HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-06 CDRB Packet AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
March 6, 1990
7:00 P.M.
Maplewood Public Works Building
1902 E. County Road B
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes: February 13, 1990
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
A. Building Elevation Revisions - Kids "R" Us Store
Front at Birch Run Station
6. Design Review
S A. Chili's Restaurant and Maplewood Retail Center -
Southeasterly Corner of Southlawn Drive and Beam Avenue
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Board Presentations
9. Staff Presentations
A. Board /Commission Recognition Dinner: April 21, 1990
10. Adjournment
r
4 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
• 1902 E. CO. RD. B, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 13, 1990
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 Absent
Daniel Molin Absent
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. January 23, 1990
Boardmember Anitzberger moved approval of the minutes
of January 23, 1990, as submitted.
Boardmember Erickson seconded Ayes - -all
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
110 Boardmember Deans moved approval of the agenda as submitted.
Boardmember Erickson seconded Ayes - -all
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Siding Colors - Southwinds Apartments, Beebe Road
Chuck Cook, Continental Development, was present
representing Southwinds Apartments and presented
samples of the cape blue and clay -brown vinyl siding
colors proposed for these apartment buildings.
Boardmember Deans moved approval of the cape blue and
clay brown siding colors as presented at this meeting.
Boardmember Erickson seconded
Board members discussed altering the above amendment.
The above motion was voted on. Nays - -all
Boardmember Deans moved approval of the two -color cape
blue and clay brown siding color scheme, as presented
410 at this meeting, for the Southwinds Apartments,
Community Design Review Board -2-
• Minutes 2 -13 -90
utilizing vinyl siding instead of aluminum and verified
by a submittal of these colored elevations to staff.
Boardmember Erickson seconded Ayes - -Moe, Deans,
Erickson
Nays -- Anitzberger
6. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Building Addition - Church of St. Jerome, 380 East
Roselawn Avenue
Steve Singer, MCL Architects, said the proposed
addition to this church would match the existing
exterior of the church. Mr. Singer asked if the
requirement for striping of the parking lot could be
deleted, since the parking lot is used for many church
and school activities. Staff said the striping
requirements of the City ordinance must be met, unless
waived by the Board, but any additional parking spaces
could be left without striping.
• Boardmember Erickson moved approval of plans date -
stamped January 17, 1990, for the proposed addition to
the Church of St. Jerome at 380 E. Roselawn Avenue,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of plans by the Community Design Review
Board does not constitute approval of a building
permit.
2. Any outdoor trash dumpsters for the church 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 be 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. Parking areas shall be striped in a double- stripe
"hairpin" design. The parking lot shall be kept
in a continual state of repair.
110
Community Design Review Board - 3 -
Minutes 2 -13 -90
• All parking stalls shall be 9.5 feet wide, except
for five 12- foot -wide handicap parking stalls.
There shall be enough parking provided to meet
code. The excess number of spaces shown on the
site plan need not be striped.
5. If construction has not begun within two years of
approval, Board review shall be repeated.
6. Additional site lighting shall be provided,
subject to the requirements of the Director of
Public Safety. Site lights shall be directed or
screened so not to cause any undue glare onto
adjacent properties or roadways.
7. Grading, drainage and utility plans shall be
subject to the City Engineer's approval.
8. The landscape plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval. All required landscaping shall be
continually and properly maintained. All required
plant materials that die shall be replaced by the
owner within one year.
9. Reflectorized stop signs and handicap parking
signs shall be provided.
10. All public boulevard that is disturbed due to this
construction shall be restored and resodded.
11. The building exterior shall be continually and
properly maintained.
12. Approval of conditional use permit and a 1.8 -foot
front setback variance by the City Council.
13. 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.
Boardmember Anitzberger seconded Ayes - -all
B. Buildings 275, 264, and 261 (Parking Ramp) - 3M Center
John Rudquist, an architect for 3M, and Mike Niemeyer,
410 an architect with HGA (Hammill, Green and Abrahamson) were
Community Design Review Board -4-
411 Minutes 2 -13 -90
present at this meeting representing the applicant, 3M
Company. Mr. Rudquist explained the plans for the
three proposed buildings and said that the landscaping
would match the existing landscaping installed in the
first phase of this project. The landscaping for
Building 271, which was not completed, would be
completed at this time also.
Boardmember Erickson moved approval of plans date -
stamped January 30, 1990, for 3M Buildings 275, 264 and
261, subject to the following conditions:
1. Any outdoor trash dumpsters shall be stored in
screening enclosures as required by code.
2. Any exterior building or roof - mounted equipment
shall be decoratively screened and hidden from
view. Screening is subject to Board approval.
3. Parking areas shall be striped in a double- stripe
"hairpin" design.
4. If construction has not begun within two years of
approval, Board review shall be repeated.
5. Site security lighting shall be provided and shall
be directed or shielded so not to cause any undue
glare onto adjacent properties or roadways.
6. Grading, drainage, erosion control and utility
plans shall be subject to the City Engineer's
approval.
7. 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.
8. Reflectorized stop signs and handicap parking sign
shall be provided.
9. Proper building addresses shall be installed,
subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal.
10. 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
410 documentation, to be approved by the City
Community Design Review Board -5-
411 Minutes 2 -13 -90
Attorney, which allows staff access onto the
property to finish work that may not be completed.
Boardmember Anitzberger seconded Ayes - -all
7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
8. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Boardmember Deans presented pictures of commercial buildings
to staff to have on record as reference material for the
design code.
9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
10. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
.
. MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Building Exterior Revision
LOCATION: 1725 Beam Avenue
APPLICANT: Toys "R" Us, Inc.
PROJECT TITLE: Kids "R" Us Store
DATE: February 21, 1990
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
1. The applicant is requesting approval of the building elevation
plans for the Kids "R" Us store front at Birch Run Station. The
proposed store front does not match the existing front facade
of the shopping center.
2. Kids "R" Us is proposing an exterior of beige - colored
dryvit panels to match the color of the split -face concrete block
of Birch Run Station. There would also be horizontal accent
stripes of red, blue and green ceramic tile. The adjoining
store fronts are split -face concrete block painted beige with
dark brown face brick.
3. The applicant also feels that, due to a grade change between
• the two adjoining portions of Birch Run Station, the brick
accent stripes would not line up on the Kids "R" Us store
front if the same materials were continued. They feel that
their proposed facade would provide a better transition
between these two portions of the shopping center.
BACKGROUND
December 13, 1988: The Design Review Board approved the building
elevations for Birch Run Station. The approved plans did not
indicate different materials for the Kids "R" Us facade. The
building elevation drawings proposed a consistent application of
brick, split -face block and dryvit on the upper fascia of the
outer canopy.
DISCUSSION
Staff feels that the same store front materials should be applied
to Kids "R" Us as were applied to the rest of Birch Run Station.
The other four anchor stores have maintained the continuity in
facade treatment, as have the smaller shops. Allowing a different
treatment for the applicant would break -up the cohesive appearance
of this shopping center and could encourage future shops to want
to depart from the established architectural design and
"individualize" their store fronts. (This was a problem that
occurred at the Maplewood Plaza Shopping Center when NAPA Auto
Parts painted their store front blue, departing from the
consistent appearance of the shopping center).
411
•
o
Staff does not feel that the slight grade difference between the
adjoining buildings warrants the change in facade treatment.
Grade changes occur elsewhere along the length of the shopping
center without the need to alter the type of exterior materials
or omit the brick feature- stripes on to the building.
RECOMMENDATION
Denial of the proposed building facade change for Kids "R" Us at
Birch Run Station, on the basis that:
1. The shopping center would lose its cohesive appearance,
2. The change could set a precedent for other stores in this
center who may wish to individualize their own store front, as
NAPA Auto Parts did at the Maplewood Plaza Shopping Center.
3. Brick feature - banding can still be applied on the front of
Kids "R" Us to maintain the continuity established at this
shopping center.
The store front elevation of Kids "R" Us shall maintain the same
building materials and colors previously approved and already
provided onto the front of Birch Run Station.
Appeals
411 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.
TEKIDS
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Proposed Store Front Elevation
110 2
) CO RD IDI
1 ¢ N
a J
W W•
Q w
a
N
0 _„p0 L YDIA u
,
U E it
L
W N :.
a S T v ¢ •> :z:: >::<.:: U J i` a -HNs .:1 .:.::::,:.:::-.;.::.:.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::
CI I • eEVO z pp� z ��
1. 3 F 111.1 �^ r Y Y _ r_ __ X A
• � J flAD 2 I
• f- O <4 ._
/1
" PONO • • ..- a ( ��1 Q
a
rc �` �c N HL w KOHLMAN AV o
MAN AV w }
1.- t7 0
2
0 Cr CO > RD 23 ,.C..
0 : 1 4-
1,..1 . .
,--� F: �\ T 29N,R22W
v N H 2 \
N = Ll .1
w �` 0 RD I Q
N a W S I! N
U ct J H F
4
Z ` OEMONT AV m N
IOR AV
i W
S \ N BROOK` AV Q El E E 4
a kJ
�-•• A'T,y AV
SEXTANT 2 N
SEXTANT T AV
R ■
>- GERVAIS GERVAI GERVAIS AV
a z CT Q
• / u RANOVIEW AV z •
°C ' x O E AV
m VIKING DR
•
L
177
HERREN Ay �/ =�1 !/! -•oc a Av
;- LOCATION MAP - 0 ,
3 N Attachment 1
...
r � Z�Z 4.4 s Z II/ t 4
• t alg aAA if ee * s; hi it*
HUH DI
. I T
iii 1:1 III di _._,,....,46,1gD____. i
a
•
.! ,� • tt il
yT �• w •Ia�Z_ -�� i 1 � ,� _ --4 -Ar N M 1. o
N •D \ .......3p- �� i
\� �lt9c 1 .•1 N m S
� I III II -4:2 1 — c , l f { .•eiihunuumnuu , •S a�il 'im 1 mu h. c
Iali_._III 1IQ — . u
Q � II�
#���� } }�— iiii��i��iiiillilllli p # ## � . ;
Litho: ~ III' �I1141 0-0# I I � I# �I I 1 A i
l� r n u I m �
G I Qif • Q� fl �Q��� I { I . I • I II 11
1�' III II �II�) ,,,! � I� = • I _ 1 11111 n Il 1111111 4
, ,
11°' I Qfllil 0�1� Q Q1 1 I -0 I 1 I
t �:
IN -7- 111 t r^ ^ - - - --
. Ill ' ilri.7- 1 ( .i. r . r , '. s 4 IA I
i
...
