Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-12-12 CDRB Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 12, 1989 7:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: November 28, 1989 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business A. Proposed Building Colors - Englewood Shops, Northwest Corner of English Street and Cope Avenue 6. Design Review A. Building Addition, Setback Variance and CUP - Sarrack's International Wines and Spirits, 2305 Stillwater Road B. Plan Review - Burger King, Rice Street and Larpenteur 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 NOVEMBER 28, 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 Present Michael Holder Present Daniel Molin Present 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. November 14, 1989 Boardmember Holder moved approval of the minutes of November 14, 1989, as submitted. Boardmember Deans seconded Ayes - -all • 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Erickson moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Molin seconded Ayes - -all 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. DESIGN REVIEW A. Southwinds Apartments - Continental Development Corporation, Beebe Road north of Larpenteur Chuck Cook of Continental Development Corporation, and his partner in this project, Jim Glugness, were present at the meeting. Mr. Cook said he had concerns about the conditions of recommendation in the staff report regarding the requirement for the building exterior to be at least 50% brick. Mr. Cook said they do not have the funds to use brick, but instead propose to use a one -color maintenance -free aluminum siding, but would agree to use a two -color earthtone - colored siding if required. Mr. Cook said his plan throughout this project was to use maintenance -free siding, but staff is now recommending that at least 50% brick be required • on the exterior of the building. Mr. Cook said the cost for the brick would be $20,000 per building. Community Design Review Board -2- • Minutes 11 -28 -89 The chairman asked staff if the requirement for brick had been discussed with the applicant. Secretary Ekstrand responded that he had informed the applicant approximately two weeks ago, when he received the architectural drawings, that brick would be required. A board member asked if the siding would be steel. Mr. Cook said it is their intention to use aluminum siding since it is made much more durable today than in the past. A board member said he felt there is enough diversity in the design of the buildings to allow a maintenance -free siding to be used. Another board member said, since this project was proposed before the brick requirement was added, he felt it should be allowed to be built with maintenance -free siding. Staff said the plans were just recently submitted for this project and at that time of review, the conditions of the recommendation, including the brick requirement, were established. A board member said he would like a requirement of a three -color scheme of white, blue and brown for the exterior of the building. Mr. Cook asked if the issue of either two or three colors could be postponed until • a later date. Mr. Cook said the sprinkler system required in the staff recommendation was not included in their budget for this project. A board member said he felt a sprinkler system for multiple housing was important, especially for the sodded areas. Mr. Cook said it is more reasonable to require the installation of the sprinkler system along Beebe Road only. A board member said he felt this would be a reasonable compromise on the sprinkler system issue. Mr. Cook said, in reference to the staff recommendation requiring a monetary guarantee for site improvements not completed by occupancy, the mortgage lender will hold a 10% retainer until the entire project is completed and, if occupancy is requested before the sod is completed, the lender will retain 110% of those costs. Mr. Cook said he felt it was redundant for the City to require a monetary guarantee also. A board member said this was a standard procedure for the City to require this guarantee. Secretary Ekstrand said this condition has proved beneficial to the City in the past in getting projects completed and he said it is important to make this a condition of approval of this • project. Community Design Review Board -3- . Minutes 11 -28 -89 Boardmember Deans moved approval of plans date - stamped November 1, 1989, for the Southwinds Apartments, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of plans by the Community Design Review Board does not constitute approval of a building permit. 2. Outdoor trash dumpsters shall be stored in screening enclosures with a 100% opaque wooden gate and shall be a color and material compatible with the building. Enclosures shall be protected by concrete - filled steel posts, or the equivalent, anchored in the ground at the front corners of the structure. If the enclosure is masonry, the protective posts may be omitted. 3. Any exterior building or roof - mounted equipment shall be decoratively screened and hidden from view. Air conditioner grills, designed to appear as an integral part of the wall, shall be placed to screen the protruding portion of the unit. Utility meters shall also be hidden from view. • 4. An erosion control plan, acceptable to the City Engineer, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for erosion control during construction. 