Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-11-14 CDRB Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD November 14, 1989 7 :00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: October 24, 1989 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business A. Site Plan Revisions - Citgo Fuel Station, 2228 Maplewood Drive B. Building Design Revision Goff Homes, Inc. Edgehill Court 6. Design Review III A. Sarrack's Liquor Store Expansion - 2305 Stillwater Road B. Parking Authorization Panda Cafe, 705 North Century Avenue 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 24, 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Moe called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Donald Moe Present Tom Deans Present Marvin Erickson Present Roger Anitzberger Absent Michael Holder Present Daniel Molin Present 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 26, 1989 The minutes were amended (Item 5. A.) correcting the spelling of Dick Ernst's name and adding "Boardmember Molin seconded ". Boardmember Erickson moved approval of the minutes of September 26, 1989, as amended. • Boardmember Holder seconded Ayes - -all B. October 12, 1989 Boardmember Holder moved approval of the minutes of October 12, 1989, as submitted. Boardmember Erickson seconded Ayes - -all 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Deans moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Erickson seconded Ayes - -all 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Sign Plan Revision - Birch Run Station, Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive Bryce Kelly, Director of Development for Weatherford /Walker (owners and developers of Birch Run Station), said the requested five wall signs to be placed on the east end of the building would be composed of individually -lit letters, the letters being all the same height. Mr. Kelly said the tenants of Community Design Review Board -2- Minutes 10 -24 -89 • this center are concerned with identification on the east side of the center facing Maplewood Mall in order to take advantage of the Mall shopping traffic. Mr. Kelly said that a commercial retail corridor has been created with the extension of Southlawn Avenue and the construction of Birch Run Station, and that the signage is part of the design criteria and an important consideration. Boardmember Holder moved approval of the sign plan amendment request for Birch Run Station of individually -lit letters on a raceway for the five tenants, not to exceed two feet in height and not to exceed 60 feet in total width across the east end of the building. Boardmember Erickson seconded At this time it was discussed whether the motion meant 60 feet accumulated or a total run of 60 feet. The applicant said the 60 feet would not include the space between the signs. • Boardmember Holder amended the motion to read: Boardmember Holder moved approval of the sign plan amendment request for Birch Run Station of individually -lit letters on a raceway for the five tenants, not to exceed two feet in height and not to exceed 75 feet in total width across the east end of the building, subject to staff approval. Boardmember Erickson seconded Ayes - -Moe, Deans, Erickson, Holder, Nays- -Molin The amended motion was then voted on Ayes - -Moe, Deans, Erickson, Holder Nays - -Molin • Community Design Review Board - • Minutes 10 -24 -89 6. DESIGN REVIEW A. Sign Proposal - Arlington Hills United Methodist Church, 759 East County Road B Pastor Robert McClelland, Arlington Hills United Methodist Church, said plans have been submitted for this request to erect a new 4- by 8 -foot ground sign to replace the existing ground sign for this church. Pastor McClelland explained the proposed design and construction of this requested ground sign. A board member said this requested signage would be attractive and would be an improvement over the old sign. Boardmember Deans moved approval of the proposed ground sign for Arlington Hills United Methodist Church dated October 10, 1989, based on the eight factors for approval required by code. Approval is subject to the removal of the existing ground sign. Boardmember Molin seconded Ayes - -all • 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 8. BOARD PRESENTATIONS 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS 10. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. • MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Site Plan Revision LOCATION: 2228 Maplewood Drive APPLICANT /OWNER: Hoffman Corner Oil /Ron Urban PROJECT: Citgo Fuel Station DATE: October 30, 1989 INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting that the Design Review Board approve an amendment to the approved site plan to omit the two concrete islands that were originally proposed within the two street right -of -ways. The applicant painted these "islands" on the asphalt instead of constructing them. BACKGROUND On March 22, 1988, the Community Design Review Board conditionally approved the building, site and landscape plans. On April 11, 1988, the City Council granted the CUP subject to seven conditions. • On May 4 and August 17, 1989, the City Council renewed the CUP for 60 days each time for completion of the required site improvements. CURRENT STATUS The following site improvements required by the Board have either not been completed or have been incorrectly performed by the applicant: 1. In addition to the "islands" being painted on, three parking spaces have been striped within the frontage road right -of -way. 2. Stop signs have not been installed. This is because the concrete islands have not been constructed which would have delineated the driveways. 