,I I vrs .. . I
_ , 7 ._ /" , CC �� t_
O 1 thU
S a
"6". r wuw � .�n 11 m uu 1 ; i 1 u uunu rmlh mom g'iln n ,�i111{ n rll I .{uu nuu{ uIIIII , I I t�
~ III II�������I �������III�II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I ' • II 1�. I!I I. r ..w. Q i '• r 111 1 1• 0 - r 1, 1 IIIII II IIIIIIIIII '.IIIi III IIIIIIIIII cg ..� I IIIIIIIIIIIIII{{{111 II - 1
I I I III IIIIIIIIII IIII g U{ {{11111111 � " I
L _ 1 nuour tZ = tit' co cc
_f_ri z .....--__ ...
- c C F • 11 . . IS ac d
Z r ;� , r I I
• J u .1
cc rr 1
m
4 Attachment 2
410 MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Design Review and Parking Authorization
LOCATION: Southlawn Drive and Beam Avenue
APPLICANT: Chili's, Inc. and Richard Schreier
OWNER: Richard Schreier
PROJECT TITLE: Retail Shopping Center and Chili's Restaurant
DATE: March 1, 1990
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
1. Chili's, Inc. is requesting approval of plans for a one - story,
5,995- square -foot, 217 -seat Chili's Restaurant. The building
exterior would be red brick. Chili's would be attached to a
proposed retail strip center on the south.
2. Richard Schreier, the property owner, is requesting approval
of the adjoining 26,180- square -foot, one -story retail center.
The proposed strip center would have an exterior of brick
on the west and north sides and break -off block on the east and
rear elevations. The brick would match the red brick of Chili's.
3. Chili's, Inc. must obtain a conditional use permit (CUP)
• since code only permits restaurants in BC(M), Business
Commercial (Modified) districts by CUP. The Planning
Commission and City Council will consider this request.
4. Richard Schreier is requesting approval of a parking
authorization for 19 fewer parking spaces than code
requires. 200 are required; 181 are proposed.
BACKGROUND
1979: The City developed a concept plan (see page 12) for a common
driveway, connecting the parking lots of all the businesses on the
south side of Beam Avenue, between Southlawn Drive and White Bear
Avenue.
5- 12 -86: The City Council approved a CUP for a Bonanza Restaurant
in conjunction with a strip center. This development was not
required to connect to the frontage drive south of Beam Avenue.
6- 13 -88: Council terminated the CUP for Bonanza Restaurant because
they decided not to build in this location.
8- 23 -83: The Community Design Review Board approved the Share
Clinic east of the proposed site. Conditions 2 and 3 required:
2. Reciprocal access easements allowing for the cross flow of
traffic between this site and the lots to the east shall be
submitted for the City Attorney's approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the structure.
3. If the reciprocal easements cannot be obtained, a temporary
curb cut may be considered by the City. Access is subject
to the City Engineer's approval.
The Share Clinic was not able to obtain the cross easements and
the curb cut was allowed. A drive was constructed to the west
property line, to be extended into Mr. Schreier's site when it
developed. The clinic will provide the easements if the
Council requires them of Mr. Schreier.
DISCUSSION (parking, frontage drive /curb cuts, building design
and landscaping)
Parking Authorization
Code requires a minimum of 69 parking stalls for Chili's (one
parking space for each 50 square feet of patron area) and 131
spaces for the retail center (one parking space for each 200
square feet of floor area). Section 36 -22 (a) states that this
number of spaces shall be provided, "unless otherwise authorized
by the City Council." This provision has been used to allow fewer
parking spaces than code requires when the circumstances warrant it.
Staff does not feel that a parking waiver is warranted for this
development based, primarily, on the observed parking demand at
!II the new Chili's Restaurant in Roseville which opened January 13,
1990. The following number of cars have been counted at Chili's
giving an indication of parking needs for the proposed restaurant:
DATE NUMBER OF CARS
Friday, February 2 at 7:00 p.m. 130
Saturday, February 3 at 1:30 p.m. 105
Saturday, February 17 at 1:30 p.m. 82
Wednesday, February 21 at 12:25 p.m. 102
Thursday, February 22 at 7:00 p.m. 122
Friday, February 23 at 6:15 p.m. 118
Saturday, February 24 at 8:00 p.m. 82
The City of Roseville required that Chili's provide 98 parking
spaces; 68 for the restaurant and 30 for the lounge. Staff feels
that this number is low based on the number of cars observed.
(Cars have been observed overflowing into the drive aisles.) The
Maplewood Code only requires 69 spaces for the restaurant.
The applicant, in the letter on page 14, explains that Chili's
typically enjoys a "honeymoon" period during the first 4 -6 weeks
after opening. After this time, sales typically decrease 15 -20 %.
The applicant also feels that the Maplewood location will not be
as strong as Roseville for attracting the same number of customers.
Though this 15 -20% decrease may occur, Staff is not convinced that
it will make a significant enough reduction in the parking demand
at Chili's. A 20% reduction at the peak customer time, observed
IIM
2
S
110 by Staff, would be a drop from 130 to 104 cars. This still
indicates a need for 35 more parking stalls than the 69 required
by code.
To check the parking demand of an existing Chili's Restaurant,
Staff checked with the City Planner of Addison, Texas which has a
Chili's as part of a 33,000- square -foot commercial center. The
City of Addison only required 67 spaces for Chili's which,
according to their planner, is proving sufficient.
Mr. Schreier feels that the parking waiver should be granted
on the basis of a 1981 parking study by Barton - Aschman Associates
(See page 22.) This study indicates that restaurants typically
experience the most customers in the evening when the retail
stores have less customers. Contrary to the Barton - Aschman
study, Gary Jackson, manager of the Maplewood Mall, informed Staff
that the peak retail hours for the Mall are after 4:00 p.m.,
especially on Fridays and all day weekends. This is also the peak
customer time for Chili's.
