HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/2004AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
6:00 P.M.
Council Chambers -Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road B East
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of the January 27, 2004, Minutes
5. Design Review: Venberg Tire -North of 2999 Maplewood Drive
6. Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled
7. Board Presentations
8. Staff Presentations:
a. Hillcrest Neighborhood/Mixed-Use Zoning Update
b. Gladstone Neighborhood Update
c. Community Design Review Board Vacancy Update
d. Community Design Review Board Representation at the April 12, 2004,
City Council Meeting
9. Adjourn
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
IV.
Chairperson Matt Ledvina Present
Board member Diana Longrie-Kline Present
Board member Linda Olson Present
Vice-Chairperson Ananth Shankar Present
Staff Present: Shaun Finwall, Associate Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes -Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson,
Shankar
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for December 16, 2003.
Board member Olson moved to approve the CDRB minutes of December 16, 2003.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes ---Ledvina. Olson. Shankar
Abstention -Longrie-Kline
The motion passed.
V. NEW BUSINESS
a. Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Update
Ms. Finwall said the Gladstone area is an aging neighborhood considered by many long-time
residents to be the core of the city. This neighborhood contains businesses that have
generally not invested in large-scale property improvements. As a result, the commercial
properties have a tired appearance with a disjointed array of businesses in need of
revitalization. Surrounding the commercial properties is a strong residential neighborhood as
well as recreational amenities like the Gateway and Vento Trails that bisect the area. Also in
this neighborhood is the city-owned open space at the southwest corner of Frost Avenue and
English Street.
Community Design Review Board 2
Minutes 1-27-2004
Chairperson Ledvina asked if the city was considering constructing buildings or homes on a
portion of the open space?
Ms. Finwall said that had been suggested by the planning consultant. However, that is
something that the city would like input from the neighborhood and all parties involved such as
the board, planning commission, and city council.
Chairperson Ledvina said he understood the original purpose of purchasing that property and
the designation of the property. He thought it should be evaluated and included in the options
for redevelopment of the remaining study area.
Ms. Finwall said those are the types of comments the city would be looking for at the upcoming
Gladstone meetings. She said if board members are unable to attend the meeting they could
relay the information to her by telephone or a-mail and she will bring it to the meeting for
discussion. The format for the neighborhood meetings would be like an open house for the
neighborhood and surrounding business owners to share their concerns and questions.
Board member Longrie-Kline asked if any of the meetings were public hearings?
Ms. Finwall said the city is hosting an open house in March which will be open to the public.
The initial meeting, however, will be a workshop for the city council and advisory boards. Staff
will attempt to have this meeting videotaped and played on the access channel.
Board member Longrie-Kline said she thought it would be very important to have the meeting
cablecast.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Ohlson Property Maintenance and Landscapes - 1949 Atlantic Street
Ms. Finwall said Erik Ohlson and Stephanie Jacques (Ohlson) and Thor and Jenny Oehrlein
are proposing to subdivide 1949 Atlantic Street into two parcels. This property is located north
of Frost Avenue and south of the Gateway Trail, within the Gladstone neighborhood. The
Oehrleins will retain Parcel A for the storage of equipment associated with their property
maintenance business, Outdoor Property Maintenance. The Ohlsons would retain Parcel B for
the development of a 3,264-square-foot metal building for their landscaping business, Ohlson
Property Maintenance and Landscapes.
Ms. Finwall said on February 24, 2003, the city council approved two conditional use permits
(CUP) and design review associated with the development of a 6,800-square-foot metal
building on a .72-acre site at 1949 Atlantic Street. The building was proposed to house the
applicants' businesses, Ohlson Property Maintenance and Landscapes and Outdoor Property
Maintenance. Since that time the applicants have decided not to develop a building together,
but now they want to subdivide the land and utilize the separate parcels individually for each
business.
Ms. Finwall said the applicant provided a revised parking plan date-stamped January 27, 2004,
which shows the parking lot paved with six exterior parking spaces.
Community Design Review Board 3
Minutes 1-27-2004
Ms. Finwall said the new parking plans have not been reviewed by the city's engineering
department but appear to meet all requirements as specified in the January 5, 2004,
engineering report.
Board member Shankar said the employee parking lot is shown at a 60-degree angle on the
plans. He wasn't sure how cars would be able to maneuver into the parking spot, which is
located right in front of the driveway access. He asked if the parking spaces would be better
spaced at a 90-degree angle?
Ms. Finwall said perhaps the applicant could address that issue.
Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board.
