HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/13/2004AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
6:00 P.M.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road B East
2.
3.
4.
5.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda
Approval of the April 27, 2004, Minutes
Design Review:
a. Mounds Park Academy - 2051 Larpenteur Avenue
b. Chesapeake Retail Center - 3091 White Bear Avenue
Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled
Board Presentations
Staff Presentations:
a. CDRB Representation at the May 24, 2004, City Council Meeting
Adjourn
II.
III.
IV.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2004 (Rescheduled from Tuesday, May 11,2004)
(This meeting was not cablecast because of the date change)
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Longrie-Kline called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Diana Longrie-Kline
Vice-Chairperson Ledvina
Board member Linda Olson
Board member Ananth Shankar
Present
Present at 6:15 p.m.
Present
Present
Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Olson seconded.
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for April 27, 2004.
Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of April 27, 2004.
Board member Olson seconded.
The motion passed.
DESIGN REVIEW
a. Mounds Park Academy - 2051 Larpenteur Avenue
Ayes - Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar
Ayes ---Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar
Ms. Finwall said Mr. David Aune, representing Mounds Park Academy (MPA), is proposing
several changes for Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. To make the
changes to the site and the school, Mr. Aune is asking that Maplewood approve the design
plans for the project, including the site, building and landscaping plans.
Board member Olson said she went to MPA when school was letting out. She saw people
directing traffic and there were many cars lined up along Larpenteur Avenue waiting to pick
their children up but had to wait their turn to enter the property.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
2
Board member Olson said the drivers were directed to wait on Larpenteur Avenue for the
buses and she asked if there was some way they could make sure the parents were waiting
inside on the school property so there would not be cars sitting on Larpenteur Avenue?
Ms. Finwall said staff feels the new proposal will help alleviate those problems by allowing the
stacking of cars within the drive aisle.
Board member Olson said it appeared there were cars stacking already but she asked if the
traffic flow would be modified or not?
Ms. Finwall recommended the applicant answer that question.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she noted that staff is recommending that MPA not have two
functions occurring at the same time in the field house and in the theatre because there could
be a lack of parking spaces. If the school held two functions at the same time and they made
arrangements to bus people in from another parking site could MPA then have two functions at
one time?
Ms. Finwall asked if she was referring to the conditions in the CUP?
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she was referring to the staff report on page 3, in the second
paragraph, under Parking, Site Access and Vehicle Circulation.
Ms. Finwall said that was mentioned in the staff report, however, it was not included as any
type of condition. The city would hope MPA would control the parking situation.
Board member Shankar asked if the east access is a one way in and the west access is both
an in and out access?
Mr. Finwall said yes.
Board member Olson said on page 12 of the staff report, under comments, a resident sent in a
letter regarding the fence and a five-foot utility easement, she asked who owned the fence
along the property line?
Ms. Finwall said according to the survey, the fence is on the property line. On newer
properties along the back and sides of the property line there is a five-foot drainage and utility
easement, which may be what the resident was referring to.
Board member Olson said she would ask the applicant that question.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. David Aune, Business Manager at MPA, 2051 Larpenteur Avenue East, Maplewood,
addressed the board. Mr. Aune said with the new parking lot design there will be two lanes of
traffic to enter the property, which will move traffic off of Larpenteur Avenue. Currently when a
car brakes and slows down that stops and backs up the traffic. MPA believes the new
proposal would help alleviate that problem and would get traffic off Larpenteur Avenue and
stacking the cars into the drive aisle along the curb.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
3
Mr. Aune said they want to get the buses into the property because often the buses are stuck
behind cars and therefore, they can't pull up next to the curb for the children who are waiting to
get onto the bus. MPA owns the fence and after looking at the fence they have decided to
replace the whole length of the fence with a new cedar fence. He said there is quite a bit of
concern from the residents that the proposed plan will increase the traffic along Larpenteur
Avenue. The school recently did a traffic study on three different occasions and they studied
the traffic during a 1-hour block of time in the morning before school started and an hour during
the time school ended. They found that 40% of the cars currently came from Beebe Road and
60% of the cars came from Larpenteur Avenue. When the new plan is complete they believe
more traffic will enter and exit onto Beebe Road because of the new parking lot and field
house. MPA is increasing their available parking space by 30%. The school's maximum
enrollment will grow about 12%. Currently the number of parking spaces is adequate for the
school and they believe the increased parking spaces will work in the future even with
additional faculty members and added students. He said the school tries to make sure that
events are not scheduled at the same time. Not only does it cause a parking problem it makes
it difficult for parents to decide which event they have to miss and the school doesn't want to
upset their student's parents. He said they have a handful of events where they have a
parking problem. One event is Grandparents Day where they ask the employees to park off
site and they bus faculty and staff onto the school grounds allowing more room for
grandparents to park in the lot. The school is going to cluster trees in a few areas on the west
side of the expanded parking lot along the new six-foot high cedar fence, which will help with
the headlight problem.