Another problem with the parking lot is there is not good interior
traffic circulation. A direct connection is needed between the
west parking lot and the easterly drive. Without this connection
the west parking lot may become overly congested. Customers who
cannot find a convenient spot will probably exit back onto Beam
Avenue and go in the easterly drive, creating more traffic
conflicts on Beam Avenue. Staff's recommended plan is shown on
page 13.
The City's parking requirements are minimums. Some businesses
will be more successful and exceed these requirements, often
causing problems for adjacent businesses. Two other examples are
the former Best Buy Store (presently Pier 1 Imports) and Merrill
Lynch Real Estate, whose visitors periodically overflow into the
Hirshfield's parking lot when they have special sales meetings.
Frontage Drive and Curb Cut Deletion
This is the last section of the common frontage drive that will
connect it to Southlawn Drive. Its purpose has been to reduce
driveway openings onto Beam Avenue and allow for better traffic
circulation between the effected businesses. Fewer curb cuts mean
fewer traffic conflicts. The drive connection to Southlawn Drive
will also improve access to Mr. Schreier's Center and the Chili's
Restaurant from the other businesses on Beam Avenue and will
reduce some of the traffic at the Sherwin Williams intersection.
Connecting the parking lot to the frontage drive will also allow
for the elimination of the easterly curb cut, particularly if the
easterly drive is connected to the westerly parking lot. The
City's Transportation Plan, done by Barton Aschman, recommends a
centerline to centerline separation between drives on arterial
streets like Beam Avenue of 200 feet, with 150 feet as a
minimum. The proposed drives are 114 feet apart, centerline to
centerline.
i
3
1
411 Building Design
Brick should be applied to all sides of the building since brick
is the prominent exterior material in this area. Ordinance
requires that new buildings be compatible with adjacent
developments. The parapet should also be continued all the way
around the building across the south elevation for consistency and
better aesthetics because this elevation would be visible from
Southlawn Drive and the adjacent residential properties.
The appearance and location of all trash enclosures should be
submitted to the Board for approval to avoid any negative impact
when viewed from adjacent properties. The locations and design of
the trash enclosures have not been shown for the strip center, but
are proposed to be inset along the east and south elevations.
Landscaping
Substantial landscaping is required by code to screen the back
parking lot and buffer this site from the adjacent residential
lots. The proposed 2.5- foot -tall Pfitzer Junipers would
provide no screening whatsoever. Code requires a buffer that is
at least six - feet -tall and 80% opaque upon installation. With the
exception of plantings proposed around Chili's, the site has no
other landscaping proposed. An adequate screening /landscape plan
should be approved by the Community Design Review Board providing
for proper screening along the southerly lot line, as well as
overall site landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Tabling of plans date stamped February 15, 1990, for Chili's
Restaurant and the adjoining retail center, for revision of the
plans to provide for:
a. A parking and driveway plan as shown on the site plan titled
"Staff Proposal." The parking ratios that must be met are one
space for each 50- square -feet of patron area for restaurants
and one space for each 200 - square -feet for retail area.
b. A frontage drive connection to the existing drive in front of
the Share Clinic. Reciprocal cross easements must be granted
between the adjacent property owners.
c. A landscaping /screening plan to provide a buffer for the
residential properties to the south that is six - feet -tall and
80% opaque upon installation. The landscape plan shall also
be completed to show the balance of the site's landscaping.
d. The location of all trash enclosures and their design and
appearance.
e. The parapet to be continued around the south elevation
of the building.
f. All building elevations of the retail center being brick.
•
4
411 g. pole- mounted site - security lights that are aimed at the
south and east sides of the retail center to prevent
light glare for the adjacent homeowners.
h. A 24- foot -wide driveway west of the retail center.
i. Deletion of the easterly curb cut to Beam Avenue as shown
Staff's proposed site plan. This area shall be landscaped.
2. Denial of the proposed parking authorization for 19 fewer
parking spaces for the proposed Chili's Restaurant and
Maplewood Retail Center, on the basis that:
a. The observed parking demand at the new Chili's Restaurant
in the City of Roseville indicates a much greater parking
need for this type of restaurant than the Maplewood Code
requires.
b. Chili's peak customer time is the same as the anticipated
peak customer time for the retail shopping center, based on
information regarding peak shopping times experienced
at the Maplewood Mall.
c. The Institute of Traffic Engineer's recommends that these
uses should have at least 212 parking spaces. Code would
require 179 after the retail center is scaled down so
parking requirements are met.
410 5
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 23 surrounding property owners within 350 feet
for their comments regarding this request. Of the nine replies,
one was in favor, one had no comment and seven objected.
The one survey in favor came from the owners of the Merrill Lynch
building. They stated that "the parcel needs development, but
was under the impression that easement over all lots south of
Beam would be extended to Southlawn Avenue."
Six of the letters objecting to this proposal are from surrounding
homes and one is from the Share Clinic (adjacent lot to the east).
The residents are primarily objecting to the bar and the resulting
potential for noise late at night from people talking in the
parking lot, car doors closing and engine noise. (Refer to the
letters on pages 15 through 19.)
The Share Clinic objects to the building location, the potential
use of their parking lot by Chili's and unscreened trash areas.
(Refer to their letter on page 20.)