3. A handicap parking sign has not been erected. • DISCUSSION (concrete islands, parking and handicap parking sign) Now that the remodeled food and fuel station is operational, Staff no longer feels that the construction of these concrete island would be beneficial. Ideally, the creation of specific access points are desired. In this case, however, the islands would end up being located too far out into the right -of -way, due to the inadequate building setbacks of the convenience store. Staff, therefore, recommends that the site plan be amended to omit the concrete islands. The three parking stalls the applicant has striped within the frontage road should not be allowed. These are not needed to meet code requirements. More importantly, permitting these parking spaces within a right -of -way would set a bad precedent that should be avoided. Parking should be restricted to the applicant's site as with all other commercial development. A handicap parking stall has not been provided yet. The parking stall closest to the rear entrance of the convenience store should be widened to 12 feet and signed with the standard blue handicap - parking sign. RECOMMENDATION The site plan approval for the Citgo Fuel Station at 2228 • Maplewood Drive shall be revised as follows: 1. The two concrete islands originally proposed alone County Road B and the Maplewood Drive frontage road may be omitted. The three parking spaces striped within the frontage road right -of -way shall be omitted by cross - hatching these spaces out. In lieu of providing concrete islands, as originally required, the applicant shall keep these "islands" painted. Since the concrete islands are omitted, the stop signs shall also be omitted. 2. The parking space nearest the easterly convenience store entrance shall be widened to 12 feet and shall have a blue "handicap parking" sign erected. TEHCOCDRB Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Approved Site Plan 4. Actual Site Plan • 2 • • - ` C o _ v " • Y 0 0 u • 1 ... 0 0 E E E � _ '— i �sreti.nP 1 Z • ettl�n4' � ft1 i _ �e •_ p I D�ID.I r r • i ��. 1 t . y am - _ i lcs G S C ' ' s .� U�( • • t au as a i /1 at s ■ sr o , i,u� � :Z - R m . •. fit". _ _ • . ` - - W. O Rae a[ =t= R! T ; Ii a� i ! �� ..l ' L C . 9!n :. I R�. •_11% - -eo ' lorld r Td t or' al le MK IR ' .�,. p e ar, UPI �'i • •�� OS S tr , . •. 5� j - v..: ��� O , n � `. 9 Ct = • = I t� — W • j •/ �J _ 11. _ - 1 = :110 min arterial O r r ig_ el Ave_ •1!G• _� ' E—. = I • ,. `� „ow."... "f Lora "_ .e - ^ . • C * �� — * .. M M • C = 6. W • • 0 m e c • S REVISED 8 -24 -85 7 -23 -85 "'s.l • LOCATION MAP SHERWOOD GLEN n NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN N 3 At tacllmell I 1 • . • I1 1 • • - • —o I . .- o .4i.s�' , . r Q , i ce " '1 ~ . rr . , - - - -- - - - - - -- ' .LA& � " eP " ii1.v " _ �1, . 40 • , P' WARNER HARDWARE / COUNTRY CLUB MARKET « •• 11:111 1 j " I • +� ' ~ : I 4, : „ kr . \ (249 - . c;) - . - ii„: a , •. , I ,' • 1071 j • t! . 4. . . /4 ' M %- C OUNTY ROAD B- I • - -.- i_ • / -'� - . is — .•0. -- c ' -.- ,��'— ,• a / cc � 2 1 � � j� K. c v ), I / // (. � — jL .e42 ! —_ � ;' Z!° 1 (vli 0 / 44. / .it de 4V 1 w .- ,/ / � X C _- .. . i (+ ® ; iii . EL .. o. o (� x 13 ,•• Q , 9 D G ` .S nil • _ I •i . c 3.SO•c r .vs•• • .. . .sue 1 j g OVNTY OF• R ' ► ZY L (Ate - 1.14Aa - V • c • • KEL .;j (-44) • ••As• , ® .. ,,°, r • .- I Y. .4, I • . CO U 141 Y Or PAA • r • ♦ ' ER GOLF COURSE 1 " . • • ' • (») • • L — 3: . ._- .i-- --... 1.. \ -- - 3E1.�� r• �...,....... • tar !Ai 1...- - 4 1/ • PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP U 4 Attachment 2 ri • • • • . - . . R I,,. :re 3 (� 0 r L.. J Wy 4 . 1 1 i' J . • • D c - L -. 3r I . 1 . N'fl.• r►1 ' �fk to &c�om ic. I I,fHf,a4 ,i1tl t• rylo�E. ! - • 4% t f f OM 0 tlig rte. HO 1 �• tutu~& 110.A. X / Z CAIMAN i tJcE1 rJr1 . & 5T ! �� -t• 1411%06 t „cr..K, ' 1 ._ . ' /w 3 • / I r 5 �,y ,---- _ 1...0.14 \ i S f 1 (./ • ___� _ • Q ;.{ c�J411 doocr4 iv • 'w — Ti u 4. :c ni- 7.7. \ . %% IStahuD 1 1 t;1LiJ 'DJ FEr1o4 141,1. rtiafs i 1 rpm i rnvr^E UHD11- 4 ytf-vu G I I. P On DIJd t { F • Gou.� 0nv6 I APR 1 1 ge6 . 1 . . • S I T E P N • 5 Attachment 3 N . . • • o 14. I i 1 � 1 4rash _ _ rF,•c't•r 1.,'F v A\ °. LNRM& 14.J L. • I/ . . ............. -/ Olt \ % 6 R. ..,„,„/ _ , ti I a ......„ . \ a4' Zo a el E III ACTUAL SITE PLAN 6 Attachment 4 1[ N d • MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Building Design Revision LOCATION: Edgehill Court APPLICANT /OWNER: Goff Homes, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Goff's Mapleview 3rd Addition DATE: November 1, 1989 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting approval of a design alternative for his twin -home development on Edgehill Court. The exterior materials would remain the same which are brick, aluminum horizontal lap siding and asphalt shingles. The applicant is requesting to be allowed to build a rambler- design structure instead of the two -story design previously approved. BACKGROUND On May 10, 1988, the Community Design Review Board approved plans for this development (see page 5.) DISCUSSION • Staff does not have any problem with giving the applicant the option of either design as long all of the previous conditions of approval are complied with. RECOMMENDATION Approval of the alternative building design plans date stamped October 25, 1989, for the one -story twin -home design for Goff Homes, Inc. on Edgehill Court to permit rambler design or the originally approved plans. Approval is subject to all of the previous conditions of approval by the Community Design Review Board. TEGOFF Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Previously Approved Building Design 5. May 10, 1988 CDRB conditions of approval 6. Proposed Alternative Building Design (separate attachment) 1 . • • CI . I .; ': . 