HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-20 PC Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
7:00 PM
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road B East
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
a. May 16, 2017
5.Public Hearing
a. 7:00 p.m. or later: Consider Approval of a Sign Variance, Maplewood Commercial
Redevelopment, 3088 White Bear Avenue North
6. New Business:
a. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update (No Report)
b. Election of Officers (No Report)
7.Unfinished Business
8.Visitor Presentations
9.Commission Presentations
a. May 22, 2017 city council meeting (Commissioner Dahm)
Wetland Buffer Variance, 2224 Woodlyn Avenue
b. July 10, 2017 city council meeting (Commissioner Ige)
Sign Variance, 3088 White Bear Avenue North
6. Staff Presentations
7. Adjournment
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2017
7:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the Commission was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Arbuckle.
2. ROLL CALL
Paul Arbuckle, Chairperson Present
Frederick Dahm, Commissioner Present
Tushar Desai, Commissioner Present
John Donofrio, Commissioner Present
John Eads, Commissioner Absent
Allan Ige, Commissioner Absent
Bill Kempe, Commissioner Present
Staff Present: Michael Martin, Economic Development Coordinator
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Kempe moved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Seconded by Commissioner Donofrio. Ayes All
The motion passed.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Dahm moved to approve the April 17, 2017, PC minutes as submitted.
Seconded by Commissioner Desai. Ayes Chairperson Arbuckle,
& Kempe
Abstention Commissioner Eads
The motion passed.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 7:00 p.m. or later: Consider Approval of a Wetland Buffer Variance, 2224 Woodlynn
Avenue
i. Economic Development Coordinator, Michael Martin gave the report on the Consideration
of Approval of a Wetland Buffer Variance, 2224 Woodlynn Avenue and answered
questions of the commission.
ii. The applicant, Mark Gergen, 2224 Woodlynn Avenue, addressed and answered questions
of the commission.
Chairperson Arbuckle opened the public hearing.
May 16, 2017
1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1. Charles Regel, 2206 Woodlynn Avenue, Maplewood addressed the commission. Mr. Regel
wanted to and approves
the plan as proposed.
Chairperson Arbuckle closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kempe moved to pass the resolution adding a friendly amendment 1. e. home
design and roof drainage will be consistent with good drainage practice.
second.
Commissioner Kempe withdrew his amendment and made another motion to approve the
resolution as written in the staff report.
Commissioner Kempe moved to approve the resolution in the staff report authorizing a 30-foot
wetland buffer variance for 2224 Woodlynn Avenue East for the construction of a new single
family house. Approval is based on the following reasons:
1. Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because
complying with the wetland buffer requirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the
building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot.
2. Approval of the wetland buffer variance will include the restoration of the remaining wetland
buffer, which will improve the water quality of the wetland.
3. Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance with the construction of a new
as residential.
Approval of the wetland buffer variance shall be subject to the following:
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the new single family house the applicants must
submit:
a. A tree plan which shows the location, size, and species of all significant trees located on
the lot, and the trees that will be removed with the construction of the new single family
house. Removal of significant trees with the construction of the single family house must
b. A grading plan which shows the location of a retaining wall to be constructed on the
southwest corner of the house, adjacent the wetland buffer. The retaining wall should
extend approximately 40 feet along the wetland buffer edge, stopping near the middle of
the lot where the slopes begin to level off.
c. A wetland buffer restoration plan to be approved by city staff.
d. An escrow to cover up to 150 percent of the cost of the wetland buffer restoration.
2. Prior to release of the escrow, the wetland buffer plantings must be established.
Seconded by Commissioner Dahm. Ayes - All
The motion passed.
May 16, 2017
2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
This item goes to the city council on May 22, 2017.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Meeting May 22, 2017 at the Fire
Station No. 2 (No Report)
i. Economic Development Coordinator, Michael Martin reported that this meeting will be
held Monday, May 22, 2017 at Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 at 1955 Clarence Street, at
5:00 - 6:30 p.m.
ve Plan
Steering Committee. Chairperson Arbuckle volunteered to serve as the alternate.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
8. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None.
9. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. May 8, 2017, city council meeting (Commissioner Arbuckle)
Conditional Use Per was passed by the city council.
b. May 22, 2017, city council meeting, (Commissioner Dahm)
Wetland Buffer Variance, 2224 Woodlynn Avenue.
10. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
None.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Arbuckle adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
May 16, 2017
3
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
MEMORANDUM
TO:Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM:Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator
DATE:June 12, 2017
SUBJECT:Consider Approval of New Building at 3088 White Bear Avenue
A.Design Review
B.Sign Variance
Introduction
Project Description
Kathleen Hammer of Landform, on behalf of the property owner,is proposing the demolition of
the existing restaurant building at 3088 White Bear Avenue in order to build a new retail and
office multi-tenant building. In addition to the new building, the applicant is requesting the city
approve a sign variance allowing an increase in the number of signs each tenant would be
permitted.
Request
The applicant is requesting cityapproval of:
A.Design Review
B.Sign Variance
Background
April 5, 1973:City approved designplans for the building’s original construction.
May 14, 1991:City approved design plans for a building addition.
Discussion
Design Review
Site Layout
The existing single access point from White Bear Avenue will remain in the same place as the
currentsite layout. The new building will be located roughly in the same place as the existing
restaurant building. The building will be built to be as close to White Bear Avenue as city code
allows –30 foot building setback is required –and access to the building’s tenants will be on the
opposite side.
The building size is proposed to be 8,146 square feet meaning 41 parking spaces are required
on site. The applicant is proposing 60 parking spaces –all at the proper widths –meeting city
code requirements. The applicant plans to reconstruct the parking lot using the existing parking
lot setbacks to the rear and side property lines. Reconstructing the parking lot will lead to
improved stormwater management on this site.
Architectural
The proposedbuilding will be built withconcrete block, a combination of stone and brick
veneers, and EIFS. The building will have four-sided architecture with windows on each
elevation and staff believes the building is overall attractively designed and will enhance the
design standard of this part of the city.
One area of concern is the applicant is proposing to use stone veneer on the base of the
building for only one of the tenant spaces and then utilizing concrete block for the other two
tenants. Staff recommends the applicant be requiredto use the stone veneer through the entire
base of the building.
Landscaping
The applicant is removing threesignificant treeson-site, equaling 50diameter inches. The
City’s tree replacement calculation requires the applicant replace 60caliper inches of trees, or
30trees –2 caliper inch trees. The applicant’s planting plan includes the planting of 65 caliper
inches on-site. In terms of the placement and variety of plantings on site, the proposed
landscape plan is attractively designed and will enhance theoverall look of this site.
Lighting
The applicant’s lighting plan exceedsordinance requirementsin portions of the south side of the
site.The applicant should be required to submit a revised photometric plan that meets the city
ordinance.
Sign Variance
State Law
State law requires that variances shall only be permitted when they are found to be:
1.In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control;
2.Consistent with the comprehensive plan;
3.When there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical
difficulties” means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
City Ordinance
Section 44-731 states the purpose and intent of the city’s sign ordinance is:
“To establish a comprehensive and impartial system of sign regulations that balances the
needs for effective visual communication including business identification and the needs for a
safe, well-maintained, and attractive community. It is intended through the provisions
contained herein to:
1.Promote signs which by their design and dimensions are integrated and harmonized
with the surrounding environment and the buildings and sites they occupy.
2.Protect the public from damage or injury caused by signs that are poorly designed or
maintained and from signs that cause distractions or hazards to motorists and
pedestrians using the public streets, sidewalks, and public right-of-way.
3.Avoid excessive signage in order to give each business or use optimum visibility to
passer-by traffic and prevent cluttering of the streetscape.
4.Allow noncommercial copy to be substituted for commercial copy on any lawful sign
structure.”
The city’s sign ordinance allows each tenant of a building one wall sign for each street upon
which the property has frontage. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow two wall signs
per tenant. The wall signs would be limited to the east and west elevations –meaning the signs
on the east elevation would not bevisible from White Bear Avenue.
The applicant has stated the variance is justified since they are siting the building towards White
Bear Avenue with tenant access being on the east side of the building and additional signage is
needed for wayfinding. City staff finds that the additional requested wall signageis in harmony
with the City’s zoning code and comprehensive plan. The shape of this parcel means that
efficient use of the site puts the building near the street frontage with parking behind and extra
signage is a reasonable request for wayfinding purposes. Staff recommends requiring the
applicant limiting any signage lighting between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Department Comments
EngineeringDepartment, Jon Jarosch
Please see Jon Jarosch’s engineering report, dated June 8, 2017, attached to this report.
Building Official, Jason Brash
Build per 2012 IBC, 2012 IMC, 2012 IFGC, 2014 NEC, 2012 Minnesota State Plumbing Code,
2015 Minnesota State Fire Code, MN 2015 Accessibility code, and 2015 Minnesota Building
Code.