Board member Olson asked if any of the attending students ride the MTC bus for public
transportation since the school is on the bus line?
Mr. Aune said MPA does not have any students that ride the MTC bus. People either drive or
use the school bus for transportation. Currently they have 5 buses with 115 students or 15%
of the students taking the bus. The goal is to introduce van pooling in some of the high growth
areas in the twin cities so the school can increase the total of buses or van pooled students to
20-25%. This would attract more students to the school and would also alleviate some of the
traffic concerns. They have space for six buses to stack in the new plan The vans could use
the curb line as the other cars do.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if the school envisioned renting the theater out and then
having an event at the field house at the same time, causing possible parking problems?
Mr. Aune said it's possible but the school is going to try to avoid having two events at the same
time because if parents can't find parking spaces that would make them angry.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said that would be in the best interest of the school, especially if
they rented the theatre space out and had a good experience, they would probably want to
rent the facility again. Also, if the school has an event they want their parents happy as well.
Board member Olson asked if they had any building samples to show the board?
Mr. Randy Peek, Architect with Pope Associates, 1255 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, addressed
the board. He said currently the building consists of a mixture of prefinished metal roofing,
shingles, stucco and brick.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
4
Mr. Peek said their plan is to coordinate with the cream color of the existing brick and the
window frame bands that are in place and try to reduce the number of materials in the new
construction. The precast panel would be an architectural panel in a cast finish, which will be
color sensitive to the brick and they will try to match the metal roofing. They would like the
school building materials to consist of glass and brick to simplify the number of materials used.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked what the new fence would be made of?
Mr. Peek said the fence would be a smooth board, six-foot-high cedar fence.
Board member Olson asked if they would be painting or staining the cedar fence?
Mr. Peek said they planned on letting the cedar fence weather.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked how the city would ensure the landscaping got done and on
time?
Ms. Finwall said the city requires either a letter of credit or a cash escrow to ensure the
landscaping, lighting and other exterior improvements are completed. The applicants are
allowed to install the landscaping by June 1, 2004, if the parking or building is complete in the
fall.
Board member Olson said she noticed the engineer had several comments. He was looking
for a redesigned pond plan and she wondered if the applicant had submitted any new ponding
plans yet?
Ms. Finwall said staff is recommending approval on the conditions as outlined by the engineers
in the report and they were hoping to work with MPA regarding the pond in front of the parking
lot. The pond is designed as a square box and the engineering staff thought this would be a
good educational tool for the school to take this ponding area and create a better design
including native plantings.
Mr. Peek said the Watershed District has already approved the submitted ponding plan. Since
the original submission of the ponding plan the water quantity requirements have been
adjusted to a lower capacity by both the Watershed District and the city. Therefore, the size of
the pond can be reduced. They are in the process of negotiating a dry pond system to resolve
this.
Board member Ledvina said he thinks the plans will be an attractive addition to the school.
Board member Olson said she agrees and said that there seems to be a combination of
building materials used in the different stages of additions to the school and she thinks it's a
good idea to limit the building materials used.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if anybody in the audience wanted to speak on this item?
Nobody came forward.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
5
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 8, 2004, (site plan,
landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Mounds Park
Academy. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. This approval is
subject to the applicant or contractor doing the following: (additions are in bold and
deletions are stricken)
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Complete the following before the city issues a grading or building permit:
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)
Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour
information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-
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 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.
(f)
Show as little disturbance as possible on the west and east sides of
the site to minimize the loss or removal of the trees. This is to keep
and protect as many of the trees along the west and east property
lines as possible.
(3) *The tree plan shall:
Community Design Review Board 6
Minutes 5-13-2004
(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
deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (21/2) inches in
diameter and shall be a mix of coniferous trees and red and white
oaks and sugar maples.
(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 Chuck Vermeesch in the memo dated April 26,
2004.
b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction.
Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the
following details:
(1)
Preserving as much of the existing vegetation (including large trees)
along the western and eastern property lines as possible.
