HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/1998BOOK
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
July 28, 1998
6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
Maplewood City Hall
1830 East County Road B
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes - July 14, 1998
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
a. Maplewood Plaza Sign Plan, Southlawn Drive- Welsh Companies
b. St. John's Hospital Sign Plan, 1575 Beam Avenue - Visual Communications
c. Best Buy Building Addition, 1885 E. County Road D- Best Buy Company
6. Design Review
a. Maplewood Eye Care, West of 1975 11th Avenue - Mulcahy, Inc.
b. Gervais Court ADartments, Gervais Court - Tri Hess Development Company
7. Visitor Presentation~
8. Board Presentations
9. Staff Presentations
a. CDRB Representative Needed for August 24 Council Meeting
Reminder - Ananth is August 10 Representative
b. Next CDRB Meeting is August 11
c. Annual Summer Tour- August 17
10. Adjourn
p:com-dvpt~cdrb.agd
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The
review of an item usually follows this format.
1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed.
2. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium
to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community
Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant.
3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes
to comment on the proposal.
4. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the
chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting.
5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed.
6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision.
7. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You
must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal.
kd/misc\cdrb.agd
Revised: 6-18-93
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
JULY 14, 1998
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.
I1.' ROLL CALL
Marvin Erickson Present
Marie Robinson Present
Ananth Shankar Present
Tim Johnson Absent
Matt Ledvina Absent
II1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 9, 1998
Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the minutes of June 9, 1998 as submitted.
Boardmember Robinson seconded. Ayes--all
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Boardmember Robinson moved approval of the agenda as submitted.
VI.
Boardmember Shankar seconded.
The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
DESIGN REVIEW
A.
Ayes--all
Joe's Crab Shack, Beam Avenue - Landry's Seafood, Inc.
Gerry Mullins, of Landry's Seafood Restaurants, Inc., was present and told the
boardmembers a little about his company. Mr. Mullins said they refer to their
architecture as Gulf Coast architecture. Mr. Mullins said they typically use almost
entirely reconstituted materials, such as, old wood and old tin roofs.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-14-98
-2-
Boardmember Erickson asked if there were many design changes made for the
building here. Mr. Mullins said they have gone to a brick wainscot around the bottom
of the building to give it a cleaner look and they have toned down their sign package.
Mr. Mullins asked if the reason for the lot split was for tax purposes. Staff didn't know
the reasons but presumed the applicant wanted to own their own property. Mr.
Mullins said that they had no intention of using the five foot utility easement.
Mr. Mullins said that their site plan shows 99 parking spaces and that the only way
they can meet the city code requirement of 104 parking spaces would be to use some
of the parking spaces in the shopping center.
Staff has recommended that the applicant revise the site plan to provide a parking lot
connection to the Olive Garden parking lot at the southerly end of the site. The
connection would cause the loss of four of the proposed parking spaces, but would
add six and provide traffic flow between the two restaurant sites. The total number of
parking spaces would increase from 99 to 101 and improve the traffic circulation
between the Olive Garden and Joe's Crab Shack.
Boardmember Erickson asked if the applicant had any concerns or problems with
cars going back and forth on the drive between the Olive Garden and their property.
Mr. Mullins said the only problem they had is that they didn't want it to become a
shortcut for cars to go through to get to the mall.
Staff has recommended that the proposed landscaped strip along the east side of 'he
site should be revised to accommodate a 24-foot-wide drive aisle to serve the Oli
Garden parking lot. When the Olive Garden was developed, they installed a 13-foot-
wide drive aisle adjacent to their westerly parking row. The Olive Garden site plan,
approved in 1989, anticipated an adjacent parking lot separated by a 24-foot-wide,
shared drive aisle. The applicant should provide this widened driveway and wrap
curb and gutter around their easterly landscape island as shown in staff's revision.
Boardmember Robinson asked staff if there were 101 parking spaces and how many
additional spaces would be gained if we go in the opposite direction. Staff said they
came up with 101 spaces, with one or two having been on the Olive Garden site.
Staff said that even if went back to the 99 parking spaces proposed, staff was okay
with that because of the abundance of additional parking.
There was a discussion about signage for Joe's Crab Shack. Boardmember Erickson
asked the applicant if they were going to put signage up on the green fascia. Mr.
Mullins said that the green fascia was the roof. Boardmember Shankar said that the
rooftop mechanical equipment should match the roof color instead of matching the
building color as stated under Item D 3. b. of the staff report. Mr. Mullins said there
would be nothing on the front side of the roof and on the back side there might be one
or two vents.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-14-98
-3-
Boardmember Shankar asked if the floor line was three feet above grade. Mr. Mullins
said it was actually two and one half feet above grade. Boardmember Shankar had
some questions about the grading between the garage door to the service area and
the restaurant.
Boardmember Erickson asked about the trash containers. Mr. Mullins said that the
trash containers were all inside. Boardmember Erickson asked if the applicant was
running cable wiring across the deck area. Mr. Mullins said this was wood railings.
Boardmember Robinson said that the restaurant entrance faced the south and asked
the applicant if this was why they didn't want the street to go through. Mr. Mullins
agreed. Boardmember Robinson asked if the public was coming in on the west as
well. Mr. Mullins said no, that typically the public would come in the south entrance
where the reception area will be. The exit shown on the west is actually a fire exit.
Boardmembers discussed the signage for Joe's Crab Shack. Boardmember Erickson
asked staff if two signs were the maximum. Staff said that under the sign code a
business can have two signs for each street frontage that they have. Staff said that
the applicant only had one street frontage. Staff is not recommending approval of the
five proposed wall signs but felt it was reasonable to allow two wall signs and one
freestanding sign.
Staff said Olive Garden has three wall signs and one ground sign because they are
on the corner and can have a total of four plus the code gives them an extra one
because they are on an intersection. McDonald's only has two signs, one on their
building and one on their pole. Staff recommended two signs on Joe's Crab Shack
building and one on the pole.
Boardmember Erickson asked staff if the "Free Crab Tomorrow" would be considered
a sign if it is painted on. Staff said yes it would be. Boardmember Erickson asked if it
would have to be eliminated. Boardmember Robinson said it was a north elevation
and the applicant could choose to put it on the back side. Boardmember Robinson
asked staff if, as an extra consideration, the applicant can use the extra wall sign on
the north if they choose and would that be in addition to the two wall signs and the
freestanding sign. Staff said that the applicant could have only two signs on the
building wherever they wished and one on a pole.
Mr. Mullins said they would want Joe's Crab Shack as a sign in the front but didn't
think they wanted "Free Crab Tomorrow" as a second sign because in their view it
wasn't really a sign. Mr. Mullins said that the Eat at Joe's sign and Joe's Crab Shack
sign are their two main signs so they would leave the Eat at Joe's sign on the side
that would catch traffic coming from one way and the majority of the shopping center,
and leave the Joe's Crab Shack sign on the front elevation.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-14-98
-4-
Boardmember Robinson asked where the freestanding sign was going. Mr. Mullins
said their original plan showed this sign in the southeast corner but it should be in the
southwest corner because they didn't want to encroach on the Olive Garden's
territory too much. Boardmember Shankar said that if the freestanding sign was put
on the southwest corner that the applicant might not want the other sign on the west
side but on the north side instead. The applicant agreed that the best place for the
signs would be one on the north elevation, one on the south, and the freestanding
sign on the southwest would take care of the west side. Staff agreed that this would
be acceptable. Boardmember Shankar asked if any of the signs were illuminated on
the building. Mr. Mullins said the Joe's Crab Shack sign and the Eat at Joe's sign
would be in neon lights.
Boardmember Shankar asked what the black thing was on the front of the building.
Mr. Mullins said it was a louvre. Boardmember Shankar asked if the louvre was going
to paint it black. Mr. Mullins said it was a screen and not actually painted black.
Boardmember Shankar said if it was black that it would detract from the appearance.
Mr. Mullins said it could be painted to match one of the other colors.
Boardmember Erickson asked the board to decide about the parking issue regarding
the connection between Joe's and the Olive Garden. Mr. Mullins said they would like
to have it closed because it is their front entrance. Boardmember Robinson said she
would respect the privacy of Joe's Crab Shack site itself and leave it closed.
Boardmember Shankar said he agreed with Boardmember Robinson.
Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the following:
A parking space reduction to allow a total of 99 parking spaces instead of 104,
because Birch Run Station has a large number of unused parking spaces that
the applicant could use as overflow parking.
The plans, date-stamped June 24, 1998, for the proposed Joe's Crab Shack
restaurant west of 1749 Beam Avenue. Approval is based on the findings
required by the code and subject to the following conditions:
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit
for this project.
2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall:
a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city
engineer for approval.
b. Provide evidence of recorded cross easements for parking and access
between the owners of Joe's Crab Shack and the abutting properties.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-14-98
Revise the site plan as shown on the map labeled Staff Proposal in the
memorandum which shows a 24-foot-wide drive aisle adjacent to the
Olive Garden's westerly north/south parking row. The applicant shall
wrap the adjacent landscape island with curb and gutter.
Revise the landscape plan to provide a ten-foot tree setback from the
water main for that part of the planting area that is over the water utility
easement. If a ten-foot setback cannot be provided, the applicant shall
substitute these trees with shrubs of a variety to be approved by staff.
3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Install reflectorized stop signs at both exits and a handicap parking
sign for each handicap parking space.
b. Paint the rooftop mechanical equipment, if used, to match the building
color.
c. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas.
Provide site security lighting that is aimed or shielded so not to shine
into driver's eyes.
e. Install continuous concrete curbing around the parking lots and drives.
The color of the Iouvered screen on the south side shall be a neutral
color.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. · The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
bo
The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the
required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the
unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by
June 1 if the building is occupied in the winter or within six weeks if the
building is occupied in the spring and summer.
The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any
unfinished work.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The directOr of community
development may approve minor changes.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-14-98
C. Signage for Joe's Crab Shack:
-6-
1. A maximum of two wall-mounted identification signs.
2. One ground sign.
3. The size and placement of all signs must comply with the city ordinance.
4. Staff may approve minor modifications to the sign plan.
Boardmember Robinson seconded.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
There were no visitor presentations.