Police Department, Chief Paul Schnell
No issues
Parks Department, Audra Robbins
This property has never paid a parks accessibility charge (PAC) and will be subject to said
charge at the time of building permit. Commercial PAC fee is nine percent of the current land
value
Land value -$650,900 X 9% = $58,581.00
Recommendations
A.Approve the design plans date-stamped May 26, 2017, for the new multi-tenant
commercialbuilding located at 3088 White Bear Avenue North. Approval is subject to the
developer complying with the following conditions:
1.Approval of design plans is good for two years. If the applicant has not begun
construction within two years, this design review shall be repeated. Staff may approve
minor changes to these plans.
2.The applicant shall comply with the conditions noted in the engineering report by Jon
Jarosch dated June 8, 2017.
3.Prior to the city issuing any grading or building permits the applicant shall be required to
do the following:
a.Submit to staff a revised photometricplan that meets all city ordinance
requirements.
b.Submit to staff revised building elevations showing stone veneer being used
along the entire base of the building on all four elevations.
4.The applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount
of 150 percent of the cost of installing the landscaping before getting a building permit.
B.Approve the attached resolution authorizing a signvariance allowing two wall signs per
tenantfor the building located at 3088 White Bear Avenue North. Approval is based on the
following reasons:
1.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties
because complying with sign requirementsstipulated by the ordinance would cause
wayfinding issues for people looking to access the services provided within the
building.
2.Approval of the signvariance will not result in excessive signage for this site as the
additional wall signage will not be visible from the White Bear Avenue roadway.
3.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance giventheadditional building
signage is on a propertythat is zoned and guided in the City’s comprehensive plan for
commercial use.
Approval of the signvariance shall be subject to the following:
1.Each tenant of the building is permitted two wall signs –one wall sign on the west
elevation and one wall sign on the east elevation.
2.Wall signage is not permitted on the north or south elevations.
3.Thesize of each wall sign is allowed to beten percent of the surface area of the exterior
façade of the premises occupied by each tenant.
4.Any wall signage on the east elevation shall not be illuminated between the hours of
10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
5.All other signage, including the site’s permittedone freestanding sign, must follow all
city sign ordinancerequirements.
Citizen Comments
Staff surveyed the 23 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their
opinion about this proposal. Staff received two responses –all in favor of the proposal.
1.The property owner supports the applicant’s signage variance. (Goldberg Ackermann LLC,
Chicago, IL)
2.I support the sign variance –makes sense (Tom Schutte, via phone call –Azure Properties)
Reference Information
Site Description
Site Size:1.04Acres
Existing Land Use: Baker’s Square
Surrounding Land Uses
North: Retail Building
South: Retail Building –Currently Under Construction
East:Multi-Family Housing Building
West:White Bear Avenue and Retail Building
Planning
Existing Land Use:Commercial (C)
Existing Zoning:Business Commercial (BC)
Application Date
The city deemed the applicant’s application complete on May 26, 2017. The 60-day review
deadline for a decision is July 25, 2017. As stated in State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to
take an additional 60 days if necessaryto complete the review of the application.
Attachments
1.Location Map
2.Land Use Map
3.Zoning Map
4.Site Plan
5.Landscape Plan
6.Building Elevations
7.Applicant’s Narrative
8.Jon Jarosch, engineering comments, dated June 8, 2017
9.Sign Variance Resolution
10.Applicant’s plan set (separate attachment)
Attachment 1
3088 White Bear
May 25, 2017
City of Maplewood
Legend
!
I
0240
Feet
Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County
Attachment 2
3088 White Bear
May 25, 2017
City of Maplewood
Information
Land Use Map
Legend
!
I
Future Land Use
Government
Commercial
0240
Feet
Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County
Attachment 3
3088 White Bear
May 25, 2017
City of Maplewood
Information
Zoning Map
Legend
!
I
Zoning
Planned Unit Development (pud)
Limited Business Commercial (lbc)
Business Commercial Modified (bcm)
Business Commercial (bc)
Shopping Center (sc)
0240
Feet
Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County
c
LANDFORM2017
Attachment 4
BASIN'2'
BASIN'3'
P
R
O
P
F
O
±
F
S
E
8
=E
,
1
D
9
1
5
5B
8
U
S
.