411
• 6
REFERENCE
BITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site size: 3.5 acres
2. Existing Land Use: undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USES
Northerly: Beam Avenue and the Movies of Maplewood
Southerly: Two double dwellings and three single dwellings
Easterly: Share Medical Clinic
Westerly: Southlawn Drive and undeveloped BC(M) zoned property
PAST ACTION (approved parking authorizations)
The City Council granted parking authorizations to allow fewer
parking spaces for the following businesses and shopping centers:
October 1, 1981: Maplewood East Shopping Center due to the Pizza
Time Theatre proposal - 18 fewer spaces allowed.
July 14, 1986: Jiffy Lube west of Cub Foods on Rice Street - 26
fewer spaces allowed.
Tires Plus and Precision Tune on County Road D -
15 fewer spaces allowed.
March 28, 1988: Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive - 71 fewer spaces
allowed.
April 20, 1989: Bachman's - 123 fewer spaces allowed.
November 16, 1989: Century Center, due to the Panda Cafe's
expansion - 11 fewer spaces allowed.
December 11, 1989: Maplewood Square Shopping Center, due to the
expansion of T -Birds and a new Vietnamese
Restaurant - 71 fewer spaces.
PLANNING
1. Land Use Plan designation: LSC, Limited Service Commercial.
2. Zoning: BC(M)
3. Subsection 36 -155 (c. 3.) requires conditional use permits for
restaurants in BC(M) districts. All cooking odors must be
controlled so as not to be noticeable to adjacent residences.
PUBLIC WORKS
A traffic light will be installed at the intersection of the
Sherwin- William's drive and Beam Avenue this spring.
7
o
TECHILIS
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Property Line /Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Frontage Drive Concept Plan
5. Staff's Proposed Site Plan Alternative
6. Chili's letter of parking justification dated February 12, 1990
7. Survey replies from neighbors (five)
8. Letter from United Health Care Corporation (Share Clinic owner)
dated February 5, 1990
9. Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. Parking Study
10. Chili's plans date stamped February 15, 1990 (separate attachment)
11. Maplewood Retail Center building elevations date stamped
January 30, 1990 (separate attachment)
•
8
: I .
Interchange • ' Interchange
• _ �,� •... al Opt _
0 •
Vadnala Melphla I IRH 1 — h 11) /SC --major
major
= "� .-•- u ..� +••8ssssssswssssswmin sssnsnss -usnu
s
�/ ^� Co. Rd. D collector
r I • 1 _� r • • ; 4/7 , • BW u = • w
•
:majo II .."-'-"-----j D'+ / —U
V o «� y am. t
1 / . �� o 1 ..................
ma or Collectors ` - 1 -°
•
•
1 rr�no► orlal
■ .. A ® III.
1 • • BW _ — Rm��,
r O M
•
o r .t
_ � j i i - R L— R13 - -- -' 08
• . 0 . ,. :• t 1 --,.. , ci j_4
Co. Rd. C S -'�` —m inor ._7.
- ... _ ... . mil. 1
' = —LS ' c r l OS —_ _ = : . max - T S or sc
MI I - � P �` - os
.•H eiera . C ----'• 1 — RL.; .. P LSC 4011101111 aaoee i0 S ii _ 6 Major toile TGorvs.... 1
•
usnattmma att rtunio ; . ■u mm azmammai mmmv T it� `
LSC
i J all .ar\la1 Q �` . - -- / - - h" i _ �� S '. _. - r -,-:.- .,
\ .m-. J MlpAnay 330 Intec
r -
� • i • �1 i S I f hong
c .n w
• = L o 0
t p Y
W O o
c. C - o •
o
C3
o _
E C.
3
t
Ili . HAZELWOOD
LAND USE PLAN N
9
Attachment 1 _1[0
e
% e• •
. i '• r ....
� •
J 4 74 la el.
0 . -''.* 1 4 00 ... • fa 4 tap 0
Tr i 4 ' 0 ° O
• S h J J 7 p • f•� e
11 • r . • 4, t• 17 38
.
4 P• 0
0 4 6 (IL) ,
Z d - �` /61•. 4 A J.
D (2) • 1, •
(e) ( s
MO 1
• Y j
I L L .,,,.. IS . ~ I O 4•. 7 /1846 /1744.
) • . • .j am b �' ; 01 = 4 44. l
.. DOC.MO U !af +� ` ■ ••
o f 1 .
f.. .. 1 17 "�: e�
t •...: 7a' C e . 142.92 .1 .4.
• _ 01•r. Couw7 Wit• • =r- y_ 1, r••-
I'
e 674 ►.
•I e t t. ro•t •••fr 1 III.. •vt CV Wm* 71.11.0• 111••••0 I- • '.,
__ ' ! 1 �
{f:
•
Tr K 7
710 .76 •e ,411 t - . . •
67•c ° e � \2'J +" YZ � A . . r ..---1;--;-.
• t fB 4 0 r G r
.JY •
•1 ,r
• (j0) ( 9) . 01 $ , - , : • �C O t,,,, a (•2 Leg ac. 's .. . ( 39, t .