41, 4Z •,•:::;•: ... 1••::' •s Q.) 1 0 8 • 1.• 0 4 ".T j s I . • !IN •■• I 2 N vt, • loi • 1g _ AV J - att s .. :._,....... _ EAM _ . a /I (1) . . , 40 / _ or l . : ,:- c < 4 1 } 1 mAka m Kohlmon Lake POND ..i 1....) /I ((.....:. ril - Lake le / I KowimANIT ow „. 4 .3 — -----.. .......) ill 'C 11F.1 CO C RO " C" / ' v 1- „ ..'zt w . ..., ge IQ La tie: c g on § F El ,..i .r 221 PALM DE- NON ,.. 0 g -; O- W I-. 17 °CA R / , DEMONT AV a t N cs" 1 c ONCR A■ s u. AV i / 8 ...I 4 1 BRO• . to - 1- fu a 0 i 4 Sf )(TAW. z .- 4) • XTAN T AV Y. ; • mom GERVAIS 0 is ek,,,, • GERVAIS AV s- ■. .3 • u GRANDVIEW AV z a 6, x 4 VIKING DR ... 4111 IP"- P El COPE . A Hrod LeAe _________ —alTIVA. .. c o E t,-, 6, MEE W7:14? r '-,--- ------ yr o- LARK ....„1 Keller Lake I. 5, .. 0 o RD B y t., LAURIE z et f -. 1 0 f AV r Pr SAND- H R T cr ' 0 g LELAND lor RD .. . 0 Id 2f C 0 ih .‘ JUNCTION ST 0 AV rpm_ AV RK sum ' -: • 0 .9 •TE gio MCNANSERS ST I- ii, .., ORME il 2 f 4111# al AI ELDRIDG E AV 1 w-4,4 A .L. T e \ 4111.• 1.. R i CRE - 41 - 47442 RI x I a ,/ / / .,__,...A1 • ..,1 A ....—.' am mEllM 0 l e N ROSEvi00 D s:,:r • OD M ill.4 is• / S LA — i . S tipAl. n i i , M A/ V RNON / 1111k3 1 / C4 FROST ' e -. ..)- 1 D ••• e 28 'I N a a !MI 0 _ ,„,FE . TON AV V. r• ID _ if, .0 k. . - - LOCATION MAP 411 . . 2 Attachment 1 ■. i , T //' 4 _ T 4 . ,4 :' li° / . U - _ 1 • ' — / I 5 a 6. ; (10 g iwinwiwilb �.,, I r�e S , y F • n BAO �j v i- ( -17L)- -.. V1 . am J 2 F %21 4i et , j a• 0 ,4� S' p O 7 tat • its ` 4 a 3 ; J ;4) h 44. 1. J deo at i 1 5 . - . 4 w , . 10 - ,,, 3 :>, • j : l ' (64) N 4 h c i N III/ N W 7) e :W 2 ..,.ti �D 'i_ , .I l -. ti• O 1 A 3 i ` k.. : :t 6 _. n r 3 t ( +L4o) !•ttr j • i J I , ; 41 . 9 9 ••••- • ' • D R4i1� ^5E ao I • t F s v i , N P U ) . N(7 Cv e 11 � , WET LAND Ts. 7z3oas I " 33 t� : _ 539.35 179.72. i 101.S _„ • ` ° Z.96 053 1 it 1; ' -� �i • (5-6) 14 i, -t-`" • j • itiLlijm ; ---"-. -", 11111 rt1111.111 - 11" all 111-11 3.o$ 1 t 1 15 it 1 [7._ • PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP O 3 N Attachment 2 ./ [ 1 • • / %4•1 0 %. •' % 'L p , . ! • 'T t . . fia �y .4 s41' ,ice .1 0 .. -♦ i -•, .. f, .� • r-- -, et :e � / O •j �' \ 4 ' , . 1 . il % ‘i cit:i. .. .. , . 4., a T1 \. • h w ?s ., 1 . \ . A \. °. N. o �' : • 1 .....4 `� • as w 10s '!► \�+ g � �` / '. � a , 4 • . :%. i �i . `••a ST 10500- -• - e0. --- WE . f p. , . J .. N 4 ' + t i ' w • 102 so _ • 4 S k 1 1.... I 1 \ / • • 1 et r. ■ * - 44: 4* : .4" . :I A. io it. • 1,.. , .. /-* -.* :...., ; ,,, .. 4 ." ,. .?.. 1: " i , 413 io?..t.. `• ' Q ity 4 IS. " 0 4 Air " IN -; '!4' % 4 4. 4* .44,4 • ° a te fi s 1 : ' "1 T *l i • y • " o +t C, •. • •' ‹. • 1. Si Al �,, ' y 6w .. / 0 t a. ,.0- O � � /i • I 1, . `i T ♦� O ?, • ~• • f/ � Op O ; T ' 2 S = ".1245.4" J 1 VI L ti : ii I�� .., %? �. p , 'fir � . ! f 1 2• N N . '. .6M. b l • '+ , . `, (p o ° N •p• n l -- �i 1 JJJ/TTT v iii ��, ,. t h, .. • -_ , ' �,�— , . / I • " 122 . N e I i re !` • 1. o • A N i IN • • _. � 1 it — a i ,T X � \ ) y 4 , '0 a � ., 1 I ^o • • ' • )• 6p f I ' r& , h =` • A/• i.) .1.. k e, b .16 a 44 -r r \ ti � • b asa ��ffop o n W 9 , %.. a e, a °. , , . / ?a °a ...7 I ..e.„..... , f l4 f• a ". . P W n s•.op s ,• N 3? -� ' • ' 4 12 I ut • 4 z o cc I ds py. C r Vin -:-.; l � .�,r 'J• I = i 1. o 1.0toI 4 I .� N • i W . . e • I u " 1 . ,,• I I aI4 I • 7 a_ '�J, o I W 1 £ ` 2 i s o.. „ • v c '- • I N W • J C N n W 1...._7 O A L Z , '/ O 0 \ ', .. c / R4 3, /4, Ur �� N GI' z ^, / 4�F C p l , , r 1• t , [ . - • SITE PLAN a [°N 1 Attachment 3 • -- - - 1 { ': n r f . • i -='...-..7 stss ILL ___ & ©a G0©© •T — :'' DUCK' • DEI �0001J0: iE132 � d ean ; ,: I( • I . I ' ' 1 IIP [ 11 � 2. D DO DO �': U[ T' `s Illi®� ��m0 . .._I mi j / . Fr•4 /..... .. • \ •••"_ • 5 • • . tz - ,, - fk . & VI. . . - a 1.4 - I at 1 --.--- - - . 1 i t , k; I It i , _ T ( q .. MENIMMII __ - -_ _ = S.a • • • PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING DESIGN • 5 ATTACHMENT 4 N • • • Community Design Review Board -2- Minutes 5 -10 -88 • Steve Low i^y, , owne , was present. The board discussed the projec• with r. Lowary. Board Member. 1 -ans moved approval of plans date - stamped May 2, 1988, • the single dwell ing on Lot Five, Block One, Cave's ng sh Street Second Addition. Board Me •er Erick - -n seconded Ayes - -al1 C. Double Dwellings - Goff's Mapleview 3rd Addition, Edgehill Court Bruce Hilger was present at the meeting. The board members discussed the staff report. The chairman questioned whether the exteriors of these structures should be different from each other. Board Member Deans moved approval of plans date - stamped April 15, 1988, for the Goff's Mapleview Second Addition townhome project, subject to: 1. All setback requirements shall be met and be subject to staff approval . • 2. Only one structure shall be allowed for the entire property prior to the recording of this plat with Ramsey County. • 3. A certificate of occupancy shall not be granted for the model until the street is constructed in front of the structure or an all- weather five -ton driveway is constructed from Duluth Street. 