HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/28/2001BOOK
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
August 28, 2001
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:
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
a. 3M Building #255 Building Design Changes- John Olfelt, 3M Company
6. Design Review
a. 5-8 Club (Beau's), 2289 Minnehaha Avenue - Food Services, Inc.
b. VValgreen's (former Burger King), 1706 White Bear Avenue - Semper
Development
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Board Presentations
9. Staff Presentations
a. Reminder: Ananth is scheduled for September 10 city council meeting.
b. CDRB representative needed for the September 24 city council meeting.
c. Discussion Item: September 11 CDRB meeting cancellation/rescheduling
due to the primary election.
d. Informational Item: An Introduction to Urban Design article
August 14, 2001
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.
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.
The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed.
The Board will then make its recommendations or decision.
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.
jw\forms\cdrb.agd
Revised: 11-09-94
II.
III.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
AUGUST '14, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina
Tim Johnson
Craig Jorgenson
Linda Olson
Ananth Shankar
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand,
Assistant Community Development Director
Recording Secretary:
Lisa Kroll
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 24, 2001
Chairperson Ledvina had some changes to the minutes for the July 24, 2001
minutes.
On page 3 number 4. should be number 3.
On page 5 in the third paragraph it should be Board member Olson.
On page 6 in the fifth paragraph it should read a 24-foot tall building.
On page 7 in the eleventh paragraph it should read support structure out of.
Chairperson Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of July 10, 2001.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes ---Ledvina, Johnson, Olson
Abstention -- Shankar
IV.
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairperson Ledvina asked that we move Unfinished Business to come after
staff presentations because the applicant was not present when the meeting
began.
The motion passed. Ayes- All
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-14-2001
2
VI.
VII.
VIII.
DESIGN REVIEW
No new items to present.
Visitor Presentations
No visitors present.
Board Presentations
There was a City Council meeting August 13, 2001, but no board representation
was needed. No board issues. One item that was reviewed was Schroeder Milk
had asked for some TiF money and they are proceeding with their three-stage
development proposal that they had approved in 1999. It's a large addition on
the back of their building that they are continuing to expand.
Staff Presentations
a. CDRB Representation:
As a reminder, Matt Ledvina is scheduled for the August 27, 2001, City
Council meeting. Staff is looking for a representative for the September
10th meeting. Ananth Shankar replied he would be available for the
September 10, 2001, meeting. Matt Ledvina added that he would attend
the September 10th meeting if The Comfort Bus would be discussed.
b. 2001 Tour Recap:
Board member Olson said she received a tremendous amount of
information on the tour. She enjoyed the opportunity to speak with other
members of the City Council and Planning Commission during the tour.
She felt that it was beneficial to have the Historical Society represented,
the Police Chief and the Fire Station.
The only complaint was the audio system problem that would be corrected
at the next city tour.
Chairperson Ledvina endorsed board member Olson's comments. Who
felt it is a valuable tool for everyone and did not think it should be
discontinued.
Mr. Ekstrand stated he thought Mr. Roberts did a great job putting the City
Tour together as he had every year and everyone enjoyed the sites and
stops this year. Mr. Ekstrand thought it was beneficial that he could see
all the sites, grading, and different areas that are changing.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-14-2001
Chairperson Ledvina asked secretary Ekstrand about the new August 1,
2001, residential parking ordinance and how it was being enforced.
Secretary Ekstrand mentioned that several people had been involved with
that and he would bring it up at the Community Development staff meeting
August 15. The Police department, Bob Wenger and he, himself, had
been receiving calls and it really should be addressed as to who exactly
should be involved in screening and receiving these complaint calls.
Originally Bob Wenger, the Environmental Health Officer, was designated
to receive those calls, but Mr. Ekstrand knows that other people are
receiving parking ordinance calls as well.
IX.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
The Comfort Bus Company at 1870 Rice Street
Secretary Ekstrand addressed members with the staff report.
On July 24, 2001, the community design review board tabled action on the
proposed Comfort Bus proposal. They tabled this review so they could see the
applicant make the following changes:
Redesign the exterior of the shop building. The board recommended that
the applicant enhance the exterior of the building to make it more
compatible in materials, color and design with the proposed office building.
They felt because of the size of the building it would be very noticeable
from both streets, therefore, warranting a more decorative exterior.
Revise the landscape plan with the proposed changes recommended by
staff in the previous memorandum.
3. Provide scaled, detailed plans for the proposed fuel canopy.
Revised shop and canopy design
The revised plans show the addition of a triple set of reveal lines at the top of the
building on all four sides. These reveal lines would go into the wall surface % of
an inch and would be three and six inches wide. (The lower two would be three
inches wide and the top one six inches wide.) The plans do not indicate a color
scheme for the building. The applicant had also added several pre-cast concrete
planters on the south and north sides of the building adjacent to the garage
doors. These would protect the garage door openings as well as provide an area
for plantings.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-14-2001
4
The canopy design is shown on Sheet One of the revised plans. The applicant
had also added planters at the ends of each fuel island.
Landscaping
The applicant had shown plantings on the revised landscape plan are as
requested by the board, depicting recommendations made in the last staff report
Summary
As with the Menard's building on Highway 61 where we required an accent stripe
on the building and additional landscaping, staff is taking the same position here.
With all the additional landscaping the applicant has shown and the detailing of
the three reveal lines at the top of the building, staff agrees with the proposed
plans for the shop building.
The shop building is 300 feet back from Roselawn Avenue and staff felt that the
landscaping would soften the appearance of the building. The front (west) view
of the shop building would be partially hidden from view by the proposed office
building and there would be landscaping directly in front in a courtyard area and
on the street side to help soften the view of the building.
Regarding the color scheme, staff would like to see the two buildings be
compatible with each other. The applicant should submit a color scheme for the
shop, which indicates the color of the pre-cast panels, the reveal lines, the
flashing and the window frames.
The fuel canopy design and landscape plan meet the recommendations of the
board, although colors have not been specified for the canopy. The board should
require that the applicant submit a color scheme for the buildings for staff
approval before getting the building permit.
Secretary Ekstrand anticipated that the building design was not changed to the
level the board was hoping to see based on the last discussion. Staff would like
to see more, but based on the use of the building, its placement, and the setback
of the road, staff finds it acceptable.
Staff is recommending approval with the recommendations made on pages 2,3,
and 4.
Chairperson Ledvina asked members if they had any questions for the staff.
Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to come forward and address the
board.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-14-2001
Mr. Lee Rossow of Afton introduced himself and represents The Comfort Bus
Company at 1870 Rice Street.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Rossow to go over the design changes made
from the original plan, and if he had any comments regarding the last staff report.
Mr. Rossow stated he would like to comment on the staff report first.
Referring to 2. a. (2.) in the staff report which states to resolve all public
utility concerns including water and sewer. This Includes coordinating with
the city for replacement or repair of the public sanitary sewer line that runs
through the property. The owner shall provide the city with the necessary
easements if the city or the applicants move the sewer line.
Mr. Rossow stated that it had been his policy all along that he didn't want to
agree to any easements that the cities engineering department would come up
with. He would have some objections if the engineering department designs an
easement and it goes to the corner of their shop and they have to redesign there
plans. He understands that there are sewer main problems and has no problem
with that being repaired. Mr. Rossow sent Mr. Ekstrand a fax that he was in
favor of getting the problem solved and that he really did not want it to be part of
this approval.
Regarding the fuel canopy, Mr. Rossow asked his architect to draw up some
plans that are not normally included, like planters, so the board could see the
intentions for protection from the tail swing of the busses and the parking of the
busses hitting the canopy.
The landscaping plan was improved according to the board, and he certainly
doesn't have any problems with those recommendations. Mr. Rossow asked his
building manufacturer, Spancrete, to come up with a plan for the main garage to
enhance the outside of the building without increasing the cost of the plan.
Spancrete designed a plan to create an optical illusion with the spacing of the
reveal lines on the building, and the cost factor was within the budget. The line
spacing was proposed in place of the coving to make the office building and the
shop look more compatible.
Board member Shankar asked if the colors of the shop and office building are
going to match, and what is the texture and color of the buildings.
Mr. Rossow stated he had the sample of the pre-cast concrete with him at the
last meeting (which Mr. Shankar was absent from) and he did not bring it with
him tonight. The color is a cream color and the texture is a stucco effect.
Board member Shankar asked Mr. Rossow if the six and three inch reveal lines
will be the same color.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-14-2001
Mr. Rossow replied that it his intention to leave those the same color. He would
like to keep the building as maintenance free as possible. There is a shadowing
effect in the reveal lines and if Spancrete were to mix two colors together a
bleeding effect would take place.
Board member Olson asked what the color would be for the pre-cast concrete
planters.
Mr. Rossow stated they would be gray and that was the only color they came in.
The planters will be complimented with colorful annuals and perennials.
Board member Olson stated that she remembered the applicant stating that
anything a bus could hit, it would. Is the height of these planters a defense
mechanism to keep the buses from hitting the building?
Mr. Rossow said yes, it was a defense mechanism and the height of the planters
would be 4 feet because the bumpers on a bus are 32 to 36 inches tall to keep
the building from getting damaged. The canopy is not capable of withstanding
being hit by a bus even with the 6 legs.
Board member Shankar asked the applicant what color the metal panels of the
fuel canopy are.
Mr. Rossow said his intentions are just the standard white. No striping or
anything on it. The white color keeps the area well lit for safety. There is not a
large selection of colors and he would like to keep from painting the canopy to
keep it maintenance free.