VIII, BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Xl.
Ayesmall
Boardmember Robinson reported on the July 13, 1998 City Council Meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
A. Representative for August 10 City Council Meeting: Mr. Shankar will attend this
meeting.
B. The next Community Design Review Board meeting will be on July 28, 1998.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:11.
p:com-dvpt\7-14cdrb.min
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Comprehensive Sign Plan - Maplewood Plaza (Just for Feet and Future
Building)
July 23, 1998
INTRODUCTION
John Johannson, of Welsh Companies, is requesting approval of a comprehensive sign plan for
his Maplewood Plaza development. This project consists of the new Just for Feet store and a
future building to the north. Refer to the maps on pages 4-6 and Mr. Johannson's letter and sign
plan proposal on pages 7-19.
Mr. Johannson is requesting approval of the following:
1. Two wall signs for the Just for Feet building. Refer to the building elevations in the
applicant's submittal. These signs are already in place.
2. Three pylon signs to be used between the two sites. Refer to the pylon sign drawings and
site plan.
3. Wall sign criteda for the future building. Refer to the narrative on pages 3 and 4 of the
applicant's submittal.
4. Enter/exit signs. No drawings have been submitted.
BACKGROUND
Project History
October 14, 1997: The community design review board (CDRB) approved the site and building
design plans for Just for Feet.
Similar Projects
April 24, 1995: The city council approved a comprehensive sign plan for Maplewood Retail at the
northeast comer of White Bear Avenue and Highway 36. This sign plan allowed Home Depot
and Cub Foods to display their store identification on each other's site, since:
1. The number of pylon signs in the shopping center, as a whole, is under the maximum allowed
by the code. Seven are proposed-nine are allowed.
2. The use of sign space on each other's sign pole does not increase the number of signs.
Sign Code
Section 36-231 requires that a comprehensive sign plan be provided for business premises
which occupy the entire frontage in one or more block fronts or for the whole of a shopping
center or similar development having five or more tenants in the project. Such a plan, which
shall include the location, size, height, color, lighting and orientation of all signs, shall be
submitted for preliminary plan approval by the city; provided that, if such comprehensive plan is
presented, exceptions to the sign schedule regulations of this article may be permitted if the sign
areas and densities for the plan as a whole are in conformity with the intent of this article and if
such exception results in an improved relationship between the various parts of the plan.
Comprehensive sign plans shall be reviewed by the community design review board (CDRB).
The applicant, staff and city council may appeal the CDRB's decision. An appeal shall be
presented within 15 days of the board's decision to be considered.
DISCUSSION
Pylon Signs
Staff does not have any problem with the proposed pylon signs. The code allows the applicant to
put up three pylon signs--~wo for the comer lot and one for Just for Feet. The applicant is
proposing the reverse one on the comer lot and two on the Just for Feet site. This sign
proposal, therefore, would not exceed the allowed number of pylon signs.
The applicant has already installed the two sign poles along County Road D and $outhlawn
Drive. The Southlawn Ddve sign pole is too close to the right-of-way and would require a waiver
from the setback requirements. To meet the required ten-foot setback, the sign cabinet could
only project five feet toward the street. The proposed sign would project 11 feet. Staff does not
have a problem granting an exception from the setback requirement to allow a six-foot sign
setback.
Just for Feet Wall Signs
Staff has no problem with these two signs.
Wall Signs for the Future Building
Review of sign criteda for this bUilding is premature. The applicant has not Submitted the
architectural plans for review. The CDRB should not review signage for this building until they
have approved the building design.
Enter/Exit Signs
The applicant has not submitted designs for these signs. Staff is not concerned with these,
however, as long as they meet the size (four-square-feet maximum) and placement
requirements outlined by code.
2
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the following comprehensive sign plan requirements for Maplewood Plaza (Just for
Feet and the future building to the north) at the southeast comer of County Road D and
Southlawn Ddve:
Future building signage: The criteria for wall signs on the future building are not approved.
The criteria for these wall signs shall be submitted to the community design review board
after the board has approved the architectural plans for that building.
Enter/exit signs: These signs shall be designed and located to comply with city code. The
design of these signs shall be submitted to staff for approval.
Just for Feet Building: Just for Feet, or any future user or tenant, shall be allowed the two
wall mounted signs that are presently installed as shown in the sign criteria submittal date-
stamped July 17, 1998. Staff may approve changes to the signage on this building as long
as it meets code and they do not exceed a total of two signs. The "Just for Feet" and
"Worlds Largest Athletic Shoe Store" signs on the north elevation are considered as one sign.
Pylon Signs: Three pylon signs shall be allowed as proposed on the plans date-stamped
July 17, 1998, subject to meeting all city code requirements, with the exception that the
Southlawn Drive pylon sign may have a six-foot setback from the right-of-way line instead of
ten feet. As a point of clarification, the Southlawn Drive pylon sign is west of Just for Feet,
not southwest of the building as shown on the site plan.
p:sec2n~juatfeet, sgn
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's cover letter and sign proposal date-stamped July 15, 1998 (13 pcges)
HEIG~$
Attachment 1
Iqq"/I I L
1. SUf, lldlT CT.
2. COUNTEY~EW CIR.
3. DULU'IH CT.
4. LYOIA Sr.
BEAU
AV~.
WOODLYNN AV
I
N
ND
BROOKS
AV~.
SHERREN AV~. KTc~d Lake AVE:.
(.ARK
ED~,EHILL RD.
CT.
LOCATION
MAP
Attachment 2
- I
. "' / : '~" '
I
. ..,,,- ~ .~, ,~ VACANT I
m ~:m m m m ~Jml~,m I BUILDING ~,~..~ I
1
.~ ~ ~ I I ~1 ' / t,~1 ~J l
_ j~,, ~ ~ a j ~ ~ ''T~NSMISSIONI
~ . . ~l I I~ ' '
~: ~ ~ ~~.~woo~ ~ow. c~.J~.~. C,~ ~.s~,9~ ~ ~ /
~ ~ ~ ~--~o T~ e ' (8,)
u.o~v~o.~ 1;~ I~ I ,'1//
PROPER~
.. ~-~OY~-R:p~ ~F (~) /
~--~---<~ ........ m
. - ~, =~~~~ .~.,~,. ,.,, l
~ ~~~-~_= :-2. ~ F .......... m
~ < ~ <-~~ ~ ,,'~xr~ I ~ ~ /
~'; " ....... ' f / I /
m(,o) j MAPLEWOOD
I~ J j ~x."/" -~ j
A~tachment 3
uJ
COUNTY ROAD D
SITE PLAN
Companies
Comprehensive Real Estate Services
8200 Normandale Boulevard, Suite 200
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437-1060
612.897.7700 Fax 897.7704
June 3, 1998
Attachment
Mr. Tom Ekstrand
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Re: Draft Copy of Comprehensive Sign Plan - Maplewood Plaza
Dear Tom:
Pursuant to our recent discussions and meetings, enclosed is a draft of the revised Comprehensive Sign
Plan for Maplewood Plaza. As you can note from the plan, we have proposed that the existing Just For
Feet and the future adjacent building are identified as a single shopping center for purposes of the
Comprehensive Sign Plan. Toys "R' Us has been removed from this plan.
We also offer the following comments for your consideration:
As you are aware, we will soon file a lot division request for the Just For Feet and future building
area parcel. We still need to resolve the easement wording for the extended right-of-way
property along County Road D. The sign plan assumes that this administrative lot approval will
be completed shortly.
It is likely that many, if not most, of the entry/exit and directional signs that are proposed and
allowed by the ordinance may not be installed - at least initially. Nonetheless, it is important to
keep the flexibility for future installation if necessary.
3. We have provided more detailed, professional sign drawings as exhibits.
I hope you will find our Comprehensive Sign Plan to be thorough and reasonable. Please contact me if
you have any questions or if we need to provide further clarification.
Sincerely,
John J. Johannson
Vice President - Retail
612-897-7750
Enclosure
C.'
Doris Sewell, Just For Feet
Bill Siebenaler, Just For Feet
Tom Hart, Winthrop & Weinstine
f: lretail~'imaplwooa~ekstrand602, doc
DRAFT
For Review by
Tom Ekstrand, City of Maplewood
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN
MAPLEWOOD PLAZA
JUL ! 1998
Southeast Comer Southlawn Avenue & County Road D
GENERAL UNDERSTANDINGS
go
Definition of Shopping Center: For purposes of this Comprehensive Sign Plan,
the term "Shopping Center" shall refer to the property shown on Exhibit A
(which includes the existing Just For Feet and a Future Building Area of roughly
40,000 square feet). The Just For Feet building and lot shall be referred to as
"Building A" and the adjacent Future Building Area shall be referred to as
"Building B'.
II.
SIGNAGE ALLOWED AND PROPOSED
The two adjacent parcels would individually be allowed numerous signs pursuant to the
ordinance. This Comprehensive Sign Plan outlines an overall sign plan for the two
parcels.
Following is a summary of the signage: i) allowed by the ordinance, and ii) proposed by
this Comprehensive Sign Plan.
A. Pylon/Freestanding Signs
Building A (Just For Feet)
Building B (Future)
TOTALS
Per Ordinance
Total Size
1 300 sf
2 450 sf
3 750 sf
Proposed - A total of 3 freestanding signs as follows:
Freestanding Sign # 1
A new pylon sign of 25 feet high (or 28 feet high if the sign is 10 feet set
back from the property line) with a sign face of 225 square feet, roughly as
depicted on Exhibit B (sign may include from two to three tenants - an
Option 1 and Option 2 sign are attached).
Companies
1
Bo
Freestanding Sign #2
A new pylon sign of 25 feet high (or 28 feet high if the sign is 10 feet set
back from the property line) with a sign face of 225 square feet, roughly as
depicted on Exhibit B (sign may include from two to three tenants - an
Option 1 and Option 2 sign are attached).