4. Each lot shall have one 2 1/2 inch 8 and 8 tree in front of each unit and be sodded from the street curb to • the front of the house. 5. All units shall have proper addresses as required by code. 6. The exterior color shall be submitted for staff approval showing a varied mixture mixed -color of siding, brick and roof color and that all structures be earth tones and be compatible with each other. Board Member Erickson seconded Ayes - -all D. Code ndment - Staff Approval for Small -lot Single Dwel 1 i ngs • ATTACHMENT 5 6 • MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Design Review, Parking Authorisation, Con- ditional Use Permits and Setback Variance LOCATION: 2305 Stillwater Road APPLICANT: Con /Spec Corporation OWNER: Gust Sarrack PROJECT TITLE: Sarrack's Liquor Store Addition DATE: November 8, 1989 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1. The applicant is requesting approval of plans for a 9,896 - square -foot addition to Sarrack's Liquors. The entire addition would be one story, except for a 920 - square -foot second -story office addition. The exterior would be rock - face concrete block with maroon accent bands. 2. The applicant is also requesting the following special approvals from the City Council: (Each of these items require a recommendation from the Design Review Board.) a. A 15 -foot parking lot setback variance from the north • lot line. Code requires 20 feet; five feet is proposed. b. Council authorization to have 17 parking spaces fewer than code requires. Code requires 74; 57 are proposed. c. A conditional use permit (CUP) for the following building encroachments into required setback areas: (1) The proposed addition would be 48 feet from the north lot line; code requires 50 feet from a side setback. (2) The proposed addition would maintain the existing building's 30 -foot- setback from the west lot line; code requires 50 -feet for a rear setback. (3) Refer to the letters of justification on pages 13 -15. low BACKGROUND On January 27, 1986, the City Council granted approval of a fifteen -foot parking lot setback variance from the rear (westerly) lot line to allow the parking lot to be expanded while maintaining the existing five -foot setback. Approval of the variance was subject to the following conditions: 1. The five -foot setback from the westerly lot line shall apply to the parking lot only. 2. The screening requirements of Section 36 -27 shall be met along the west property line. 3. Revision of the site plan to eliminate paving on existing and planned right -of -ways and to meet City setback requirements. This may result in reducing the size of the addition. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Section 36 -442 (a) of the City ordinance requires that in order to approve a CUP, the nine findings for approval listed on page 20 must be made. Section 367.10, subdivision 6 (2) of State law requires that the following findings be made before a variance to the zoning • chapter of City Code can be granted: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. DISCUBBION (CUPS, Parking Authorization, Variance and Design) Conditional Use Permits Staff does not find any problem with the granting of CUPs for any of the proposed setback encroachments. The rear setback reduction is due to the addition maintaining the existing • 2 • building setbacks. The two -foot setback reduction at the north end of the building would not have an impact on the adjacent • residentially zoned property which is a deep rear yard of the adjacent parcel. Parking Authorization There is no basis for the parking authorization for fewer parking spaces. Parking authorizations are sometimes granted when it is determined that the specific use(s) does not generate the parking need expected by code or when there are different peak hours of use by businesses on the same property. In this case, there is no evidence indicating that a typical retail /office development, such as this one, would generate less traffic than anticipated by code. If this was the case, the code should be amended rather than waiving the rules. The unusual shape of the lot should not be considered as justification for the parking authorization. Problems related to the physical shape of the site are more pertinent to the layout of parking on the site rather than the number of stalls to be provided. Parking Lot Setback Variance Staff feels that the 15 -foot parking lot setback variance should be granted for the same reasons the westerly setback variance was approved in 1986. These reasons are: • 1. The intent of the ordinance would be met if screening is provided. 2. There is an existing grade elevation and landscaping that already partially screens the site. 3. There is a hardship that is caused by the State's acquisition of a portion of Sarrack's parking lot, thereby reducing parking space. In addition to these reasons, the site to the north is the undeveloped rear yard of an unoccupied residential lot recently acquired by the State in the widening of Stillwater Road. One circumstance that is not the same between this request and the 1986 variance, however, is that that variance was also granted so an existing driveway could be maintained. Design Concerns Staff has the following problems with the proposed site layout and building exterior: 3 1. Four parking spaces are proposed within the right -of -way south of the building. This is contrary to the Council's 1986 variance approval which prohibited parking lot paving on existing and planned right -of -ways. Council further stated that complying with setback requirements may result in reducing the size of the addition. (It should be noted that the existing parking lot extends slightly into the right -of -way south of the building. The proposed parking lot expansion, however, pushes the paving up to ten -feet further out into the boulevard.) 