the building. If Costco were to meet the city's light code with 25-foot-talllight poles that would increase the number of light poles to 78, Between the light poles and the light fixture count, Costco would be looking at doubling the installation cost, but more importantly, if Costco went with the taller light fixture, Costco would be looking at a 10% energy savings on an annual basis, That affects the amount of light in the parking lot, between the 25-foot light pole height and the 35-foot light pole height along with some 20-foot tall light poles at the perimeter of the parking lot; it's an average of 4.4 foot- candles. By going with the 25-foot taillight pole which would equal 78 light poles in the parking lot it would average 4,7 foot-candles throughout the parking lot. With the lower light pole height you get more intense lighting at the parking lot level. Costco believes you wouldn't see the light glare with the 35-foot tall light pole with a shoe box fixture and a flat lens. There are no residential properties around, Costco feels 37 -foot tall light poles are an appropriate light pole height for this Costco proposal. The important thing is the taller the light pole, the fewer light poles they need which means a 10% energy savings on an annual basis, Board member Ledvina asked if Costco could reduce the light bulb intensity? Costco identified the foot-candle illumination at 4,7 for the 25-foot-talllight pole and 4.4 foot-candles for the 35- foot-taillight pole, isn't that where the energy costs are? Mr, Johnson said not necessarily, For safety reasons Costco wants to maintain an average foot-candle in the parking lot of about 4.5, so the 4.4 foot-candle Costco would get from the 35- foot-taillight pole meets the city's requirements and so does the 4,7 foot-candles with the 25- foot-tall light poles. Staff has indicated that Costco shall conform to the city's sign code. The only signage Costco has is on the building. Costco would have three signs on the main warehouse and four signs on the gas station canopy. There will be no freestanding monument signs or pylon signs. There will not be a price sign at the gas station. The elevations that you see will be for the sign proposal. Chairperson Olson asked if Costco was planning on having any directional signs for traffic flow on the site? Mr. Johnson said within the fueling facility there will be some "do not enter signs", The fueling facility will have a one-way operation so there will be some internal signs generally less than two square feet in size and the sign ordinance usually doesn't count those. The fire department will require signs around the building for fire lanes and Costco doesn't know if those signs will be on the building or not. The fire marshal will regulate that requirement. Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 14 Mr. Johnson said Costco brought building material samples with for the board to review, Staff commented about some of the other Costco warehouse buildings in the twin city area. One thing Costco doesn't have is a prototype design. Costco designs their buildings for the community they will be located in. Staff mentioned Costco's buildings in St. Louis Park, Maple Grove and Coon Rapids which are within a retail center and are not a stand alone unit. The Maplewood location would not be adjacent to other retail centers, In St. Louis Park Costco is adjacent to Home Depot, Office Max and other smaller retailers and restaurants, The location in St. Louis Park has distinct design criteria, so all the buildings have to tie together. In Coon Rapids there are certain design standards as well, that's why you see the tower caps on the corners of Kohl's and Linen-n-Things and the other retail stores within the center. The same is true in Maple Grove where Costco had to comply and incorporate similar building materials that were used throughout the retail centers, He believes Costco has provided a very attractive and interesting building for this area in Maplewood. Costco is using the main building component for the warehouse with an integral color and precast panels. The panels are manufactured off site at a plant and shipped to the site. The panels are then erected from flat bed trucks at the site. These are not tip-up panels; these panels are constructed at the site and then tilted up so the quality of the panels is extremely high. Costco proposes to use an integral color to break up the mass of the building, because a building that is 150,000-square-feet is a large mass. The precast colors on the elevations are a lighter color in an acid wash, smooth finish. The darker colors are an acid wash to bring out the color of the aggregate. Even though it's a precast panel, Costco is able to get two different colors and two different textures out of the same panel. To that we add split face and smooth face concrete masonry units and utility brick as horizontal accents throughout the elevations. By using the precast or the CMU's, which is a veneer added to the precast, we add the architectural elements of the split face and smooth face to that. The reason Costco chose CMU is that it's a larger brick and the larger blocks look better and are more consistent with the overall design of a larger building, Board member Wise said Mr. Johnson commented that the Maplewood Costco warehouse is a stand alone building and that Costco doesn't have a prototype building. He asked what Costco builds throughout the country for stand alone buildings? Mr. Johnson said Costco constructs these buildings out of precast panels. In fact, the Costco in Maple Grove is a precast panel building, On the inside of the warehouse you will see the light gray concrete panel, but on the outside it's not an integral color panel because we had to match about four