Freestanding Sign #3
A ground mounted, pylon type sign to be mounted at the northeast
corner of the existing pond, to be a maximum height of 20 feet (measured
from the high end of the sign since the ground has a steep slope), and a
total sign face area of 225 square feet, roughly as depicted on Exhibit C.
Summary - Pylon/Freestanding Signs
Total allowed by ordinance:
3 freestanding signs, 750 square foot sign area.
Total requested by Comprehensive Sign Plan:
3 freestanding signs, 675 square foot sign area.
Pylon Sign Criteria:
1. Pylon signs shall be no closer than 100 feet apart.
Pylon signs shall be located approximately where identified on
Exhibit A.
o
The minimum setback for the signs shall be 10 feet from the
property line, measured to the leading edge of the sign cabinet.
The maximum height shall be 25 feet, plus one foot for each three
feet the sign is setback from the property line up to a maximum of
50 feet (i.e. if the sign is 10 feet form the property line, the sign
may be 28 feet in height).
There shall be no more than three (3) tenant names on any
individual sign face.
Tenant's panel shall be of the color and style as chosen by Tenant,
subject to Landlord's reasonable approval.
Enter/Exit Signs
The ordinance allows up to two enter/exit signs, of up to four square feet, per
curb cut. The unified shopping center will have three curb cuts (including the
internal access curb cut between the subject site and the adjacent parcel currently
occupied by Toys "R" Us). The Comprehensive Sign Plan shall allow two
Companies
2
Do
enter/exit signs per curb cut, or six total, which may be placed as deemed
appropriate near the curb cuts, but no more than two for any curb cut.
Summary
Total allowed by ordinance:
6 enter/exit signs, of up to four square feet each.
Total requested by Comprehensive Sign Plan:
6 enter/exit signs, of up to four square feet each.
Directional Signs
The ordinance allows up to two directional signs per lot to "identify the location
and nature of a building, structure, or use which is not readily visible from the
street", with a size of up to ten square feet each. The Comprehensive Sign Plan
proposes that any future directional signs require separate, case-by-case,
approval by the City of Maplewood. No directional signs are initially requested.
BuildinR Mounted Signage Specifications
The location, character, design, color and layout of all tenant signs shall be
subject to approval of the Landlord. Tenant shall be allowed to use their
prototypical color and logo/font.
2. All materials used in sign fabrication are to be new.
Primary Building Mounted Signs
i. Primary tenant sign shall mean the sign locate, d directly
above the tenant's leased premises on the continuous
fascia band.
All primary tenant signs are to be made in the form of
channel letters internally lit. All letters are to be
manufactured out of aluminum or comparable and
mounted directly to the building fascia or, preferably, to an
exposed raceway. The maximum depth of an exposed
raceway is 12 inches.
.oo
No cabinet sign construction will be permitted, except in
the case of signs with a height of 30 inches or less,
including descriptive signs (i.e. "World's Largest Athletic
Shoe Store"; or "Books, Music, Video", etc.).
iv.
The sign attachment devices must be non-corrosive
fasteners. Tenant's primary sign can not project beyond a
line which is 18 inches from their respective lease line(s).
i C--" mpames
l0
be
Ce
Mo
Letter height restriction on Junior Tenants (tenants smaller
than 5,000 square feet) sign shall be no higher than 48
inches. Major Tenants (tenants over 10,000 square feet)
sign height shall be restricted to a height not larger than 72
inches. A complimentary descriptive sign (i.e. "World's
Largest Athletic Shoe Store") may be installed in addition
to the primary sign but shall not exceed 30 inches in height.
Secondary Building Mounted Signs
Those tenants having a leased square footage of more than
5,000 square feet shall be allowed a secondary sign to be
placed on a side or rear elevation of the contiguous
building in which such tenant is located within the
shopping center.
Tenant secondary signs shah be subject to the same form
and size as described in the "Primary Building Mounted
Sign" above.
Building 'A' Signage
Attached as Exhibit D are elevation drawings depicting
signage for "Building A', currently occupied by Just For
Feet.
III.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
go
Signing criteria for Maplewood Plaza Shopping Center is intended to provide for
the uniformity of signs of the tenants of the shopping center. The criteria set
forth herein shall govern the installation and maintenance of tenant's signs.
Bo
The furnishing and installation of signs and the costs associated therewith shall
be the sole responsibility of tenant unless otherwise stated in the Lease.
Each tenant of the shopping center is required to identify its premises with a sign
in strict accordance with the provisions herein.
All signs are subject to municipal approval. The standards outlined herein are
general standards to be typically applied by Landlord, however, Landlord may
with reasonable discretion very from the criteria herein under specific
circumstances, however, all signs to be installed shall remain subject to approval
by governmental authorities.
Companies
4
Eo
Fo
Go
Ho
Tenant shall be responsible for the submission of tenant's sign plans to the City of
Maplewood and for obtaining governmental approval and sign permits.
Tenant's sign shall be store identity signs only. Tenants will be restricted to copy
which designates the trade name of tenant and description of the product and/or
service.
Landlord's approval of any signage shall not represent or warrant approval of
such signage by the City of Maplewood.
As a condition to this lot division, it is antidpated that the Landlord will agree to
an easement in favor of the City of Maplewood to allow expansion of the
roadway, turning lanes, and/or utilities along the County Road D frontage. For
the purposes of this Comprehensive Sign Plan, the "shopping center" shall
include both adjacent parcels following the antidpated lot division.
IV.
PROHIBITED SIGNS
The following types of signs or sign components are prohibited:
go
B.
C.
D.
E.
Fo
Moving or rotating signs.
Signs employing moving or flashing lights.
Signs, letters, symbols, or identification of any nature painted directed on any
exterior surface of the building.
Signs employing unedged or uncapped plastic letters, or letters with no returns
and exposed fastenings.
Cloth, wood, paper, or cardboard signs, stickers, decals or painted signs around
or on exterior surfaces (doors and/or windows), of the premises, except for small
signs identifying the address or tenant name on the front entry door or loading
door.
Rooftop signs.
Signs employing noise making devices and components.
Signs exhibiting the names, stamps or decals of a sign manufacturer or installer,
except for a small notification sticker and/or UL label on the sign(s).
Me
LANDLORD'S REPRESENTATION
This criteria is provided merely to identify Landlord's typical standard sign provisions.
All signage is specifically subject to Landlord's approval of tenant sign drawings, and
tenant obtaining municipal approval and a permit prior to installing the sign(s).
Companies
C. OUNT"r' F~O,~,E) E;
· ! Ij ri II FREESTANDING SIGN # 1
I ~::'";!'
,,
I ~ ..-. -_. ~. -_ ..- .-. --. , .- ~. ,-. .. ~ ...¢:}i~1, . R II Ill Ill Ill
IIIR
i - ~
..... , ........ ..... ....... ..,¢: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~
~,,._.1 I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I~,~__ L' _
.......... _,,~""Z'_"R°"°SED ?5 21v.~o., _,,-,~_
~. III II1~~ ¢1111111 IIII1'
Building A
FREESTANDING SIGN
RF__.TENTION POND
FREESTANDING SIGN #3
13
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B O.T~O. 1(3 TE.^.TS)
T
i 18'-9" I
FUTURE TENANT
4.'X 1E-EF = 75 5~L FEET
JUST FOR FEET
4,'X I~"-9' -- 75 ~, FEET
FUTURE TENANT
4'X16'-9' = 75 ~, FEET
TOTAL E,Q.. FOOTAGE
7,5 ,SQ,. FEET X 3 = 225 SQ. FEET
V,,b' =
lelO e. CLle'ff RD.
~URFF3V1LJ..E. MN ~.~'7
r'r~ON~- / eo.,a~:~
FAX / 612,~94-2~4a
EXHIBIT B o.~,o. 2 (2 ~.^.~sl
T
FUTUR'E TENANT
JUST FOR FEET
TOTAL 5~. FOOTAGE
5' X 22~5 -- 112,D SQ.
112.5 X £ -- 225 '3Q, FEET
JUL ~. 5 1998
POle FEE'r'
THIS DRAXa/ING I$ THE PROPERTY OF
sChaQ"tF4CLI slqns
~ MINFI~SOTA AV~'. N. 1610 E. C::[JI~ RD.
OROHOCO, MN ~ BURN$'VIU.~0 MN
PI'lONE / ~0'7-~7 -26~ PHONE /
~,x / 'X~7- ~,7-2t,~ ~ /
15
EXHIBIT C
T
FUTURE TENANT
UST FOR FEET
FUTURE TENANT
4.' X 1E~'-0" =?,0 SO, FEET
4.' X 1E~J" = 7~ 50, FEET
TOTAL GQ. FOOTAGE
7~ 5G,. FEET X D = 22.5 SQ,. FEET
MAPL.EWOOD P1.AZA
MAPI.~,~OOO
114" I I'-.O"
DP, AWN BY
1~0 E. CUFf= RO.
BURNSVILLE. MN Pja)~7
PHONE / 612,494-2421
EXHIBIT D,
PAGE I OF 3
17
PAGE 2 OF 3
EXHIBIT D
19
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Comprehensive Sign Plan - St. John's Hospital
1575 Beam Avenue
July 21, 1998
INTRODUCTION
Cheryl Long O'Donnell, of Visual Communications, is requesting approval of the comprehensive
plan for St. John's Hospital. Refer to the maps on pages 3-5, the letter on pages 6-8 and the
attached sign criteria (separate attachment).
BACKGROUND
May 12, 1997: The city council approved the following for the St. John's Hospital expansion:
1. A 25-foot front setback vadance for that part of the proposed parking deck that would be
closer than 30 feet to the Hazelwood Street right-of-way.
2. A 10-foot front setback variance for an open parking lot. The code requires 15 feet. This
parking lot would be five feet from the Hazelwood Street right-of-way.
3. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision for the hospital expansion.
4. Approval of site and building design plans.
July 15, 1997: The community design review board (CDRB) approved design revisions for ~, e
parking deck.