Board member Shankar asked what color the garage doors will be.
Mr. Rossow said he wasn't sure that had been decided yet. It will probably be
some sort of an earth tone color that matches.
Board member Shankar said he would like the garage doors to match the color of
the pre-cast concrete. So a shade of cream would match well.
Mr. Rossow replied that is the color it will be then.
Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant about the easements on the property
again and could he describe what his concern was again with the wording.
Secretary Ekstrand stated he spoke on the telephone with Mr. Rossow today
regarding his concerns. It will be best if Mr. Rossow discusses this with the
assistant city engineer to determine what easements may be required. If Mr.
Community Design Review Board 7
Minutes 8-14-2001
Rossow doesn't want to go through with that plan and it seems objectionable,
this issue can be appealed to the city council within a 15-day appeal period.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if the applicant would be agreeable to language such
as "if a new easement was required, the easement shall not effect the positions
of the buildings on the site plan".
Mr. Rossow stated yes he would be agreeable to that language.
Chairperson Ledvina stated at the last meeting the board asked about the curved
element over the windows in the office bUilding and adding that to the shop
building. Did you check into that.
Mr. Rossow replied yes, it was investigated. If they started putting in arched
topped windows, it significantly would change the budget and the cost of the
windows would go up as well. These changes become very difficult, not
impossible, but difficult and expensive for the builder and Mr. Rossow. Mr.
Rossow objected to those plans. It was not what he wanted. It is very expensive
and he thought it would not be that noticeable from the road.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if the window frames in the shop building are the
same color as the office building, and what is the color selected for the frames.
Mr. Rossow stated yes they are the same. However, the office building frames
are vinyl clad, non-tinted, maintenance free and made by Andersen windows.
The shop building windows are from a window supply company, have metal
frames and have a smoky colored tint. All the windows are terra-tone colored.
The Andersen window company does not have tinting as an option, as the
window supplier did for the shop building. In the past we tried drapes in the shop
building and they did not work, so we opted for a smoky tint to the windows to
help with the late afternoon glare of the sun. Drapes will be used for the office
building since tinting was not available.
Board member Olson stated that she was very pleased with the revised
landscaping plans that were made.
Board member Shankar asked about the appearance of the down spouts and the
flashing, and will they both match the appearance of the building.
Mr. Rossow said he had no problem with the board putting a stipulation in to
assure that the down spouts and flashing match with the building.
Board member Shankar was not satisfied with the reveal lines as they pertained
to the office and shop buildings and the garage dimensions.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-14-2001
8
Mr. Rossow stated that he could add another reveal line on the shop building to
tie in with the office building and it would make a more compatible appearance
with the buildings.
Board member Shankar moved that the Community Design Review Board
approve the site and office design plans date stamped June 15, 2001, the plans
date stamped June 29, 2001, and the landscape, fuel canopy, office and shop
plans date stamped August 3, 2001 for the Comfort Bus Company at 1870 Rice
Street. Approval is based on the findings required by city code and subject to the
following conditions:
4. a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
b. Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits and a handicap-parking
sign for each handicap-parking space.
c. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter all around the
parking lot and driveways.
Paint all rooftop mechanical equipment, stacks and vents to
match the uppermost part of the building. The owner of
contractor shall screen any new roof-mounted equipment that is
visible to residential property. (code requirement)
e. Install and maintain an in-ground irrigation system for all
landscaped areas. (code requirement)
Construct the trash dumpster enclosure (unless waived by the
CDRB) using the same materials and color as the building. This
enclosure shall have a 100 percent opaque gate.
g. Stripe all customer and visitor parking spaces at a width of 9 1/2
feet and the employee vehicle spaces at a width of nine feet.
Install site lighting according to ordinance. The lenses and bulbs
of lighting fixtures shall be recessed so not to shine into driver's
eyes.
i. Both the pre-cast panels and garage doom should be cream color
and shall match each other.
j. Down spouts and flashing on the east elevations shall match the
color of the pre-cast panels.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-14-2001
The elevations shall incorporate an additional reveal band or line
3 inches in height and shall match the top of the garage doors
and wrap around all four sides of the building.
I. Clarify that the color of the fuel canopy shall be white in color.
m. The color of the window frames for the office and shop buildings
shall match.
Chairperson Ledvina suggested modifying the amendment to item 2. a. (2.)
which related to the public utility concerns for sewer and water to add a sentence
to read "if a new easement is required the easement shall not effect the
positions of the building on the site':
Board member Johnson moved to second the motion.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director
Design Review of Plan Revisions- 3M Leadership Development
Institute (Building #255)
600 Carlton Street
August 21, 2001
INTRODUCTION
John Olfelt, of 3M Company, is proposing some revisions to the previously-approved plans for
3M Building #255. On July 24, 2001, the community design review board (CDRB) approved
plans for building exterior and landscaping changes to this 3M building. Mr. Olfelt has now made
some changes that he feels would further enhance the building. Refer to the attached plans
which include a written description of the proposed changes, sketches of the proposed revisions
and sketches of the previous plans.
DISCUSSION
The major differences are the treatment of proposed roof detailing and the dock area. The roof
would be interrupted in spots rather than continual. The dock area is proposed again to be
painted to match the bdck, but would have a roof detail added like that proposed on the main
building on its west elevation. The applicant will discuss his reasons for this request in detail at
the meeting.
Staff does not object to the proposed changes to the building exterior and the landscaping plan.
Staff finds these changes to be improvements to the building and property.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the plans date-stamped August 20, 2001 for the building exterior changes and
landscaping changes to 3M Building # 255, located at 600 Carlton Street.
3mcarltn.2.doc (Section 36-29)
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Plans date-stamped August 20, 2001 (separate attachment)
ST.
BRAND AVE.
Attachment 1
JAUES
UPPER AFTON RD.
MAYER LN.
A
Lake
LOCATION
MAP
Attachment 2
L
3M BUILDING #255
CRO~ERT~ LI~E I ~O~l~O ~AP
3
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Shann Finwall, Associate Planner
Beau's Food and Spirits
Food Services, Inc. (d/bla 5-8 Club)
2289 Minnehaha Avenue
August 22, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Food Services, Inc., d/b/a 5-8 Club, is proposing to purchase, remodel, and expand Beau's Food
and Spirits at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue. The proposed project includes interior remodeling,
expansion of the parking lot, a new covered deck for outdoor dining and exterior painting and
improvements. Food Services owns and manages an existing 5-8 Club located at 5800 Cedar
Avenue in Minneapolis (see pictures of Minneapolis 5-8 Club on pages 30 and 31). The
proposed Maplewood 5-8 Club will offer the same neighborhood-style dining as the Minneapolis
5-8 Club (see Minneapolis 5-8 Club menu on pages 27 and 28).
Requests
To proceed with this project, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the following:
A comprehensive land use plan amendment from single-dwelling residential (R-l) to
business commercial modified (B-C(M));
2. A rezoning from single dwelling residential to business commercial modified (B-C(M));
3. Two conditional use permits including:
ao
A conditional use permit to allow a restaurant within the business commercial
(modified) (B-C(M)) zoning district; and
A conditional use permit for the expansion of a nonconforming structure (deck
addition) (50-foot setback toward residential property required, 10-foot setback
proposed; and a 30-foot front yard setback required, 22-foot setback proposed);
4. A parking lot setback vadance (20-foot setback required, 5-foot setback proposed);
5. Design approval for exterior improvements.
DISCUSSION
Land Use and Zoning
The building was originally constructed in the mid 1950s and was the site of Chicone's Bar and
Restaurant. In the early 1990s Eugene and Shirley Beaulieu purchased the site and opened
Beau's Food and Spirits. As a result, the property has been used as a restaurant/bar for
approximately the last 46 years.
During the city's adoption of the original zoning map in 1965, it was the city's intent to reflect
existing land uses with appropriate zoning classification, not to create nonconforming uses. The
city, however, zoned Chicone's Bar and Restaurant residential, even though it had been used as
a restaurant/bar for at least ten years (see existing property line/zoning map on page 16). This
zoning designation created a nonconforming use. For this reason, it is staff's opinion that it was
originally the city's intent to reflect the restaurant/bar use with commercial zoning, but for some
reason the zoning on this property was classified as residential. This zoning classification has
never been an issue until this recent proposal for expansion.
The land use and zoning map changes suggested here is from residential to business
commercial (modified) (BC(M)) (see the proposed land use and zoning map on pages 15 and 17).
The business commercial (modified) district is intended to provide for the orderly transition
between more intensive commercial uses and Iow or medium density residential areas. Within
this zoning district, restaurants (no drive-through facilities) are allowed with a conditional use
permit. The conditional use permit process allows the city oversight to ensure there are limited
impacts on the surrounding residential properties.
The proposed land use amendment and zoning map change from single dwelling residential (R-l)
to the transitional commercial zone of business commercial (modified) meets the spirit, purpose,
and intent of the zoning code by not detracting from the use of neighboring properties or from the
character of the neighborhood. In addition, the proposed change will reflect the existing land use
on the property.
Addition and Remodeling
Exterior of Buildin,q: The exterior of the building will remain stucco with wood shutters around the
windows. The front door will be relocated from the west elevation (toward Stillwater Road) to the
south elevation (toward Minnehaha Avenue). The applicants propose to paint the exterior (taupe
color with burgundy accents) and install new wall signage.
The new walk-in cooler will not fit in the newly remodeled kitchen area. For this reason the
applicants must bump the cooler area out of the building by 8 feet toward the east. The
applicants propose to paint the cooler to match the building. To help screen the cooler, lattice
and vines will be installed on the sides.