(2)
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.
(3) That shows the location of all large trees on the site.
(4)
All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and
species.
(5)
(6)
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.
The maple trees must be at least 21/~ inches in caliper, balled and
burlapped.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
(7)
The plantings proposed around the building shown on the landscape
plan date-stamped April 8, 2004, shall remain on the plan.
(8)
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).
(9)
No landscaping shall take place in the Larpenteur Avenue boulevard.
The contractor shall restore the boulevard with sod.
(10)
Adding more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines)
along the west property line of the site. These trees are to be at
least six feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in
staggered rows. The contractor shall place the trees to reduce the
effects of headlights adjacent to residential properties.
Submit material samples and color schemes for each building addition to staff for
approval so the building material and windows including glass and frames
are compatible with the existing buildings.
Get a demolition permit from the city to remove the existing houses and garages
from the properties at 2025 Larpenteur Avenue and 2027 Larpenteur Avenue.
f. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.
g. Get the necessary approvals and permits from Ramsey County.
Provide design details (height, dept and materials) about the proposed retaining
walls.
After demolition, the school shall combine the properties at 2025 and 2027
Larpenteur Avenue with the school property for tax and identification purposes.
Complete the following before using the new parking lots or before occupying the
building additions:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the
ponding areas, which may be seeded.
Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and
around all open parking stalls.
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 all
the driveways and drive aisles within the site and elsewhere, as may be required
by staff.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
Paint any root-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the
building. (code requirement)
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.
Replace the privacy fence along the western property line from the right-of-
way of Larpenteur Avenue to the existing pond. *-'-'-.,...,. +h..... ..... --~-.-.,,,.u="" -*.~+ ,0';"",.-,,-
h. 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 lot 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:
ao
The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all
required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any
unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter,
or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or
summer.
The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished
work.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
This approval does not include signage. All proposed signs must comply with the city's
sign ordinance and the applicant must obtain all required sign permits before the
installation or relocation of signs.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline had a friendly amendment to add to item 2. 4. d. adding the
wording at the end of the sentence: such that the materials and color of the building materials,
window frames and glass shall be compatible with the existing buildings.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
Board member Ledvina was agreeable with the amendment.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on May 24, 2004.
b. Chesapeake Retail Center - 3091 White Bear Avenue
Ms. Finwall said Chesapeake Companies has purchased the Maplewood Movie I Theater site
located at 3091 White Bear Avenue. Chesapeake Companies proposes to demolish the
theater and redevelop the 4.98-acre site with four new restaurant/retail buildings including TGI
Fridays, Buffalo Wild Wings, Jared Jewelers, and a future multi-tenant retail center. The
proposed name for the center is Chesapeake Retail Center. The planning commission
reviewed and recommended approval of the preliminary plat and planned unit development
(PUD) at the May 3, 2004, planning commission meeting. The community design review board
(CDRB) should review and make a recommendation on all design review items including
architecture, landscaping, lighting, and signs at the May 13, 2004, meeting.
Board member Ledvina said he thought the suggestions and conditions by staff were
appropriate. He thinks the designs of these proposals are very attractive. Regarding the
freestanding signs, he thinks the Jared Jewelers sign is nicely designed. He has questions
about the TGI Friday's sign and the Buffalo Wild Wing's sign. He asked how tall these signs
would be and if there were any improvements to be made along the base of the sign?
Ms. Finwall said the sign criteria as outlined in the staff report indicates the sign height is 25
feet high and because of the grade difference on White Bear Avenue the height of the sign
should be measured from the actual building grade. In order to support the five-foot
freestanding sign setback as part of the PUD staff recommends that all freestanding signs
have bases constructed with more architectural designs including building materials as seen
on the building designs.
Board member Ledvina asked if the multi-tenant building would have a sign?
Ms. Finwall said the applicant is proposing a sign but staff recommends that be part of the
overall approval of the building design and sign plan for the future multi-tenant building when it
comes to the board for review. Ms. Finwall said it seemed there was limited space in that
location for a sign as well.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if there had been any further reports done on the
grading/drainage/utilities as shown on page 4 of the staff report?
Ms. Finwall asked if she meant had there been any additional information regarding the
sewer?
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said yes.