November 10, 1997: The city council approved a plan revision for the Medical Specialty Center
at St. John's Hospital to be a stand-alone building and not an addition to the hospital.
February 10, 1998: The CDRB approved the landscape plan for St. John's.
DISCUSSION
By the strictest reading of the code, the hospital could have two signs for each street frontage.
This is clearly not reasonable for a use such as St. John's Hospital. The proposed sign plan is
attractive and would provide uniform, effective signage throughout this large hospital campus.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the sign Proposal date-stamped July 20, 1998 for St. John's Hospital, 1575 Beam
Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. The design of signs not shown on the plans shall be submitted to staff for approval.
2. All signs shall follow the approved design and color scheme.
3. Sign placements shall comply with those shown on the approved site plan.
4. Staff may approve minor changes to this sign plan. Major changes may only be approved by
the community design review board.
p:sec3~hospital.sgn
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Letter from Cheryl Long O'Donnell dated July 17, 1998
5. Sign Proposal date-stamped July 20, 1998 (separate attachment)
RD.
OE:RVNS
COUNTY
ROAD
1. SUIdMrT CT.
2. COUNTRYVI~ ClF
3. DULUTH CT.
4. LYDIA sr.
BEA~
ROAD
EDOEHILL RD. ~
DEMONT
CROOKS
COPE
OERVN$
VIKING
$HERREN AVE. Kno~~d Loke AVE.
AVE. ~ I~ I.A~K
LOCATION MAP
COPE AVE.
,~ff. anhmnnf. ?
-
//
,. ..... , ...... :~ .,-
ii
' --4; .....
_tlz~ ~~ E;.L22~E .....~.,
....... 4H ....... , ~
ST. ~OHN'S HOSPITAL
~ROFESSIONAL :ST.
CLINIC
, BUILDINB
I-- BEAM AVENUEB
, ~
I
BC-M
Attachment 3
I
"1
I
I
I
I
I
I
SITE PLAN~ 1~.~.~
Attachment 4
Wa~onding
Visu al Com m u n icati o ns
475 Cleveland Avenue North, Suite 223, Ivy League Place, Saint Paul MN 55104
HealthEast Maplewood, St. John's Hospital
Exterior Signage Masterplan
17 July 1998
JUL 2 0 1998"
Identified below is the Exterior Signage Masterplan for HealthEast Maplewood, St. John's
Hospital. The signage will be implemented in a prioritizing, phased approach. The first
priority is the opening of the ER on 24 August of 1998. The second priority is the opening
of the new Ambulatory Care Center (with the new hospital entrance) in November of
1998. The third and fourth priorities are in 1999 and 2000.
Attached is the exterior signage specification for the Emergency Room Exterior signage.
We have referenced below sign drawings in this package. Many signs are still in the
design phase in which we have reference sign drawings that are similar.
~o~suttation
~/ficat/on
612.6441.
Faz 612.644.4289
Si_m~ Location/T.vpe Priority. Description
1.B2 12/99
2.C1 8/24/98
3.C3 8/24/98
4.E3 11/98
5.C2 11/98
6.E2 8/24/98
Individual lettering on retaining wall to be indirectly
illuminated. Reads: Dedicated to Caring.
Refer to drawing ~4/004 on page 4 of exterior sign
specification.
NorthEast corner of Hazelwood and Beam. Freestanding
Primary Project identification and directional signage.
Illuminated internally. Refer to drawing #2/001 on page 1
of exterior sign specification.
Hazelwood entrance to Emergency. Internally illuminated
freestanding sign with identification and directional
information. Refer to drawing # 1/010 on page 10 of
exterior sign specification.
Non-illuminated directional sign to read: Contract Parking
No detail at this time (similar to 21.E3, drawing #4/012 on
page 12 of exterior sign specification).
SouthEast corner of Primary Hospital Entrance.
Freestanding Primary Project Identification and directional
for hospital and office building. No drawing at this time
(smaller than 1.B2, drawing # 1/011 on page 11, but similar
in design).
Identification of Lot E for Emergency Parking. Illuminated
Post and Panel. Refer to drawing #1/011 on page 11 of
exterior sign specification.
6
HealthEast Maplewood, St. John's Hospital
Exterior Signage Masterplan
17 July 1998
Page 2
Si_ma Location/Type Priori .t5, Description
7.El 11/98
Internal campus directional kiosk. Four sided for message
on all 4 sides. Directs to entrances, parking, and exiting for
hospital and office building. No drawing at this time
(similar to E3 type sign, but 4 sided).
8.E2 11/98
Identification of Lot B for Office Building and Additional
Hospital Parking. Illuminated post and panel. Similar to
drawing # 1/011 on page 11 of exterior sign specification.
9.E2 11/98
Identification of Lot A for Hospital Visitor Parking.
Illuminated post and panel. Similar to drawing # 1/011 on
page 11 of exterior sign specification.
10.E2 11/98
Identification of Lot A for Hospital Visitor Parking.
Illuminated post and panel. Similar to drawing # 1/011 on
page 11 of exterior sign specification.
ll.G1 11/98
Freestanding identification sign for secondary entrance to
Education Center and Radiation Therapy. No drawing at
this time (similar to E3 type sign).
12.D1 11/98
Individual internally illuminated/non-illuminated letters on
entrance facade to read: St. John's Hospital, HealthEast
Maplewood. Refer to drawing #1/005 on page 5 of exterior
sign specification.
13.E3 11/98
Identification of Lot C for office building visitor parking.
Illuminated post and panel. Similar to drawing # 1/011 on
page 11 of exterior sign specification.
14.F6 11/98
Regulatory Signage for 'No Egress'. No drawing at this
time.
15.E3 11/98
Identification of Lot B for Office Building and Additional
Hospital Parking. Non-Illuminated post and panel. Similar
to drawing # 1/011 on page 11 of exterior sign specification.
17.D5 8/24/98
Internally illuminated cabinet that wraps around corner
entrance and identifies 'Emergency Care' on both sides.
Refer to drawing #1/008 and 2/008 on page 8 of exterior
sign specification.
18.D5 8/24/98
Internally illuminated cabinet sign that reads 'Exit Only' over
garage door exit of ambulance garage. Refer to drawing
#3/008 on page 8 of exterior sign specification.
7
HealthEast Maplewood, St. John's Hospital
Exterior Signage Masterplan
17 July 1998
Page 3
Location/T,vpe Priori .ty Description
19.D4 8/24/98
20.D3 8/24/98
21.E3 8/24/98
25.C2 11/98
27.E2 8/24/98
28.B1 12/2000
29.B1 12/2000
35.D6 11/98
36.E2 8/24/98
37.E2 8/24/98
38.E2 8/24/98
39.D2 11/98
Internally illuminated cabinet sign that reads 'Emergency'
over south of ambulance garage. Refer to drawing #1/006
on page 6 of exterior sign specification.
Internally illuminated cabinet sign that reads 'Emergency'
over garage door entrance of ambulance garage. Refer to
drawing #2/006 on page 6 of exterior sign specification.
Directional sign to Ambulance Entrance and Loading Dock.
Refer to drawing g4/012 on page 12 of exterior sign
specification.
NorthWest comer of Beam and Frontage Road.
Freestanding Primary Project Identification and directional
for hospital and 2 different office buildings. Same size as
5.C2. No drawing at this time (smaller than 1.B2, drawing
# 1/011 on page 11, but similar in design).
Directional sign to Emergency Entrance. Refer to drawing
#1/012 on page 12 of exterior sign specification.
Reduce letter size and reconfigure with 'HealthEast'.
N: drawings at this time... .-
Reduce letter size and reconfigure with 'HealthEast'.
No drawings at this time.
Identification of Maplewood Office Building (name
undecided). Non-illuminated letters on facade over door.
No design at this time.
Directional sign to Emergency Entrances and parking. Refer
to drawing #3/012 on page 12 of exterior sign specification.
Directional sign to Emergency Entrances and parking. Refer
to drawing #2/012 on page 12 of exterior sign specification.
Directional sign to Emergency Entrance. Refer to drawing
#1/012 on page 12 of exterior sign specification.
Identification sign for secondary entrance to Education
Center and Radiation Therapy. Mounted to wall. No
drawing at this time.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Design Review - Best Buy Addition
1885 E. County Road D
July 21, 1998
INTRODUCTION
David Jamieson, of Best Buy Company, is requesting approval to do the following at the Best
Buy, 1885 E. County Road D:
1. Replace the existing grid-design facade at the front entrance with a blue-colored wedge-
design fascia. Refer to the building elevations.
2. Build a 6,786-square-foot addition on the east side of the building. (The previous proposal
was for an 8,139-square-foot addition.) The proposed addition would extend 41 feet to the
east of the existing building into the old Egghead Software site. The addition would be off-
white to match the existing building with a light brown accent banding. Refer to the building
elevations.
3. Demolish the vacant Egghead Software building.
4. Add 52 parking spaces east of the proposed addition. (Code requires 34 spaces.)
5. Move the trash compactor to the west side of Best Buy.
6. Add an another west-facing dock door.
7. Revise the sign plan by (refer to the letter on page 10 and th~ enclosed, drawings):
a. Adding a wall sign on the back of Best Buy.
b. Replacing the sign face on the Best Buy pylon sign and moving this sign to the northeast
comer of the site.
c. Moving the Big & Tall pylon sign from the Egghead Software site to the Town Center site.
8. Install a retaining wall in the northeast corner of the site.
BACKGROUND
March 31, 1998: The community design review board (CDRB) tabled their review of this review
for additional information. Refer to the minutes on page 11. The last proposal included a
request for a parking lot setback vadance from the north lot line. The present proposal does not
include this vadance request since the applicant is now proposing to move the trash compactor
to the west side of their building.
DISCUSSION
Building Design and Parking
The proposed addition would be attractive. Parking is not an issue since the applicant would
provide more stalls than the code would require for the addition.