Ms. Stephanie Jacques Ohlson, representing Ohlson Property Maintenance and Landscapes
at 1949 Atlantic Street, residing at 1706 Barclay Street, Maplewood, addressed the board.
She said she reviewed the parking plans recently and believed one of the parking spaces
could be eliminated to make more room in the driveway access for trucks to enter the lot.
Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant if she had any concerns regarding the staff report?
Ms. Jacques Ohlson said no.
Board member Shankar asked for more information regarding the storage bins.
Ms. Jacques Ohlson said there are four separate storage bins that are six feet high. The bins
would contain cypress mulch and rock and nothing that would contain sediment for run off.
Board member Longrie-Kline asked who the property owner was for the parcels?
Ms. Jacques Ohlson said the two property owners are Eric Ohlson and Thor Oehrlein.
Board member Ohlson asked when the property is subdivided would there be two different
owners for the two parcels?
Ms. Jacques Ohlson said yes.
Board member Longrie-Kline said the reason she asked was with the possible redevelopment
of the area she was concerned with future property acquisition.
Board member Shankar asked if there would be any electrical transformers or other equipment
sitting on the ground?
Ms. Jacques Ohlson said no.
Board member Longrie-Kline asked if the applicant brought any building product samples to
show the board?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 1-27-2004
4
Ms. Jacques Ohlson said unfortunately their architect was out ill, however the building
products approved at the CDRB meeting in 2003 remain the same. The beige exterior color
and hunter green roofing material will look like the Keller Golf course building.
Ms. Jacques Ohlson said she would like to discuss the west end of the building. She said
there is a concern regarding water runoff behind the west end of the building and whether it's a
good idea to rock or sod the area. They have discussed sodding the area and creating a
swale so the runoff goes to the parking lot and into the infiltration basin. She said because of
the overhang of the roof there would be a lack of sun and asked if they could use landscape
rock extending out two feet and sod the remaining area?
Board member Olson asked what type of fence currently existed in the area?
Ms. Jacques Ohlson said there is a chain-link fence. She said since the issue of the chain link
fence came up she wondered if they could use beige or tan slats instead of the green slats in
the chain linked fence?
Chairperson Ledvina thought it was important to have sod and or landscaping behind the
building on the west side. He doesn't see a problem with the roof over hang and getting grass
to grow in the area. He said he was okay using the tan slats in place of the green slats.
Board member Longrie-Kline asked how much of an overhang there would be on the building?
Ms. Jacques Ohlson said there would be a two-foot overhang.
Board member Longrie-Kline said she would be agreeable to using two or three feet of
landscape rock and then sod. With the possible redevelopment of the area she wouldn't want
to see the applicant plant a lot of sod especially since they aren't installing a sprinkler system.
This is less expensive than having to sod the whole area.
Board member Shankar said he would agree to using three feet of landscape rock and then
sodding the remaining area.
Ms. Jacques Ohlson asked if they could discuss the issue of the storage bins. She would like
to use precast concrete bins and paint the bins instead of the using timbers for the storage
bins. She said timbers are good for a wall but maneuvering a bobcat or a dump truck near the
bins may damage them causing the need to replace the whole timber.
Chairperson Ledvina asked for more information regarding the concrete bins.
Ms. Jacques Ohlson asked Erik Ohlson to address the board for a better explanation.
Mr. Eric Ohlson, Ohlson Property Maintenance and Landscapes at 1949 Atlantic Street,
residing at 1706 Barclay Street, Maplewood, addressed the board. He said the concrete bins
would look similar to what is used at Patio Town on Highway 36.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if staff had any comment regarding the storage bins?
Community Design Review Board 5
Minutes 1-27-2004
Ms. Finwall said she had no problem with using concrete storage bins but she questioned the
painting of the bins. She asked if the concrete could be impregnated with color rather than
applying paint to the bins?
Ms. Jacques Ohlson said they propose to use a light paint color. She added the arborvitaes
would cover up much of the exterior of the concrete storage bins.
Mr. Ohlson said the only problem with paint is eventually it peels off and would have to be
repainted so he would prefer to keep the concrete unpainted.
Board member Shankar said he's fine with the concrete storage bins; however, he does not
want to see gray concrete or concrete block used.
Ms. Jacques Ohlson said the concrete storage bins would be a precast product not concrete
block.
Chairperson Ledvina said his concern was why did the applicant wait until this evening's
meeting to discuss the change in using concrete for the storage bins instead of timbers? He
liked the look of the timbers and wasn't sure why a landscaping timber couldn't be constructed
sturdily to handle the abuse of a bobcat and dump truck.