0 . 1,---), . p ,Jo ct0 Goo ' ii ( 20) 6!0 ( 221 (0 w ^ o .38 ac•
........ v 7.: �( t. 4c ° (e1) se 1.,,, .6 •c SJ i t { r f / w i + 11 (Is) so
2 6(.6,4 (It) O (17) Oil c (15) 54a . « 4 e )
so
F "" tea. 0 4O w ' (LL) ' .GO 04 (IS, .4546c. a 12 •c (IS) • S 4.c 51.c w )3'7J (� ±
.u.6 .a O!o 07 0 i i (141 To
.et .ee .°o .e- ••• .e- . • ' ... . 0 1S e .a• • e
(- 6831')
im am 7 RA�UP ■MN■■ ■ ■� A ■l mil
�..uI1.II.r
.te
o ('•• (18) ' f� 9.,1
r•• ., M.. . •••t •f. '� . si .4o, .4444 .4 .I8•C. M 46.64 .118.•c• .teat.. I .,,
2 n � w � � r t. _+ I ti
O ' w L � (ss) C (� � s r !, ' (y0) ( ow (s V- (2T) " 44) (L ; Is)
4 �7 �7 17 160 O O •0t0 �•Ol w •S • .ee N as (+yj� ID RI ii t f� 1�J � 1 (Ld l'.J (v) 'J
w ! O O 4 :
�� (• 6") � � tt .O try de , i. •8lfl wf
1 7 , 4 7:.546 m (!62 8.0
e,� • I D•d (64:
S a — q 1 )eea 8e)
e, • -. • � � �� Clinic S =S hare C • - r• :� � � •f -, � -
P''U ( y
H = Hirshfield's C.
SW = Sherwin Williams
Property Line /Zoning Map
10 Attachment 2 N
.. .. i•7 ov .. `
• i
Km mtle.0
(;171 l
11 11 I 1 1 1 l
----- t j cH�r s , —,
/.
/ / / /// / -
Q ' - Y _ __ s
i y -) C
I .j
• n e
ill
8741 �.Q {MC) 1
i -�.7 yp $p Ill —�
V
\ _____
r 1
r ►1 lilluillw iti 11111111111111111111 �
1 . 1
1 a).W
SITE PLAN
(Developer's Plan)
4 0
11 Attachment 3 N
, . .
.__
. ' 3 AV liV38 311.1-1M <11 E . 1
III 7. ' - - _ .
• 1 .. OO INI'
ornmacco \ .• 4
PO
\E _ I 0 CO
r.... 0 . . H
: .. i i _ i ta b .411. -' -- --r . - • - -- to
4 - _ - ! "= - ucc
•� E. _ i•
� .. _ -_.• 3
• 4.11.1 ti
7 _ - 1 ii 11 + ► O r to 0
\ — . ..c
•
- a
.I; t _ - - MI . ,•. Q - 1 11I re _ - 1.11
1 • I - - a � c= CU
��. JJ W •
le - -
..;. \ _ -
. i- -- _ - -- - i • . I .._. - -- • .
• • ; a ___ II . • •._ •
-- - _ .o . I ` _. _._
• 1
r _.___._:...•
• _
_ ._ : . . ,
, .. - • • �
:, . .4 c--) - • � • N Md - U ; .ti . •.)
Attachment 4
— h '1 , - • • ., 2 . • _
• - --
NMI AKMUA 311 on
7r/If t
1 r- _
kitl ' ,i, c4
%j / j /��� /� FRONTAGE
._ M . Z IDRIVE
} , CHI - ,.
I Z ���%� // /, 1 -J • L- ,��.
•
11
;E
t . 4 . i
i _� k 1
Jr .
0 z -
q rw VAa f ~C)
a.+ w r
I
: 1 Ini I - 1 l' , .
z I
SITE PLAN
STAFF PROPOSAL Attachment 5 i ,1/4, n ,
13
• Se
• 94 0*-.5519
February 12, 1990
Mr. Geoff Olson
Director of Community Development
Maplewood City Hall
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Sir:
In response to your concern over parking at Chili's proposed Maplewood site. I
would like to bring several considerations to your attention:
1. Chili's typically enjoys a "honeymoon" sales curve during the
first 4 -6 weeks after opening (i.e., Roseville's current
customer traffic). Following the "honeymoon" period, sales
will typically decrease by 15-20%.
2. Based on our professional studies, we feel that the demo-
graphics of the Maplewood area are not as strong as the
Roseville area, and therefore don't expect sales (and
parking requirements) to be as strong.
If you have any further concerns or questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
( Zt.:11Tn.e2 - 2/7 - 7
Gary Rustmann
Regional Director
North Central Region
621 E. Butterfield Road
Suite 214
Lombard, IL 60148
(708)515 -8878
621 E. Butterfield Road • Suite 214 • Lombard, IL 60148 • (708) 515 -8878
Attachment 6
14
•
•I have no comment.
• x I object to this proposal because zo , p
. If you object, describe below or draw on the enclosed map
any changes that would make this project acceptable. If no
changes would make it acceptable, how should this property
• be developed?
'(Project: Chili's) Use reverse side if more room is needed.
— — - — Equal Opportunity Employer
•
•
L
.L.:w- �, °
• ,• � /7"� t.l>' a C'. •
��"'`�`'j� G..c- t c� iT.2` -a' / P— t ► �G'e - -c�- z q_ C�ct..t— L D
■
•
P '4-e) S A- '1)
IC
GX�aL....— ,•..,_, LLB I'�"`— "�',.�{r,.�,..._....
-! 9" 4 R4lz.
•
•
•
o
15 Attachment 7
I am in favor of this proposal because
.14
1 I have no comment.
I object o this proposal because
1 " lit,v • Qc�C4w" cD( 4 1, r ( 1 a..d G1I11
If you object, describe below or draw on the enclosed map
0 . any changes that would make this project acceptable. If no
changes would make it acceptabl , how shou d tIis property
b�w .c..., - cr►� 0 c/ e • • •ccc - t..1. -le 8 �1..t:4y
,r'o c'Vt .�.�. :V..• 'u)�.1.cz...l.tlt4 -
(Project: Chili's) Use r side if more room need d.