Landscaping
The applicant is not proposing any additional landscaping, but is willing to provide some if
desired by the city. The applicant would also remove some of the existing amur maple bushes at
the southwest comer of the old Egghead Software site by the curb cut. Staff recommends that
the applicant provide a landscape plan showing which shrubs would be removed and which ones
would be saved. This plan should also show ten 2 % inch caliper trees along the east lot line
spaced 30 feet apart.
Combining Legal Descriptions
The applicant should file a deed combining the Egghead Software site with the Town Center
property to form one legally-described lot since they would now be developed as one property.
Signs
Staff has no problem with the proposed wall sign on the back of the building addition. The
proposed placement of the Best Buy pylon sign, however, looks too close to lot lines. The sign
code requires a ten-foot setback. The placement of this sign will have to be adjusted to meet
this requirement.
In his letter, Mr. Jamieson mentioned plans to move the Big & Tall pylon sign from the Egghead
Software site to the Town Center site. He said, though, that this specific request will come from
Big & Tall. There is no reason to review this request at a later time. Staff does not feel it is
appropriate to relocate this sign to the Town Center site. It would set a pre~ ~dent whereby the
other smaller tenants may want their own pylon sign. Staff recommends tr...t the CDRB deny
the relocation of the Big & Tall store pylon sign.
Construction Limits
The applicant should revise the grading plan so as not to disturb the easterly entrance to the site.
This area is shown as a "temporary rock construction entrance." It does not seem that the
construction limits need to extend into this driveway. The rock will become a maintenance
problem with it being tracked into the street. It will also be inconvenient for the public.
Maintenance Issues
There are several maintenance issues at Maplewood Town Center. The owner of the property
should do the following:
The roof-top equipment screens should be repaired or removed and the mechanical
equipment painted to match the building. The city initially required the shopping center owner
screen the roof-top equipment. The code has recently changed, however, to simply require
that the roof-top equipment need only be painted to match the building.
Restdpe the parking lot. Much of the parking lot stdping and cross hatching is worn away.
Reinstall a stop sign at the westerly exit of the parking lot.
Replace missing trees from the County Road D frontage. I counted seven trees that are
missing by evidence of gaps in the planting row, noticeable stumps or visibly dead trees.
Repair and provide more trash enclosures in the rear of the building. There are several
dumpsters sitting in the open. At least one enclosure needs repairs. The code requires that
trash dumpsters be kept in enclosures.
6. Pick up and dispose of all litter on the site. The area behind the building is particularly
messy.
Trash Compactor and Escrow Requirement
The applicant proposes to move the trash compactor to the west side of the building. As a
condition of approval for the last addition in 1993, the city required that Best Buy move the trash
compactor out of the ddve aisle. The applicant never moved it. To ensure that it gets moved,
staff suggests that the CDRB require that Best Buy either move the compactor or provide cash
escrow for it's relocation before the city issues a building permit. Staff further suggests that the
maintenance issues stated above either be handled before the city issues a building permit or the
applicant submit escrow to guarantee that these items will be handled. The applicant should
also escrow for the required landscaping.
The reason for taking these escrows now is to ensure that these items get handled. Typically,
escrow is taken if work is not done by the time of occupancy. In this case, the store will not close
dudng construction, therefore, occupancy will not take place. In 1993, Best Buy did not move
their trash compactor as required. Once they began using their newly expanded floor space,
Best Buy had no incentive to move the compactor.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Approve the plans date-stamped July 10, 1998, for the proposed Best Buy addition at the
Maplewood Town Center shopping center. Approval is subject to the applicant:
1. Repeating this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Providing the following for staff approval before getting a building permit:
a. A landscape plan for the east lot line of the old Egghead Software site showing which
shrubs would be removed and which ones would be saved. This plan should also
show ten, 2 % inch caliper trees along the east lot line spaced 30 feet apart.
b. A design plan for the retaining wall proposed along the east lot line.
c. Provide cash escrow in the amount of 200% of the cost of:
(1) Installing all landscaping and replacing the seven dead boulevard trees with 2 ~
inch caliper, balled and burlapped ash trees.
(2) Relocating the trash compactor to the west side of the building and outside of the
ddve aisle.
(3)
Repairing or removing the roof-top mechanical equipment screens. If the screens
are removed, the mechanical units must be painted a cream color to match the
building.
(4) Restriping the parking lot in all areas where parking space stdpes and fire lane
cross hatching is worn.
(5) Reinstalling a stop sign at the westedy exit.
(6) Repairing broken trash enclosure and providing more to screen all trash
dumpsters that are behind the building.
(7) Picking up and disposing of all litter on the site.
Escrow will not be required for any of these items that are resolved before the building
permit is issued.
d. Revise the grading plan to omit the gravel from the easterly driveway. The city
engineer shall approve this change.
e. Record a deed combining the Egghead Software site with the Town Center property
to form one legally-described lot.
3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Paint any new roof-top mechanical equipment on the addition to match the building.
b. Provide all required landscaping.
c. Install continuous concrete curbing along the edges of all new parking lots and ddves.
d. Remove the two pylon signs from the old Egghead Software property.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Approval of the proposed sign changes for the Maplewood Town Center Shopping Center as
shown on the plans date-stamped July 10, 1998, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Best Buy pylon sign may be moved to the northeast comer of the site with the new
sign face as shown on the plans. This sign shall meet setback requirements.
2. The two pylon signs on the Egghead Software site shall be removed. Relocation to the
Town center site is prohibited.
3. The Best Buy wall sign on the rear of the building addition is approved.
4. Staff may approve minor modifications to the sign plans.
4
· -- REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 8 acres
Existing land use: Maplewood Town Center
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Interstate 694
South: County Road D, Circuit City, Toys-R-Us and Just For Feet
West: Slumberland
East: Aamco Transmissions
PAST ACTIONS
August 27, 1986: The CDRB approved the plans for Maplewood Town Center.
September 23, 1986: The CDRB approved the sign plan for Maplewood Town Center.
March 11, 1991: The city council approved plans for the expansion of Frank's Nursery at
Maplewood Town Center. The council also approved a parking reduction for 58 fewer parking
spaces at Maplewood Town Center.
May 24, 1993: The city council approved plans for Best Buy to build an 8,400-square-foot
addition onto the front of their store. The owners of Maplewood Town Center also added
additional parking on the west side of Frank's Nursery. The parking lot changes resulted in an
increase of the total number of parking spaces to being only 49 spaces short for the entire
shopping center.
March 31, 1998: The CDRB tabled their review of this review for additional information.
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: BC (business commercial)
Zoning: BC
Ordinance Requirement
Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve
plans:
1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its ralationship to neighboring,
existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of
investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the
use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not
create traffic hazards or congestion.
That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive
development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan.
That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good
composition, materials, textures and colors.
p:sec35~)estbuy.4
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's Letter dated July 9, 1998
5. CDRB Minutes dated March 31, 1998
6. Plans date-stamped July 10, 1998 (separate attachments)
Attachment 1
· .. WHI T£
(~1 cc~#oR M ..
LOCATION
7
MAP
Attachment 2
i
~-,,,.,,.,r' INTERSTATE 694
.~.
PROPOSED ADDITION
H ·
Attachment 3
EXl~/'r. EXI~,TIN~ ~
C, OUNT'T' ~OA~ ~
-..--
t.L.I
I
I
I
I
EXI~,TIN~ CENTER
4~2
41'-~"x I~'-~," ~:)~ITIC~ ·
NE~ C,E'NTEI~ ~,.1:. UJ/,a~DITION.
NEUJ CENTEI~ P,~I~IN~ ·
112,.~12 ~,F.
~,~5, E, TA, LL ·
EXl6'rlI~G BE~T ~ ·
EXP,AI~ION ·
~E~,T ~ 67C)!~ TOT,AL ·
Attachment 4
July 9, 1998
Mr. Tom Ekstrand
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 5109
RE: BEST BUY STORE #10 EXPANSION, MAPLEWOOD, MN
Dear Tom:
JUL I 0 lS98
Enclosed are seven copies of the following drawings for architectural resubmittal: civil plan, site
plan, floor/fixture plan, elevations, colored elevations and pylon sign.
The changes to this project with this submittal are: demolition of the existing Egghead building
and regrading of the site to better blend the two sites.
Best Buy will be building a 41-foot addition to the east side of the existing store. The existing
front entry will be removed and a new steped glass entry with wedge element built. The existing
wall light shrouds will be removed and new architectural shroud elements will be installed. The
entire store will be repainted and comer steped elements removed. At the rear of the new
addition, we will be tding a new wedge element with small 100 sq. ft. ticket sign, with 28-inch
high letters. This v, : be a change to the existing center sign criteria. Best Buy feels that this
shouldn't be a problem since all the other stores have 3 ft. channel letters at the rear facing 1-694
and Best Buy as an anchor does not.
We plan to remove both signs at the Egghead site and relocate Best Buy's existing sign to that
location with a new pylon base. Since Big & Tall has a sign on the Egghead pylon that is being
removed, that sign will be relocated to the existing Best Buy pylon behind their store.
In this resubmittal, Best Buy will not need a variance at the trash compactor since it was relocated
to another location. A second truck dock door will be added to the rear of the store, and be
located by the existing door. If you have any questions, please call me at 612-947-2833.
Sincerely,
David Jamieson
Development Manager
10
DJ/eli
,Corporate Headquarters: 7075 Flying Cloud Drive · Eden Prairie, MN 55344 · 612/947-2000
Mailing Address: P.O. Box9312 · Minneapolis, MN 55440 · NYSE Symbol: BBY
Attachment 5
B. Best Buy Building Addition, 1885 County Road D East, Best Buy Company
David Jamieson, development manager with Best Buy Company, was present. Several
boardmembers felt the plans did not clearly show the complete project. Mr. Jamieson said
they are going to stay with the existing masonry. He said the only thing being changed was to
remove the space frame and towers. They would be adding a blue wedge.
Boardmember Robinson referred to a previous expansion of this building. She said the
Maplewood City Council had a definite concern about the size and design at that time and
were not favorable with the board's approval. Some members of the board felt there was not
enough information given on the plans for the changes to the facade of the existing building.