Mr. Ohlson said his concern for using timbers for the storage bins was when the bobcat or
dump truck is used there is a lot of pressure on the timbers, this loosens the timber pushing
the structure into the landscaping and possibly into the fence causing extensive and expensive
damage. The reason they were going to use the timbers to begin with originally was the
timbers would have been up against the Gateway Trail and they were concerned with the
proper screening. He said now with the slot fencing the DNR wouldn't see the storage bins.
Board member Longrie-Kline asked how long the applicant thought the paint would look good
on the concrete storage bins before it would need to be repainted?
Mr. Ohlson said he doesn't have that type of experience but is aware there are concrete paints
available and wouldn't be that expensive if they had to paint the bins twice a year. He said
their concern is about the structure damage of the timbers and what it could do to the
landscaping and fence if it were pushed in. He felt it would be more expensive to correct the
problem with the timbers rather than using the concrete storage bins and painting them once
or twice a year.
Board member Shankar said since the building is going to be beige in color he would be fine
with the concrete storage bins painted a shade of beige to match the building exterior.
Board member Longrie-Kline agreed and said there is no need for a fence along the area
where the concrete storage bins would be since there would be landscaping there.
Chairperson Ledvina commented that this is an improvement over the original design the
CDRB reviewed in 2003. Downsizing the building gives the area more flexibility for
redevelopment, should redevelopment occur and having a smaller scale building would have
less of an impact.
Community Design Review Board 6
Minutes 1-27-2004
Chairperson Ledvina said he is agreeable to using the concrete storage bins and painting them
to match the color of the building exterior. He commented staff had done a good job with the
report and conditions listed.
Board member Olson said she had a concern about the parking and how the equipment would
maneuver around and fit in the parking area. She is agreeable to using the concrete storage
bins because they are more practical than the timbers. However, she would like the city
engineer to review the plans for the parking.
Board member Shankar said he knows why the parking spaces are set at such an angle. He
said if the parking spaces were at a 90-degree angle they would go beyond the garage door.
He would suggest rather than having four parking spaces to only have three parking spaces
and then line up the three parking spaces differently.
Chairperson Ledvina suggested that rather than redesigning the parking lot plan he would
recommend the city engineer review the plans.
Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve the plans (grading, utility, and landscape plans
date-stamped December 18, 2003; lighting plan date-stamped January 5, 2004; building plans
date-stamped November 18, 2003) fora 3,264-square-foot metal building at 1949 Atlantic
Street with the following conditions: (deletions to the original motion are stricken and
changes are underlined and additions are in bold.)
a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
b. Provide the following for city staff approval before the city issues a grading or building
permit:
1) A revised grading and drainage plan that addresses all engineering conditions as
outlined in the January 5, 2004, engineering review and includes that the entire
parking lot and driveway be paved. This plan must be approved by the city
engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.
2) A revised utility plan, subject to the city engineer's approval. The applicants must
sign a developer's agreement with the City of Maplewood to ensure proper
extension of city sewer and water to the site.
3) A revised site plan showing the following:
a) The parking lot layout including the location of at least four striped
parking spaces, with one of those spaces handicap accessible as
required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
b) The driveway with a width of at least 20 feet is paved between the street
and the parking lot. Any gate along this driveway must also open to a
20-foot width.
Community Design Review Board 7
Minutes 1-27-2004
c) The location of four e~ landscape bins, , to be
8 feet wide x 8 feet deep x 6 feet high.
d~ The landscape bins shall be constructed of concrete block painted to
match the beige color of the building exterior.
4) Revised building elevations showing one exterior faucet located on the building.
5) Building samples of metal panels, standing seam roof, trim, doors, wainscot, and
fence slats.
6) A revised landscape plan that shows the following:
a) Replacement of gravel on the north wes-t~-e~~eall-i side of the building
with grass or native plantings.
b) Replacement of gravel on the west and south side of the building
with landscaping rock three feet out from the building and sod
used to cover the remaining ground.
-~} c) An infiltration basin/rainwater garden-planting plan showing an adequate
number of native plantings to address infiltration needs as required by the
city's engineering department.
7) The requirement for underground irrigation is waived if the applicants sign an
agreement with the City of Maplewood stating that the owners will hand-water all
landscaping, and any required landscape material that dies will be replaced.
8) A revised photometric plan showing the freestanding lights not to exceed 25 feet
in height, including the base, and the light illumination from any outdoor light not
to exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines.