2. The narrow drive aisle serving the loading area should be designated for employees and deliveries only. This drive aisle, being only 13- feet -wide, is too narrow for two -way traffic. 3. The southernmost parking stall in front of the existing building should be omitted since there would not be adequate access to this stall. 4. Staff would normally want to see the standard 15 feet of green area provided along the front lot line. The lessened setback in this instance, however, should be permitted because of the unusual lot shape which makes normal setbacks difficult to meet. 5. The proposed rock -face block building exterior should be "dressed up" with brick to be more compatible with the brick • office complex to the south and for better design aesthetics. Conclusion Staff cannot recommend approval at this time because of the requested parking waiver. A revised site plan should be submitted which proposes parking code compliance and, ideally, proposes increased setbacks to lessen the currently proposed setback reductions. The building exterior should also be redesigned to incorporate brick into the design. RECOMMENDATION 1. Tabling approval of the requested conditional use permits which will be considered again after revision of the site plan, omitting the need for the requested parking authorization for fewer parking stalls. 2. Denial of the parking authorization since it has not been justified that the liquor store and proposed retail /office uses, which are yet unknown, do not need the number of spaces required by code. 4 3. Tabling of the variance request for the five -foot parking lot setback from the north lot line until a revised site plan is submitted omitting the request for a parking authorization for fewer parking spaces. 4. Tabling approval of the site and building design plans until a revised site plan is submitted omitting the request for a parking authorization for fewer parking spaces. This plan shall stress increasing all setbacks to comply with code as much as possible, in consideration of the constraints involved because of the unusual shape of the site. • 411 5 CITIZEN COMMENTS • Staff mailed surveys to the 54 property owners within 350 feet for their comments regarding this proposal. Of the 21 replies, 12 were in favor, four had no comment and five objected. In Favor Comments, 1. Your rules are silly and arbitrary - It will be good for the neighborhood. 2. Mr. Sarrack is a concerned businessman who will keep a clean neighborhood. 3. Sarrack's have been good neighbors and am in favor of supporting small businesses. 4. It appears to be a good addition to the business community of this area. 5. Mr. Sarrack is a very honest and sound businessman. I feel the addition would be a wonderful asset to this area now when the new road is being put in. 6. It would inconvenience no one. 7. Best usage for land and the five feet would do no harm. • 8. The additional to Sarrack's Liquor will be wonderful improvement to this area. I am 100% in favor. 9. I'm for more business in the immediate area. 10. Refer to the letter on page 16. Objections 1. I need more info on how much traffic will use the rear alley on the property, being mine butts up to it. I have two small children, and the way it looks on the plat drawing is that it would be open for use from both ends. A one way entrance or exit would be acceptable for deliveries only, from my standpoint. 2. I believe commercial business so near my home definitely decrease home values. I believe just a liquor store so close is a detriment. Staff Reply: The Ramsey County Assessor's office indicated that it is possible that residential properties directly adjacent to commercial development may not increase in value as quickly as those lots further away. This property, • 6 however, is already developed commercially. There would not, therefore, be any new effect on property values. • 3. Some 20 years ago, the City Council promised the residents that there would be no further building to the north of the present building. If you can't count on what a past council promises a neighborhood, then you can't count on what the present council does. Therefore, there would no need to have a council at all. It would seem that our democratic form of government is not working. Staff Reply: "Staff researched past City Council actions concerning Sarrack's Liquors. No statement could be found which said that there shall be no further building to the north of the present building. 4. We do not need any more off -sale space or any on -sale addition. Please no more liquor store!! A recreation building for our young teenagers. Would have been a sense - able spot instead of existing liquor store. We opposed it from the begining. 