Chairperson Erickson was concerned with clearance near the dumpster. He thought that
some type of retaining wall would be needed to support the blacktop that will service the 20-
foot-wide drive around the compactor. Secretary Ekstrand recommended that a plan for the
retaining wall, showing design and construction details, be submitted before a building permit
is issued.
Mr. Jamieson said there will be a retaining wall built into the wall of the new addition on the
east side. The finished floor level will be the same in the new and the existing portions of the
building. The board reviewed the lighting and parking aspects of the plan. Boardmember
Ledvina commented on the large expanse of "nondescript" wall to the east extent. He was
concerned with how the building will look with more wall added in this direction. Mr. Jamieson
responded that it would almost be necessary to regrade the entire parking lot to change the
entrance of the store to the center. The board also felt parking was very crowded at this site.
Secretary Ekstrand said the new proposal should alleviate some of that parking congestion.
Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board table the Best Buy
Building Addition until more detailed plans are submitted showing: dimensions on the front
facade, the extent and termination point of the blue band on the front facade, the enormity of
the front wall in lieu of the east addition, further engineering and whether retainage is required
to achieve the 20-foot clearance of the driveway behind the trash compactor, and more detail
about the retaining wall shown between the Best Buy site and the Amoco Transmission
property to the east,
Boardmember Robinson seconded.
Boardmember Ledvina suggested a friendly amendment that the applicant provide details as
they relate to the corner treatments, with the space frame if that exists, and how they will be
carried out on other portions of the site (the southwest and southeast corners of the building).
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
ll
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Right-of-Way Vacations and Design Review-Maplewood Eye Care
West of 1975 11th Avenue
July 15, 1998
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Hank Breems, of Mulcahy, Inc., is proposing to build a 10,200-square-foot, one-story eye-care
clinic west of 1975 11th Avenue. The proposed building would have an exterior of brick and
E.I.F.S. (exterior insolation finish system) a stucco-look material. The applicant is also proposing
to build a driveway connection between the proposed parking lot and the neighbor's parking lot to
the west. Refer to the maps on pages 5--7 and the full-size site plan date-stamped July 14,
1998.
Please note: The proposed site plan date-stamped July 14, 1998 is slightly different from that
shown on the landscape plan date-stamped June 25, 1998. This is because the applicant
revised his site plan to eliminate the need for a five-foot parking lot setback variance that he
originally requested. The latter plan meets setbacks and parking requirements and should be
considered his proposal with the exception of landscaping. I am including both drawings
because he did not show the landscaping on the revised site plan.
Requests
The applicant is requesting that the city council approve:
1.- Two street right-of-way vacations---the vacations of German Street on the east side of the
site which is a 30-foot-wide fight-of-way and of 37 feet of excess right-of-way along the north
side of 11th Avenue. The 11th Avenue right-of-way vacation would extend 60 feet in front of
the adjacent parcel {o the west. Staff is also requesting the vacation of E. Demont Avenue as
part of this vacation proposal. Refer to the map on page 6.
2. Building, site and landscape plans.
DISCUSSION
Right-of-Way Vacations
While researching past council approvals of right-of-way vacations in this neighborhood, I found
that German Street and E. Demont Avenue to the north were approved for vacation on
August 14, 1989. For some unknown reason they were never recorded at Ramsey County. As
in 1989, there is no reason to preserve these rights-of-way. The city has no plans to build these
roadways. German Street, furthermore, is only 30 feet widc half the required
right-of-way width. Staff is recommending that the city council adopt the enclosed resolution
vacating these streets once more to update the resolution for filing with the county. We are also
recommending the retention of a utility easement over German Street since there is a storm
sewer in that right-of-way.
Staff is also in favor of vacating that portion of excess 11th Avenue right-of-way as the applicant
requests.
Building Design
The proposed building would be attractive.
Landscape Plan
The applicant should add trees along the east side lot line. The site is going to be mostly
building and parking lot once the project is built. The applicant should add trees along east side
lot line to help soften the view of the site from the east. The westerly view is not as critical
because of existing tree cover. There is also only about 12 feet between the proposed building
and the adjacent parking lot. This is not enough room for mature trees.
Site Plan Concems
Staff does not have any objection to the driveway connection to the parking lot to the west. This
will result in the loss of three parking spaces for that neighbor, but they have more parking than
the code requires so their number of spaces is not an issue. The city should require that the
applicant record reciprocal cross easements for access with the neighbor.
The applicant should revise the site plan to remove the vehicle tumaround and trash enclosure
from the drainage easement in the back of the site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution on pages 8-9, vacating the Germar~ ~treet, E. Demont Avenue and
portion of 11th Avenue rights-of-way. It is in the public in.erest to vacate these rights-of-way
for the following reasons:
1. The city council previously approved the vacation of German Street and E. Demont
Avenues.
2. These right-of-ways are not needed for the public purpose of street construction.
3. German Street is too narrow for street construction.
4. The 11th Avenue right-of-way is excessively wide.
These vacations are conditioned upon the city retaining a utility easement for storm sewer
over the German Street right-of-way.
Approve the site plan date-stamped July 14, 1998 and the building elevations and landscape
plans date-stamped June 25, 1998 for an eye-care clinic building west of 1975 11th Avenue.
Approval is based on the findings required by the code. The applicant shall:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2. Provide the following before the city issues a building permit:
a. A grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval.
b. A revised site and landscape plan showing:
(1) The preservation of the existing tree cover in front of the adjacent parking lot. The
city staff may require replacement of trees if any need to be removed.
(2) At least four trees along the east lot line.
(3) Removal of the turnaround and trash enclosure from the 15-foot-wide drainage
easement in the back.
c. Proof of the recording of reciprocal cross easements between the proposed site and the
property to the west for ingress and egress.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Install a reflectodzed stop sign at the exit onto 11th Avenue and handicap-parking signs
for each handicap-parking space.
b. Provide continuous concrete curbing around the parking lot and ddves.
c. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure that is compatible with or matches the building
design and colors. The trash enclosure shall have a closeable gate that extends to the
ground.
d. Install an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas.
e. Sod all green areas including the boulevard. Restoration of the drainage easement in
back shall be subject to the city engineer's and watershed district's approval.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
b. The city receives cash escrow for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of
the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June
I if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the
building is occupied in the spring or summer.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
site size: one acre
Existing land use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
South:
West:
East:
The rear yard of a long single dwelling lot
11th Avenue, Boston Market and Cub Foods
Professional Building
Dr. Mary Padseau's dental office
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: LBC (limited business commercial)
Zoning: LBC
Findings for Right. of-Way Vacation
State law requires that the city council may vacate public right-of-way if they find it to be in the
public interest.
p:secl l/eye_clin.2
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line / Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Resolution
5. Site and Grading Plans date-stamped July 14, 1998 and Building Elevations and Landscape Plans
date-stamped June 25, 1998 (separate attachments)
Attach~aent 1
1. SUMMff CT.
2. COUNTRY~EW CIR.
3. DULUTH CT.
4. LYDIA AVE:.
BENd
KOHLMAN
GERVAIS
JUNCT/ON
CHAMBERS ST i
SKILL
EDGEHILL RD.
MAPL
c'r.
SHERR£N AVl. AVE:.
Loke
AVE. COPE AV~
AVE. ~LAR~
ROSEWOOD AVE.
NURSING ~ _AND
FAIR GROUND~
R0.
Attachment 2
~'! BC~
HOLYWOOD VIDEO
~ t32.03',
Attachment 3
I
SITE PLAN
Attachment 4
VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Hank Breems, of Mulcahy Inc., applied for the vacation of the following
described street rights-of-way:
That portion of the German Street right-of-way lying between E. Demont Avenue and
Eleventh Avenue in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County.
That portion of the Eleventh Avenue right-of-way described as follows: beginning on the
Northerly edge of the Eleventh Avenue right-of-way at the point of intersection with the
Westerly edge of the German Street right-of-way, thence Easterly 30 feet, thence Southerly
37 feet, thence Westerly 259.93 feet, thence Northerly 37 feet, thence Easterly 259.93 feet to
the point of beginning in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County.
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood applied for the vacation of the following described street
right-of-way:
That portion of E. Demont Avenue lying between White Bear Avenue and German Street in
Section 11, Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County.
WHEREAS, the history of these vacations is as follows:
1. On July 20, 1998, the planning commission recommended that the city council
this vacation.
On ,1998, the city council held a public headng. City staff published a
notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the abutting property owners. The
Council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present written statements.
The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and
planning commission. *
WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the
following abutting properties:
German Street
Subject to White Bear Avenue, 12th Avenue and German Street and except the South
495 feet part of Northwest quarter of Southeast quarter of Northwest quarter of center line
of White Bear Avenue in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County
Subject to White Bear Avenue and German Street the North 150 feet of South 495 feet of
part of Northwest quarter of Southeast quarter of Northwest quarter of center line of said
Avenue in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey county.
The Easterly 199.93 feet of the North 180 feet of the South 345 feet of that part of the
Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 11,
Township 29, range 22, Ramsey county, Minnesota lying Eastedy of White Bear Avenue,
subject to an easement for drainage purposes over, across and upon the Northerly 15
feet thereof.
Eleventh Avenue
The Easterly 199.93 feet of the North 180 feet of the South 345 feet of that part of the
Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 11,
Township 29, range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota lying Easterly of White Bear Avenue,
subject to an easement for drainage purposes over, across and upon the Northerly 15
feet thereof.
o
Except the East 199.93 feet; the North 180 feet of South 345 feet of part Easterly of
White Bear Avenue of the Northwest quarter of Southeast quarter of Northwest quarter,
(subject to roads and easements) in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey
County.
E. Demont Avenue
o
Subject to White Bear Avenue, 12th Avenue and German Street and except the South
495 feet part of Northwest quarter of Southeast quarter of Northwest quarter of center line
of White Bear Avenue in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
vacations since it is in the public interest based on the following reasons:
1. The city council previously approved the vacation of German Street and E. Demont
Avenues.