Deck: A 34-foot x 18.2-foot (620-square-foot) covered deck is proposed for the northwest side of
the building (toward Stillwater Street) (see the site plan on page 20). The deck will extend off of
the north side of the odginal building, maintaining the existing nonconforming setback of 15 feet
from the north residential property (50-foot setback required) and will come within 22 feet of the
Stillwater Road right-of-way. In order to obtain an emergency exit from the enclosed deck, the
applicants are proposing a 5-foot wide handicap accessible ramp to be installed on the north side
of the building. The handicap ramp will come within 10 feet of the residential property. Because
5-8 Club 2 August 22, 2001
the deck will not meet the required setbacks, a conditional use permit is required for the
construction of the deck.
Surrounding the deck on the west side will be a 5-foot-high privacy fence with 1 foot of lattice on
top and on the north side will be a screened windows which look onto the proposed perennial
garden. The entire deck will be covered with a decorative canopy similar to the Minneapolis 5-8
Club's deck (see Minneapolis 5-8 Club pictures on pages 30 and 31).
There was concern expressed at the planning commission meeting regarding the possible late-
night disturbance the deck might have on the north residential property. For this reason a
condition was added by the planning commission that the deck hours be limited from business
opening to 10 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and from business opening until 11 p.m. Friday
and Saturday. The applicants are agreeable to this condition.
ParkinR: The proposed paved parking lot expansion will come within 5 feet of the east and 10
feet of the north residential property line. The required setback for parking lots adjacent to
residential property is 20 feet; therefore variances are required for the expanded parking area.
The applicants state in their letter of justification (page 29) that it is impossible to meet the city
minimum requirement for parking stalls on this property unless such a vadance is granted. As it
exists and operates today, the property to the east of the restaurant functions as a gravel parking
lot without any setbacks. Additionally, in order to make improvements the property must be
commercially viable with adequate parking that will be obtained through this variance.
Beau's Food and Spirits currently has 23 paved parking stalls and overflow gravel parking on the
east side of the building. According to the city's parking ordinance, the restaurant as it exists
today should have a total of 45 parking stalls. With the proposed project, the 5-8 Club should
have 53 parking stalls.
The parking lot expansion will create an additional 23 parking stalls, for a total of 46. This is still 7
parking stalls less than the city's required 53. Since the expansion of the parking lot will make the
parking situation more conforming, no special parking authorization is required. Staff agrees with
the applicants that the 46 parking stalls proposed would be adequate since the ratio of parking
will increase and the proposed deck will only be used seasonally.
Concern was expressed by Commissioner Ledvina that the two most northerly parking stalls
would not have room to back up. He proposed a parking bump out along the north side of the
parking lot to accommodate the maneuvering room needed for cars parked in these two stalls.
The applicants agree with Commissioner Ledvina and have agreed to install the bump out. The
bump out is not shown on the submitted site plans, but is a condition of approval.
Screenin,q: As stated above, the city's ordinance requires a 20-foot landscape and screened
buffer from a parking area to a residential property line. The proposed parking lot expansion will
not meet the 20-foot requirement on the north and east sides. In order to ensure adequate
screening of the parking lot from the residential properties, the applicants are proposing a 6-foot
high cedar privacy fence to be constructed along the full length of the east and north property
line.
The property owner to the east at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue, Daniel Tacheny, has recently begun
the framing construction of a 5-foot-high stucco fence. This fence is being constructed
approximately 5 feet into Mr. Tacheny's property, extending from the rear of his detached garage
5-8 Club 3 August 22, 2001
to his rear preperty line. This fence was originally proposed by Mr. Tach,ny to screen Beau's
existing gravel parking area.
Upon notice of the 5-8 Club's proposal, Mr. Tacheny contacted the applicants and inquired about
them continuing this style of fence along the shared preperty line. The applicants point out that
Mr. Tacheny's fence is not constructed on the property line, that Mr. Tacheny's fence is only 5
feet high and will not offer the screening required. They are also proposing lighting on their
6-foot-high cedar fence. For these reasons, the applicants do not wish to extend off of
Mr. Tacheny's fence, but rather construct a fence on the preperty line.
Ddvewa¥ Entrance/Grading and Draina,qe: The city's engineering department determined that if
no grading was conducted on the existing parking area, the water runoff restrictions would only
be required for the new parking lot addition. For this reason, the 5-8 Club will maintain the
existing curb cut onto Minnehaha Avenue rather than their altemative curb cut farther to the east.
Upon review of the grading and drainage plan, the city's engineering department approved the
plan conceptually stating that it looks feasible, but no official approval can be accomplished until
calculations are received (see the plan on page 20).
Dumpster Enclosure: A dumpster enclosure is proposed along the east side of the building, just
south of the new walk-in cooler bump out. The enclosure will be constructed of cedar fencing to
match the screening fence with a closable gate.
Landscapin,q: There are three mature maple trees located on the site currently. With the
proposed parking lot and retention pond grading, it appears that two of the trees could be saved
(the large silver maple 10 feet south of the building and the small sugar maple located on the
southeast comer of the lot). The applicants are receptive to attempting to save these two trees.
However, the large silver maple might be unhealthy and unsafe and may need to be removed.
Staff recommends a condition of approval be that the applicants attempt to save these two trees
with the grading of the preperty.
In addition to attempting to save the existing trees, the applicants, in their preliminary landscape
plan, show 12 maple trees, 68 shrubs, and a perennial garden to the north of the deck. Because
the existing parking area is constructed right up to the right-of-way lines of both Stillwater Road
and Minnehaha Avenue and the expanded parking area will be constructed 5 feet from the east
preperty line, there is limited green space in which to install this landscaping. The proposed
landscape plan (see the plan on page 23) shows much of the landscaping to be installed within
the Stillwater Road and Minnehaha Avenue fights-of-way.
Stillwater Road is a state highway and Minnehaha Avenue is a county read. Any landscaping
within these rights-of-way will require a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) and approval from Ramsey County. Both entities have seen the proposed landscape
plan and have expressed a willingness to work with the applicant on allowing landscaping with
their rights-of-way. However, there was concem expressed about the trees proposed along the
Minnehaha right-turn lane. Altemative plantings may be required to ensure visibility in this area.
Staff commends the applicants on their landscape plan and feels that the proposed landscaping
will add aesthetic appeal to a currently blighted corner. The applicants should submit a final
landscape plan to the city for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. This plan should
show the perennial garden area to the north of the deck, any saved trees, and any alterations to
the plan requested by city, state, or county.
5-$ Club 4 August 22, 2001
Li~htin.cl: One of the most difficul,' aspects to deal with when commercial property abuts
residential property is the lighting. A strong concern of the neighbors is that there are no high,
over-illuminated lights installed in the expanded parking area. A strong concern of the police
department and the applicants is that there is adequate parking lot lighting for security.
Currently the building is equipped with three rooftop lights that shine onto the existing west and
south parking areas. These lights are not facing residential property and have not proven to be
an issue for the neighbors in the past. In addition to retaining these lights, the applicants propose
seven wall lights to be installed around the building and four fence post lights to be installed on
the new screening fence on the east property line. The fence post lights will be installed flush up
against the posts at approximately 5 feet in height (see lighting detail on pages 25 and 26). This
lighting design will ensure adequate security for the restaurant while shielding the light from the
neighbors.
COMMITTEE ACTION
On August 20, 2001, the planning commission reviewed the proposal. Due to some concerns
that one of the planning commissioners had regarding the placement of the deck, the land use
requests were divided into two motions. First being the request for a CUP to expand a
nonconforming structure (deck addition). Second being the comprehensive land use and zoning
change, conditional use permit for a restaurant within the BC(M) zoning district, and the parking
lot setback variance. The planning commissioners recommended approval of the CUP to expand
a nonconforming structure by a vote of 6 to 1 and recommended approval of the comprehensive
land use and zoning change, CUP for the restaurant, and the variance by a vote of 7 to 0.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt the Land Use Plan change resolution on page 36. This resolution changes the
Land Use Plan from single dwelling residential (R-l) to business commercial (modified)
(BC(M)) for the proposed 5-8 Club and adjacent proposed parking lot on 2289 and 2299
Minnehaha Avenue. The city is making this change because:
Expansion of the parking area will supply adequate off-street parking and loading
facilities for the site.
Expansion of the restaurant/bar has been designed in the best manner to avoid
disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas including placing the new deck in
the front of the building as opposed to the rear, installing a 6-foot high privacy
fence along all shared residential property lines, and locating the dumpster along
the building wall which is away from the residential property lines.
Expansion and remodeling of the restaurant/bar improves upon the existing
structure, creating a neighborhood restaurant which is compatible with surrounding
residential uses.
Adopt
single
Expansion and remodeling of the restaurant/bar includes adequate screening from
adjacent existing residential properties with a 6-foot-high privacy fence.
the rezoning resolution on page 37. This resolution changes the zoning map from
dwelling residential (R-l) to business commercial (modified) (BC(M)) for the
5-8 Club 5 August 22, 2001
proposed 5-8 Club and adjacent parking lot on 2289 and 2299 Minnehaha Avenue. The
city is making this change because:
The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning
code.
bo
The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of
neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use
of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is
adequately safeguarded.
Co
The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the
community, where applicable, and the public welfare.
The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient,
and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water,
sewers, police and fire protection and schools.
e. The proposed change will reflect the existing land use on the property.
f. The proposed change is supported by a majority of the neighbors surveyed.