5. Refer to the letter begining on page 17. i • 7 • REFERENCE Site Description 1. Site size: 1.17 acres 2. Existing Land Use: Sarrack's Liquor Store Surrounding Land Uses Northerly and Westerly: single dwellings Southerly: Stillwater Road, Reaney Avenue and Cardinal Office Park Easterly: Stillwater Road and single dwellings Past Action 1- 27 -86: The City Council rezoned the applicant's property from BC, Business Commercial and R -1, Single - Dwelling Residential to BC(M), Business Commercial (Modified). Council also granted approval of a fifteen -foot parking lot setback variance from the rear (westerly) lot line. Planning 1. Land Use Plan designation: SC, Service Commercial • 2. The SC classification is oriented to facilities which are local or community -wide in scale. While a full range of commercial uses is permitted in this district, certain types of facilities which may be of a high- intensity nature, such as fast -food restaurants, discount sales outlets, gas stations, and light industrial uses, should be permitted subject to specific performance guidelines. The objective of establishing this district is to provide for a wide variety of commercial uses, compatible with the character and development of the neighborhoods in which they are located. 3. Zoning: BC(M) 4. Ordinance Requirement Building Setback Requirements Section 36 -155 (f. 1.) requires that buildings in a BC(M) district shall have minimum side and rear setbacks of at least 50 feet, and a front setback of at least 30 feet, when adjacent to residential property. . 8 • Parking Lot Setback Requirement Section 36 -27 requires a landscaped area of not less than 20 feet when a nonresidential use abuts residentially zoned property. Parking Space Requirement Section 36 -22 requires that there be one parking stall for each 200 square feet of retail and office space and one space for each 1000 square feet of warehouse area unless otherwise authorized by the City Council. The proposed expansion would result in a total retail /office area of 13,776 - square -feet requiring 69 spaces and loading /storage area of 5,260 - square -feet requiring five spaces. A total of 74 are required. CUP Requirement Section 36 -155 (2) states that a building addition in a BC(M) district which would encroach into a required setback may be approved by conditional use permit, if such encroachment would be consistent with surrounding property setbacks and screened in a manner acceptable to the Community Design Review Board. At least 80% of the addition • shall be screened from abutting residential property. Public Safety 1. The fire lanes should be identified and posted. 2. Deadbolt locks with lock protectors should be installed. 3. Security lighting should be provided. 4. A centrally monitored intrusion alarm should be installed. mb /tesarrack Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's CUP justification dated October 19, 1989 5. Applicant's variance justification dated October 19, 1989 6. Survey reply from Mark V. Curtis 7. Survey reply from Jan Curtis 8. Findings for approval of a CUP 9. Plan date - stamped October 6, 1989 (separate attachment) • 9 K . L • a 1 • Rm 'OS • m _•1 • X - - Rgi . ry -LSC I, ,: re n • Maryland Ave. a major collector at - 111.1I1" - I Rm RI el m s -t ~ c ' III Sti llwater Road V t O 't l P �f �' .. - os -- .• = 71 . I . T - ' _ - I f i 1j ' Il :.1 .: - :!1.1 II I I :1i C i 41 I- Dr' J I�,, � ml_ iiec►orr, Harvester -1�� ' 4 ; Rh'/ p I ,. • 1 p .. E Tv A • I ..t . _R OS E 1 SC e . �I. 47, II ' •' L. a Minnehaha I ' Moo ..TA or atter.' •`� • � .Rh / L 1 F . +RI 'O R . - - IS C. . . - 1 S 1 •• jjlih -major co �- r Conway Tr_-, .. _..._ 1 ,t, .----:L. D R —s� �l— � 1.1e. III ,``r. ,,:_,_, ,_ ,J,„,....,.........., • , . • BEAVER LAKE LAND USE PLAN N 10 Attachment 1 4 - CI — -- , / 6-i-g lig. c ' _ E- ---- 5 - -11 • R 3 .‘t , .. ... ..., _a_ , ,, _ _ D 1.:_.- - -2.1-1--. ;rr - - -' , _ — < r __ _ _-4 - , fi r. 11 " �: 2315 r , ,6 784 ` Itl 3 { 1 4 4 . . I.. ...t ... ' 1 . 1 w.. l .... Li 776 - 1 I z , 1 N -\ _ -.` ' I • - j :� 2310�•�' ° ( — 1 768 Y; SARRACK' S • t. 1= I I I li .0 c ....„ Fl - --i E' 758 '1r -- --JT -- ,�- =� �j�+� - 1 0 �.� 756 . ' is J . ,� ,a: ZI I Zr D R.en • f.0 7D - 1 IrS7_ �. , :.. aF ., , i, Alt. ^'' 1 '" ` I I 11 ��� y ti+� , I I I ' I CARDINAL OFFICE 1.1 1 1 1 I I - 2. r I i ti 4 _ e.e„ ♦ e i"A ' IS e t it, I 19 .1 .. I " - 5 ( 1 -� I If CLIFFS BARBER Ft SPARTAN, SPECIAk.TIES 19 1 1 1 1 I � 1021 . SHOP j ("6� �2s) { (�5) (j °) I 3 v . 3 .t+ I (3., f I 1 ; � _11 r tpz I j / L` ; 3i 4-1 35 I , I V. 11 .'� '•_` �' - -- MINN EHAHA A VE 0 • [41 PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 11 Attachment 2 N 1 • . / / / • C124 iI t1 jJ 1 1, 1 1 w weow turn �I�1O� �r / / ....:***".........s.'"" li 4WICILI_ k k�- /1 ,14*/ . 4 -�� ____ 1 "I A � r /1 `. / i 12S / ..,/, // ! � //� / ,),/ / / • i a , 1,1 17:;,/ , 4 ; 14 7;, /. r , 1 , ., ,.. ,/ . • :%//// Irb q *7 \ fl ! I i 1"1.°1.1211W / 1 /fr4 • , [ ,........„ il ) ' .°,"" f / ' / / AVF?LE ._ � J ' / wv�n PIMP w ~104 ~10 * / 1 C9 / . . i i SITE PLAN 12 Attachment 3 CON /SPEC • CORPORATION 1809 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER, MN 55082 (612) 430 -1500 FAX (612) 430 -1505 October 19, 1989 Tom Ekstrand Office of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Conditional use permit for setback encroachment of Sarrack's Retail Dear Mr. Ekstrand: Sarrack's Retail project consists of the following components: • 1) Sarrack's existing retail: a) Raze 20' x 38' wing to the north b) Remodel existing 4,200 square feet of retail space to remain c) Existing 4,200 square foot basement warehouse to remain d) Add 1,060 square feet loading area to the south e) Add 3,278 square feet retail and 920 square feet second level office to the north 2) Additional retail: a) Add 5,78 square feet retail north of Sarrack's space The City of Maplewood, by fee acquisition, has acquired two parcels of property from the Sarrack's parcels 13 & 14 of auditor's subdivision no. 77. The acquisition of these two parcels has left Sarrack's with a strangely shaped site and an existing building encroaching into the 30.0' front yard setback on Stillwater Road by approximately 4.4'1. The loading addition proposed to the south of Sarrack's encroaches the 30.0' front yard setback on Stillwater Road by the same amount, approximately 4.4'1. We are asking that Sarrack's be granted this encroachment for the new addition based on the following: 1) The addition does not project into the setback any further than the existing building. • 2) The addition would be well within the specified setback requirements if the property were intact prior to fee acquisitions by the City of Maplewood. 