2. These right-of-ways are not needed for the public purpose of street construction.
3. German Street is too narrow for street construction.
4. The 11th Aver~ue right-of-way is excessively wide.
These vacations are conditioned upon the city retaining a utility easement for storm sewer
over the entire width of the German Street right-of-way.
Adopted on ,1998.
9
TO:
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Gervais Court Senior Housing
Gervais Court, south and east of Gervais Avenue
Tri-Hess Development Company (David Hesley)
July 22, 1998
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Mr. David Hesley, representing Tri-Hess Development Company, is proposing to build 60 units
of senior housing. He is proposing to build this project on a 3.4-acre site on the north side of
Gervais Court, south and east of Gervais Avenue. (See the location map on page 11 and the
property line/zoning map on page 12.)
The project would be a 3-story apartment building with underground parking for 60 cars. There
would be 15 one-bedroom units, 21 one-bedroom units with dens and 24 two-bedroom units.
The building also would have a library, card room, salon, general store, office, workout room, a
multi-purpose room and solarium near the center of the building. There also would be a storm
shelter in the garage area of the building. (See the maps on pages 15 - 22.)
Requests
To build the development, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the following:
A change in the city's land use plan. This change would be from LBC (limited business
commercial) to RH (residential high density). (See the existing and proposed land use plan
maps on pages 13 and 14.)
A zoning map change for the site. This change would be from LBC (limited business
commercial) to R-3 (multiple-family residential). The applicant is requesting the zoning
map change because the LBC zoning limits the uses to offices, clinics or day care centers
and prohibits residential uses. (See the property line/zoning map on page 12.)
A reduction in the number of city code required parking spaces. Code requires two
spaces for each unit or 120 spaces. The proposed site plan (page 15) shows a total of 92
parking spaces on the site. These include 60 underground garage spaces and 32
uncovered spaces near the apartments. In addition, the plan also shows an area for 28
future parking spaces on the southeast corner of the site.
4. Design approval.
DISCUSSION
Land Use Plan Change
This should be a good site for senior housing. It is across Gervais Avenue from the existing
Carefree Cottages and Chateau senior housing development and next to a major collector
street (Gervais Avenue). The site also is close to an arterial street (White Bear Avenue), two
churches, a park and shopping.
This site, however, is near existing businesses, including Rainbow Foods and Saints North
Roller Rink, that could create disturbances for the residents. There is the potential for noise
from the traffic and commercial activities from these locations that some people might object to
living near. The developer should be aware of these existing conditions and should notify the
potential tenants about these businesses.
As proposed, the 60 units on the 3.4-acre site means there would be 17.6 units per acre.
However, with the underground parking, the proposed development gets a density credit as
allowed in Section 36-114 of the city code. With this credit, there would be 15.75 units per
acre. This is slightly lower than the maximum density standards in the comprehensive plan for
apartment buildings with more than 50 units (16.3 units/acre).
Zoning Map Change versus Planned Unit Development
The applicant has applied for a zoning map change from LBC (limited business commercial) to
R-3 (multiple dwelling residential). They are requesting the zoning map change because the
LBC (limited business commercial) zoning limits the uses to offices, clinics and day care
centers.
As an alternative to the zoning map change, the city could approve a conditional use permit
(CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 60-unit senior citizen housing
development. An advantage in approving a PUD is that the city then can approve a specific
site plan and specific land uses. If the city approves the requested zoning map change, the
developer could build a variety of multiple family residential housing on the site. This includes
townhouses, condominiums and family apartments.
Reduced Parking Spaces
As proposed, the number of parking spaces shou . be adequate for a senior housing
development. The ratio of spaces to units is similar to the Village on Woodlynn senior project
(the former Cottages of Maplewood), the Carefree Cottages on Gervais Avenue and Cardinal
Pointe. Multiple dwellings limited to seniors usually have fewer cars per unit than multiple
dwellings that are not restricted to seniors. The city has recognized this by approving other
senior housing projects with fewer parking spaces. (See the list on page 8.)
Design Approval
Building Design and Exterior Materials
The proposed building should be attractive. It would have an exterior of brick and horizontal
vinyl siding with brick accents on the building comers and the roof would have asphalt
shingles. (See the drawings on page 18 and in the project plans.) The building would have
three stories above grade and an underground parking area.
Because of the proposed building location with streets on three sides, the city should ensure
that all sides of the building have the same appearance. In addition, the proposed plans do not
show or list the colors of the building. As such, the color scheme should be submitted to city
staff for approval before the city issues the building permit.
Landscaping
The proposed plans remove most of the existing trees on the site. The city should require the
developer to preserve as much of the existing vegetation near the east-side property line as
possible. As proposed, the developer would plant at least 86 trees including black hills spruce,
Austrian pine, ash, oaks and maples on the 3.4-acre site. The proposed plans, however, show
24 of the larger new trees in the existing utility easement on the east side of the site. The city
should require the developer to plant these large trees within five feet of the east property line.
This is to ensure that the new trees would not interfere with the existing sewer pipes near the
center of the easement.
The city also may want to have the developer create more screening along the south edge of
the site. This could be done with a berm and additional plantings to help buffer the effects of
the businesses and traffic from the proposed building.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the resolution on page 27. This resolution changes the land use plan from LBC
(limited business commercial) to RH (residential high density) for the 3.4-acre site of the
Gervais Court senior housing development. The city bases this change on the following
findings:
1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential
use. This includes:
a. Expanding the transitional land use between the existing residential and
commercial land uses.
b. It is next to a collector street, is across Gervais Avenue from existing senior
housing and is near two churches, shopping, an arterial street and a park.
2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because:
a. Studies have shown there will be no adverse effect on property values.
b. There would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets.
Bo
Approve the resolution starting on page 28. This resolution is for a conditional use permit for
a planned unit development for the Gervais Court senior housing development. The city
bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific
findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions:
All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped June 25, 1998. The city council
may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve
minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
The owner shall not convert this development to non-seniors housing without the
revision of the planned unit development. For this permit, the city defines seniors
housing as a residence occupied by at least one person 62 years of age or older.
4. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers.
o
Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day-to-day
transportation on site. If the city decides there are excess parking spaces available on
site, then the city may allow the parking of these on site.
6. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the building is 95
percent occupied, the city may require additional parking.
The developer shall provide an on-site storm shelter in the apartment building. This
shelter shall be subject to the approval of the director of emergency preparedness. It
shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned
population.
8. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
*The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or a
building permit.
Deny the proposed zoning map change for the proposed Gervais Court senior housing
development. This change would have been from LBC (limited business commercial) to R-3
(multiple-family residential). The city is not making this change because the city approved a
conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the proposal.
Approve 92 parking spaces (60 garage spaces and 32 open spaces), rather than the 120
spaces required by code for the Gervais Court senior housing project, be-~use:
1. The Parking space requirement is not proper for senior housing, because there are
fewer cars per unit in these projects.
2. The city has approved fewer parking spaces for other senior housing, including the
Village on Woodlynn, the Carefree Cottages and Cardinal Pointe.
Approve the plans date-stamped June 25, 1998 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and
drainage plans and building elevations) for the Gervais Court senior housing development.
The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or
contractor shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and
driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions:
(1)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
The grading plan shall:
Include building, floor elevation and contour information.
Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb.
Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board
or by the city engineer.
(3) The entryway and driveway in front of the building shall meet the minimum
standards for turning and access for firefighting equipment.
(4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and
gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage
purposes.
b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads.
c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction.
d. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing:
(1) That all proposed trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location
and species.
(2) The 24 proposed large trees in the utility easement moved to within five feet of
the east property line.
(3) A berm and additional trees along the south side of the site near Gervais Court,
subject to city staff approval. This is to provide additional screening and
buffering from the businesses to the south of the site.
(4) As much of the existing vegetation along the eastern property line preserved as
possible.
e. The fire chief shall approve the access to the building for firefighting needs.
f. Submit elevations to the city for staff approval showing colors and materials for all
sides of the building.
Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
c. Install reflectorized stop signs at the exit, a handicap-parking sign for each
handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant
shall install stop signs and traffic directional signs within the site, as required by
staff.
5
Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the
building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent
property. (code requirement)
Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any
dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep
outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of
the building.
f. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas.
g. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around
all open parking stalls.
ho
Install a storm shelter in a central location in the apartment building. This shelter
shall be subject to the approval of the Maplewood director of emergency
preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of
the planned population.
i. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff approval.
j. The developer or contractor shall:
(1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements
and meet all city requirements.
(2)* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
(3) Remove any debris or junk from the site.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may aUow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work.
The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished
landscaping shall be completed by June I if the building is occupied in the fall or
winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or
summer.
The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished
work.
This approval does not include the signs.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 16 property owners within 350 feet of the site about the proposal. Of the four
responses, two were for the project, one was for the project with comments, one was conditionally
for the project.
For
1. More nice neighbors in our community. A good use for the land. (Anonymous)
My concern is that with all of our activity (outdoor concerts, youth activities, etc.), our new
neighbors might have reason to complain. We have a great relationship with the cottages
and hope that it would continue with this new project. (Pastor Mike Smith - Redeeming
Love Church - 2425 White Bear Avenue)
Conditionally For
I am conditionally for this proposal with the following conditions:
1. This change in zoning must not allow future changes to my M-1 zoning.
I, or future owners of my property, must be free to develop our property as we wish within
the M-1 zoning.
If any depreciation in land value occurs as a result of this proposed zoning change to allow
this housing, the City of Maplewood will compensate me or future owners for any loss
incurred.
(Dick Hegrenes, owner of 1790 Gervais Court)
Also see the letter on page 26 for additional comments.
REFERENCE
Site Description
The site is undeveloped.
Surrounding Land Uses
North and west: Carefree Cottages and Chateau across Gervais Avenue.
East: Redeeming Love Church.
South: Existing businesses including Cooks Auto Repair, a mini-storage facility and Saints North
roller rink across Gervais Court.