Adopt the conditional use permit resolUtion on page 38. This resolution approves two
conditional use permits for the 5-8 Club at 2289 and 2299 Minnehaha Avenue including:
ao
A conditional use permit to allow a restaurant within the business commercial
(modified) (B-C(M)) zoning district; and
A conditional use permit for the expansion of a nonconforming structure (deck
addition) (50-foot setback from residential property required, 10-foot setback
proposed; and 30-foot front yard setback required; 22-foot setback proposed);
Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following
conditions:
All construction of the 5-8 Club shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The
director of community development may approve minor changes.
bo
The proposed restaurant/bar remodeling must be substantially started within one
year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may
extend this deadline for one year.
c. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The use of the deck is limited to the following hours: Sunday through Thursday -
opening of business until 10 p.m.; Friday and Saturday- opening of business until
11 p.m.
5-8 Club 6 August 22, 2001
Adopt the vadance resolution on page 40. This resolution approves a parking lot setback
variance (20-foot setback required, 5-foot setback proposed). Approval is based on the
following findings:
Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The
20-foot-wide buffer requirement would not allow the creation of a sufficient number
of parking spaces for the facility.
bo
The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since
the applicant is providing adequate screening and buffering to protect the adjacent
homeowners.
Approval is subject to the applicant providing a 6-foot high screening fence as proposed.
Approve the plans date stamped June 13, 2001, for the 5-8 Club. The city is approving
these plans based on the findings required by the code. The applicant, Food Services,
Inc., shall do the following:
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
bo
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the parking lot expansion, the city engineer
must approve a final grading and drainage plan. This plan shall include: water
retention calculations and the location of all existing trees on the site to be
preserved and the means of protecting the trees.
Pdor to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must supply the city with the
following:
(1)
A revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the
following details:
(a)
Obtain approval from the Minnesota Department of Transportation
and Ramsey County to install landscaping within the Stillwater
Road and Minnehaha Avenue rights-of-way. Any required
landscape revisions in these areas must also be approved by the
city.
(b) Location of all existing trees on the site to be preserved.
(c) Perennial garden details to be located on the north side of the deck.
(d) An underground lawn irrigation system.
(e)
In addition to the above, all common grounds shall be sodded
(except for mulched and edged planting beds).
(2)
A revised site plan showing a parking bump out on the north side of the
parking lot to accommodate backing up vehicles parked in the two most
northerly parking stalls.
5-8 Club 7 August 22, 2001
do
fo
(3) Trash enclosure details to include at least a 6-foot-high cedar fence
enclosure with a cedar enclosable gate or at least a 6-foot-high stucco wall
enclosure with a cedar enclosable gate.
(4) Elevations and footing details of the proposed 6-foot-high cedar fence.
(5) Final exterior walk-in cooler elevations to show the cooler painted to match
existing building, lattice runs, with vine plantings.
Pdor to certificate of occupancy the applicant must:
(1) Complete all required exterior improvements including landscaping and
underground irrigation, parking lot, screening fence, exterior lighting.
(2) Install stop signs at both driveway exits.
If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
(1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
(2) The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the
required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the
unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1
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.
(3) The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any
unfinished work.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
5-8 Club 8 August 22, 2001
CITIZEN COMMENTS
I surveyed the owners of the 28 properties within 350 feet of this site. Of the 11 replies, 10 were
generally in favor of the proposal with minor concerns regarding the development itself and 1 was
opposed:
In Favor
Daniel and Mary Tacheny, 2303 Minnehaha Avenue (Neighbors to the East): UMove the
trash bin over behind the restaurant. Keep the parking lot lighting down so as to not light
up my property."
Roger and Richard Vanderhoff, 2300 Stillwater Road (Neighbors to the North): "1 lived
here over 26 years. I never had any problems with the place next door. I welcome the
Food Service d/b/a 5-8 Club as new owners. I may ask for a privacy fence by the new
deck they plan to put up. Otherwise my brother (Rich) has no objections whatsoever."
Kathryn Sorenson, 2302 Stillwater Road (Neighbor to the Northeast): "1 have never had
any problems with the restaurantJbar, they have been faidy good neighbors. I do have
some issues with your plans and they are as follows: a) The garbage area is not
acceptable where you show it. Should be over by the building. Do not want the smell,
noise from pick up, or possible animals; b) An eight foot nice looking and well maintained
privacy fence with some type of bushes or shrubs to block/absorb the noise from cars and
people; c) Lighting not above the fence line. Do not plan to have bright lights shining in
my windows; d) Am not sure how the lot will be graded but would assume that there will
be no problem with water collecting in the comers of our yards. That lot slopes down to
my yard and the neighbors."
Sarracks Drive In Liquors, 2305 Stillwater Road: "Anything would be an improvement to
what is currently there. Parking lot is relatively small for a restaurant. Beau's Food and
Spirits has done business as a restaurant/bar for 30+ years. Therefore, it seems to
reason that it has all the ability to continue doing so under new ownership.'
Gin Foon Mark, 2259 Minnehaha Avenue: "We feel that this restaurant is a great
improvement to the area. The neighborhood needs more family dining. Our only concern
is that their overflow parking might try parking in our lot. Also, with late night drinks, as
you know we live here."
Eugene and Shirley Beaulieu, Beau's Food and Spirits, 2289 Minnehaha Avenue: "We
think it would be a big plus for the neighborhood and the City of Maplewood. We agree
with the proposal to approve the project for remodeling, expansion, and rezoning. Uplift to
the establishment would benefit the neighborhood and business. We hope planning
committee and city council will strongly pass the request by Food Services, Inc."
Kenneth Mosner, 758 McKnight Road N: "1 think the remodeling efforts should go forward
as long as the neighbors' concerns (the neighbors who live next door to the restaurant)
are addressed. This area needs to be kept up, as it is an entryway to Maplewood."
Marie Robinson, off-premises owner of 2315 Minnehaha Avenue: "No objection -
encourage improvements."
5-8 Club 9 Aug .ust 22, 2001
9. Malcom Boege, 756 McKnight Road: "We need a good restaurant on this side of town."
10.
Martin Connolly, 2257 Minnehaha Avenue: "1 believe this would be an excellent project
and excellent for the neighborhood. I hope it moves forward."
Opposed
Minnehaha Partner Limited Partnership, 1660 Highway 100, Suite 135, Minneapolis
(owners of the 2-M apartments located on the southwest comer of McKnight Road and
Minnehaha Avenue): "We are opposed to the plan due to concerns about increased
traffic, increased amount of intoxicated patrons walking/driving around the area, and
having a commercial structure so close to existing housing."
5-8 Club 10 August 22, 2001
- REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size:
Existing Land Use:
25,946 square feet (0.6 acres)
Restaurant/Bar
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North and East:
South:
West:
Single-Family Homes (Zoned R-l)
Wells Fargo Bank and 3-M (Zoned M-l)
Multi-Tenant Building: Martial Arts and Floral Business (Zoned BC)
PLANNING
Existing Land
Use Plan:
Existing Zoning:
Single-Dwelling Residential (R-l)
Single-Dwelling Residential (R-l)
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
Land Use Plan Amendment: There are no specific criteria for land use plan changes.
Any change, however, should be consistent with the goals and policies in the
Comprehensive Plan. Two specific goals apply to this proposal:
Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase
jobs and provide desirable services.
Maintain and upgrade environmental quality and, where needed, reclassify land
uses.
In addition, four specific commercial policies apply to this proposal:
Require adequate off-street parking and loading facilities.
Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas.
Require commercial developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure
compatibility with surrounding residential uses.
Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas
from any adjacent existing or planned residential development.
Rezoning: Section 36-485 of the Zoning Code requires that the city council make the
following findings to rezone property:
ao
Co
The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the Zoning
Code;
The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of
neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use
of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is
adequately safeguarded;
The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the
community, where applicable, and the public welfare;
5-8 Club 11 August 22, 2001
do
The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient,
and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water,
sewers, police and fire protection and schools.
Application Date
We received the complete applications and plans for this proposal on July 13, 2001. State law
requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use
proposal. In order to accommodate scheduling to ensure that the applicant's representatives
could be present at the final city council hearing, the applicant's representative has submitted
written authorization to the city requesting the land use proposal be extended an additional 13
days past the required 60-day limit. As such, city action is required on this proposal by
September 24, 2001.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
11.
16.
18.
20.
Location Map
Existing Land Use Map
Proposed Land Use Map
Property Line/Zoning Map
Proposed Zoning Map
Surrounding Address Map
Surrounding Structures
Site Plan
Building Elevations
Landscape Plan
Building Footprint
Fence Post Light Detail
5-8 Club Menu
5-8 Club Letter of Justification
Pictures of Minneapolis 5-8 Club
Pictures of Beau's Food and Spirits
Land Use Map Change Resolution
Rezoning Resolution
Conditional Use Permit Resolution
Variance Resolution
5-8 Club 12 August 22, 2001
ATTACHMENT 1
Trailer
Court
8~'VERDALE
~:)BCAT L,N
MA~NOLI~ .~
ST.
BRAND
MINNEHAHA AVl.
Lake
' .,.., MAY[R LN. I
LOCATION MAP ~
ATTACHMENT 2
REVISED 10/19/94
~ !" R-3(M
Ivy Ave.
R-$(M)
~fand Ave.
,Stillwater Rd.
Harvester Ave.
Be,
CEM
~linnehaha Ave.
OS
M-1
M-2
E
',erchange
I-g4
EXISTING LAND USE MAP
14
ATTACHMENT 3
REVISED 10/19/94
R.3(H
Ivy Ave.