,^ w Equal OpixuituUts• EmJ)lu)cr L �
• 7& i c- i rr � 14' / ' k
` ✓Q. � 0 , ,, ; i' Awyk .4.^.� C —
, :
,t,L....:.,, ,
• 1, • ,t-,J--e-c2-' c , 61 .r..... 7A-0 - 1
, 40
06 %
C.C.L.A4 ale.
c ;4) /))Q1 .
, ,k i nJa).A9 ;7.-) ce c....-16-1-
au-, (1/1.1_P.,t..1Z-1) 1
cyt._,. j.j.......ex t., ).Jcck.i.-() .c)-71,1
• er J c).--)-2-6
. X , ' / -
�� u�1 -sss
t
. 1 . " . ( --,
_Q � ` , n 7 .
• ...
.,
Tim & Vanchulee Schwanke
1835 Radatz Ave. E.
Maplewood, MN 55109
1
•
..- .'.:;.. .
16
l .,.late 'E. �u , -s �1wo Q -t�¢a ha,q. /la? a.a/.oI t-k`t
Glitz t a - wJe czn. Cam - `1 tt Law r e n\k_c,
4 -1ud -- w-e. — tiuw mAA
'L Lord kta4 l tic P&Titi a f.1.1 &&ULW A61R. Vlti. C'1�t.1• {LSc.
7 O ii
V4th , ( l�• hcz.0 -e Pi-e.&- d k tk - 11;rnii• vw- (V- e-AA,A
c Q l 04- Rale L.M.ed,Q, to ;,., eVt4 1 444
L kiwp, 04.4, 1 1a j j - e I' c io_ ,
P o-eJC d . ham lc tit
U ` ' � wti�C Kadu -t n �- IN
f\A- cod 0\12A/1 Lci)c viss 64.c A:10
tkb4-- \azzcz.t.c.4e cbu Q-Lk, • t8, . 1 tusk ct \!. � `M O fN
O bka 4A\" T\-Q-Lk Q- ct , 1\ * e LA) \\O- L1-4(s.
-1QL • c v esd r\Z . W Q (\cckaki i' c
I
D 6:6-t C.-11W' 0 INkfAi k1 1-Vie bye I
L kA-e- ade l&;Gw -L - 0-1Li )- 1LL 04
r\,(3--( +'4‘41, e . Q-i A/t.� �!� w 1\lt CA. yirA3,0
1 ft-611144 44\
(1.84.S'
I8 Ls )adz) �.
'&1-121\a'rr r 7
411/L3-1-1\o-v-( a. c �' Q� � ,t tom- `Q �, ha t -
fittidekac.atpCiecit.et/Aa 6 / 01-6r1C
. PO (.4.) 14 WLC.h n.t.c 1':Z ! r ct 7"6c. /t t S ?oat/
•iA Lti Cz P._ -e Lt., C C .� ti c��, 2 S `7�l ; .5
0..A.A...-a. V V L �� �c c,�. n y
.. 'i a re a U.E'..e.k
c Pf...2 a Se__ 60. U S A tti,E T
U ,..t_-19 ot.t. \l --
Tra.Pc
tt S yk a,,,,,,,( 7 ??( 7 1-(-)/Lt'i4'--
::: 4 ---„.,e-e._ /1--, , 13 ,,,,, trs 11-0-e vu_kk ?"4.43 cc. e.). I- t- , 771_ (N c ,.. /7..)/
r � �y J c
. (.0 t lC 04*(. C d worse I T GZ/�c.C; li f " c < c --
hei.ci G1f'.SS S h cdl /7 4
. v e-te. ra-t ( r
0 6{)/t.,..) ' "¢ � oe. '►1'. „, =Lti.� pc.) .Sol LC' -Y 4_4 'd 0 7 - . ,..0,..,- .
S 1F ( , r /?/Ltt_elS A.o... 7l!Cz4'CLtiII S
, :1- 6 C 0 t 7. / 7” 0 cA) /1 7 141 -c i'V 5., fi.ee c c -(2. Z2e-f...r
l
i :CO r 7 I^G e6, 7 < a rC) C / c (7 11 ,.< i.' - -F'
. i &(..) ko CIL , 7 t:. ..S C-- e ( d.C' i . ,C/ 7/ , 4 "; r '‘c) I- ,. ''f ; - . , - ,-- ,
4. / _-- ,7/ ,.., %A.. 4 e /00 d - L - ... 6 I -(---
°LaL t v v" K/ S C[:''ec :1. / eZlr a4L ( '7/ ,- •
' r
ar & $ c% u` .)/ Xa���� � SC- ( .2i'o ,J2ri, P _
a c . tr..-e, / 6 /.
. ] /1
Ili
. 18
. . ... . .
'` I have • no comment.. 'i^
I obje t to this proposal bbecause_%� .ca �-` =L'
Q. ye ti 2 - 0- <-• 4 •-....1t . -_ <. 7-1 .c .e x:C( 4-•r%„ . 1 ) 7"Yt c c•c.h., 71.c. c. - i. .,m..
' If you object, describ below orraw on the enclosed map
any changes that would make this project acceptable. If no
,• changes would make it acceptable, how should this property
be developed? Q. - 72t�cc.. /9•z+•c-z '1-e.- 44- , ,, .1.7 2 - - 4 4 u• ,
� ,. • .• . - (Project:.Chili's) • Us reverse side if „lore— i- eem—is neede •
• •
• • • - w ��
A ....4-.......- c)-- _.../,---1-,._./.., -i.t..(_,...,C..,.