5. Parking areas shall be striped in a double - stripe "hairpin" design and all bituminous areas shall have continuous concrete curbing. Parking lots shall be kept in a continual state of repair. Parking stalls shall be at least 9.5 feet wide. 6. If construction of all units has not begun within two years of approval, Board review shall be repeated. 7. Site security lighting shall be provided and shall be directed or shielded so not to cause any undue glare onto adjacent properties or roadways. 8. If any adjacent property is disturbed or property irons removed due to construction of the site, that property shall be restored and irons replaced by the applicant. 9. Grading, drainage and utility plans shall be subject to the City Engineer's approval. • Community Design Review Board -4- Minutes 11 -28 -89 10. All required landscape areas shall be continually and properly maintained. All required plant materials that die shall be replaced by the owner within one year. 11. All disturbed areas shall be sodded as proposed. 12. Reflectorized stop signs and handicap parking signs shall be provided. 13. All public boulevard that is disturbed due to this construction shall be restored and resodded. 14. Proper building addresses shall be installed, subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal. 15. Signage for this complex shall be subject to staff approval, unless City Council or Review Board approval is required. 16. Sidewalks and pathways shall be installed as previously required by the City Council. Sidewalks must taper to meet the driveway and • parking lot grades at all driveways and connections. 17. The building exterior shall be revised for Design Review Board approval showing that the exterior aluminum lap siding shall be two colors of earth tones with white trim. 18. The building exterior shall be continually and properly maintained. 19. An in- ground sprinkling system shall be installed for all landscaped areas along and within 100 feet of Beebe Road. 20. The applicant shall provide a monetary guarantee, in a form acceptable to staff, in the amount of 150% of the estimated cost of any site improvements that are not completed by occupancy. The applicant shall also provide staff with proper documentation, to be approved by the City Attorney, which allows staff access onto the property to finish work that may not be completed. The applicant asked that if upon agreement with the City Attorney, the construction loan will be considered • an adequate monetary guarantee. mow Community Design Review Board -5- • Minutes 11 -28 -89 Secretary Ekstrand said if staff at that time is convinced that the bank holding the escrow is adequate, then that would suffice. Boardmember Erickson seconded Ayes - -Moe, Deans, Erickson, Molin, Holder Nays -- Anitzberger B. Parking Authorization - Maplewood Square 3035 White Bear Avenue Richard Schreier, the applicant, said he was in agreement with the conditions recommended in the staff report. The board members were in agreement that, due to the reciprocal parking agreements between this center and Maplewood Mall, there is sufficient parking available. Boardmember Erickson moved approval of the authorization for 71 fewer parking spaces than code requires for the Maplewood Square's restaurant /bar • expansions for T -Birds and a Vietnamese restaurant on the basis that: 1. The bar and restaurant's peak customer time is in the evening when many of the adjacent shops are closed. 2. There has not been any serious parking problems at Maplewood Square. 3. There is a reciprocal parking agreement between this shopping center and the Maplewood Mall. Boardmember Holder seconded Ayes - -all C. St. Paul Police Department Firing Range Baffling System, 2621 Linwood Avenue Secretary Ekstrand presented the staff report for this request to construct an enclosure around a portion of the existing shooting range. There was no one present representing the applicant. The Board was in agreement that this would be a positive addition to the range. Boardmember Holder moved approval of plans date - stamped November 21, 1989, for the baffling system addition to • the St. Paul Police Department shooting range. 1 Community Design Review Board -6- • Minutes 11 -28 -89 Boardmember Anitzberger seconded Ayes - -all D. Sign Request - Holy Redeemer Church 2555 Hazelwood Avenue George Rossbach, 1406 East County Road C, was present representing the applicant, Holy Redeemer Church, who is requesting approval of plans to erect a ground sign totaling 22.5 square feet. Mr. Rossbach said the sign would be a charcoal background color with white letters and framing. A board member said a similar sign request was approved recently for another area church. Boardmember Erickson moved approval of the proposed ground sign for Holy Redeemer Church dated November 21, 1989, based on the eight factors for approval required by code. Approval is subject to the removal of the existing ground- mounted identification sign. Boardmember Molin seconded Ayes - -all 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 8. BOARD PRESENTATIONS • The report of the November 27 City Council meeting was presented. 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Secretary Ekstrand asked the Review Board to select a preference for either a picnic or a formal dinner for the City commissions' upcoming function. The Review Board's consensus was for a formal dinner. 10. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m. • MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Proposed Building Colors LOCATION: English Street and Cope Avenue APPLICANT: B. B. and D. Investments, Inc. PROJECT TITLE: Englewood Shops DATE: December 4, 1989 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1. On August 15, 1989, the Design Review Board approved the architectural and site plans for Englewood Shops. Condition 22 required that the color scheme for the building be submitted to the Board for approval. 2. The building is to be brick and rock -face concrete block. The brick would be an assortment of brown and beige. The block would be a natural grey block with mustard - yellow colored flecks. Samples of the materials will be available at the meeting. DISCUSSION • Staff's only concern is that the concrete block proposed does not contain enough coloration to appear other than like standard grey block. The applicant feels confident that this material will display enough color to be attractive. He will, therefore, be bringing a sample to the meeting which he feels better represents the color intended. RECOMMENDATION Approval of the proposed brown /beige combination of brick for the Englewood Shops at Cope Avenue and English Street. The proposed rock -face concrete block with gold flecks is not approved sine the block resembles plain grey concrete block too closely. alternative block material shall be submitted to the Board for approval. Appeals Any appeals of the Board's conditions must be made in writing to the city staff within ten days of their approval. TEENGLE Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. End Elevations 5. East Elevation 1. • • • • . %. • 0 • o 5 y t • 0 V V • . • E 4 E r -T Y &\2 lA...1:jrffiii;k4 I affi Ipal r er al `0 /a . 5 ., , 1 .. . ,411.06 1�il II E' 1 1 1 I t.SC 0•72217rab 2 l atierw i. "1et■ e �- H� - . ; G I \ ... • .* . i ii...ra • - _ • ..771 I . TJ K • M 1 �` �C Y �. ilaT4 tor _ • C " - I . • O ,U I �• ?� - • al t r • . ' . n i. 6` 1 i IT= 21___ .. __ . • - 1 . oi 14;4:5 i ____, �� t om ; J .} 111- � _ • ! 1 1, 1 rtorlaJ l . il . � 1 I Ohl j 11 �j^l 1 E r 'at =.!.. • fait s%s� s • 1 rc s 0 „ m• , I= 1 . \ I \ ill t e • o _ N O • C 2 W of to m L > • • SHERWOOD GLEN n • . LAN.D USE PLAN N Attachment 1 2 °'`_ • • 23 $ ,�}.( " lit3 Z°' " 1 b 27 .. -� ZOO (� s y p + /.01st• 0 0 ' ' 8 . S e �o as.) v C IGb— (1555 awl I 82.; .,Dec• • A .4 20 0 ( ( 1 .9 4 . , e) ' 19 031 N� . ., 1/1:°: - o► ‘.11 ■ 3 50 1 LIl it Ace so pro. A.ae h p ., H i t 4 L' e • 4.' — 1• — Highway 36 r,, — >i I i sG7, __ 1 ( d i.� . � °• .N I 1 18 r r.....( fir! .,.:_. w f.-- -.r. � I LO,.:,,. :41437 • a . - e, ' . . 3.t & ac. 2.11 111 '2 1 • 1. 4 4 n,r. ��W S Maplewood Racquetball Club ' 1e ° • • D... co Ds•At•1 rI -, S i r • . 4. • . • .40ac. (to) +. : . 4 • c .,.. . 1 . I 7-1 . .. ::t, ..4: :.. � '. r' i a' .. 1 • . L -M1 14 ,? } r oo • +rte • S e • �, , O M ._ • .Bd ev .. 1 � 1 C 1 N I 10 91 81 1 ,.G , :. 1 W If • Haglund Dental Office, . . I 1 4 I ,i �) y e - 111111111121 II aaMI■aut A V .. . - I 1 . 1 i 1 T 0 )1 .0 r .. .. 1b - . 1. , � I ; :,i ;60i1 �• • ue' • O 4 � i7,1 • I /' ^II ��ii I �I ' "� 1 /i' 71 �4 {, (so) (s .. ±(S CO , i�" i � 1 I I I - I = N �y � . � I 3_ 4 1 3 I • S' �..i��, a s� �1 Iz , mi l lllc 1 s0 a t izilik ✓ 1 � � I 1244 1252 1260 1268 1276 1282 1294 1308 �' t ' �6 C` P ' , r. n _ i o . _, / _ .. b .. - 1 4o I tB.17 171.04 i/ 1 y re--,f.11,',(.....,), I I I �l± I .r /e •7 / .20 `I �L�� � � b II � u1SI4 .I ti 1x'1 ✓t5�i.1 I 91 !! T1 irR� s 1 I ', 2 '�i� 11 CLS, T � r "W I ; Jo'I i, 1 I ..• i =(�/ 4 6 ) ii, I 12 I I �ti .e ... , I 1 •� S; 1 . 1 . I .e{.. I . • I I ' 40 • 14. 1 .... 0. ' �\ • J • PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 3" Attachment 2 1[2 i 1 •;q. I.`YH vrn I M Zi.`r19 1 • .,, cri 0109 1SVa ilfi I . 14V T t 1 FUEL SALES I A. • 1 r" ' uw , ; / I • 1 _ N-1 i 111 I . . e I` i I i 1 . j I --- / --- i il 1 — z _ I : t1 f--. f,_ Y ' : .7. I I ti l -'.. /� I k . - it ' - , -../ I ■ 4 . ■ 1/4,, .i *nom "e'%. — .- . i -10 J . ` SITE PLAN AUG o 9 ige9 0 ATTACHMENT 3 A' 4 N . ,.....,..1. ■ 1 • q pp14_ - feAt 6J e c . - • . . • ROCK FAIL 8UZ . • V • r .7 ' " I : • . ~ N 1 - So tJT14 ELEYATlok . _ . . - gctt FAts 1L . METAL Fir -kme ■1/44 FA�r_SL GC1E9.4„2. , ..I. ..�. �' ...111,11:......., I` ' r4�4 II , ..t --- _ � -.... 6 1.0 k N �2l•1 . LE/A,T1C*•1 ,.. • bc1L cIe ve 44 N 5 ATTACHMENT 4 t ■ • 1, 12, 0 o k -FAce. 8/ oc-k - 1%3 ( . . 4,-x0 ,.': ' .1 .,. .1. -- , 6-sie .4 ear• _ ..... ...... . .4.- 3,....-.7.;:. , , ... r 1 1. , if - 1., • • --...- '- — •-- .._ , 0 --'--Er-' —_-:: ... -41 , 4 ..,Q,6x....e.r... e.....v. _,. .,.....1,? P-:-.411, ..:10.104, 4" .; - ' . ' ' ' .. " ' * .- ' ' . . ■ 1 ' t _ 4-, . 4. r 1 1 .... s)y-rek p,•ok-fj•e 6/44k Sfbc.k kki 1J11 ta # *et ..._ ms Fr-edAs w/ PkeAr-14. ccvEF-114.., .—_.,. .,% , N ' ; ; , ' li i! ,I 4 Il I 1 i 1 1 i! .. , i 1 1 ti . i i 1 I . hi ! I i . i , : ._ • ' . ' . : 1 ' g ! . I ) ■ . . ,,, . - - - - • - - ., , , ,,, - . . ..:„=.,..; _ , , - - - . ''k ii IA k .../ e 1 • 1[4/ E L. AST EEVATIOW 6 ATTACHMENT 5 N ■,. . MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Parking Lot Setback Variance LOCATION: 2305 Stillwater Road APPLICANT: Con /Spec Corporation OWNER: Gust Sarrack PROJECT TITLE: Sarrack's International Wines and Spirits Addition DATE: December 7, 1989 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1. The applicant is requesting approval of plans for a 10,180 square foot addition to Sarrack's. 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 and a maroon canvas canopy. 