Ms. Finwall said she would let the applicant address that issue when they came forward.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
10
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Jeff Wurst, Development Manager at Chesapeake Companies, Minnetonka, addressed the
board. Mr. Wurst said Chesapeake Companies is very happy to bring the new development
into the City of Maplewood. They are excited about this location and for the quality of tenants
they have attracted to this site because they believe this development is the gateway to the
Maplewood Mall. He said the 8-foot wide parking spaces will be labeled either compact or
employee parking. Pedestrian access ways were discussed and shown on a map given to
staff.
Board member Shankar asked how many parking spaces the applicant would lose because of
the pedestrian access?
Mr. Wurst said they would lose 5 parking spaces.
Board member Olson asked how discussions were going with Arby's regarding the shared
access?
Mr. Wurst said the discussions are ongoing. They have done a lot of work that has been going
on for the last 6-8 weeks and they are 10% of where they need to be to make this happen. He
said they have a landowner, because Arby's leases the land, they also have the Arby's
franchisee and they also assume there is a lender involved. The discussions have gone well
with both the landowner and ^rby's franchisee. They will need to conduct a traffic study per
city staff for the relocation of Arby's driveway to the south. Chesapeake Companies has
decided to spend the time and money on surveying the Arby's property, which previously did
not exist. They also believe shifting the building five feet to accommodate a future shared
driveway is very doable.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the cross access drive and the drive to the west seem close to
each other and she asked if the applicant had an explanation for that?
Mr. Wurst said the suggestion for the driveway location came from the property owner to the
south. The property owner to the south would like an exchange for agreements for access to
the sanitary sewer for the driveway cuts. He reviewed the proposed layout of the development
relative to his property, which includes the Wedding Day Jewelry site and they have decided
where they would like the cross access drive.
Board member Olson asked what the applicant had in mind for the multi-tenant building?
Mr. Wurst said they haven't marketed tenants for the multi-tenant building. They are
envisioning at least half of the building to be a non-restaurant retail use and the other one-third
to one-half a fast casual restaurant with a less intense parking need similar to a restaurant like
Chipotle located on White Bear Avenue.
Board member Olson asked if they feel they will have an adequate number of parking spaces
for all of these tenants?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
Mr. Wurst said there is nothing more important to a high quality restaurant operation than
adequate parking and he can assure the city they have reviewed with each retail tenant what
their parking needs would be. The tenants wouldn't be interested in space in this location if
they did not feel the parking would suit their needs.
Board member Shankar asked what the size of the future multi-tenant building would be?
Mr. Wurst said the building would fit within the overall site plan. They are still working on the
building design but the building would be somewhere between 9,000 - 9,600 square feet.
Board member Shankar asked if there would be a chance the applicant could come back in the
future asking for more space on the south side thus eliminating 20 parking spaces?
Mr. Wurst said they are planning on a building no larger than 9,600 square feet. The site
design is going to be a blend of architectural details verses square footage to see what fits
best on the site. Mr. Wurst showed a preliminary color rendering of what the building could
look like to the board.
Board member Ledvina asked if the applicant could discuss the signage for the buildings?
Mr. Wurst said each building would have an equivalent of a 25-foot high sign, considering what
the grade differences are between the building and the foundation.
Board member Olson asked if they would be comfortable constructing all the signs so they
have the same consistent base even though the face of the sign and poles may be different?
Mr. Wurst said they have tried to keep the tenants trademark theme for each building for their
signage. TGI Friday's, Buffalo Wild Wings, and Jared Jewelers all have trademark themes for
their signage. He would prefer the base for each sign be constructed of the same materials
that their buildings are constructed of. Jared Jewelers sign is a colonial style and is very nice
looking and matches the building. He said Jared Jewelers does not have a signboard, what
you see in the plans is what they plan on using.
Board member Ledvina asked if there were any concerns regarding the staff recommendations
for the TGI Friday's building?
Mr. Wurst said they had a representative from TGI Friday's scheduled for the Tuesday evening
meeting that was cancelled, unfortunately the representative wasn't able to make it to this
meeting. Mr. Wurst said he couldn't commit to anything on behalf of TGI Friday's but from
conversations he has had with them they agreed the trash enclosure area should be built of
the same masonry materials. Mr. Wurst showed the board materials boards for all three
buildings.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline wanted to spread the word that the board appreciates seeing a
materials board so they can visualize what the building colors and materials would look like.
Board member Shankar said there are quite a few building materials being used on the TGI
Friday's building.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
12
Board member Ledvina agreed there is a mix of building materials being used but this is their
trademark building and it is a good mix.
Board member Olson said she doesn't have a problem with the mix of building materials
because it maintains the character of the building style and reflects what kind of business they
run on the inside as well.