9) If trash is to be stored outside of the building, plans for atrash-dumpster
enclosure is required. The enclosure must have gates that are 100 percent
opaque, and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible with
those of the metal building.
10) A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The
amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
c. Install all required exterior improvements including paving and striping the parking lot,
installation of landscaping, installation of beige fence slats to match the building exterior
color, installation of outdoor lighting, etc., before occupying the building.
d. 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.
Community Design Review Board 8
Minutes 1-27-2004
2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of
Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall
complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the
building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if
occupancy is in the spring or summer.
e. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson,
Shankar
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on February 9, 2004.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Ms. Finwall updated the board on the Mixed-Use Zoning District. She said the city council
approved the first reading of the Mixed-Use Zoning District as well as the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment with additional language and density requirements. The Planning Commission
will be reviewing the Mixed-Use Zoning District and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment map
changes on Monday, February 2, 2004. The second reading of the Mixed-Use Zoning District
and Comprehensive Plan Amendment map changes of the Hillcrest area would be at the city
council meeting on February 23, 2004.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Legacy Village Ponds/Trails/Amenities
Ms. Finwall said Mr. Bruce Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation wrote the report
in the CDRB packet. The report stated the concept for Legacy Village Park is to
develop an internal trail system, a floating boardwalk, and rest areas while still
maintaining the integrity of the wetlands and proposed storm sewer ponds. Significant
reconfiguration of the storm water holding ponds and the use of culverts and weir
structures has allowed the city the opportunity to develop a trail system along the high
ground area and still preserve some of the existing trees. The idea is to pursue
development of a passive art/sculpture park for the 10-acre wetland area. The city will
be receiving between $1.3-$1.6 million in park dedication fees. Mr. Anderson is looking
for input regarding the proposed Legacy Village Park.
Board member Olson asked if there would still be a tot lot in the Legacy Village
development?
Community Design Review Board 9
Minutes 1-27-2004
Ms. Finwall said from what she understood there would be tot lots scattered within the
residential developments.
Board member Olson said she would've liked to have seen how this park fits into the
whole development. She said it's hard to visualize without remembering what would be
built in the whole area.
Ms. Finwall showed the board a map of where things would be built around the
proposed park area.
Board member Longrie-Kline asked if this park would be dedicated to Maplewood or if
the developer would be responsible for maintaining the park?
Ms. Finwall said this would be a city park and would be responsible for maintaining the
park.
Chairperson Ledvina said he enjoyed the floating bridge at the Maplewood Nature
Center but stated the floating bridge is very expensive to maintain and doesn't last very
long.
Board member Longrie-Kline said that was the reason she asked who would be
responsible for maintaining the park. She wanted to make sure funds would be set
aside to maintain the appearance of the park because it can be expensive to maintain
things like floating bridges. She knows the park department is strapped for funds to
maintain the current parks in Maplewood.
Chairperson Ledvina said he wasn't sure this would be the right spot for a floating
boardwalk because there are safety issues with the elderly and children visiting the park
as well as possible impacts to the wetlands.
Board member Olson said she thinks it would be a worthwhile investment. She wants
to see this park enhanced and not striped of anything. She would also like to see the
sculptures in the park because there is nothing else like that in Maplewood.
Ms. Finwall said the issue of who would decide what sculptures would be put in the park
came up at the planning commission meeting and Mr. Anderson said they might have to
put an arts commission together to make that decision.
Board member Olson said the CDRB should be the deciding factor of what art should
go into the park.
Ms. Finwall said she would pass those comments on to Mr. Anderson.
b. 2003 Community Design Review Board Annual Report
Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve the 2003 CDRB Annual Report.
Board member Olson seconded. Ayes -Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson,
Shankar
Community Design Review Board 10
Minutes 1-27-2004
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on February 9, 2004.
c. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Chairperson Ledvina and Vice-Chairperson Shankar said they would be willing to
continue serving in their capacities or would be willing to allow somebody else to take
the positions if anyone was interested.
Board member Longrie-Kline said she would be willing to serve as either the
Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson if anybody was interested in a break.
Board member Olson nominated Chairperson Ledvina and Vice-Chairperson Shankar
to remain in their positions.
Board member Shankar nominated Matt Ledvina as Chairperson and Linda Olson as
Vice-Chairperson.
Board member Olson said because she was not a detail or procedural person she
wasn't interested in serving in any other capacity besides board member.
Chairperson Ledvina moved to recommend Diana Longrie-Kline as the new
Chairperson of the CDRB.
Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes -Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Shankar
Abstention -Olson
Chairperson Ledvina moved to recommend himself as the new Vice-Chairperson for the
CDRB.
Board member Longrie-Kline seconded.
Ayes -Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Shankar
Abstention -Olson
d. Board member Ledvina will be the CDRB representative at the February 9, 2004,
city council meeting.
Items to discuss include Ohlson Landscape and the CDRB 2003 Annual Report.
e. Board member Olson will be the CDRB representative at the February 23, 2004,
city council meeting.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Venburg Tire Relocation Design
LOCATION: North of 2999 Maplewood Drive (Gulden's Roadhouse)
DATE: March 17, 2004
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Carol and Pat McFarlane, the owners of Venburg Tire, are proposing to relocate their tire
business across Highway 61 to the north side of Gulden's Roadhouse. They are moving
their business because County Road D is being realigned to run through the current
Venburg Tire site. Refer to the maps on pages 13-18.
Because the applicants' construction proposal would take away existing parking spaces
from Guldens, they are proposing to relocate much of Gulden's front parking lot to a
new parking lot behind the restaurant. The owners of Guldens, Brenda and Mike
Gingler, would install their own screening for the proposed parking lot.
Another aspect of this project is the construction of a shared private roadway that would
separate Gulden's from the proposed Venburg Tire site. This private roadway would
intersect future County Road D north of the proposed Venburg Tire building and connect
with the driveway in front of LaMettry Collision to the south. The city will construct this
roadway as part of the County Road D project.
Requests
The applicants are requesting that the city council approve the following: (Items 1
through 5 have been reviewed by the planning commission. The community
design review board should consider the remaining requests)
1. A CUP (conditional use permit) because the proposed building would be less
than 350 feet away from the R1 (single dwelling residential) district to the west.
This is a requirement of the M1 (light manufacturing) district. The proposed
building would be 220 feet from the west lot line.
2. A variance because the proposed building would be less than 350 feet away from
the R1 district to the west. This is a requirement for motor vehicle repair garages
in M1 districts. As noted above, the proposed building would be 220 feet from
the west lot line.
3. A parking lot setback variance for the front parking lot from the front lot line.
Code requires 15 feet. The applicants are proposing afive-foot setback.
4. A lot division to split their proposed site from the Gulden's property.
5. The vacation of two roadway easements. This is a city request to eliminate two
unneeded easements from the Gulden's and Venburg Tire sites.
6. Architectural, site and landscape plans.
7. Approval of a setback variance for a freestanding sign. The proposed
freestanding Venburg Tire sign is proposed on excess right-of-way in front of the
applicants' site.
Gulden's would also need the following approvals:
1. Approval of a parking lot screening plan and a parking waiver to have 11 fewer
parking spaces than the code requires.
BACKGROUND
The city has purchased the existing Venburg Tire site in order to extend County Road D
on the east side of the highway. The applicants are now renting from the city until their
new facility opens.
DISCUSSION
Architectural, Site and Landscape Plans
Architectural (Building Design and Materials
The applicants' architect has indicated that they are still making final selections of
building materials and colors. The following is the most up-to-date proposal: The
proposed building would be constructed of precast concrete panels with the exception of
the two front entry exposures. These would be accented with a wainscot of rock-face
concrete block veneer, face brick above the block, astanding-seam metal awning above
the brick and EIFS (exterior insulation finish system). EIFS is a material having a
stucco-look finish. The precast concrete panels are shown to have a combination of
smooth and aggregate-texture finish. The proposed building colors would be light gray
concrete panels, black brick, black metal awning and canopy, and light gray EIFS.
Other details include the painting of the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the
precast panels. The trash enclosure would be located directly behind the building. It
would have sides of precast concrete panels with chain link fence gates facing west.
The applicants also propose to build a concrete pad to park aused-tire trailer next to the
shared access driveway to the south.
The city code requires that commercial buildings be designed to be compatible with the
others in the area. The nearest building is Gulden's that is concrete block. The
proposed building is compatible with Gulden's in the type of material proposed. More
recent buildings in the near vicinity, however, have been upgraded with more decorative
2
finishes like the Lexus and Volvo dealerships, LaMettry Collision and Maplewood
Toyota.
In terms of appearance, the look and finish of the proposed Venburg Tire building should
be designed to fit somewhere between Gulden's and the newer buildings in the area.
Staff does not object to decorative concrete panels, but if used, should be a color and
design that fits this area of improving architectural materials. Regarding color, staff feels
that the gray of the concrete panels should not be the finish color. Natural concrete has
a cold and unappealing appearance. The building should have a warmer tone.