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 conditional use permit (CUP) for the 20 - foot encroach- ment of the building addition into the required 50 -foot • rear setback. Refer to the letter on page 14. b. A 15 -foot parking lot setback variance from the north lot line. Code requires 20 feet; five feet is proposed. Refer to the letter on page 16. BACKGROUND On January 27, 1986, the City Council granted approval of a 15 -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. �. 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. E • CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL CUP Section 36 -442 (a) of the city ordinance requires that in order to approve a CUP, the nine findings for approval listed in the resolution on page 21 must be made. Variance 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. DISCUSSION (CUP, parking setback variance and design concerns) Conditional Use Permits Staff does not find any problem with the granting of CUP for the proposed setback encroachment, since the rear reduction is due to the addition maintaining the existing building setback. Parking Lot Setback Variance Staff feels that the 15 -foot parking lot setback variance from the northerly lot line should be granted for many of 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. • 2 • In addition to these reasons, the site to the north is the deep undeveloped rear yard of an unoccupied residential lot recently acquired by the State during the widening of Stillwater Road. Design Concerns Staff has the following problems with the proposed site layout and building exterior: 1. An access drive for a two -car parking area is proposed south of the loading dock within the boulevard. This is contrary to the Council's 1986 variance approval which prohibited parking lot paving on existing and planned right -of -ways. If this paving was restricted to being on -site only, these two spaces would have to be omitted. Elimination of these spaces will require the reduction of the proposed retail -space addition by 400 square feet. In their 1986 variance approval, Council 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 18 feet wide, is too narrow for two -way traffic. 3. 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. This also applies to the back side of the proposed second story office, which would be visible from the homes to the west. Staff normally would not accept the small amount of parking lot setback along Stillwater Road. Under the circumstances, however, the street widening did not leave any opportunity for providing a 15 -foot landscape area as is typically required. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adoption of the resolution on page 21, approving of a conditional use permit for an indefinite period of time for a 20 -foot building addition encroachment into the required 50 -foot rear setback area. Approval is based on the findings required by code and due to the addition maintaining the established building setback. Approval is subject to the proposed addition being at least 80% screened from the abutting residential district. • 3 • 2. Adoption of the resolution on page 23, approving a 15 -foot parking lot setback variance from the north lot line, based on: a. The intent of the ordinance would be net if screening is provided. b. There is an existing grade elevation and some existing landscaping that already partially screens the site. c. Adherence to setback requirements would cause the applicant undue hardship because the taking of right -of -way has left the property unusually shaped, therefore, making complying with setbacks difficult and reducing the area available for parking space. d. The adjacent property is the deep rear yard of an unoccupied property recently purchased by the State of Minnesota during the widening of Stillwater Road. Approval is subject to screening along the northerly lot line that complies with section 36 -27 of the City Code. 3. Approval of site plans date stamped November 17, 1989, for the building addition for Sarracks at 2305 Stillwater Road, subject to the following conditions: a. Approval by the City Council for a 15 -foot parking lot • setback variance from the northerly lot line and approval of conditional use permit for a 30 -foot building setback for the addition from the rear lot line, rather than 50 feet as required by code. b. The site plan shall be revised for Staff approval by eliminating the two parking stalls south of the proposed loading dock addition and omitting the paving into the right -of -way north of the intersection of Reaney Avenue and Stillwater Road. Omitting these two parking stalls will require the office or retail portion of the addition to be reduced by 400 square feet to meet parking regulations. c. All trash dumpsters shall be stored in screening enclosures with a 100% opaque wooden gate and shall be a color and material compatible with the building. Enclosures shall be protected by concrete - filled steel posts, or the equivalent, anchored in the ground at the front corners of the structure. If the enclosure is masonry, the protective posts may be omitted. d. Any exterior building or roof - mounted equipment shall be decoratively screened and hidden from view. Screening is subject to Board approval. • 4 • e. Parking areas shall be striped in a double- stripe "hairpin" design and all bituminous areas shall have continuous concrete curbing. Parking lots shall be kept in a continual state of repair. f. If construction has not begun within two years of approval, Board review shall be repeated. g. Site security lighting shall be provided and shall be directed or shielded so not to cause any undue glare onto adjacent properties or roadways. h. If any adjacent property is disturbed or property irons removed due to construction of the site, that property shall be restored and irons replaced by the applicant. i. Grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plans shall be subject to the City Engineer's approval. j. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval. This plan shall include screening along the westerly and northerly property lines that comply with Section 36 -27 of the City Code. k. Reflectorized stop signs and handicap parking signs shall be provided. 1. All public boulevard that is disturbed due to this . construction shall be restored and resodded. m. Proper building addresses shall be installed, subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal. n. Fire lanes shall be identified and posted, subject to the Fire Marshal's approval. o. Signage is not part of this approval. Sign proposals shall be approved by staff, unless City Council or Review Board approval is required. p. The building exterior shall be continually and properly maintained. q. The building elevations shall be revised for Board approval incorporating brick into the exterior for aesthetics and compatibility with the adjacent Cardinal Realty offices. The rear elevation of the second -story office shall be treated decoratively as well, since it would be visible from the adjacent homes to the west. • 5 • r. Signs shall be provided which designate the access drive to the loading dock for employees and deliveries only and also for one -way customer traffic around the building for use of the parallel parking spaces . t. The applicant shall provide a monetary guarantee, in a form acceptable to staff, in the amount of 150% of the estimated cost of any site improvements that are not completed by occupancy. The applicant shall also provide staff with proper documentation, to be approved by the City Attorney which allows staff access onto the property to finish work that may not be completed. Appeals Any appeals of the Community Design Review Board's conditions must be made in writing to the city staff within ten days of the Board's approval. 410 6 • 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 17. 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 stand- point. 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, however, is already developed commercially. There would not, therefore, be any new effect on property values. • 7 • 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 18. 8 • 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 Requirements: 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. Parking Lot Setback Requirement Section 36 -27 (a) requires a landscaped area of not less than 20 feet when a nonresidential use abuts residentially zoned property. • 9 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 13,320 square feet requiring 67 spaces and loading /storage area of 5,260 - square -feet requiring five spaces. A total of 72 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. TESARRACK2 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. CUP Resolution 9. Variance Resolution 10. Site and Architectural Plans date stamped November 17, 1989 (separate attachment) 10 4t iiiiio • - — ' 'Rill G. R m '0S �, iv � m _ -4 - o :11-R �$ i i �. ' ° Maryland Ave. 1 _ - major collector • •n 1 pI, , 0. - Rm 1 � A-4 Its Stillwater Road 1 _ —� 1R e; ; SC ' ---- . c t 'l — OS — . = - W 1 w ' .0 It1l 1 r . • N ' 11 I I y{ m. or c i onector r, Harvester • J r 1 -iii :� , 1 . yl , _L ( p i. — � o - A c' Rh 1 p -1- (1 E RI �JC�! 1 . r. 1 C ti TO s'' �'! 9lfl , Minne11aha ..� major irler - kS 1 I . , . • • 1 -ate r . .. „..., , _ __ . . , I ° _:: R I' - 'DR • • SC lI ' ISC ' : _� � N - 1 r 1h i ' L inajcIr collector Conway . 1i j_Lit:-.=-1 .-t'- = I I ' ---1;41:fj'' sc ,, interchan 4 SC T•_, .R:j .. _ 7 1 -:-.- ,..•11 .., • - � %� uferial - .�.. I 1 9 I~,j�ra-- -»inlerthengeis 1-9 ill BEAVER LAKE LAND USE PLAN r_Ni, Attachment 1 1 1 _, r 1 -_ - - j .. �I f t, ,. ■ • • t / c : fr . ti - , 7 — Ilt _ R .F _ 3 . - wr t _ - -- - �_ ___ __ _i _ tt I1 1 O - . M to 1l - - h 23150 _ - 784 • . • . , . =3 � : 1: ' i . �(IS t r ^ _ :: :: :. i. i !hi.i i. i > ` I s 776 • i -' .,- .. , .1 • -_ S::: :< 23 10 I =I 6 ° S S. I : , I i i i ' � I h ! ,C c li - -- - to -� ,1 � G`�'` li. � 758 - `ef -fit i ' , c I 1�' I el in 4 0 756 - t ,. ' * l ioli,'7- . 3' . .,:- . ; © ? J . L 1 ` I 1 9.16 OARDINAL OFFICE PARK z: 1 i. • .--"' Z 41-::: 1-11- : aell1(;, , - -"' - ' -.1 _L .. _It - 1. 5 ki. .____sii._i._.__I___ ___._ _ —11 «` ! :4 CLIFF'S BARBER SPARTA SPECIALTIES I I I I I SHOP _ 4 ! y' �., / -� . ,, O (yb 1 11 (3c„. 3'-' 33 3`' I .>. I .�e� I i [–::2L1."–-1 • .3,a- , u , 15%1 TS �-- _ 5___r - _ � ;_ — — MINN EHAHA AVE Id • PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 12 Attachment 2 N .._______ • • • \**,.., )� i Ii 1; 1 G f smoneo 1- cum= .. , r I m Wi t. --- mf r= �i7*- / 1 rip 1 = sl at am i - i 1 Jr 1 1 si-p .4. - A ,ro , ,t, 7 - .- • svwc,cr 1 . — cox= lea& 4, "colciAl- IMO Sr. a MINE WA lieorare wax ware i „..............e. 1 A .plrifft J:ik. F .