Reasons for the Requests
This proposal needs a land use plan change because:'
1. State law does not allow a city to adopt any regulation that conflicts with its comprehensive
plan.
2. One of the findings required by code for a CUP is that the use is in conformity with the city's
comprehensive plan.
The land use plan shows this site for LBC uses, which do not include multiple-family housing.
The developer has applied for a zoning map change because the zoning on this site is LBC
(limited business commercial). The LBC zone allows offices, clinics and day care centers and not
residential uses. A rezoning to R-3 (multiple dwelling residential) would allow a variety of multiple-
dwelling uses and plans. However, a CUP for a PUD specifies the uses and is for a specific site
plan.
Past Actions - Parking and Garages
The city has approved reduced parking and garage requirements for all past senior housing. This
includes the following:
1. Concordia Arms: 100 spaces for 124 units or .8 spaces per unit.
2. Hazel Ridge: 75 spaces for 75 units or I space per unit.
3. Casey Lake (Harmony School site - never built): 62 spaces for 62 units or I space per unit.
4. Village on Woodlynn (former Cottages of Maplewood): 87 spaces for 60 units or 1.5 spaces
for each unit.
5. Carefree Cottages: 132 spaces for 108 units or 1.22 spaces for each unit.
6. Cardinal Pointe: 149 spaces for 108 units or 1.38 spaces for each unit.
Planning Considerations
Existing Land Use Plan Designation - LBC (limited business commercial)
Proposed Land Use Plan Designation - RH (residential high density)
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
There are no specific criteria for a land use plan change. Any land use plan change should be
consistent with the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan. The resolution starting on
page 28 gives the findings required by code for approval of a conditional use permit.
Section 36-485 of the city code has the criteria for approving a zone change.
Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve
plans:
That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair
the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not
unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed
developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character
of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and
attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive
municipal plan.
That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of
good composition, materials, textures and colors.
HOUSING POLICIES
The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal.
They are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide
many housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential
development policies that relate to this project. They are:
Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative
economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments.
Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic,
racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include
apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted
housing and Iow- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing.
Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by
adequate buffering and separation.
The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should
consider with this development. They are:
Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city.
These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and
nontraditional households.
The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types
and price ranges through its land use plan.
The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents
of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each
stage of the life cycle of housing needs.
kr/p: Sec 11/gervisct. mem
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Existing Land Use Plan Map
4. Proposed Land Use Plan Map
5. Site Plan
6. Proposed Grading Plan
7. Proposed Landscape Plan
8. Building elevations
9. Unit Floor Plans (4 pages)
10. Developer's statement dated June 8, 1998
11. Letter from Saints North dated July 2, 1998
12. Resolution: Land Use Plan Change
13. Resolution: Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development
14. Project Plans date-stamped June 25, 1998 (Separate Attachment)
l0
Attachment
EDGEHII I RD.
BROOKS
Z CT.
v
VIKING
SHERR£N AVE. AVE.
Lake
AVE. COPE AVE.
RD. ·
Q)
O' 1700'
ROSEWOOD AVE. N.
RAMSEY COUNTY
NURSING HOME AND
FAIR GROUNDS
LOCATION MAP
11
NORTH
I^
~7~)
R1
4
D
&
CAREFREE ¢OTTAOES
D , ....
1733 LB¢
AVENUE
(*~ TOPPER!
OFFICE WAREHOUSE ~ORL
Attachment 2
2
SITE
·
· : HIGHWAY 36 ·
: : ·
RAINBOW FOODS
,,
GERVAIS AVENUE
GERVAIS COURT
~'4-)'~)- -
US WEST
LBC
PETSMART
Attachment 3
major collector
_ M-1
ctor,
. '~_--.~
:iai
BO(M)
](M)
P OS~
~MT ,LBC BC
M)
Attachment 4
major collector ;".'
:iai
BC(M) I
M-1
pC~
OS
.';
1 ~ .... ~ M41 BC
ge
14
Attachment 5
SITE DATA
~q~a.L L..~ uBrrrs U'BOP~
m .c~n. T,
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN ~-~-~-fi'~
15
Attachment 6
GERVAIS COURT
II
TRENCH DRAIN CROSS-SECTION
Attachment 7
DETAIL
LANDSCAPE PLAN
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN
17
m
Attach~*aent 8
18
Attachment 9
_F
~*~ IGERVAIS COURT
EIRS'~_ELOQB_P_t,,&N
20
,/
'SECOND AND Tt'IIP. D FLOOI:I PLANS
21
GERVAIS COURT
Attachment 10
BRUCE MOGREN
Edina Realty
2966 White Bear Avenue
Maplewood, MN 55109
Direct: 779-2651
Main: 770-1775 Fax: 779-2628
June 8, 1998
To~
City of Maplewood
Planning Department
RE: Developers response to item #2 of the rezoning application
Question "fl':
How would this zoning change promote the public welfare?
1. Reducing Traffic Congestion?
This project involves an apartment bhilding for senior citizens
55 years of age and older. The project itself would produc~
only moderate traffic throughout the day and there would be no
direct access onto Gervais Avenue. All traffic would enter and
exit on Gervais Court which, should not disturb the traffic flow
of the area. In our opinion the issue of the traffic congestion is
not significant.
2. Improving Safety from fire and other dangers?
The manner in which the apartment building is situated on the
site should provide for adequate access for safety from fire and
other dangers plus the building itself will contain a sprinkler
system to protect against fires.
23
3. Providing adequate light and open space?
The building will have a significant amount of security lighting
for the senior citizen residents plus the site design has allowed
for more than adequate open space. There has been a concerted
effort to locate the open space for optimum viewing and use by
the residents.
4. Avoiding overcrowding?
This project will have the same density as the Carefree Cottages
and Chateau located directly across the street. There have not
been any overcrowding issues with the Carefree community
and we do not expect to encounter any overcrowding problems
with this project. The fact that this project has underground
parking should actually give the project the appearance of very
little congestion to the neighboring properties.
5. Conserving property values?
This area is primarily a commercial area. The landscaping and
building structures and maintenance procedures will be very
similar to the Carefree Cottages and Chateau and as such will in
o-r opinion, actually enhance the value of the neighboring
1: >perties.
Question "b":
Why would this zoning change not, injure or detract from the use of
neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood?
The neighboring properties are all commercial in nature and the
fact that this is going to be an upscale market rate rental
property should not injure or detract from the use of
neighboring properties. There are 248 senior citizen rental units
located just across the street from this. The neighborhood is
already senior citizen in character and this project will fit fight
in.
Questioll ~c~:
Are there adequate public facilities, such as streets, sewers, water
lines, schools and parks?
There are already streets, sewer and water lines in place. There are
churches and parks nearby and these senior citizens will be less than
one mile away fi.om the Maplewood Community Center.
Attal ll
July 2, 1998
150 EATON STREET · SAINT PAUL, MN 55107 · 612/224-3369
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
Associate Planner
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 5109
$aim
Dear Sir:
As per our telephone conversation of today, and as per your written request, we, as partners in
the H & B Partnership and owners of Saints North Roller Skating Center submit the following:
We received your neighborhood survey, dated June 30, 1998 regarding the rezoning of the
property on Gervais court for use as senior apartments. The property is located across
Gervais Court street immediately north of our Saints North Roller Skating Center.
2. We are in no way opposed to senior housing.
We do want to go on record that we are a recreational facility that has operated in the city of
Maplewood for over 20 years. Most of our customers are young, 6 to 16, and include most of
The areas school, churches, scouts, etc. We are open 7 days and several nights a week. Most
of the nights we close at 12 midnight. A crc",d of 300 and the automobiles of the parents
picking up their children will generate a cert .n amount of noise and ~ght from the cars. This
has been an acceptable mode of operation for over 20 years and has ',~,vays been within our
zoning rights.
4. We would obviously be very much opposed to rezoning and new housing if it curtails or puts
an economic hardship on our business which is already in operation.
5. We want the above to go on record with the seller, the developer, the renters and the city of
Maplewood.
Thank you for allowing us to express our concerns.
Regards,
Allen Hofmeister
Peter D. Boo
770-3849 224-3369
26
Attachment 12
LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, David Hesley, representing Tri-Hess Development Company, applied for a change to
the city's land use plan. This change is from LBC (limited business commercial) to RH (residential
high density).
WHEREAS, this change applies to the 3.4-acre undeveloped property located between Gervais
Avenue and Gervais Court west of White Bear Avenue.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
On August 3, 1998, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to
speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the
city council approve the proposed plan amendment.
On August 24, 1998, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They
considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
changes for the following reasons:
This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use.
This includes:
Expanding the transitional land use between the existing residential and
commercial land uses.
It is next to a collector street, is across Gervais Avenue from existing senior
housing and is near two churches, shopping, an arterial street and a park.
This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because:
a. Studies have shown there will be no adverse effect on property values.
b. There would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
1998.
Attachment 13
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development proposed a conditional use permit (CUP)
for the Gervais Court senior housing planned unit development (PUD).
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 3.4-acre undeveloped property between Gervais Avenue
and Gervais Court west of White Bear Avenue. The legal description is:
Lot 1, Block 2, Maple Ridge Mall Addition in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey
County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On August 3, 1998, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve
this permit.
On August 24, 1998, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a
notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council
gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The
council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning
commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
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 surroundin, g area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimehtal, 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.
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.
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.
28
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped June 25, 1998. The city council may
approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor
changes.
2, The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
The owner shall not convert this development to non-seniors housing without the revision
of the planned unit development. For this permit, the city defines seniors housing as a
residence occupied by at least one person 62 years of age or older.
4. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers.
o
Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day-to-day
transportation on site. If the city decides there are excess parking spaces available on
site, then the city may allow the parking of these on site.
6. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the building is 95
percent occupied, the city may require additional parking.
The developer shall provide an on-site storm shelter in the apartment building. This
shelter shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Emergency Preparedness. It
shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population.
8. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
*The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit
c~'a building permit.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
1998.