Board member Shankar said his main concern is the frequency of joints in the marble. He
recommended it would look better to him if the panels were 2 feet by 2 feet.
Board member Ledvina said he understands what Board member Shankar is saying but he
would defer that to the architect in terms of materials used and the availability.
Mr. Wurst said it's his understanding that the brick material would continue around the trash
enclosure and around the back of the property. Mr. Wurst said TGI Friday's plan is their
prototype design that is used on all of their new buildings. As far as Board member Shankar's
suggestion of changing the size of the materials, TGI Friday's would have to confirm that they
could even get those materials in different dimensions in order to change the design.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked for comments regarding the Maplewood Police Department
recommendation to have a six-foot-high patio fence instead of the proposed four-foot-high
patio fence for Buffalo Wild Wings?
Mr. Wurst said from an aesthetic standpoint a 6-foot-high patio fence is not appealing. The
patio area is very visible and in his opinion the fence should be Iow scale and inviting instead
of appearing to be a high security area. He would recommend the representative for Buffalo
Wild Wings speak more on the issue.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline invited the applicant for Buffalo Wild Wings to address the board.
Ms. Mary Twinem, CFO for Buffalo Wild Wings, St. Louis Park, addressed the board. She
would like to discuss the operational aspects of having a patio at a restaurant. She said they
are committed to the proper and responsible serving of alcoholic beverages and take it very
seriously. Ms. Twinem said Buffalo Wild Wings will be requesting a full liquor license, but
alcohol represents only 30% of their sales and of that amount 80% is from the sale of beer.
They have a full menu and operate their kitchen the same hours they are open for business.
They have many years of experience running and operating patio areas and currently have
locations in Champlin and Coon Rapids with four-foot-high patio fences used at each location.
They train their servers and bartenders for serving on patios and they also use the barcode
training system that is endorsed by the (NRA) National Restaurant Association. They have
servers that are assigned only to the patio area to monitor the activities and drinking in the
area. They limit the patio area use to customers who are 21 and over unless accompanied by
a parent. Buffalo Wild Wings has been operating for almost 20 years and have operated with
patios for almost the same amount of time.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if there would be any gates on the patio fence enclosure?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
Ms. Twinem said that depends on what the city ordinance is. Many times you have to have
gates for safety reasons so people can exit the area and the two patios they have in Champlin
and Coon Rapids have gates.
Board member Shankar asked what type of flooring material is used for the patio?
Ms. Twinem said they would be using poured concrete.
Board member Olson asked what material the fence would be made of?
Ms. Twinem said the fence is made of wrought iron.
Board member Olson asked what height they typically build the wrought iron fence at?
Ms. Twinem said they have built the fences at both three feet high and four feet high. This
fencing plan has been submitted at four feet.
Board member Ledvina asked what the staff recommendation is for the fence height?
Ms. Finwall said with Buffalo Wild Wings liquor license review the fence height would be up to
the city council. Aesthetically staff would prefer a four-foot-high wrought iron fence around the
patio area. It is the Police Department that requested a six-foot-high fence around the patio.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said her personal experience from sitting on patio areas is that she
doesn't want to feel like a prisoner while sitting outside. She would like to be able to look
outside and she thinks the four-foot fence height is a compromise between a three-foot high
and a six-foot high fence.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if they could discuss the drainage of the development.
Mr. Wurst said drainage refers to sanitary sewer. They have had detailed conversations with
staff as to where the appropriate tie in point is for the sanitary sewer. One point is at County
Road D and the other is tying into the private sanitary sewer system that flows through the
Maplewood Mall system and into the public line again. This is a huge issue for Chesapeake
Companies and they want to bring resolution with the engineering staff as quick as they can.
Timing wise this jeopardizes the whole development and they don't want this to be an issue
that delays construction at the site. They have commitments to the lease tenants and failure to
deliver their commitments allows them to go away if they would like to. To tie into the existing
line to the south it is going to require two easements. There are two property owners to the
south for which the line crosses as well as approval from Simon Properties Group. Today they
have a verbal agreement from one of the property owners to the south; however, the verbal
agreement is a long way from someone signing the agreement. He is referring to the Mogren
property, which also has the four individuals in partnership. The second property to the south
is the Acapulco Restaurant. At this point they have no verbal or written agreement although
they have been approaching them for over six weeks. City staff has had some conversation
for the need for a sanitary sewer connection and an easement through the area and staff has
suggested that they go ahead and submit a proposed written easement to the property owner.