13 Attachment 4 Tom Ekstrand City of Maplewood Page 2 We are also requesting that we be allowed to infringe on the 50' setback from • residential at the west property line, to the extent the existing building does. Although we have been granted a 5' parking setback variance, we have not taken full advantage of this. We feel that having the building in the back would be Tess objectional to the local residents than having parking. In addition, this area is very heavily screened with existing vegetation, thus creating a buffer effect. To place parking in this area would require removal of a large portion of the existing screening and vegetation and we feel this would be detrimental and unacceptable to the local residents. Although our plan as submitted is (10) parking stalls short of what is required by the zoning code, we feel that an adequate number of stalls are furnished. The type of customer anticipated for the liquor store and the retail center will be mostly short term shoppers. Because of the short term nature of their stay, we feel satisfied that the stalls provided will handle the turnover. We anticipate a small number of stalls required for employees, four employees for the liquor store and one to two employees for each of the (3) retail shops. Based on this, we anticipate seven to ten stalls for employees and forty to forty -three stalls for customers. We feel we have maximized the site with regards to available space for parking. Again, had the fee acquisitions not taken place, we would not have had any difficulty meeting the parking count required by code. The expansion of Stillwater Road has had a severe impact on the space limitations we had to work with on this site. Although we are asking for concessions to the zoning code, we feel we are making useful, beneficial, and economically feasible use of a piece of property that is currently a 30 year old liquor store and a vacant lot. The face lift to the liquor store and the addition of retail space to this area will ultimately be a benefit to the community. With respect to the "Criteria for Approval of a Conditional Use Permit," we feel we reasonably meet or exceed the standards as specified. Concerning items 1, 2 & 3, we feel we are considerably improving the property within the BCM zoning district and therefore, feel that surrounding properties would appreciate in value. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter and look forward to working with you in the future. Si ncerely, J. Gu Architect JGR/bah 1 14 CON /SPEC _ CORPORATION - - - _ - - 1809 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE October 19, 1989 STILLWATER, MN 55082 (612) 430 -1500 FAX (612) 430 -1505 Tom Ekstrand Office of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Sarrack's International Wine & Spirits and Proposed Retail Addition Dear Mr. Tom: We are requesting a variance to the zoning code, at the Sarrack's property, for a reduction in the required parking setback from 20' to the normal 5' setback on the north property line. As you are aware, this particular site had been substantially reduced in size due to fee acquisitions necessary for the expansion of the Stillwater Road project. • Considering this, it is necessary to use this space to accommodate additional parking. The parking on the north will be adequately screened from the residential property. Please consider this request with regards to the position that the road expansion has put Mr. Sarrack in. We feel we can meet the spirit of the code with berms that would be created and vegetation to effectively screen headlights and reduce noise. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Scott Nettell Project Manager SMN /bah 1 15 Attachment 5 r FEEL S9�/eACK 5 • / �.S /�!_Ld/97S • t3EE& .g GC.0%) Basi:/c_ss 7 h'�U,� nLl��s Tf��/E' p�,e/VN6 L,UT /7/11P laWE /OPT 77-45/:e /6,-/ T�/er ��/iYG eat/ iv I/07; Pie_5 i_docipTifyY AJaiiI/ Do ii/vy 1 - 7r• ahe///6'//-4.2,e/zy‘ -,9 /zzb 2 SuP��T parrn,s/9&.9 e/9/1/ 23 // g/17 / ,,731-43.5.6 7 xf X.WD,041/977o • /IfiteA / • 16 Attachment 6 I , b ovai , wti piLor.e9, C Ocite-d rte b V. i JILOU --/-kewtic 7/1, 61-0-/) Serni)- t04/71,/^ e>a,-1,3 hd./2/24:2&115 db4(1),L, LOU_ .5tLt.d ( 0a4,1 ht, W . guaL. 4-14 6ii,6112 •/� Th'' so 14 ws & —L _ y C 10A Clit1- CiAthW, ledi-Vn 5 vtivyt /14.A.4)--,Xtvr), a 4.614. Wtt_ cbuirnic zma& cy agLeA • `7 0;y1.pg-u.nefi`7112-e--e-/i OaA--- Yzzke c W2c c ji, c ( v) f ix ic jlii/nt w'tti 21.9-"-Or 1PeZAUlt.-- /YlapA(tim 101' , &afro ,L rze c. ag< E menu-ex) LIA lex A oki a y (H 0.2-111-64}' Liatthn Wu? tz) cam)) r u �.e -SUS .� Loa 124 ? d 1)_a, "`' D 5en.vaAr hkA4-- ` �`'''`J`'1 � ''�'`( ' cio-tic Oiblrecia)o. HaLt-)-12')e\-9r- k oJ2_11.e.ene .A (}{4. 7 411.--t- 602AL 6/,.