0
I
F
L
0
D
I
N
G
3AC
3
13
11
8
BASIN '1'
6
6
10
ZONING AND SETBACK SUMMARY
PARKING SUMMARY
SITE PLAN NOTES
GENERAL NOTES
AREA SUMMARY
02040
NORTH
PROJECT NO.FILE NAME DATESHEET
BY
Landform and Site to Finishare registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
SES
READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT
IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT
®
VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED
PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW
THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.
ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY TITLE
CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY
TEL 317-574-7448 FAX 317-653-1848
ISSUE / REVISION INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46220
725 EAST 65TH STREET
®
C2.1 CERTIFICATION
MUNICIPALITY
SHEET INDEX
DEVELOPER
SITE PLAN
PROJECT
05.23.17
SUITE 300
DATE
05.23.2017
C201TER001.DWG
TER17001
REVIEW
c
LANDFORM2017
Attachment 5
3 ARME
3 ECPU
38 CABO
21 CAST
2 POFR2 COSE
3 ARME3 DELO3 DELO
3 DELO3 ECPU2 POFR2 ARME1 COSE
34 CABO5 ECPU
3 DELO4 DELO
22 CAST
1 ARME
1 COSE
BASIN'2'
BASIN'3'
3 JUWI4 CAKF
6 ECPU1 ARME
1 COSE
6 DELO
3 DELO2 POFR1 ACMO
4 CAKF3 ACMO
3 ECPU3 RUHI3 ECPU1 RUHI3 ECPU
3 RUHI5 CAKF2 ACMO5 CAKF
P
R
O
P
F
O
±
F
S
E
8
E
=
,
1
D
9
1
5
5B
8
U
.S
0
I
F
L
0
D
I
N
G
4 ASFA2 POFR
1 DELO
1 ASFA
1 CAKF2 DELO3 ASFA
2 POFR
2 CAKF1 ASFA
1 CAKF
1 POFR
2 DELO
1 POFR
1 QUBI2 ECPU
1 CAKF
1 ABBA
3 ECPU
1 QUBI4 RUHI4 CAKF
4 CAKF
2 DELO
CASCABO85CAREX COMOSA / BOTTLEBRUSH SEDGE3`H X 2`W2 GAL.POTSEDGESCAKF31CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA `KARL FOERSTER` / FEATHER REED GRASS5`H X 2`W2 GAL.POTGRASSESRUHI11RUDBECKIA HIRTA /
BLACK-EYED SUSAN4`H X 2`W2 GAL.POTECPU37ECHINACEA PURPUREA / PURPLE CONEFLOWER4`H X 2`W1 GAL.POTASFA9ASTILBE X ARENDSII `FANAL` / FANAL ASTILBE2`H X 1`W2 GAL.POTACMO6ACHILLEA X `MOONSHINE`
/ MOONSHINE YARROW2`H X 1`W2 GAL.POTANNUALS/PERENNIALSPOFR12POTENTILLA FRUTICOSA / BUSH CINQUEFOIL4`H X 4`W3 GAL.POTJUWI3JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS `WILTONII` / BLUE RUG JUNIPER0.5`H X
7`W3 GAL.POTDELO32DIERVILLA LONICERA / DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE4`H X 4`W5 GAL.POTCOSE7CORNUS SERICEA `CARDINAL` / `CARDINAL` RED-TWIG DOGWOOD10`H X 10`W5 GAL.POTARME16ARONIA MELANOCARPA
/ CHOKEBERRY6`H X 6`W5 GAL.POTSHRUBSPIGL3PICEA GLAUCA `DENSATA` / BLACK HILLS SPRUCE30`H X 20`W10` HT.B & BABBA1ABIES BALSAMEA / BALSAM FIR60`H X 20`W10` HT.B & BEVERGREEN TREESQUBI2QUERCUS
BICOLOR / SWAMP WHITE OAK50`H X 50`W2.5"CALB & BGIPR2GINKGO BILOBA `PRINCETON SENTRY` / PRINCETON SENTRY GINKGO40`H X 30`W2.5"CALB & BBENI1BETULA NIGRA / RIVER BIRCH60`H X 50`W2.5"CALB
& BAFAR3ACER X FREEMANII `ARMSTRONG` / ARMSTRONG FREEMAN MAPLE60`H X 15`W2.5"CALB & BTREES
T
13 CABO
3 ECPU
79CAREX STRICTA / TUSSOCK SEDGEQTYQTYQTYQTYQTYQTY
36 CAST
3 ARME1 COSE
BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME
2 GIPR
BASIN '1'
3 ECPU
1 COSE
3 ARME
PLANT SCHEDULE
1 BENI
1 PIGL
3 AFAR
2 PIGL
3`H X 2`MATURE SIZEMATURE SIZEMATURE SIZEMATURE SIZEMATURE SIZEMATURE SIZE
W
2 GAL.POTPLANTING SIZEPLANTING SIZEPLANTING SIZEPLANTING SIZEPLANTING SIZEPLANTING SIZE
ROOT COND.ROOT COND.ROOT COND.ROOT COND.ROOT COND.ROOT COND.
TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATIONS
LANDSCAPE NOTES
GENERAL NOTES
02040
NORTH
PROJECT NO.FILE NAME DATESHEET
BY
Landform and Site to Finishare registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
SES
READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT
IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT
®
VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED
PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW
THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.
ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY TITLE
CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY
TEL 317-574-7448 FAX 317-653-1848
ISSUE / REVISION INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46220
725 EAST 65TH STREET
®
CERTIFICATION
L2.1
MUNICIPALITY
SHEET INDEX
LANDSCAPE
DEVELOPER
PROJECT
05.23.17
SUITE 300
PLAN
DATE
05.23.2017
L201TER001.DWG
TER17001
REVIEW
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 7
Attachment 7
1.Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the ordinance.
2.Variances shall only be permitted when they are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Goal 9: Promote efficient, planned commercial and industrial expansion within the City.
Objective: “Encourage compact commercial development that will make efficient use of
infrastructure and resources.”
Attachment 7
Objective:“Promote the rehabilitation and redevelopment of existing commercial facilities by
continuing to pursue and use financial programs and assistance.”
Goal 11: Expand and diversify the City’s tax base by encouraging the development of high quality
and attractive commercial businesses.
Objective: “Encourage developers and builders to take advantage of opportunities provided by
mixed-use and nodaldevelopment design standards especially within designated redevelopment
areas.”
Objective: “Integrate those retail and service commercial activities that serve the neighborhood.”
Goal 12: Encourage attractive commercial and industrial development while limiting its impacts on
surrounding uses.
Objective: “Require adequate off-street parking and loading facilities, while also promoting the
use of sharing suchfacilities between neighboring parcels.”
Objective: “Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from
any adjacent existingor planned residential development.”
Attachment 7
Objective: “Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential uses by commercial or industrial
land uses.”
Objective: “Develop walkable neighborhoods with commercial nodes and amenities for residents.”
Objective: “Encourage businesses to incorporate green spaces at their campuses.”
3.Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practicaldifficulties," as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Attachment 8
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
VARIANCE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Kathleen Hammer of Landform, on behalf of the property owner, applied for
a variance from the city’s sign ordinance.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to the property located at3088 White Bear Avenue
North, Maplewood, MN. The property identification number is 02-29-22-21-0006.
WHEREAS, Section 44-742of the City’s ordinances (Sign Regulations)limitsoccupants
of a multi-tenant building to one wall sign per street frontage upon which the property has
frontage .
WHEREAS, the applicant isproposing to allow each occupant of the building to have
two wall signs, requiring a signvariance.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On June 20, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review this
proposal. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners as required by law. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance
to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended _______of
the wetland buffer variance to the City Council.
2 The City Council held a public meeting on July 10, 2017, to review this proposal. The
City Council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and the Planning
Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approved the above-
described variance based on the following reasons:
1.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties
because complying with sign requirements stipulated by the ordinance would cause
wayfinding issues for people looking to access the services provided within the
building.
2.Approval of the signvariance will not resultin excessive signage for this site as the
additional wall signage will not be visible from the White Bear Avenue roadway.
3.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance given the additional building
signage is on a property that is zonedand guided in the City’s comprehensive plan for
commercial use.
Approval of the signvariance shall be subject to the following:
1.Each tenant of the building is permitted two wall signs – one wall sign on the west
elevation and one wall sign on the east elevation.
2.Wall signage is not permitted on the north or south elevations.
3.The size of each wall sign is allowed to beten percent of the surface area of the exterior
façade of the premises occupied by each tenant.
Attachment 9
4.Any wall signage on the east elevation shall not be illuminated between the hours of 10
p.m. and 6 a.m.
5.All other signage, including the site’s permitted one freestanding sign, must follow all
city sign ordinance requirements.
The Maplewood City Council ____________this resolution on July 10, 2017