They have prepared the easement and they have surveyed the line to get a legal description to
submit to the property owner.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
Mr. Wurst said based on the lack of response they have received over the last six weeks he
doesn't have a lot of confidence. They are connecting to the private sewer system of Simon
Properties with a greater use than the old movie theater site. They have gone through a
lengthy evaluation of whether or not the system can accommodate the additional affluent.
There is no known legal agreement that addresses the segment of pipe that flows from the
Acapulco Restaurant site onto Simon Properties system, so there is another missing link.
Frankly that is the Iow-cost alternative and that would be great if it happened but he is
concerned about the timing.
Mr. Wurst said given their construction schedule and what is needed to deliver the
commitments to the tenants and the timeframes they are committed to, he has concerns about
the possibility of having these plans aligned and being able to tie into the private sewer line.
Board member Ledvina asked if there would be a freestanding sign for the future multi-tenant
building?
Mr. Wurst said yes there is one shown in the PUD plan and it's shown adjacent to the building
in the northwest corner of the site and consistent with the staff recommendation they propose
a 150 square foot sign face for that sign. They did a survey for other multi-tenant buildings in
the area and that is greatly reduced from what is out there.
Ms. Finwall said staff has not recommended that there is any action taken on the freestanding
sign for the future multi-tenant building so that square footage is not included in the
recommendation but would be reviewed during the design review of that building in the future.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said to clarify the sign location is in the PUD?
Ms. Finwall said staff hasn't made a recommendation for sign location either, however, it's
currently depicted on the plan and the current recommendation of staff is three freestanding
signs with a five-foot setback.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said if the board isn't currently approving the location of the sign
then it shouldn't be on the PUD that gets approved?
Ms. Finwall said correct.
Mr. Wurst said he understands the need for appropriate sign setbacks and what they have
proposed along White Bear Avenue works and is consistent with the setbacks that have been
recommended by staff. The sign for Buffalo Wild Wings on County Road D is very problematic
in that area of the development because of the dedicated easement that is being required as a
condition of the PUD approval, which is the 17-foot strip. The way the sign is shown on the
drawing is about the only place it fits, which is shown at a zero foot setback relative to the five-
foot setback recommended by staff. He asked if they could keep the door open for further
discussion to determine a workable setback.
Board member Ledvina asked for staff's comment regarding the sign setback.
Ms. Finwall said staff is recommending a five-foot setback to the new right of way line.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
Board member Ledvina asked if that puts the sign 22 feet from the pavement of County Road
D?
Ms. Finwall said yes 22 feet from the existing pavement of County Road D.
Board member Olson asked with Legacy Village isn't the city expanding signage closer to
County Road D? Shouldn't the city be consistent with signage along County Road D, therefore
couldn't the city could go with a zero foot setback and still be consistent? Specifically she is
referring to Ashley Furniture and their proposal to have a sign right on the corner.
Ms. Finwall said she is not familiar with the signage that was approved for Ashley Furniture.
Having a zero setback would be consistent with the existing signs including Circuit City and
Arby's because these signs were built prior to the city's requirement for any setback. Staff was
recommending a five-foot setback on County Road D to be consistent with the five-foot
setback on White Bear Avenue.
Board members Olson and Ledvina said they would be comfortable with waiving the sign
setback as long as it's consistent with the other signs along County Road D.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she would also agree.
Mr. Wurst asked if they could discuss landscaping?
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said yes.
Mr. Wurst said the initial land survey that was conducted was inaccurate as far as tree size
and tree variety. In the staff report there are 37 trees identified and located 28 of the trees are
considered large trees. But because of the sizing error there are actually 28 large trees.
Mr. Wurst said unfortunately the land surveyor measured the trees at the base level verses
four feet up and there are several trees that have a large stump like base to them that have
multiple trunks that come out. They are still proposing to remove those trees. There are many
scrub trees that were poorly maintained and many of them are being removed for functional
reasons such as grading and sidewalks. They want the quality of the landscaping to match the
quality of the buildings and the architecture that is being proposed. Along the Arby's and
Chesapeake Companies property line they propose to remove 5 trees for the purpose of
grading. Grades will change in the area in part to accommodate the possibility of a future
Arby's driveway. The landscape plan doesn't include the TGI Friday's foundation landscape
plan. Adding more trees would obscure the signage of the TGI Friday's building making it so it
wouldn't be visible from White Bear Avenue. He questions the need for additional trees on the
site. Along the ring road they have proposed the installation of trees to replace those that are
being removed to accommodate the sidewalk. They don't want to create a canopy of trees so
you can't see the buildings that are there. He understands the need for an attractive boulevard
but they are also trying to allow for visibility of the tenants. They think they have a nice
balance with the landscaping plan proposed. They are removing trees in the area but they are
not Maple trees as written in the staff report, the trees are actually ornamental Amur maple
trees.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if the new trees they are planning on replacing the Amur
trees with would grow to be about the same height?