R-~(H)
land Ave.
;tillwater Rd.
:Harvester Ave.
CEM
nnehaha Ave.
LBC
M-1
M-2
,terchange
Ave,
lerchange
1-94
PROPOSED. _ LAND USE MAP 1 [~
15
I
9
I
ATTACHMENT 4
4ZG4]'
BUSH
16
9
ATTACHMENT
BUSH
25
!
r~
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
17
?
EDITH ST
EVAR ST
ATTACHMENT
6
OAKDALE
MEYER ST
SURROUNDING ADDRESS
MAP
18
ATTACHMENT 7
d 'Spirits
Minnehaha Avenue
Surrounding Structures
19
Z
Z
ITl
3-
q~
ATTACHMENT 8
SITE PLAN
ATTACHMENT 9
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
~r
11
It
II
II
II
Ii
II
· '"': :" ~ih~li!
il.: ~ it
! ll,,lli: ',Ill-:' I
111: :"
;i
i
ATTACHMENT 10
I I
CLUB ,-.._..-......-,.-._-
~'oo"E, ~' ="-""--" "-"-"'=
23 ..... ,,.,,,..,...,..__. LANDSCAPE PLAN
ATTACHMENT 11
5 8 CLUI~
_~'z.:..-.'- ,,....-,..--- :-, BUILDING FOOTPRINT
24 ..... J
ATTACHMENT 12
FENCE POST LIGHT DETAIL
Flush Back Box Mounting
Flush Back Box Mounting
A I 01 (A,R) (G,P) 20gF (E,H) 2-gW TT ~
A I 01 (A,~) (G,P) I 4 40W T4' ~
Al01 (A,2) G I E 7$WAIg ~
In-wall HID Back Box Mounting
Flush Back Box Mounting
A 13 I (A,B) G I
Extended HID Back Box Mounting
2-13W TT Jll}l
40W T~.~' ' ' ~
75W Al9 ~
A 13 ~. (A,a) (A,G,P) 70S (E,H,~() 70W lIPS
A 13:2. (A,B) (A,G,P) 701.1 (E,FI~,I¢) 70W 141-1
71
Flush Back Box Mounting
A 171 (A,~) (A,G.P) ~.7-e,F (E,H) 2-2aW DTT.'f
A 171 (A,R) (A,G,P) 27-8F (E,H) 2-28W DIT[
71 (A.i~) (G,P) ! 4 50W T4~
AITI G I E 100W AIg '
Extended HID Back Box Mounting
A 172 (A,S) (A,G,P) 70S (E,it,l() 70W liPS ~
A 177. (A,~3) (A,G.P) 70H (E.H,I() __ _70.~i,~ --
A 177. (A,8) (G,P) 100S (E.H,I() 100W HP$ J--
· .~ 7:z (,~,~) ~,,p) ~ 00H (E,tt,K) ~ 00W'~H --
All fixtures UL I CUL listed. * NOT&T4 Mini-Con lamps have El I screw shell base.
Important: Consult factory for lamping options
for ceiling mount applications.
SampieCatulogNo:{ATI AG ISF Ht
[ ~ee pages I 0-11 for photometrics and lamp performance data. ]
26
ATTACHMENT 13
"27
5-8 cLUB MENU
ATTACHMENT 1"
Property: 2289 Minnehaha Ave.
Applicant: James W. Emison or his designee!
Contact: Jill Skogheim
Phone: 952-828-7002
The property at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue cannot be used as a restaurant without a
variance for the parking setback requirement that there be a twenty (20) foot setback where a
"nonresidential use abuts a residentially-zoned property." It is impossible to meet the city
minimum requirement for parking stalls required at a restaurant site unless such a variance is
granted. As it exists and operates today, the property functions as a gravel parking lot without
any setbacks. Additionally, in order to make improvements the property must be commercially
viable. The site is only viable with the proper parking obtained through this variance. Though
the property has been a restaurant for thirty plus years, proper zoning was never obtained.
Furthermore, without the variance the property remains unviable for any sort of commercial
intent. If a variance is not granted, the property will never be improved and upgraded and instead
will continue to be a bar with a trash filled gravel lot. Due to these factors, a variance is a
necessity.
The property at 2289 Minnehaha faces unique circumstances as it includes both property
zoned as business commercial and as residential. The property clearly is intended for
commercial use, given the structure of the intersection and the existing commercial businesses
which compose the area. According to city records the site has been devoted to a restaurant since
1963. Moreover, it is an anomaly that during this period no one sought the proper permits
necessary to operate a commercial business within the city code. Yet these circumstances exist
and the area presently functions as a parking lot. In order to update the property and run a
feasible restaurant, a variance is required.
Lastly, this zoning change will enhance, not detract, from the use of the neighboring
property as currently the gravel lot contains many weeds and waste. Pavement of the lot will
allow for better property maintenance. The end result of our improvements will add to the
character of the neighborhood. By restoring and remodeling the existing property, we expect that
property values in the area will only increase. The renewal of food service and a shift to serving
neighborhood families will also benefit the area's image.
As seen in the attached site plan, we intend to uphold the landscaping, screening, and
number of stalls required in the parking ordinance. In keeping with the ongoing use of the
property as a restaurant, the proposed variance keeps with the spirit and intent of all city
ordinances.
29
5-8 CLUB LETTER OF
JUSTIFICATION
ATTACHMENT 1
1128 Harmon Place, Suite 308, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403, 612-332-8000, FAX 332-7504
3O
1128 Harmon Place, Suite 308, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403, 612-332-8000, FAX 332-7504
~N
ATTACHMENT
1128 Harmon Place, Suite 308, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403, 612-332-8000, FAX 332-7504
1128 Harmon Place, Suite 308, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403, 612-332-8000, FAX 332-7504
1128 Harmon Place, Suite 308, IVlinneapolis, Minnesota 55403, 612-332-8000, FAX 332-7504
a4
1128 Harmon Place, Suite 308, Minneapolis, lvlinneso
$§
ATTACHMENT 17
LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Food Services, Inc., d/b/a 5-8 Club, made application to the City of Maplewood for a
change to the city's land use plan from single dwelling residential to business commercial (modified)
(BC(M)) for the remodeling and expansion of an existing restaurant located at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue.
WHEREAS, this change applies to 2289 and 2299 Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
On August 20, 2001, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a
hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners.
The planning commission conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a
chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that
the city council approve the plan amendments.
On ,2001, the city council discussed the land use plan changes. 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 land
use plan change for the following reasons:
1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for commercial use. This includes:
do
Require adequate off-street parking and loading facilities.
Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas.
Require commercial developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure
compatibility with surrounding residential uses.
Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any
adjacent existing or planned residential development.
2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because:
Co
Expansion of the parking area will supply adequate off-street parking and loading
facilities for the site.
Expansion of the restaurant/bar has been designed in the best manner to avoid
disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas including placing the new deck in the
front of the building as opposed to the rear, installing a 6-foot high privacy fence along all
shared residential property lines, and locating the dumpster along the building wall which
is away from the residential property lines.
Expansion and remodeling of the restaurant/bar improves upon the existing structure,
creating a neighborhood restaurant which is compatible with surrounding residential
uses°
Expansion and remodeling of the restaurant/bar includes adequate screening from
adjacent existing residential properties with a 6-foot high privacy fence.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,2001.
36
ATTACHMENT 18
ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Food Services, Inc., dlb/a 5-8 Club has proposed the following change to the City of
Maplewood's zoning map: single dwelling residential (R-I) to business commemial (modified) (BC(M)).
WHEREAS, this change applies to 2289 and 2299 Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota.
follows:
WHEREAS, the legal description of these properties are:
Minnehaha Suburb Heights: Subject to the highway, the E 60' of Lot 13, the S 148.5' of Lot 14,
and the S % of Lot 15.
WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Numbers for these properties are as
25-29-22-33-0066 and 25-29-22-33-0028, respectively.
change
1.
2.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
On August 20, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the
rezoning change.
On ,2001, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in
the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council
conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and
present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from
the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
in the zoning map for the following reasons:
The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code.
The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property
or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area
included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where
applicable, and the public welfare.
The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical
extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection
and schools.
5. The proposed change will reflect the existing land use on the property.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001.
37
ATTACHMENT 19
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Food Services, Inc., d/b/a 5-8 Club applied for two conditional use permits including:
1. Expansion of a nonconforming building; and
2. Operate a restaurant within the business commercial (modified) (BC(M)) zoning district.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to property Jocated at 2289 and 2299 Minnehaha Avenue,
Maplewood, Minnesota. The legal description is:
Minnehaha Suburb Heights: Subject to the highway, the E 60' of Lot 13, the S 148.5' of Lot 14,
and the $ ½ of Lot 15.
WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Numbers for these properties are as
follows: 25-29-22-33-0066 and 25-29-22-33-0028, respectively.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
I On August 20, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the
conditional use permits.
2. On ,2001, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in
the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council
conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and
present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from
the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described
conditional use permits based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because:
1. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
2. The use would not depreciate property values.
3. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation
that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person
or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
7. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
38
Approval of the two conditional use permits is subject to the following conditions:
All construction of the 5-8 Club shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The
director of community development may approve minor changes.
The proposed restaurant/bar remodeling must be substantially started within one year of
council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this
deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The use of the deck is limited to the following hours: Sunday through Thursday -
opening of business until 10 p.m.; Fdday and Saturday- opening of business until
11 p.m.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,2001.