different exterior colors. The outside of the Maple Grove Costco building has painted panels and that's not typically what Costco uses, Mr, Johnson presented photos of a Costco building that just opened in Columbus, Ohio, which has some of the same elements Costco is proposing for the Maplewood warehouse building. He said the dark vertical elements are a precast panel with a fluted rib cast to it. Costco is proposing the same panel in Maplewood at the ends of the building, On a sunny day the fluted rib creates shadows and breaks up the mass of the building, The darker color is split-face CMU and the lighter color is smooth-faced CMU and on either side is the integral color of a precast concrete panel. Mr. Johnson displayed a detail of the corner on the overhead that would be used on the Maplewood Costco building. Costco is using building materials that would best break up the mass of the building. Costco believes this is an attractive building and that the massing is broken up better than some of the existing warehouse buildings in the twin cities, Chairperson Olson asked if the photo shown on the overhead was what Costco was proposing to use for the entrance to the Maplewood Costco? Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 15 Mr. Johnson said similar building materials would be used at the Maplewood location but the parapet height at the Columbus, Ohio Costco is taller than the entry they propose at the Maplewood location. The store front glass would be the same for Maplewood. During the summer the side glass doors roll up for an entirely open canopy. The doors under the Costco sign are sliding glass doors that stay year round, Board member Ledvina said the parking issue is not an issue for him at all. He's always in favor of applicants having proof-of-parking and he would strongly support that. He isn't entirely convinced of the argument related to the lighting, Maybe the taller light pole is more appropriate for this setting; at 35 feet tall, this is a large building so it makes sense to have fewer light poles, Maybe there is a way to adjust the level of illumination to get to the lower number of kilowatts, In terms of how this building will present itself, he thinks Costco could do better with their building elevations and building materials, The rational of treating the building in a different way because it would be a stand alone building, does not conyince him. The critical building elevation area is the west eleyation and he's concerned how that would look from the roadway. He isn't concerned about the east elevation. If you are on the Bruce Vento Trail you will be looking at the roof of the Costco building and there are plantings along that side. Board member Shankar said he is concerned about the oyer use of precast panels, Even though the applicant said the panels are factory fabricated and then erected on site, It's basically the same thing whether you fabricate it at the factory or at the site. Looking at the photos he said he doesn't care for the fluted precast corners, To him they make it look like an industrial warehouse. He would suggest remoYing the fluted panel idea altogether. He asked if Costco could use brick where the acid washed panels would be on the west, south and north eleyations. Brick comes in a wide variety of colors, it doesn't have to be red brick like the board saw in a photo. He said he would leave the east elevation the way it is with the exception that the fluted panels be removed. Board member Wise asked if there would be a stop light at Country View Drive and Beam Avenue? Ms. Finwall said yes. Board member Wise said because this is a PUD and because of it's proximity to the new Carmax, the mall down the road and the traffic on Highway 61 and Beam Avenue, this building will be highly visible, Regardless of the fact that this will be a stand alone building, it will still be in Maplewood and he doesn't want to settle for something less just because Maplewood doesn't have certain design criteria and this is the style of building Costco builds. He believes this Costco building should be designed to give a new look and feel to the area. Chairperson Olson said she was glad to hear Board member Wise make those comments because she was totally under whelmed with this building design, This building is going to establish a major presence in this area and she doesn't want to see an unattractive big box built on this site. She read in Consumer Reports that Sam's Club and Costco have been compared to each other. The conclusion was that Costco tends to market to a slightly upper scale clientele, You will have to work harder to get that upper scale clientele into this store with the current plan, Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 16 Chairperson Olson said she believes Maplewood deserves a better product from Costco, She is concerned about the location of the gas station and how the traffic will be routed, She knows engineering has looked at this plan but she wants to make sure there aren't going to be traffic issues here, Drainage and spillage from the fuel pumps is going to occur and she is concerned about that. She usually prefers fewer light poles on the site but she isn't sure about the light pole height. She would agree with Board member Ledvina's comments and she would like the applicant to investigate the lumens or the light intensity to see if there is something that could be worked out. This is directly across from a wetland where there is major nesting, The wildlife to the south includes egrets, blue heron, and other wildlife and she would like the applicant to respect the wildlife and check into other lighting possibilities. She was also concerned about the sidewalk situation. Ms, Finwall said she wasn't the person that wrote the staff