&y'ai2c1 o-). ec. ac'e' Dee a-1 ED Cti/rk ( -g307 a?k-a M l LA.R ak - 4-_) ' u ( (-4- 1 -/C1 4 /LC4 , ICT _S 17 Attachment 7 . I / , . . . .. • _ , . s i � u I 1 .:.. / � r --- R mrs �I��O�l��l1' ��r� �� I � ` • ."7 . . . . ' 1 e .. ry .. --- 1 , 7 4 , ---- ...09Ek.--i- . ir- - --,/ 4.4. ,1),- 7 , .7,......17:4---:_ 1 , .. .,- s is_. 1 - ., . . .1 :„.....,...„ 4 \ . •..,.... i. 19.- / ; ,r' t ,, ' ,_, ,. t . r5 , s 8._ i Cc t _iii / ; • , � , � A • ` ��--. .,'' / . Cd W 0 2& bJ-c •C La> .. ) s• ' / / - , • —) - --../ v'c . '',/ I ' 6% fi Cmci &La), --t-P- / . / C 0 1 , / J 47r r+EY woaF �' o. rrw•n two w 'n'� ` / — - 7 - 0# t 0 t4.-Ji....(- 4FY9 Za ‘ % 'G�C -�C � "Z u , / L 'z 44- . 4.), „./ 42 / trY1 SIV ,44:97t ay • - / i 1 yuk&4e n , ao 6242,” , L,K a b t 06 7; 4 7 ) • 4fri.---- .4-44/ -)AtiAziciettf �-It `lfze 4)(127M. � I' � - a mac, - 6/Z - Catsciede SITE PLAN �d "��erD ')a1-- W a -' N - / 18 YI/tifL-S-eat(-.6>f) 342- 6a-( JAHAt3) j49-0-k 40, iaS O'v ;4"111-c J_ l/ t ' /9'f? (tteLTI^ ajYtd d-t'' a-7 VAL C'12' 2rZc'C " ) uJo-cterC �u aeee-&70` , • , f lArrn effou anoz i L-hago-p6; • ,t,Las .-/z) kup : Act )-)/L-( • ajw Wu/9 a d, .�czz AAA/L 6-tof c°)1'"ja L/AL) bite_ pc 6-60 /U C�.f2cicc 542_, kilime / • 19 • FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing, or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other • nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. • 20 Attachment 8 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Parking Authorization LOCATION: 705 North Century Avenue APPLICANT: Linda Wong PROJECT TITLE: Panda Cafe DATE: November 9, 1989 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting approval of a parking authorization for 11 fewer parking spaces than are required by code. REASON FOR THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to expand the dining room for the Panda Cafe into the adjacent store space at Century Center. The breakdown of the building usage after the expansion would require that there be 49 parking stalls on site. There presently are 38. BACKGROUND • The Review Board approved plans for this center on September 2, 1980. CODE REQUIREMENT Section 36 -22 requires one parking space for each 200 square feet of commercial space and one space for each 50- square feet of patron area for restaurants, unless otherwise authorized by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION Authorization for 11 fewer parking spaces than Code requires, for the Panda Cafe's dining room expansion at Century Center, 705 North Century Avenue, on the basis that the cafe's peak customer time is in the evening when many of the adjacent shops are closed and also since there has never been any parking problem experienced at this center. The parking shall be reviewed by the City Council after one year to determine if there is a parking shortage. The Council may then consider requiring the Panda Cafe to relinquish some of their dining area. TEPANDA Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Site Plan • 1 ... ..: . x ..i P • %PI .. . i ,.. VI. ti ma N . e) nn A pa no. a l . . . c • ... La . . • .. 0 - . , •ii ..... Trailer Court ivate) I I i s i I 0 1 vi: ic: an SD (Pr F 1. mARTLAND .. . T s /.17I: I , AVE, ::: © ( ? :5 - - .... - - -0-...-si - 120 . a ..: , 8 . • , , .. . a •:.....=.... 0 iuu.' e( i 4 °- 46 EMMET. • , 4 4, 4 , 4 .. ..:,. . ----z.—___.- 1_ Beaver ' mikenot.t• •vt. 0 • ------= L o k ■ ..., , IR 11 It 0.• p :i; .4 Si‘U -- _ 'i ,"1:--- - ..:: • CASE (!) P . ... ,.....] HARVEST ... LA. , BRAND avt ..- r_a -, 0 ic•o•L. . 4 de i-i e t- • t; — 7- '... a :... R- -. —L i in ,,., „.. __. 6 1 a :1 --I N A ft le 2530 t• .. a: — 3 1 il . ... i g ,.. • . . bi o$70) ...• 2 fff,1411 Ay 2 V • D - . F . _1 .. I ... .2) • E I 4 A a E T RilEili 1 — ....... — I . " 0 i —I ,................ •IIMO .a................... •••■.. I L i -,,- =_...,....... : bi 1 . la . 4 TRENO NT AVE —I • • 3 M . x a a 1 e _Z x a bJ ... I 1 *, . 1 ........... 1 irm,,...?=.,...,..._......._ ..., ,._., Lilta. (L .__ SERVICE R •• I . CON w 41 t._..4,„-4_:74X _ 0 L... ____.:L.. r-- • i LOCATION MAP • . -Cill • . . 2 Attachment 1 N . . • . . • . - - . • • . . . . . • .1 1 ' I. • ' • • ..• . - - - --,- 57.--- A V E 7 1 " 1 " Z"`. - 75 I s 1 17 2708 .• 'Mcbkeihlds 4ti 33 I I I • 4 iz • ri 1 1 , i .,-...:,-,. cl t 1--, 1 t 1 • . l . -\". 3 ?, • , I • .f 1. 0 I 1 -.rat g______ ,$). ,:„... I 4 3 , , 1 ,o . ............„:„::„..„ „ :s. eitury Center :::::.,„„:„.„ ■-, .,..:.:::..:::::: :. ._I — — _i_ — — __._.1.... I Ali }._ r• 1 I I • u . k .1 • I n f, ) J . 1 . 1 . , . . ,., 4 I . I e. I. • • N fi 1 9 I I° : W 1 - 1 1--"e 7 1 — 2697 I 12707 . i _ • •• ..,.. ,„ I 1 I ,...- . : • , ..• l ' ' 1 . • : '' ...- 0 ,s I .1 \ 4 Il A CI I. I I .. < I et .1 / • : i I i % • 1 s 7 # .c• $.4 I 1 . 0 . r • ...'"1"..."4""Ir . 1"i 10 trees required E AVE. • • ... -- ; -.--.-.. - • — 771 --- 2706 — e .. : 4 p I I ir El : ti • 1111 i m IN - .., • - s II ,,..., a .;...., ll von I 1 I I R 2 •4 . :0 Z II " • • to . t f • ...a.o. , I • I •. 1 • . • .. 1, • ale .• • ..I Ili 1 • 4 rl -dal I 111111111111111111 I i 11 • " '. •'• • ...._. ........„. ......... . - .. .,...• ..). * . 1 • * IF.A.....1) , 4 0 , ■ ...rt' 1 • i 4 1-.L. Pt - - —... t 14. - , _ _,...,.. ..... "•__-__ _ .L. i• ........ .1.... _g ..• . • , 4[1 . • PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 3 Attachment 2 N -= MINNEHAHA AVENUE • • • u • .• • i 1. 1 m \-. I • . 1 11 Mill .- 1E111 _ ..0 1 . . . I _ _ : IN . . _ . _ r. bjk c hu RY CL-NTi R SITE PLAN 4c) 4 Attachment 3 N