39
ATTACHMENT 20
VARIANCE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Food Services, Inc., d/b/a 5-8 Club, applied for a variance from the zoning
ordinance.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to 2289 and 2299 Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota.
The legal description is:
Minnehaha Suburb Heights: Subject to the highway, the E 60' of Lot 13, the S 148.5' of Lot 14,
and the S % of Lot 15.
WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Numbers for these properties are as
follows: 25-29-22-33-0066 and 25-29-22-33-0028, respectively.
WHEREAS, Section 36-26(a) of the zoning code requires a 20-foot-wide landscaped and
screened buffer when a commercial property abuts a residential property.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 5-foot-wide buffer between commercial and residential
property.
WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 15 feet.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1
2.
On August 20, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the
conditional use permits.
On ,2001, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in
the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council
conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and
present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from
the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
variance for the following reasons:
Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to
the property and not created by the property owner. The 20-foot-wide buffer requirement would
not allow the creation of a sufficient number of parking spaces for the facility.
The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant is
providing adequate screening and buffering to protect the adjacent homeowners.
Approval is subject to the applicant providing a 6-foot high screening fence as proposed.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
4O
,2001.
TO:
FROM:
APPLIGANT:
SUBJEGT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Shann Finwall, Associate Planner
Semper Development, Ltd.
Walgreens
1706 White Bear Avenue (Old Burger King Site)
August 22, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Semper Development is proposing to develop a Walgreens at the old Burger King site at 1706
White Bear Avenue. The proposal includes demolishing the existing approximately 4,600
square-foot building and constructing a 15,035 square-foot drugstore with a drive-through
pharmacy. The building will include a comer entry with stucco finish and glass box tower with
the remaining elevations constructed of face brick. This design is Walgreens' standard building
design as seen constructed in several other cities within the metropolitan area (most recently at
1965 Donegal Drive in Woodbury and 1401 Maryland Avenue East in St. Paul).
Requests
The applicant is requesting:
1. A 3-foot side yard setback variance for the parking lot (5-foot setback required - 2-foot
setback proposed).
2. Special parking agreement for reduced parking (75 parking stalls required - 64 parking stalls
proposed).
3. Design approval of site, landscape, and architectural plans.
BACKGROUND
In October 2000, the city council formally adopted the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study
(Attachment 10). This was a joint study with the City of Maplewood, City of St. Paul, and the
White Bear Avenue Business Association. The consultant team of Close Landscape Architects
created a conceptual redevelopment approach for the White Bear Avenue Corridor. In general,
the study calls for land use changes within the corridor to establish an inviting and safe
pedestrian realm by creating a less auto-dominated physical environment.
On July 9, 2001, the city council formally supported the concept design for the Hillcrest Village
redevelopment area (Attachment 9). Hillcrest Village is part of the Metropolitan Council's smart
growth initiative to create livable neighborhoods where homes, jobs, and services are linked by
walkable streets. The concept design was developed by the design firm of Calthorpe Associates
from smart growth workshops held by the Metropolitan Council for the Hillcrest shopping center
and contiguous commercial property in Maplewood (Hillcrest Village).
The site of the proposed Walgreens drugstore is in both the Hillcrest Village and White Bear
Avenue Corridor. Therefore, any proposed development should follow the design standards as
specified in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment concept and the White Bear Avenue Corddor
Study.
DISCUSSION
Compatibility to the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area
Calthorpe Associates have had an opportunity to review the Walgreens proposal as it relates to
design standards set forth in the smart growth initiatives (Attachment 11). In general, they feel
that the two most important changes would be to move the building up to the street and reduce
the number of parking stalls. They feel that these changes would allow a much more attractive,
environmentally sustainable, and pedestrian-friendly site design.
Calthorpe Associates further stress that there is ample precedent for modern drugstores that
maintain a pedestrian orientation while continuing to provide convenient auto access. Examples
of other Walgreens drugstores constructed with this design theme are seen in Chicago, Illinois;
Evanston, Illinois, Northfield, Illinois, and Madison, Wisconsin. In many cases the buildings were
constructed right on the street line, not set back from it, with human-scaled architectural
elements such as pillars, arcades, awnings and shop windows. They state that such precedent
demonstrates that where there is a strong consumer market for their goods, corporate entities
such as Walgreens should strive toward a more distinguishable design objective.
Building Setback
Within the business commercial zoning district, the required front yard setback is 30 feet. The
proposal to bring Walgreens' building up to the right-of-way would not meet this requirement.
City code requires a variance for a building constructed within a required setback. Another
alternative to a variance is to review the proposal as a planned unit development (PUD). The
concept of a PUD is to produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would
result from stdct adherence to the provisions of the code.
The city council has formally supported the concept design of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment
area, which includes buildings constructed up to or near the right-of-way. For this reason, staff
believes that the city council would be receptive to approving a front yard setback less than the
required 30 feet in order to create a more pedestrian-friendly development as outlined in the
Hillcrest Village redevelopment area.
As the Hillcrest Village smart growth initiative further develops, the city will need to address the
· more strict front yard setback and parking requirements within this area by possibly requiring
PUDs for all new construction or creating a new zoning overlay district with special design
standards for the area. In the meantime, the variance or PUD processes are the only means to
allow a building within the required setback. Allowing Walgreens' store to be constructed up to
the right-of-way will meet the standards required for a PUD as specified in the code. In
particular, the use would not change the planned character of the surrounding area.
Walgreens 2 August 22, 2001
Deed Restriction
One issue regarding the Walgreens building to be constructed to the right-of-way is a deed
recorded on the old Burger King property in 1959. The deed states that no building shall be
located nearer than 125 feet from the east right-of-way line of White Bear Avenue. It further
states that this restriction will be in effect for 50 years (2009).
Walgreens' proposed building would come within 127 feet of the right-of-way line. Walgreens
claims that this deed restricts them from building their drugstore any closer to the street than
proposed. The city's attorneys have had an opportunity to research the property records and
have rendered an opinion on the validity of the deed. They state that according to Minnesota
Statute and Minnesota law, all covenants, conditions, and restrictions created on or after
April 27, 1937, which are more than 30 years old at the time of examination may be disregarded
unless they fall within exceptions as specified in the law. It is their opinion the setback restriction
does not fall within the allowable exceptions and believe that the setback restriction is no longer
valid as it was only valid until 1989. The Ramsey County Title Examiner has confirmed this
opinion.
John Kohler of Semper Development has indicated that Walgreens is researching the city
attorneys' claims, but at present it is Walgreens' belief that the deed is still valid. Regardless of
the deed, Walgreens is not receptive to altering their site plan to conform to the Hillcrest Village
concepts. Walgreens believes that the area is not ~urban enough" to support a pedestrian-
oriented store and insists that the front parking is necessary to sustain a viable business in this
location.
Special Authorization for Reduced Parking
Walgreens' proposal shows 64 parking stalls; city code requires 75. Therefore, Walgreens is
asking for special authorization for reduced parking. They state in their parking reduction
statement (Attachment 12) that 64 stalls will be sufficient for this size of drugstore and will meet
Walgreens' needs. They support their claim with traffic data from a Walgreens drugstore of the
same size currently in operation at Rice Street and County Road C. Their data indicates that the
largest number of cars in this parking lot at any one time is 44.
Maplewood has approved parking reductions for some retailers (e.g. Slumberland and Auto
Zone). The city council has supported this concept based on the merits of each project. The
applicant's traffic data, furthermore, supports Maplewood's desire to not "pave over" and
Calthorpe Associates' suggestion for fewer parking stalls.
The community design review board and the city council should not take action on this request,
however, unless they accept the applicant's proposal. If they do not approve the Walgreens
plans as proposed, the plans would have to be revised and the issue of a parking reduction
revisited based on the revised drawings.
Parking Lot Setback Variance
A 3-foot side yard setback vadance is required for the parking lot that is proposed to come within
2 feet of the south property line. Walgreens stated that the variance is needed in order to have
enough space for a drive-through pharmacy operation.
Walgreens 3 August 22, 2001
Staff believes that designing the pharmacy with only one drive-through lane instead of two or
reducing the number of parking stalls, or arrangement of parking stalls, could all alleviate the
need for the variance. Calthorpe Associates' plan for a more pedestrian-friendly Walgreens
(Attachment 11) shows the number of parking stalls reduced to 53, with two drive-through
pharmacy lanes, while meeting the required 5-foot side yard setback.
Staff does not see any basis for granting a parking setback variance. Special consideration
should be considered, however, if the applicant was to redesign the site to fit the Hillcrest Village
redevelopment objectives.
Building and Site Design
The building and site proposed lacks the human scale required to achieve the Hillcrest Village
concepts. For example, the windows are deficient in their placement above eye level because
the pedestrians cannot experience them. The freestanding sign proposed would detract from
the pedestrian character desired, and in fact would not be needed if the building were built up to
the right-of-way. In addition, the proposed landscaping offers no more than decoration for the
proposed front parking area and it does nothing to add to the pedestrian environment.
Conclusion
The Hillcrest Village concept can only come to fruition with cooperation and effective
management from all disciplines involved, including the city, Metropolitan Council, and
developers. Walgreens is the first development proposed within the newly created smart growth
opportunity site and should be examined closely.