Mr. Wurst said he would defer that question to the landscape representative.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked her to address the board.
Ms. Shari Ahrens, Project Engineer, Westwood Professional Services, Inc., addressed the
board. She said in their conversations and approval with Xcel Energy they were told the
maximum height of the trees in the easement area could be 15 feet.
Board member Olson said these trees are fairly large and their root system extends out quite
far. She estimates as they grade they would damage the trees significantly.
Ms. Ahrens said they need a connection from White Bear Avenue to the site and they are
looking at bringing the sidewalk in close proximity of the Maple trees, which could impact the
root structure of the trees.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked how tall the proposed trees would be?
Ms. Ahrens said she didn't have the answer to that question but they would work with staff for
the minimum size of trees.
Ms. Finwall said she didn't realize the trees were Amur maple trees she thought they were
regular maple trees. Also, there is over 500 feet from County Road D to the south property
line, and 7 Linden trees will not fill in that area and the addition of 7 more trees would
aesthetically add and not take away from the buildings, considering Linden trees are only 25
feet in width.
Board member Ledvina said he is comfortable allowing staff and the applicant to work the
landscaping details out. He understands from the applicant that they would be planting
landscaping that would complement the high quality of their buildings.
Board member Olson said the landscaping plans the board is reviewing is preliminary and the
board doesn't have the landscaping plan for TGI Friday's yet.
Board member Shankar said even though the foundation landscape is attractive he would still
like to make some recommendations as to the level of planting along the west side of the site,
facing the Maplewood Mall because he sees that as a different issue.
Board member Ledvina said the buildings are very attractive and are a quality design. Staff is
on target with their recommendations. He would agree that a neon sign for Buffalo Wild Wings
is not appropriate for this location.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the building and sign elevations, site plan, and
landscape plan date-stamped March 30, 2004; the lighting plan date-stamped April 26, 2004;
and the Jared Jewelers foundation landscape plan date-stamped April 26, 2004, for the
development of the Chesapeake Retail Center 3091 White Bear Avenue. The developer shall
do the following: (additions are in bold and/or are underlined and deletions have been
stricken)
ao
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for all three
buildings for this project (Buildings B, C, and D).
b. Submit the following to city staff prior to issuance of a grading or building permit:
1)
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering
department's April 26, 2004, engineering plan review as well as the following:
a)
A westward extension of the retaining wall south of Building D (Jared
Jewelers). The retaining wall height must be sufficient to create a
prevailing ground slope away from Building D, thereby deflecting a
potential flow from a pipeline leak.
2)
Obtain a demolition permit for the removal of the existing Maplewood Movie I
Theater building.
3) Obtain the required RamseyNVashington Metro Watershed District permits.
4)
Submit payment for all required Park Access Charges (PAC fees) as specified in
the Park Director's April 14, 2004, correspondence to Chesapeake Companies.
5)
Submit an easement agreement that governs and provides for legal cross
easements for parking, access, and utilities between all lots within the project.
6)
Submit an easement agreement for the installation and maintenance of a
freestanding sign on Lot 1 to benefit Lot 2.
7)
Submit an owner's association agreement specifying responsibilities for
insurance, taxes and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities
(including snow plowing).
8) Submit a revised site plan showing the following:
a)
The dedication of 10 feet of additional right-of-way along White Bear
Avenue.
b)
The dedication of 17 feet of additional right-of-way along County Road
D.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
18
c)
Building C (TGI Fridays) and Building D (Jared Jewelers) shifted
approximately five feet to the south, or a lesser distance, to
accommodate a future driveway located to the north of Building C that
would extend onto White Bear Avenue.
d)
Pending continued cooperation with the adjacent property owner, show
the location of a driveway and pedestrian cross-access on the south side
of the property, to accommodate entrance and egress to and from the
southerly property (3065 White Bear Avenue).
e) The extension of the sidewalk in front of Building A (future
retail/restaurant) onto the County Road D trail.
f) A pedestrian access extending from the White Bear Avenue sidewalk.
g)
The relocation of Buffalo Wild Wing's freestanding sign to ensure a 5-
foot setback from all property lines.