-...,,_. .. _ ; J o / / -"*„/ 'i - - l 1 I %M WC/90 mat tro.Yaao raw. roc Y i tregg -sk,0 AQ.'OR6 C8'f�l,nruQ uOEp+y =OAS , / KM NwEAa�+wO , = i • 4 = _ te . . " q " . I l , 1/ . • -` / % • 1 r �/� ���� /�«'.s , / ` LOT AREA . s ti sF , . i . — - -I I I -4 I I FM-80 • R.. tea 1 I `` ` / / ' f 'g74 SST ROOK sF. sF ooao�o�m .._ r / 130•C10O • } • N - II�L s low J 1ST FLOOR -1030 S 104 L • �.. /� / ODPLOCR•!70 SP. CfTCE ._ , - AEAt�Y AVENUE � -_ �y z PARKIN REal RSPENTS RSOerr s+it+er rMiw 1/700 SF. - CETESAL SE M. woutoce3 HI �_ uso0 SR • oera�a. of � 1/1000 SP. - d?QltAL r+wISHOLZE ' 7 o 4 + OFFICE IMO SF.000 .• As WARINDLISE a76o SF✓1000 - 526 d7 71.30 e . ' RJTAL PAWING PROVIDED 72 SITE PLAN 0 13 Attachment 3 N • -- . _ -- . . 5 . . . . _ C{ N /SPEC - • • CORPORATION _ - - . - . 1864 NORT (WESTERN AVENUE ' • . 811LLWATER, MN 55082. . ' - (612) 430-1500 _ • - FAX (612) 430 -f 505 - December 6, 1989 " DEC 0 s 198 Tom . Ekstrand -. . . _ - .Office of Community Development • -City of Maplewood -. - - • 1830 East County Road 8 _ - . Maplewood, MN 55109 . - Re: Conditional use permit for setback encroachment of Sarrack's Retail Dear Mr. Eksttand: . - .. - - 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 foot basement warehouse to -remain - d) - Add 1,060 square feet loading.area to the south . . • _ e) Add 3,000 square feet retail and 920 square feet second level office to . . the north . 2) - Additional retail: . - a) - - Add 5,200 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 auditors 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 50' setback from residential at the west property line. We are . requesting that the new building addition to the north and south of•the existing building be granted this same encroachment. The area along the west property line is very - heavily screened - with existing vegetation, thus creating a effect. The building would provide additional screening to residential from the newly constructed, busy, . Stillwater Road. - _ • • 1. T ee 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 .. . - _ - - 1.4 : . Attachment 4 • . _ Tom astrand - . • City of Maplewood - • . - . • • .. Page 2 - .. • III code, we feel we are making useful, beneficial, an 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 wouid appreciate in value. _ - W appreciate your coop e eration in this matter and look forward to Working with you in the future_ .. . - Sincerely _ . • - J. Guy'Reithmeyer -- • • • • . - - Architect - = . JGR/bah • • • • _ _ • • 15 - • 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 • 16 Attachment 5 5 ; 7 9/e/e/9c 1 5 - 1 1/49..5 • BEE/1/ /9 Goo ,a/s tizss 7/7Ey /7'� gad#7. 77 Pr9,001/6 y7 � vo 4169 FE�'L T�� �� 6,0 /o 77/47f2 �k.� I-C.197'iaiY ioy //r9/P� a- leiile'/GAi.2,C'� °D .v ' ce-/p/ r el9A/ 4?5 iieEeogo-/ yn ,73/—B56 7 xf /P/ir A4e)/c> _XWO41/1//977011 /5 /,f'1, • /1#9-/eX 6/2775 • 17 Attachment 6 _-6 O-hjel--- 40 W/L(.. pl,a-d3 t9-ja_k b c (10.ci c, ' 4i),,j-wc,c_ iio _...e-)/14--ti) ,71-key/Le 1 , 1 _, 6.a4 aril (L _, ,, v x I � ` W11 & c�-L�� e h C f . atnelf-i- oxi/71/ 62/2-47 nive 0a/2„) haA/1..dz,n7 dbi ot__ -J11,`*--6"4 fii/n, er �� tiy�� d'ic. 1 15 CL -C -L /L ) 11 v3 t s-/-ru f t ,g iron sak Jaws (bLe_ G v a ) ledii, . S - 7 ---- n n 0 o_ c i Vtivrt t .a- vi CL Wt , ra_ y ILIA. r _ L� 5 4 6C . AZT/nC, ha./L4-1- WA". 11-1. i 1 li i/ a/r2,6L _ . 0 - t. - i A 1 d `7 (la/L () tb.- Yz.k.e ‘6L..c.c_i W2cle -) • Lfiej/Y1/3.e_ , jiliAtd&O al_ 5-i_i_flafra--- i,i-2,2,,,Lci e_iq_ez z.; 1 — ' r.1 . hetel Da mpa . 'Ms , ' - (7)/1- =YA-fp_j7)/Wil d - 601 ' i (k_k_( . _t__) U)1(1-64V btataY) `5-1)144- ci W eu? ,`ikL.1,---fst,,L.L, c/o k- yy 4,t LA) fez vs J2 Q. ha j:C_ ? (i_ ll -e4vi J- w .j ezLe azn(1 to )'LQ --- i-hc__ w l -t,b k - y ' Le d o ....e...Q i 0 1 L e_c__ tfix)0.4.111 7 4,1L-t_ ' /--- gro-uz-c__ . 4.1) -I-o ri-- 'a a k ci A el c.4 yrwt,e.,, i iLk. L., a_t_,L) t 1 c-2(1, 6- ail -1-Irts_ ----11„b--(ALL tril --ryLa 0 GO a.‹.po.A. zfrz u 6 - ��3( -83 ED � Can &_ ,� a c�'� cC cZ � ,�, /LC. � a -L,c-c,ni -f u� ) c 1`f i . Pm Wc,att - c - • 5 P 1 /0 e_Ll / T I _s 18 Attachment 7 w.+�a Sao __ A • . / / / I II ), 1 11 1 1 1 tt.,, 1 ( 1.4"")."""°:: / - 4P-!7.7.1_ mi"..iii -47A-WAff/ \ '1. .V174 7 .. " - 1 / t Irri m . ,S \ ;.'gy - •- / t,.:; - ~ 1 . 1 i w� w .m. - / _ I i "*.71 K , y ,' i 1 / / / / , 1 i . .;47;7:7/17.: \. i {{.. // L l l i • ..1: 1 x-r-f,r,_,7-/ 7 xi v/zz v 4,27.& 2,,J,,-6 , . .) )--,,,p.,1,?.. _,:- 1 ,/,',/,/ , 1 o (7722,c afal /966d4 , i • x �;-ia / C 0 FENEY AvD&E L ---,■........ri 4...,_iii.A.,.— ,att,10----.)-Loh.,:.Lc_ --- - - ----= /) - L,L.. hc:- . 7' . "" ----,9 -(7-cv6.i/e i. • , / : . 4y .,,.. . , - / jheyu --72,D ,,ele.eYcit _ctcp t 42 / 07 , /44 ,.,i- y-h.„„t__- - , //). furrit4e &t- 1 do L-K a 0 1 c l -)//2.t1rodaz C iti; id, 4/)) - ---- Atd - rn-c- Ylix_ Akt7m, ! -- Ca;edede, 7Y) 1 - }4672-Z-61:4 0 SITE PLAN -13- 4) - 1 .J-I i 9 t � 6L ( WL(__ 66E4A) M_ c pu-eA , L) 4 ,6-64: . 40 Wi-e- /?-Lgfrd *Wu_ parri<7 V-heir.L ae61.670z-, (> 2 a d_ d8t U 66 do-7n-o-z e- firm am a: .4 ,' •ze_,L / yudej ,ke-ep ‘-1-1-1ct " )211— (16)1' 46 Leif 4,rad Pal W-W L // 7 1 L-ha/0/0-tild, J2-0-6;iiTtida e(?A/L/ 6- wf �- -- )1 Lk Wi-ez? 6-614 /3,2i,C„-6‘0 i edi e L o e • 20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION • WHEREAS, Con /Spec Corporation initiated a conditional use permit to construct a building addition onto Sarrack's International Wines and Spirits 30 feet from the westerly lot line at the following- described property: Lots 13 and 14, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77 This property is also known as 2305 Stillwater Road, Maplewood; WHEREAS, the procedural history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. This conditional use permit was reviewed by the Maplewood Community Design Review Board on , 1989. The Board recommended to the City Council that said permit be 2. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on , 199 . Notice thereof was published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the City staff and Planning Commission. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL THAT the above - described conditional use permit be approved on the basis of the following findings - of -fact: 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. 21 Attachment 8 Mk 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. 10. The addition would maintain the established setback. Approval is subject to the proposed addition being at least 80% screened from the abutting residential district. Adopted this day of , 199 cup.res s 22 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Con /Spec Corporation applied for a variance for the following- described property: Lot 13 and 14, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77 This property is also known as 2305 Stillwater Road, Maplewood; WHEREAS, Section 36 -27 (a) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires a 20- foot -wide landscaped area when a nonresidential use abuts residentially -zoned property. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a five -foot setback, requiring a variance of fifteen feet; WHEREAS, the procedural history of this variance is as follows: 1. This variance was reviewed by the Community Design Review Board on December 12, 1989. The Board recommended to the City Council that said variance be 2. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on to consider this variance. Notice thereof was published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the City staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that the above - described variance be approved on the basis of the following findings of fact: 1. The intent of the ordinance would be met if screening is provided. 2. There is an existing grade elevation and some existing landscaping that already partially screens the site. 3. Adherence to setback requirements would cause the applicant undue hardship because the taking of right -of -way has left the property unusually shaped, therefore, making complying with setbacks difficult and reducing the area available for parking space. 4. The adjacent property is the deep rear yard of an unoccupied property recently purchased by the State of Minnesota during the widening of Stillwater Road. • 23 Attachment 9 Approval is subject to screening along the northerly lot line that complies with Section 36 -27 of the City Code. Adopted this day of , 19 . Seconded by Ayes -- Attachment 24 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Design Review LOCATION: Rice Street and Larpenteur Avenue APPLICANT: Burger King Corporation OWNER: Crown Plaza Partners PROJECT TITLE: Burger King Restaurant DATE: December 6, 1989 INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting approval of plans to construct a one - story, 2,500 - square -foot Burger King restaurant. The building would have an exterior of brick and T -1 -11 cedar siding material. BACKGROUND On April 26,1988, the Community Design Review Board approved the plans for the Crown Plaza shopping center. This plan included an outlot to be used for development with a freestanding building, previously proposed as a fuel station. On October 12, 1989, the Board approved the comprehensive sign • plan for Crown Plaza. In this approval, the Board required that the signage for Burger King shall comply with code (two signs for each street frontage). DISCUSSION All parking and design requirements would be met. The landscape plan should be revised to comply with the approved plan which required that there be Skyline Locust trees planted at 30 feet on center along both street frontages. This would require two trees along the Larpenteur Avenue frontage and six alone the Rice Street frontage to replace the proposed four Russian Olives. RECOMMENDATION Approval of plans date - stamped November 27, 1989, for B rger King at Rice Street and Larpenteur Avenue, subject to the fo lowing conditions: 1. Approval of plans by the Community Design Review B and does not constitute approval of a building permit. 2. All trash dumpsters shall be stored in screening enclosures with a 100% opaque wooden gate and shall be a color and material compatible with the building. Enclosures shall be protected by concrete - filled steel posts, or the equivalent, anchored in the ground at the front corners of the structure. If the enclosure is masonry, the protective posts may be • omitted. • 3. Any exterior building or roof- mounted equipment shall be decoratively screened and hidden from view. Screening is subject to Board approval. 4. An erosion control plan, acceptable to the City Engineer, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for erosion control during construction. 5. Parking areas shall be striped in a double - stripe "hairpin" design and all bituminous areas shall have continuous concrete curbing. Parking lots shall be kept in a continual state of repair. 6. If construction has not begun within two years of approval, Board review shall be repeated. 7. Site security lighting shall be provided and shall be directed or shielded so not to cause any undue glare onto adjacent properties or roadways. 