G� �-� . _ - tip �- �.� -o
.. � . • •: � - :. .
�<- -�c..d -cam
frifi Le..., . ) . t 2...,..,..,... i c_e___ ; ,...., . : . / / —i ��• •- '- i� ....L., ,_. ((//
c/ L. .
i , 7,._,..„...r.......,.„.....,,,., --C-e----r, <------c-c......"--CL.., --t-i--
.
.o e,! t IC" sense y Rich
l o 9 f4•0611z
•
•
•
• 19
000`'
FEB 71990
LIP
United HealthCare Corporation
February 5, 1990
Mr. Geoff Olson, AICP
Director of Community Development
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
Dear Mr. Olson:
In response to your survey on the application the City has
received to develop property and issue conditional use permit to
contract a Chili's restaurant in the location adjacent to the
Maplewood Share /Aspen Clinic, I submit the following opinions:
• 1. The site plan did not clearly show the location of the
Chili's building, but ie appears to indicate that the •
building location could have a different set back than
the Share Clinic building. This would obstruct the
view of the Clinic from patients or potential patients
traveling east along Beane Avenue. This would not be
acceptable to Share.
2. The location of Chili's on the site, with the two
entrances and exits off Beane Avenue and the layout of
the parking could stimulate the use of Share's parking
facilities rather than having to park and walk any
distance in the parking lot.
There are only 183 parking stalls for the entire
project, Chili's and the retail shopping center.
During the busy season, usually during holidays, the
lot will be full and potentially some what diminished
in capacity, due to snow buildup and the likelihood of
the "Projects" customers utilizing Share parking is
possible. A site plan in relations to the Share
property would be helpful.
9900 Bren Road East
P.U. Box 1459
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440-8001
(612) 936 -1300
20 Attachment 8
Nook .
. •4,.
Page 2
February 5, 1990
3. Since the proposed location of the rubbish /trash
receptacles were not clearly identified on the
elevation drawings and site plan, I'm making the
assumption it is the southeast corner of the building
facing the clinic. This would be in the site line for
patients, doctors and nurses viewing from the windows
on the west side of the clinic. Typically, this is an
unkept area even in the best of facilities. Should the
location continue to remain, Share would prefer not
only a fully secured and constructed building screening
walls but also bermed with mature (10' + +) evergreen
trees planted to screen the area and any unsightly area
along the east walk of Chili's and the shopping center.
It would be helpful if I could have more time to review a full
model or site drawing of the site plan and building in retrospect
to the Share site and building. I have taken a visual walk
through, however, this can be deceiving. I would appreciate
further opportunity to discuss these matters.
111 Sincerely,
.....------y—c--.) ke a _
Gebr a Solnitz
g
Director of Support Services
cc: Pam Shaw
Share File
•
III
21
•
• BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
lenCeci3r Sc;( [ire VVenl/Cecdr-Fl trxd'. 1610 Scoth Y► ,t; rt<, t��r xr' .lt j - (612)312-0.121
•
September 15, 1981
Mr. Bruce A. Peterson
Security Development Company, Inc.
7901 Flying Cloud Drive - Suite 154
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Mr. Peterson:
As we discussed by phone and after reviewing the site plan you transmitted to us,
we draw the following conclusions on the parking requirements for your proposed
Maplewood East Shopping Center at White Bear and Beam Avenues in Maplewood.
The design parking ratio of five spaces per 1,000 square feet for retail - commercial
areas is based on satisfying most of the parking demand that occurs between
• Thanksgiving and Christmas. This peak demand usually occurs on weekend
afternoons between 2prn and 4pm, and would occur at other times of the year only
in conjunction with a major sale day. Again, this would almost always occur on a
Saturday afternoon between 2pm and 4pm. Even on weekdays, the peak parking
demand occurs between 2pm and 4pm, although at a lower ratio than the design
ratio.
In contrast, restaurants exhibit a design parking ratio of ten to twelve spaces per
1,000 square feet which occurs on Friday and Saturday nights. Fast food
restaurants also have a noon time peal: of this magnitude, but sit -down restaurants
generally have a lower noon time peak than they have in the evening. This is
especially true if the restaurant serves alcoholic beverages.
In the proposed development, one parking area will serve the entire shopping
center, including the restaurants. Therefore, there will be shared parking between
the various tenants and it is necessary to look at the parking demands during both
of the aforementioned time periods. The anticipated parking demands are shown in
Table 1.
•
• •
22 Attachment 9
TABLE 1
• PEAK PARKING DEMAND (Maplewood East Center)
Retail -Com'J Restaurant
2 -4PM 4 -8PM
Land Use • Peak Peak
Retail -Com'1 144 86
Restaurant 14 43
TOTAL 158 129
The numbers in Table 1 are based on 28,800 square feet of retail- commercial
space; 3,600 square feet of restaurant space; 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
retail - commercial space as peak parking demand, and 3 spaces per 1,000 square
feet as non -peak demand; 12 spaces per 1,000 square feet of restaurant as peak
parking demand, and 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet as non -peak demand. Because
the proposed plan shows 180 spaces, we believe the plan will be adequate to handle
the parking demand as noted in Table 1.
The principle of shared parking for two different types of commercial development
has established that if the peak parking requirement of each use is merely added to
the peak demand of the other, that an excessively high parking ratio results. Tne
reason is that the peak oemand periods for the two different types of uses do not
occur simultaneously.
If my assumptions on the square footages by type of use are not the final values,
you can rework the numbers of spaces using the rates described above.
Yours very truly,
Deane M. Wenger
DMW:kmh
• •
23