9)
A revised landscape plan subject to review and approval by staff shall be
submitted with the following conditions:
a) e) Pending a shared driveway scenario with Arby's. a revised landscape plan
showing the area of disturbance and landscaping proposed.
b) d-) Seven additional trees on the west side of the property, between the
sidewalk and the Maplewood Mall road.
c) e) Additional plantings in front of Jared Jeweler's dumpster enclosure to help
screen the enclosure from White Bear Avenue.
d)f-)
A foundation landscape plan for TGI Fridays and Buffalo Wild Wings.
These plans should be consistent and complement the overall
landscaping and Jared Jeweler's foundation plantings, and should ensure
appropriate plantings in front of all dumpster enclosures to ensure
screening from the roadways.
e) g-) An underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping is irrigated per
city code.
10) Revised building and dumpster enclosure elevations showing the following:
TGI Fridays:
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
]9
a)
Removal of EIFS building material and replacement ef with brick, granite,
and/or stone building materials and consistent building detail, including
parapet walls, on all elevations of the building.
b)
Dumpster and recycling enclosure constructed of quality building materials
to match the building. The enclosure must be at least 6 feet high and
have a 100-percent opaque gate.
Jared Jewelers:
a)
Dumpster and recycling enclosure constructed of quality building materials
to match the building. The enclosure must be at least 6 feet high and
have a 100-percent opaque gate.
Buffalo Wild Wings:
a) Removal of the exposed neon stripe.
b)
Dumpster and recycling enclosure constructed of quality building materials
to match the building. The enclosure must be at least 6 feet high and
have a 100-percent opaque gate.
11)
A revised outdoor lighting and photometric plan. The revised plan shall shoe the
exact location, height, and style of all outdoor lights. The light illumination from
all outdoor lights may not exceed .4-foot-candles at all property lines.
12) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior
improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
c. Prior to issuance of sign permits, the following must be submitted:
1) Sign elevations for Buildings B, C, and D as follows:
a)
One freestanding sign, 25 feet in height and 100 square feet in area.
Freestanding sign height must be measured from building grade to top of
the sign, not ground grade to top of sign. "" °"-'"' ' .... °-"
.... · _.;_,.;_ . = ,__, ....*k...~. · .... . ..... '~" '"""" The TGI
Friday's and Jared Jewelers freestandinq signs must maintain a 5-
foot setback to the White Bear Avenue right-of-way and a 10-foot
setback to all side property lines. The Buffalo Wild Winq's
freestandinq sign can maintain a zero setback to County Road D and
a 5-foot setback to the side property line. All three freestanding signs
must have a decorative base constructed of quality building materials to
match the corresponding buildings.
b)
Three wall signs per building, only one per elevation. Size of the wall
sign is limited to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the sign is
attached. Wall signs are not permitted on a canopy.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
2) A detailed landscape plan for the base of all three proposed freestanding signs.
d. Complete the following before occupying the buildings:
1) Install all required exterior improvements.
2) Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets.
e. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
1)
The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
2)
The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of
Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall
complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the
building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if
occupancy is in the spring or summer.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The city council may approve major changes
to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to
the plans, including a change to the site plan for the proposed future driveway access
onto White Bear Avenue, pending Ramsey County engineer and city engineer approval.
Building A and signs associated with Building A are not included in this community
design review approval.
Community Design Review Board recommends that a four-foot-high fence around
the Buffalo Wild Wings patio be approved as proposed by the applicant. The
CDRB views this fence as part of the aesthetics of the overall development of the
site.
Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
The item goes to the city council on May 24, 2004.
VI. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she would invite Maplewood residents to come to a CDRB
meeting to learn what the board reviews. The packets are available on the Internet if anyone
would like further information or you would like to read about the items that would be
discussed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 5-13-2004
21
VIII. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. CDRB Representation at the May 24, 2004, city council meeting.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline will be the CDRB representative at the May 24, 2004, city council
meeting. Items to discuss will include the design review of Mounds Park Academy at 2051
Larpenteur Avenue, and Chesapeake Retail Center at 3091 White Bear Avenue.
Ms. Finwall said Judy Driscoll the newly appointed board member would be joining the board
for their next meeting on Tuesday, May 25, 2004.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.