report but read because of the wetlands and the limited right-of-way width on the south side of the Carmax site, it's not feasible to install a sidewalk from Highway 61 to Country View Drive and Costco. As part of the roadway improvements approved for this area, there will be sidewalks provided on the north side of Beam Avenue from Country View Drive to Hazelwood Street and from Beam Avenue to County Road D to the north. Staff showed a map on the overhead representing in pink where the sidewalks would run. Chairperson Olson said that takes care of her concern then because she thought it would be nice for people who want to take the bus to be able to access the sidewalk to Hazelwood Street and the map that staff put on the overhead helped her see the connection, It may be that the Costco purchases would be too large to bring on a bus anyway and that a vehicle would be necessary to transport their purchases. Board member Ledvina asked what staff's opinion was for modifications to the east elevation? Ms, Finwall said that elevation faces the Bruce Vento Trail, which is at a higher elevation and at the same height as the building and would be screened so that doesn't concern staff, Board member Ledvina said he just wanted to confirm that. Chairperson Olson asked what precautions would be taken to prevent leakage and fuel spills from the ground water? Ms. Finwall said the planning commission discussed that as well. They were concemed about the fuel tanks and the soils in the area, maybe the applicant could address that. Mr. Johnson said they are still in the due diligence phase. It appears that based on the preliminary plans, the ground water is at 14 to 15 feet below grade, Then they dig down 15 feet and fill in roughly 4 feet with stone and the fuel tanks will be above that. Mr, Johnson said the fuel tanks would be 8-to-9-feet below grade. Costco hasn't done the detailed design yet but there are ways to engineer those fuel tanks when near ground water, Costco may have to find a different location on the site for the fueling facility if they find the soils are not adequate in that location. The way the final grading plan will work is that anything adjacent to the fuel pumps, under the canopy, will be drained into an oil/water separator before going into the system, Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 17 Mr. Johnson said there are a number of safeguards that Costco does and the final engineering plans will provide information for the city, engineering, and the fire marshal to review. One of the other issues with the light standards is the height of the light pole and that the lower light pole interferes with the landscaping. The landscape plan either meets or exceeds the city code, Costco retained Landform as the civil and landscape architect. They came up with a plan that was consistent with the Carmax plan that the city already approved. It's a fine plan. It doesn't meet Costco's internal requirements though because where Carmax shows one tree per landscape island, Costco has two trees per landscape island with exception of the truck route. Costco will revise the plan to increase the landscaping, Costco puts the taller light poles in the landscape islands; Costco doesn't have freestanding light poles in the parking lot because of the weather in the Midwest with snow removal and cars backing into the light poles, The higher the light pole the less conflict there is between the landscaping and the light standard. The rooftop units will be screened from the parking lot and from Country View Drive. The rooftop units will not be screened from the Bruce Vento Trail. However, Costco's roofs are white and very reflective and the rooftop units are almond or light beige in color. If there is a rooftop unit that's a different color, it would be painted to match. Mr, Johnson said Costco would like to have this application tabled and continued at a later date due to the building design concems of the board members. Costco would like to meet with staff and go over some of the recommendations such as in lieu of a letter for landscape improvements, Costco would like to do performance bonds. Costco would like to make sure that before things are set in concrete, everybody is happy with what is going to be done as well as with the building elevations, Costco heard the board's comments, let us go back and meet with the architects and staff and come back with a revised plan for the board in the next few weeks. Chairperson Olson thanked Mr. Johnson and she said he made some powerful comments regarding the light standards, Board member Ledvina said he agreed with those comments. This is a large site, it has a lot of parking on it and there are some efficiency issues here to consider. Chairperson Olson moved to table this proposal until Costco has the opportunity to make changes and makes another submittal to city staff. Board member Ledvina seconded, Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Wise The motion to table passed, This item goes to the city council on June 11,2007. Ms. Finwall said Costco could bring this back before June 11, 2007, and at the earliest this could come back to the CDRB, June 12, 2007, or if the applicant can get the changes to staff next week for the May 22, 2007, CDRB meeting before it would go to the city council, that would also be a possibility, Chairperson Olson said the board would leave that up to staff and the applicant to work details and the timeline out. Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 18 VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Ledvina asked for a staff update regarding the Clear Channel Outdoor LED Television Billboard Ms. Finwall said Clear Channel has an outdoor LED television billboard that is 750-square feet in size and located along Highway 494 in south Maplewood. Clear Channel applied for a building permit in September 2006 to do some repairs to the billboard that was constructed in the early 1970's, Clear Channel had indicated that they were going to do some basic repairs, city staff looked at the building plans and authorized the repair permit for the billboard, Two months later Clear Channel installed a new sign face on the billboard which was a LED electronic billboard that has the ability to display movies and things of that nature, The City of Maplewood notified Clear Channel that they were in violation of the sign code and the billboard ordinance and that they misrepresented themselves in the permit process. The City of Maplewood required Clear Channel to submit a variance application as city code doesn't allow flashing and blinking signs. The City of Maplewood gave Clear Channel 60 days to respond and through that time Clear Channel's legal representative was in contact with the City of Maplewood's city attorney and expressed concern over this requirement for a variance indicating Clear Channel was uncertain they could meet the state statute guidelines for a variance which requires them to prove a hardship. Through some reinterpretation of the sign and the sign code, the city staff and the legal counsel for Maplewood determined that they could consider this an expansion of a nonconforming use in that the billboard was constructed in the early 1970's. Soon after that the City of Maplewood enacted new billboard ordinances which required certain size restrictions and certain setbacks to residential. The billboard that was there became a preexisting, nonconforming billboard. The city is now requesting that Clear Channel apply for a CUP for an expansion of a non-conforming structure in which case Clear Channel would not be required to meet the strict standards of a hardship, The city's legal counsel has been working with Clear Channel's representative to get them to submit this conditional use permit application which would come to the board for review and recommendation and then go to the city council for approval in which case if the city council ultimately approved this sign, the city could require certain restrictions and conditions, At the end of April, the legal representative for Clear Channel was present at the city council meeting representing another client. The city attorney had a discussion about how things were proceeding and that they were clearly not meeting the city's deadlines, Ms, Finwall said the League of Minnesota Cities have been involved in this process and had reviewed the City of Maplewood's billboard ordinance and determined that the City of Maplewood's billboard ordinance is one of the best written ordinances throughout the metropolitan area due to the fact that the ordinance clearly says you can't have flashing, blinking lights on a billboard, The League of Minnesota Cities has determined that Clear Channel is in clear violation of Maplewood's sign code and in clear violation of the permit process and the League of Minnesota Cities has been in strong support of the City of Maplewood in this regard. Staff will touch base with the legal counsel on the latest news. Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 19 Chairperson Olson wondered why the City of Maplewood is being so nice to Clear Channel. She would like to take the City of Minnetonka's tactic and pull the electricity on this electronic billboard. Board member Ledvina said this issue has been dragging on for 6 months already, The city has provided timelines to Clear Channel for resolution of this matter and that has not happened, The board directed staff to resolve this matter quickly, one way or the other. The sign is very offensive and intrusive to the neighborhood and he thinks it's a clear violation of the city's sign ordinance, Chairperson Olson said for the City of Maplewood to bend over backward to make this sign ordinance more attractive for Clear Channel so they can argue their position, is a ridiculous tactic to take when they have violated the City of Maplewood's ordinances, She doesn't understand what is going on here and why this is still dragging on so long, She doesn't think the electronic billboard sign should be in existence and she would like the city to pull the electricity on this electronic billboard sign. Board member Shankar asked what has happened with the electronic sign for the Myth nightclub? Chairperson Olson said the Myth sign was apparently approved by city staff. The CDRB can't do much about this. She has spent time watching this sign. The Myth has been timing their displays so that the Myth isn't advertising their products more than 30 minutes in any hour, It's primarily the Myth logo with the flames. Their electronic sign is considerably smaller than this LED billboard, You cannot see the Myth sign from Highway 694 or White Bear Avenue when the trees are leafed out. It's not nearly as offensive and its primary audience is the Best Buy parking lot and the traffic along County Road D, She thinks Clear Channel overstepped their bounds, The sign permit for the Myth's nightclub was approved by the city, The electronic billboard for Clear Channel was installed with a clear disregard for the existing city ordinance and without city staff approval. Board member Wise said we need to distinguish the difference between a billboard sign and a freestanding sign such as the Myth nightclub. Clear Channel violated city protocol. This forces the city to look at how to evaluate electronic signs regarding the size and placement for this LED billboard sign for Clear Channel. He said even though he is fairly new to the CDRB, he has seen the LED outdoor billboard sign and he doesn't like how it affects the area, it doesn't seem right. He said he agrees with all of the comments from other board members he heard tonight. Chairperson Olson said she is worried about the precedence this sets for other cities within the metro area that are fighting this same battle. The fact is, other cities acted on electronic LED outdoor billboard signs and the City of Maplewood is very clearly dragging their feet. The longer the LED electronic sign is up, the more it sets precedence for Clear Channel to do the same thing to another city, She said she didn't know how much stronger the board could stress the way they feel about this, Board member Ledvina said the board is directing city staff to ask the city council to act on and resolve this matter in a very quick manner. Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 20 Board member Ledvina moved that the CDRB recommend a quick resolution to this electronic billboard matter with Clear Channel. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Wise The motion passed, Ms. Finwall said the board's comments are very prudent and she appreciates the support the board is giving her as a staff member in regard to working with the city attorney and the city manager in this regard, She feels these comments will be helpful for them to understand how the board feels. Board member Ledvina said the board has worked hard on the city's sign ordinance. This electronic LED billboard sign is a problem and he thinks a quick resolution should be in order. Chairperson Olson asked what the status is with the revised sign ordinance the board worked so hard on? Ms. Finwall said the pending timeline would be for the city attorney to review the sign ordinance to ensure it meets the guidelines in light of the lawsuits that have happened the last few years from billboard companies challenging the cities' sign codes because they don't adapt to both non-commercial and commercial speech. Step two is to bring it back to the CDRB for some recommended changes and then to the city council through some workshops to get the process started again. The city council was concerned that the city didn't have a code enforcement person to enforce the new sign ordinance if it was adopted, The city has hired a code enforcement officer, Michael Samuelson, who has been with the city now for one month. Mr. Samuelson has been busy with other code issues at the city and sign enforcement is something Michael Samuelson will be working with eventually. Currently Michael is working on residential properties but that will expanded that to other code issues, IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Questions for Future Community Design Review Board Applicants The city council accepts questions from the advisory boards to use during the interview process. On Friday, March 23, 2007, the city manager, Greg Copeland, requested that each staff liaison obtain a list of suggested questions from their prospective advisory boards that the city council asks applicants in future interviews. On March 28, 2005, the CDRB suggested 11 questions for the city council's use during the interview process of prospective board members at that time. Many of these 11 questions still fit the board's needs. The board offered a few new questions for staff to pass onto the city manager and city council for future use, b. Community Design Review Board Meeting Times Chairperson Olson requested that staff put this item on the agenda to discuss the start time of the CDRB meeting. Earlier this year several advisory committees' meeting days were rescheduled in order to ensure that all advisory committees could be Yideotaped live in the city council chambers for cable viewing, Community Design Review Board Minutes 05-08-2007 21 The planning commission, housing and redevelopment authority, park and rec, historical preservation commission, community outreach, and the police civil commission all meet at 7:00 p,m, The environmental and natural resources commission meet at 4:45 p.m, and the CDRB meets at 6:00 p.m, The board discussed the pros and cons of changing the meeting time and they decided that because it's easier for contractors and developers to come to the CDRB meeting right after work, it would be more convenient to keep meeting at 6:00 p,m, Two board members preferred to meet at 6:30 p,m. because of traffic concerns and two board members preferred to meet at the 6:00 start time. One board member was absent so staff could not get his input. This item will be revisited by the CDRB and staff in the fall. c. May 22, 2007, Joint Meeting with the CDRB and the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission This joint meeting with the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission is scheduled for May 22, 2007, to discuss the urban streetscape plan for the Gladstone Area as well as the Savanna updates, d. June 5, 2007, Sustainable Building Presentation Ms. Finwall said DuWayne Konewko from the Public Works Department, Rick Carter, Senior Vice President of LHB Corporation, and Cliff Aichinger from the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District will haye a sustainable building presentation at the Maplewood Community Center in the Banquet Room on June 5, 2007, from 5:30 - 8:00 p,m, The purpose of this meeting is to discuss sustainable development, green building and energy conservation, More information will follow. e. Board representative for the June 11,2007, city council meeting. Matt Ledvina volunteered to serve as the board representative at the June 11,2007, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Corner Kick Soccer Center at 1357 Cope Avenue, and Costco - North of Beam, South of New County Road D, West of Highway 61, East of the Bruce Vento Trail. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p,m.