8. If any adjacent property is disturbed or property irons removed due to construction of the site, that property shall be re- stored and irons replaced by the applicant. 9. Grading, drainage and utility plans shall be subject to the City Engineer's approval. 10. The landscape plan shall be revised to omit the Russian Olive trees along Rice Street and replace them with six Skyline Locust trees planted 30 feet on center. There shall be two Skyline Locust trees planted along the Larpenteur Avenue frontage. All Skyline Locust trees shall be at least 2 1/2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. The remaining landscaping proposed is approved as shown. 11. All required plant materials that die shall be replaced by the owner within one year. All required landscape areas shall be continually and properly maintained. 12. Reflectorized stop signs and handicap parking signs shall be provided. 13. All public boulevard that is disturbed due to this construction shall be restored and resodded. 14. Proper building addresses shall be installed, subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal. 15. Signage is not part of this approval. Sign proposals shall be approved by staff, unless City Council or Review Board approval is required. • 2 16. The building exterior shall be continually and properly maintained. 17. An inground sprinkling system shall be installed for all landscaped areas. 18. The applicant shall provide a monetary guarantee, in a form acceptable to staff, in the amount of 150% of the estimated cost of any site improvements that are not completed by occupancy. The applicant shall also provide staff with proper documentation, to be approved by the City Attorney which allows staff access onto the property to finish work that may not be completed. Appeals Any appeals of the Community Design Review Board's conditions must be made in writing to the city staff within ten days of the Board's approval. O TEBURGER Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Plans date stamped November 27, 1989 (separate attachment) • 3 - _ ---- . . • • © I 58 - L ..q L OE i /(t L/ T TL F CANADA D "Iw" l J ' K' 6 OA LAURIE RD : 6 ° i N • M N z ". i r-1 = r P N. co Rr "e" 4, IC h° At-' ® co ° RD "B" , 25 -- ► ' drt, r vi BURKE IN IM . ) N fi O • /�`ti l � t a z ELDRIGOE AV t EL�R�OOE ' / e ' Sandy Lake - o N ' OeA Lake y — a / to (Calcium J o- 9ELMONT LA � EA GE AV mu•NT A (Calcium Bed) '^ N = SKILLMAN AV to SKRLMAN - KENW. •• LLMAN AV N K. 3 $ t 3 W LA /J ^o W J _,44, MT VERNON Av C I to as MT. V RNON (� v J z MT VERNON AV y. w z lift( to J CJWNS AV 8 C W > J � f . � a 4 10 , .....-0 v' Rf15El J•►N AV ` ' 26` ° V H �, BELLWOOD Av a Z BELL/0400D AV N BEllw000 Av SEI0 wood a 1 0 SUMMER AV N S a y 0 e // CD / W1 ; i 00/ :5:33 iENTON =^ O P C O .0 1. ∎ m N a , 4 ® 1 �/ V R P N i t 2 W > '� ArlON -L z ) QP _ p p+ ► 0 0 c Z '^ � W 0 W RIO E r AM REyR� ---� Y • F N 0 W S(A a 6.. O E + N t; _ N 7 e i • ~ 2 a m N • / i ` ROfNK • • ill' W K 1 Jf row a AV / K�NG�T� AV o I \� el z W 3 C % / W Y © N PR� AV �3 • N a T % 3 AV W < / �I d 4ir ` , LA EN TEUR . C V � J 55 _ S 7 � ^ 5g -� e Niv SAINT C3 F 1 ... ., • • LOCATION MAP 4 Attachment 1 ] [21 4 t' X31. 13 n.. i 1 j (IC u. �i� N . (S so as.) . ll it • , 1 w i F .. wri _ , _ imov(13,1t411 nl t :-Sr PA wv R tiV O R K 3 (L.16.i.) c 1 • �* (:.lea24 t (t.50ac.3 : O $� it.ss..» 111.11I rc h' Beard d W(6t.r C o ■ -ig .���■ C ��) _ ,es. I _ as. Western State Bank 1' .:. E a .s ii.l iit . ; ,' . tiff • e • e ' . ales r . t + i e �• �• • II VAa" �•as•h • . • • � ViEggl: 1 �f '� � t ` • h lL _ .4 �'ik.�. rr. • iiiiim ,1 1 ! % is:74 s - Niti ..4 4..- ■ ■ u • NI • i.oliteri! witic owe i 4:unlink aill■l I MUM Caber Liquor : ` �or� y: , � Mgt I ' . .••::: ' ; rtitt11 14'1";. re ' L • *- ."" •si.R. !t-IgmiLani. 4) , . s PRICE _ :.. - n ••:• 7 ... Sparks Tune Up ,.L. li* ) 1 ... - ! i -, I ? ...::).: * ,,,i AllilliiiiiIIME. 0112531.i • I* III ip I ti : . d %1:• • ,,.* *. ?)‘. A:use f •� Video l ta , Vid - I : .ra - cam � - II t� .m. : .,, . sins .ti toss Do '4 9 9' £i I it �s ►3 11 ��► I '�(�+) niiiii .�» I» ..... .. . ............... :ar .• . � . • LA *• _ , did r TT`L�YT ux S. o .. E. k� Zd4 f• : . - - - vs . ails ; y ti 11,44 : -! : TT.T`i --- 174 • 6. 1 qp 9tN 1• i 4,1 • 1 r . I.y.s•; 41, 1...; • t 13.• ;e r ,( 71i:s • a. '° » ' . M E RRI LL . -1' •." • • DI V. ft C',.: • , 4 131 toito e 11. ki* r eS ■ Je J • PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP - 5 Attachment 2 N .. a r . • • EME Mil . r :. H A ,, • i' -- n- • ciao-4 RAZA 040•I4)44 CWTCR . V `---J t I t ) t ) ! } 11■1111■ = 3 71 sw ■� Iii _iia• too .. _ — � ` � '�� �; • �/ 1 r SW IGIM. Ih.Iti .-- I — I r 1.141. MIA. t r 1 , 1:0 a „ , RU,R ` r .� sfee y �� V Y ws arr..w aat l' �s t t _mow ti.- .Mw..I►..aF� _ . F ” ,.: '"b »-w- «L+lu. ..._.,6, i , Itr,, ,... r :.___. 'Al ' _____ a , ...c...- , \ iw.o' / \ I AIGE STREET • 7 1l N SITE PLAN O 6 Attachment 3 N J 1 , R. NELSON ASSOCIATES INC. • RECEIVED CONSULTING ENGINEERS NOV 2 7 1989 1460 93RD LANE NORTHEAST • BLAINE, MINNESOTA 55434 (612) 784.7390 Architectural Coalition Burger King Restaurant Crown Plaza Shopping Center Rice & Larpenteur, Maplewood Runoff Calculations • November 10, 1989 Site Area = 0.86 acre Runoff Coef. = 0.95 Storm Event 24 hour rainfall Runoff • 1 year 2.4 inches 0.16 ac -ft 5 year 3.6 inches 0.25 ac -ft 10 year 4.2 inches 0.29 ac -ft 50 year 5.4 inches 0.37 ac -ft 100 year 6.0 inches 0.41 ac -ft Storm Sewer design per previous Crown Plaza submittal by R. Nelson Assoc., this 0.86 acres was assumed to be impervious paved area. •