Another point to consider is that there will be future commercial development north of the
proposed County Road D alignment. Staff feels that the city should continue the recent
precedent of improved design with this proposed building since we will be looking for the
same with future proposals.
Site Design Considerations
Parking: The proposed building must have 27 parking stalls according to ordinance.
There are 32 proposed.
Used Tire Storage: The proposed location for the used tire storage should be moved to
a concealed location. Used tires should be kept within an enclosure as would the trash
container.
Site Lighting: The applicants' photometric plan indicates that there would not be any
light spillover that exceeds the maximum-allowed limit of .4 footcandles. The fixture
design would be shoebox style that conceals the lens and bulb. The only concern staff
has is with the two west-facing wall packs that sometimes glare toward abutting
properties. These lights should be further evaluated to make sure that they do not cause
any nuisance to future neighbors.
Well Abandonment: Gulden's is presently on a private well that is located on the
proposed Venburg Tire site. A condition of this approval should be that the owners of
Gulden's properly abandon this well in accordance to state requirements. Gulden's will
then hook up to the city water supply.
Landscaping: Staff has several concerns about the proposed landscaping plan.
The proposed landscaped buffer on the west side of the site must provide
screening that is at least six feet tall and 80 percent opaque upon planting
according to code. This is to screen Venburg Tire from the residential properties
to the west. Staff acknowledges that screening may be difficult to attain because
of the grade drop from the shared roadway to the proposed parking lot. The
trees shown, though, are too few to meet this requirement. Staff is supportive of
the CUP for this building placement, but it should be contingent on strict
adherence to the city's screening requirements.
• There are no plantings on the highway side of the proposed parking lot. Staff
recommends some landscaping in this area to enhance the site as is the typical
requirement.
3
The proposed building would be six feet from the adjacent private roadway. This
is very close in terms of providing sustainable landscaping. Staff feels that the
proposed row of spires will not hold up to seasonal crushing by plowed snow.
Plantings along this building elevation are essential to help visually break up this
large surface. Staff recommends that the applicants revise the planting detail in
this area, perhaps with a row of trees spaced 20 feet on center. Granted, special
attention must be given to selecting trees that will grow suitably next to a building
and, also, that are salt resistant.
• The proposed Autumn Blaze maple trees on the south side of County Road D
are spaced at approximately 65 feet on center. The city typically requires
boulevard trees to be spaced at 30 feet on center. Staff recommends additional
trees for a closer spacing.
• The applicants are proposing a seed mix on the westerly hillside of the site and
sod on the remainder.
The applicants propose to irrigate the site to the base of the westerly slope. Staff
feels that this is acceptable as long as the applicants make sure to water the
seeded slope by hoses and sprinklers.
Freestanding Sign Setback Variance
In an attempt to maximize the visibility of their freestanding sign, the applicants are
requesting approval to place their freestanding sign on the excess right-of-way abutting
their front lot line. As discussed above with the parking-setback variance, this excess
right-of-way was initially set aside for highway use, but was never needed as such. This
strip of land is currently in the city's ownership. It was recently conveyed to the city from
the State of Minnesota while securing land for County Road D.
Staff has no objection to the applicants using this property for their sign placement as
long as they observe the required ten-foot minimum setback from the actual right-of-way
line as required by code. Other findings for approval are that the proposed sign
placement would meet the spirit and intent of the code since the sign would comply with
the required 10-foot minimum setback from the actual right-of-way. Also, compliance
with code would cause the applicants undue hardship since the 30 feet of excess right-
of-way would require the applicants to place their sign further back than would otherwise
be allowed.
Gulden's
Parking Lot Setback
The proposed Gulden's rear parking lot is shown to have afive-foot setback. The city
code requires 20 feet since the abutting property is proposed for residential use. The
owners of Gulden's have said that they intend to meet the 20-foot setback requirement.
4
Parkins Lot Screenin
The owners of Gulden's are proposing to plant seven spruce trees on the west side of
their proposed parking lot. As stated above, this number would be too few to provide the
required screening. Staff recommends that the owners of Gulden's resubmit a screening
plan that complies with the city code for the required screen that is six feet tall and 80
percent opaque.
Parkins Waiver
The city code requires that Gulden's have 125 parking spaces. With the proposed rear
parking lot, there would be 114. This would require approval of a parking waiver for
Guldens. As stated above, Gulden's and Venburg Tire would have a reciprocal parking
agreement for cross parking. Staff finds this to be a good solution and feels that the
waiver for 11 fewer spaces should be approved.