Staff feels that a Walgreens on this site would be an asset to the area, especially if the smart
growth initiatives are considered. Richard McLaughlin of HGA, Inc. (architectural firm working
with Calthorpe Associates on the Hillcrest Village concept) has indicated that if Walgreens took
a closer look at the local demographics, particularly age and daily needs, they may find that they
would benefit from the economic opportunities of accommodating such needs in a more
community-sensitive manner. They could become a proud contributor to an evolving, attractive
Hillcrest town canter. He further states that it seems highly unproductive and certainly
disheartening to have the first built piece of a smart growth opportunity site be a Walgreens
drugstore just like everyone else has.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Deny the following requests associated with Semper Development's proposal to develop a
Walgreens drugstore at 1706 White Bear Avenue: 1) 3-foot parking lot setback variance; 2)
special authorization for reduced parking; and 3) overall development plans as shown on the
plans date-stamped July 26, 2001. The city is denying these requests because:
The city council has endorsed and accepted the smart growth principles as illustrated in the
Hillcrest Village redevelopment concept plans. These plans were developed by Calthorpe
Associates from smart growth workshops held by the Metropolitan Council for the Hillcrest
Village. The proposed store is in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area.
Walgreens 4 August 22, 2001
The objectives of the Smart Growth redevelopment concept are to create developments that
encourage pedestrian-friendly and pedestrian-accessible projects, where the building is the
prominent feature when viewed from the street, not the parking lot.
Semper Development's proposal to develop a Walgreens store at 1706 White Bear Avenue
does not meet the above-mentioned smart growth principles for the following reasons:
ao
The proposed building location leads to an auto-oriented development in that it is
setback from the White Bear Avenue right-of-way with parking situated toward the front
of the store. This design does not reflect a pedestrian-friendly environment as
envisioned in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment concept with buildings constructed
closer to the street and parking situated toward the rear of the building.
The building elevations lack human-scale architectural elements such as pillars, arcades,
awnings, and shop windows at eye-level. This design does not reflect the pedestrian-
oriented town canter concept envisioned in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area.
The landscape plan shows scattered landscape areas in an attempt to decorate the
parking lot. This design does not contribute to the natural environment and to the
community's sense of place as envisioned in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area
with features such as street trees with grates and landscaped plaza with seating and
bicycle storage.
d. The signage proposed includes a 25-foot-high freestanding sign. This design detracts
from the pedestrian character envisioned in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area.
e. There are no unique hardships or circumstances that warrant approving the proposed 3-
foot parking lot setback variance.
Walgreens 5 August 22, 2001
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size: 62,934 square feet (1.4 acres)
Existing Land Use'. Vacant Burger King Building
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Blockbuster (Zoned BC)
South: Multi-Tenant Stdp Mall - Laundromat, bar, and bagel store (Zoned BC)
West: Single Family Homes (Zoned R-l)
East: Maplewood Car Wash (Zoned BC)
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: BC (Business Commercial)
Zoning: BC
Code Requirements
Section 36-22(a)(6) requires that a commercial use have 1 parking space for each 200 square
feet of floor area.
Section 36-22(b)(5) requires that parking spaces for "high customer turnover" use be 10 feet
wide by 18 feet deep. The code requires that retail space supply high customer turnover
spaces.
Section 36-28(c)(5)(b) requires that parking lots maintain a 5-foot side yard setback.
Criteria for Variance Approval
State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from
the zoning code:
1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
property under consideration.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
"Undue hardship" as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be
put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of
the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and
the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic
considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property
exists under the terms of the ordinance.
Walgreens 6 August 22, 2001
Application Date
The city received completed applications on July 26, 2001. State law requires that the city take
action within 60 days of receiving completed land use applications. City council action is
required on this proposal by September 24, 2001.
p:sec14\walgreens
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Existing Conditions
4. Site Plan
5. Grading and Drainage
6. Lighting Plan
7. Landscape Plan
8. Exterior Elevations
9. Hillcrest Village Concept (Alternatives A and B)
10. White Bear Avenue Corridor Study
11. Calthorpe Associates' Review of Walgreens
12. Walgreens' Variance and Parking Reduction Statement
13. Plans date-stamped July 6, 2001 (Separate Attachment)
- Walgreens 7 August 22, 2001
ATTACHMENT 1
~ ~., Junior Achievemen~
Larpenteur Avenue
\
-1 Walgreens' Site
706 White Bear Ave.
W algreens' Location Map
ATTACHMENT 2
'i
.23_7~.~-------------'---'
--.~ ii~I~I~I~I~I'I
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP
9
ATTACHMENT 3
WHITE BEAR AVENUE
/
?/
EXISTING CONDI'I'ION$
10
ATTACHMENT 4
Iii
SITE P~N
12
ATTACHMENT 6
-, -~ -4 '~ '? '~~~-'~
LIGHTING P~N
13
ATTACHMENT 7
14
15
ATTACHMENT 8 --
>.
WALGREENS
WHITE BEAR AVENUE AT LAi~ENTEUR
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
16
HILLCREST VILLAGE
CONCEPT
B
ATTACHMENT 9
HILLCREST VILLAGE
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE A
Smart Growth Twin Cities
MAY 24, 2001
Metropolitan Council
City of Maplewood
Calthorpe Associates
LEGEND
............................. -['-' ~J'~l~'¢
Mews Townhouse 16
Office/Ret(ail 14,950 55
Apts/Retail 32 16,900 56
Commercial/Retail 10,000 52
1 Level Townhouse 10
Commercial/Retail 13,800 56
Senior Parking
Commercial/Retail 11,000 56
Townhouse 6
Retail 4,200 21
Twinhouse 4
Commercial/Retail 21,775 93
Commercial/Retail 20,450 78
Townhouse 16
Transit Stop
Apts/Retail 50 26,900
Office/Retail 24,000 122
Commercial/Retail 8,150
Townhouse 45
Green
TOTAL 179 172,125 589
t
I,owf
A'I-I'ACHMENT g
LEGEND
HILLCREST VILLAGE
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE B
Smart Growth T~vin Cities
MAY 24, 20(I 1
Metropolitan Council
City of Maplewood
City of Saint Paul
HILLGREST VILLAGE
SMART GROWTH PLAN
A Office/Retail
B Commercial/Retail
C Commercial/Retail
D Commercial/Retail
E Commercial/Retail
F Townhouse
G Commercial/Retail
H Commercial/Retail
I Apartments
J Twinhouse
K Commerciol/Retail
L Apartments
M Transit Stop
N Ne~ghborhoocl Square
0 Office/Retail
P Parking Ramp
.~ Q Apts/Retail 14
· ~ R Apartments 46
............. ' ......' ....... S Apartments 70
Calthorpe Associates T Apartments 46
U Grocery
11,375 72
14,300 100
19,500 112
20,000 98
10,000 56
6
4,200 21
19,800 90
46
4
26,250 144
22
TOTAL 254
41,600
182
8,000
36,000 240
32,000 48
243,025 1,163
18
Introduction
ATTACHMENT 10
Process and Approach
This conceptual plOnfiing Process was funded through the White Bear Avenue
Business Association (WBABA), with additional funds from the City of Maplewood.
At the core of this process was a volunteer steering committee representing the
business association, residents, the City of Maplewood planning staff, the city of
St. Paul planning staff (representing the small area plan task force), with assistance
from the Ramsey County traffic engineers. The committee joined with the consultant
team in meetings and workshops to review and contribute to all phases of the work.
To include the broader co. mmunity into the process, two neighborhood open houses
were held, one at the early stages of the process and one near the end. The first
open house was held to gain an understanding of the biggest issues facing the
people who live and work along the corridor, providing an opportunity for those
people to shape the direction of the emerging project. The second open house
presented more refined concepts and gave community members another chance
to respond to design proposals.
The consultant team then consolidated the ideas and feedback into a conceptual
approach for the White Bear Avenue corridor.
white bear avenue study
2
WHITE BEAR AVENUE
CORRIDOR STUDY-
INTRODUCTION, GOALS, ANE
-- .......PRINCIPLES
Goals and Principles
The White Bear Avenue Corridor Study seeks solutions that strengthen the businesses,
institutions and residential neighborhoods of the corridor, improves the driving and
walking experience along the avenue and enhances the physical appearance of the
street. A number of goals were established at the outset of the design study:
· Respond to the unique and variable qualities of the avenue
('~ walk through time...')
· Make the street more pedestrian-friendly and "soften' the edges
Farmhouse moving from its otigi.al tocation
on White Bear Avenue in Moplewood.
V'mtage orchitedurol style typical of much
of White Bear Avenue's buildings.
The k~aplewood Commun~ Center - new
const~ction along the avenue.
· Celebrate gateways and transitional spaces as 'icons' on the avenue
· Strengthen the functional and aesthetic character of the commercial areas
and improve their relationships to residential areas and transit
· Work with R. amsey Coun'nh St. Paul and Maplewood to improve
unsafe intersections
· Provide prototypical facade studies to assist businesses with
redevelopment ideas
· Improve signage, especially at the Hillcrest area
· Improve lighting and landscaping throughout the corridor
· Develop urban design recommendations for the Hillcrest/Builder's
Square area and for the 80 acre
site west of Maplewood Moll
Commerdal activity is a sign of a healthy street.
Pedes~an comfort needs to be addressed.