Site Lighting
The photometric plan indicates that there would not be any light spillover that exceeds
the maximum-allowed limit of .4 footcandles. The fixture design would be shoebox style
that conceals the lens and bulb.
Department Comments
Building Official
The building must have an automatic sprinkler system and meet all building code
requirements.
Police
There are no significant public safety issues.
Fire Marshal
1. Fire protection will be required in accordance to Section 1306 of the IBC
(International Building Code).
2. Monitoring of the fire protection will be required.
3. Maintain a 20-foot emergency access road.
4. There must be a fire department lock box.
5. Storage of tires must be done according to MSFC 2505 Outside Storage and
MSFC 2509 Inside Storage. If a fence is going to be used for tire storage, MSFC
2507 shall be followed.
City Engineer
Refer to the report on pages 22-23 from Chris Cavett, Maplewood Assistant City
Engineer.
Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District
The following are comments from Cliff Aichinger of the watershed district:
The site would add impervious surface to the area. Drainage patterns are not
shown, but I assume the site drains to the western Highway 61 ditch and south to
Kohlman Creek and Kohlman Lake. The project would require water runoff
treatment for the new impervious surface area. Since the Gulden's property is
not treated by any water quality feature, it is recommended, though not required,
if a joint facility could be designed.
2. The site has some steep slopes. We assume some retaining walls will be
incorporated into the plans. In either case, a site erosion and sediment-control
plan will be required which addresses erosion issues during construction and
after.
3. A district permit is required.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
Engineers from MnDOT have stated that the following permits are required: platting
permit, entrance permit, drainage permit and utility permit for the proposed construction
and site development. The applicants' engineer should contact MnDOT and obtain any
required permits as a condition of these approvals. The platting permit is needed
because new subdivisions adjacent to MnDOT right-of-way need a permit.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS
March 16, 2004: The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP, the
350-foot-reduction variance, the parking lot setback variance, the lot division and the
easement vacations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Approval of the site plan date-stamped February 3, 2004, the civil drawings date-
stamped March 1, 2004, the photometric plan date-stamped March 1, 2004 and the
revised elevations date-stamped March 9, 2004, for Venburg Tire. Approval is subject to
the applicants complying with the following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for
this project.
6
2. Before getting a building permit, the applicants must comply with all the
requirements of the assistant city engineer's memo dated March 8, 2004.
3. Before getting a building permit, the applicants must submit a revised
landscaping plan addressing the following:
• A planted screen on the west side of the site to provide screening that is
at least six feet tall and 80 percent opaque upon planting according to
code.
• There are no plantings on the highway side of the proposed parking lot.
Staff recommends some landscaping in this area to enhance the site as is
the typical requirement.
• Substitution of the row of spires on the south side of the building with a
row of trees spaced 20 feet on center. Special attention must be given to
selecting trees that will grow suitably next to a building and, also, that are
salt resistant.
• Increasing the number of trees on the south side of County Road D to
accomplish a spacing of 30 feet on center.
• The applicants propose to irrigate the site to the base of the westerly
slope. Staff feels that this is acceptable as long as the applicants agree
to water the seeded slope by hoses and sprinklers.
• All sodded areas must have an in-ground lawn irrigation system.
4. Before getting a building permit, the applicants shall provide revised plans
with the following changes:
• The addition of a sidewalk to connect the proposed sidewalk on the
south side of County Road D to the Venburg Tire parking lot.
• Elimination of the open used-tire storage. There shall not be any
open exterior storage on the site.
• Wall-pack lighting details to verify that the fixture type will not cause
excessive glare to the westerly neighbor.
• Revised building elevations that provide for abrown-tone color
scheme for the proposed building.
• Revised building elevations that provide for the screening of roof-top
mechanical equipment as required by code.
5. Record the deeds with Ramsey County for the creation of this site. This
recording also includes the dedication of right-of-way to the city, the
dedication of excess property to the neighboring property owner west of the
7
private roadway and the combination of the remnant property with the
Venburg Tire site in the northwest comer of the property.
6. Apply for all required permits from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation and the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District.
7. Comply with all requirements of the Maplewood Building Official and Fire
Marshal.
8. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
• The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
• The applicants submit an irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow to
cover the cost of any unfinished required exterior improvements. The
applicants shall complete any unfinished landscaping 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.
9. All work shall follow the approved plans and these conditions. The director of
community development may approve minor changes.