20
Muchiof the commercial development along
the a~enue is found in close proximW to
residential areas.
on ~ car and ignores ~he pedestrian maim.
white bear avenue study
·
~ne tollowing guiding principles (adapted to this corridor) from the St. Pa
Framework Plan are appropriate to the study of White Bear Avenue in both St. Pa~
and Maplewood:
.... i · Evoke a strong sense of neighborhood identity
:'
i · Invest in the public realm to spur private investment
· · Improve connectivity between land uses and districts along the avenue
· New or renovated buildings should contribute to the overall character of the
street
· Build on existing strengths
· Preserve and enhance heritage resources
· Improve transit and multi-modal options for movement
· Create a safer street
white bear avenue, study
4
21
PLANNERS
URBAN DESIGNERS
ltho. rpe
soclates
ARCHITECTS
ATTACHMENT 11
August 7, 2001
REC .IVE
AUG 0 9 2001
Tom Ekstrand
Assistant Commnnity Development Director
City of Maplewood
1830 East CountyRoad B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Re: Comments on Proposed Walgreens
t-fillcrest Village Opportunity Ske
Thank you for forwarding the Walgreens application for the former Burger King site on White Bear
Avenue. The goals of the Smart Growth Twin Cities opportunity site program-- creating livable
neighborhoods where homes, jobs and services are linked by walkable streets-- can only be realized
through the careful design of individual projects such as this Walgreens. We wekome the initiative
shown by Semper Development in wishing to reinvest in the I-fillcrest Village community, and we
appreciate the oppommity to comment on their proposal.
Our comments on the proposed design follow. We understand that in the absence of any adopted
Smart Growth policies for this area of Maplewood, the ckycannot require compliance with our
recommendations, and thus we present them purely as information for the cky's use in evaluating the
application. Our review is based on best practices for Smart Growth rather than for compliance with
current planning and zoning requirements.
Building location. We strongly agree with the statemem expressed in Shann Finwall's letter that
"the citywould like to see the building brought forward toward the street, with all parking situated
toward the back" This change would be the single most important contribution toward creating a
walkable environment, and any further efforts are useless if this fundamental change is not made. As
we show in the sketch attached, the proposed building could be relocated to the front of the site and
still provide disabled and convenience parking directly adjacent to the entry. Further refinement of
the site design could free up space for an improved pedestrian connection between the rear parking
area and the entry.
Building design. The proposed store design is one that can be seen all around the Twin Cities and
indeed the country. But there is ample precedent, even within the Walgreens chain, for modem
drugstores that maintain a pedestrian orientation while continuing to provide convenient auto access.
Ifftllcrest Village deserves a Walgreens that meets community goals, like the Broadway and Ridge
Walgreens store in Clficago, developed in close collaboration with the city planning department,
community groups, and city officials.
739 ALLSTON WAY
PETER CALTHORPE
BERKELEY, CA 94710 510.548.6800
TIMOTHY ROOD JOSEPH SCANGA
22
CALTHORPE ASSOCIATES
REVIEW OF WALGREENS
To quote briefly from the architect's web site (www. hirschassociates.com):
"The building is located on the street line, not set back from it, with masonrypiers,
continuous windows, metal awnings and decorative lighting to enliven the streetscape. The
parking lot was located away from the primary intersection and minimized in impact with
landscaping. A clock tower was designed as the entrance to the store, and the drive-through
located on the opposite site. The drive-through canopywas designed as a suspended
marquee to give it an architectural prominence adjacent to a new landscaped pedestrian plaza
at the comer, which was given to the community."
Other Walgreens stores in Evanston and Northfield, Illinois, have used distinctive and high-quality
building materials and pedestrian-scaled signage to meet community goals.
Windows and entries facing the street are critical factors in establishing pedestrian orientation. Blank
walls do nothing to humanize the pedestrian experience, but human-scaled architectural elements
such as pillars, arcades, awnings and shop windows establish a visual rhythm that make pedestrians
feel comfortable. The proposed elevations are most deficient in their placement of windows above
eye level, where they cannot be experienced by pedestrians. If the building is to be moved up to the
street, the west elevation facing White Bear Avenue should have disphy windows or clear windows
in each structural bay along the faqade-- with their sills a maximum of 30" above the sidewalk.
Architectural lighting and awnings or an arcade are encouraged to provide greater comfort and visual
interest to pedestrians.
The comer entry element should ideally feature a tower or other recognizable architectural element,
rather than the generic glass box proposed as the entry identification. Signage should also be
pedestrian scaled and should maintain the rhythm and spacing of the building's structural bays. A
properly designed building at the street edge should not require additional freestanding signage,
which would detract from the pedestrian character desired for Iffdlcrest Village.
Landscaping. Rather than being scattered about the site to decorate parking areas, landscaping
should contribute to both the natural environment and to the community's sense of place. There
should be a walkway with street trees connecting the rear parking area to the entry. The proposed 5-
foot walkway should be increased to 8-10 feet in width to accommodate some landscaping along the
building wall and street trees with grates, spaced a maximum of 30 feet apart. A landscaped plaza
with seating and bicycle storage should be located between White Bear Avenue and the building
entry. Such as plaza could be as small as 900 square feet (30 by 30 feet) and still provide a generous
addition to the pedestrian environment. This plaza could adjoin a larger landscaped area used for
groundwater recharge (as shown in the proposed site plan adjacent to White Bear Avenue.)
Number of parking spaces. As the applicant notes, the 76 spaces required bythe zoning code (5
spaces per 1,000 square feet) are clearly excessive, since a comparable Walgreens was shown to have
attracted a maximum of 44 cars PER HOUR at the hours of highest demand. Since few ff any of
those customers were on site for the full hour, even fewer than 44 cars were actually present at any
one time. The actual demand, then, was somewhat less than 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet-- 40%
less than the number required bythe zoning.
Parking standards are notoriously' difficult to validate empirically, and historicaIly, many jurisdictions
have tended to use high parking requirements to be "on the safe side." But there is no free lunch--
those extra spaces cost money, consume valuable land, degrade the environment through increased
surface runoff, and decrease the likelihood that people will walk or bike to reach neighborhood
destinations-- all to avoid the possibility of "spill-over" parking on adjacent public streets, where
parking is alreadylegal! Smart Growth parking requirements are often rrax~ rather than
23
minimums, since developers and merchants themselves have an automatic incentive to assure that
their customers' parking demand is met. Requiting spaces in excess of demonstrated demand serves
no rational public interest.
We commend the applicant's initiative in obtaining actual, recent counts from an identical facility to
support their request for a special authorization to reduce the number of space required, but we
believe the applicant's own data show clearly that even 64 stalls is too many. Unless the applicant
can demonstrate a need for more stalls using counts from other stores, we would recommend a
maximum parking rate of 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, or 53 stalls (keeping in mind that the
highest demonstrated actual demand was less than 44 stalls). Reducing the size of the lot to 53 stalls
from the 76 required by currem zoning frees up about 8,000 square feet of site area that could be
used for improved landscaping, best practices for stormwater recharge, and a better pedestrian
environmem along the sidewalk and on the side of the building, connecting to the rear parking area.
Our alternative site plan with 53 spaces leaves 21% of the site impervious, compared with less than
12% for the proposed design.
Parking setback variance. If the parking lot is reduced to a more reasonable size, there is no need
for a parking setback variance, as shown in our sketch. However, connections between adjacent
parking areas are an important part of Smart Growth site design. In addition to the proposed
connection shown to the south, a connection to the Blockbuster propertyto the north would be
desirable.
We hope these comments are helpful in your evaluation of the application. Thanks again for the
opportunity to comment.
Sincerely yours,
CALTHORPE ASSOCIATES
Timothy Rood AICP
Principal
CC:
Richard McLaughlin, HGA
Bob Mazanec, Metropolitan Council
Patricia James, St. Paul PED
Fred Dock, Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
Sarah Woodworth, ZHA
24
TOTE STORAGE &
TRASH COMPACTORS
25
SD01027
Variance & Special Authorization Requests Narrative
July 26, 2001
· ATTACHMENT 12
Walgreen's -White Bear & Larpenteur, Maplewood, MN
The preliminary site plans for the proposed Walgreen's store located at White Bear
Avenue and Larpenteur in Maplewood, Minnesota incorporate the need for one special
authorization and one variance.
A special authorization is needed for the provided number of parking stalls. Per the
Zoning Code, one parking stall per 200 S. F. of building area is required. Since the
proposed Walgreen's building is 15,035 S.F., 76 parking stalls are required. The
proposed site plan shows that only 64 parking stalls will be provided. Sixty-four stalls
are sufficient for this size of store and meet Walgreen's needs. The attached copy of a
traffic analysis, dated 03/21/01, was performed on a similar size Walgreen's store that is
currently in operation at Rice Street and County Road C in St. Paul, Minnesota. The
analysis shows the average daily traffic during a 24-hour period. This analysis indicates
that the largest number of cars at Walgreen's during one time period is only 44 cars.
Therefore, 64 parking stall is more than adequate for both employees and customers.
A variance is also needed for the required 5' parking setback along the south side of the
property. In order to have enough space for a drive-thru pharmacy operation, the parking
setback will be approximately 2' instead of 5' along the south property line. The existing
conditions along the south property line consist of bituminous pavement right up to the
adjacent building which is located at the property line. The proposed 2' setback area will
provide room for a concrete median to protect the adjacent building to the south.
Landform
510 First Avenue N., Suite 650 Mpls, MN 55403
(612) 252-9070 * Fax (612) 252-9077
26
WALGREENS' VARIANCE AND
PARKING REDUTION
STATEMENT
R~CE ST & COUNTRY RO C
WALGREEN$ ENTRANCES & DRIVE THROUGH
.'~_211ol
CO.RD. C~ CO.RD.G DRIVE RI(3E ST. RIOI~ SI-.
.INBOUND OUTBOUND THRU INBOUND OUTBOUN~__D
-2
-12
34
{~9i
14
24
4
1
11
0
TOTALS 273 346 97 403 356
!
TOTAL P. B2
27