B.Adoption of the resolution on page 24 approving a sign setback variance for the
proposed Venburg Tire freestanding sign on the excess right-of-way. Approval is based
on the following reasons:
1. The proposed sign placement would meet the spirit and intent of the
code since the sign would comply with the required 10-foot minimum
setback from the actual right-of-way.
2. Compliance with code would cause the applicants undue hardship
since the 30 feet of excess right-of-way would require the applicants
to place their sign further back than would otherwise be allowed.
C.Approval of the proposed conceptual changes to the Gulden's Roadhouse site for a
new rear parking lot, site lighting and landscaping. This approval also includes a parking
waiver to have 11 fewer parking spaces than code requires since Venburg Tire will
provide use of their parking lot for overflow parking. Approval of the conceptual changes
is subject to the owners of Gulden's doing the following before the city will issue a
grading and paving permit for the new parking lot:
1. Submit a revised landscape plan for staff approval providing for screening
on the west side of the proposed parking lot. This screening shall comply
with city code that requires a visual screen that is at least six feet tall and
80 percent opaque upon installation. This landscape plan shall also
include a turf establishment plan for this area.
2. Submit a detailed grading and drainage plan.
8
3. Submit a revised site plan showing compliance with the required 20-foot
minimum parking lot setback from the west lot line. The proposed parking
lot shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter.
4. Seal the well on the proposed Venburg Tire site according to State of
Minnesota Department of Health well-abandonment requirements.
5. Provide the city with documentation that Venburg Tire has approved a
shared-parking agreement to allow Gulden's use of their parking lot.
9
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 27 sun'ounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their
comments. Of the seven replies, one was in favor, three were opposed, one had no
comment and two did not take afor-or-against position but had comments.
No Comment
This reply came from the owners of the Country View Golf Center.
In favor
Kami, Inc. supports this use. It is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. We
look forward to Venburg Tire being our neighbor. (Jim Kellison for Kelco Real Estate
Development Services representing Kami, Inc.)
(Mr. Kellison is the owner/developer for the vacant property to the west of Gulden's and
the proposed Venburg Tire site. He is proposing to develop this property with town
houses.)
Opposed
1. Refer to the letter on pages 19-20 from Richard and Joyce Lambert, 2986 Duluth
Street. In summary, the concerns noted are relative to potential noise problems,
screening from the proposed Gulden's parking lot, compliance with shoreland
requirements (their mention of a watershed area), possible negative impact on
the residents to the west and disagreement with granting a CUP from the 350-
foot spacing requirement.
2. Refer to the email response on page 21 from Eric Curtin, 3003 Duluth Street. In
summary, Mr. Curtin raised the concerns about increased congestion, noise and
pollution. He is also opposed to a CUP for the reduction of the 350-foot spacing
requirement.
3. I do not object to Venburg Tires relocation, but I do object to the conditional use
permit for the building to be 220 feet rather than 350 feet away from the west lot
line. Why have the requirement of 350 feet if you do not enforce it? Let them be
350 like all the others have to be! All auto places are supposed to be 350 feet
from the westerly lot line. (Richard and Carolyn Buchman, 2954 Duluth Street)
Comments
Consideration needs to be given to this new Venburg location, the realignment of
County Road D and the increased business activity at Toyota and LaMettry's.
We live on Duluth Street and our property overlooks Highway 61. Please require
a property landscape plan and sound abatement to insure they meet the
neighborhood integrity. This also includes updating LaMettry (very noisy) and
Toyota. Thank you. (Don and Marguerite Newpower, 2946 Duluth Street)
10
2. We already have Toyota so it doesn't make much difference. (Thomas and
Kathleen Myers, 2914 Duluth Street)
REFERENCE
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: Two acres
Existing Use: Gulden's Roadhouse parking lot
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: The future realignment of Duluth Street and proposed commercial development
South: Gulden's Roadhouse
East: Maplewood Drive (Highway 61) and the existing location of Venburg Tire
West: Vacant property proposed for town homes (pending proposal)
PLANNING
Land Use Plan Designation: M1
Zoning: M1
Findings for Variance Approval
State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance:
1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the property under consideration.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the
property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the 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 a 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.
11
APPLICATION DATE
We received the complete applications and plans for these requests on March 1, 2004.
State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete
applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by April 30,
2004 unless the applicants agree to a time extension.
p:sec 41Venburg Tire Revisions.CUP
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line Map
3. Zoning Designations and Land Use Plan Classifications
4. Site Plan
5. Venburg Tire Landscape Plan
6. Gulden's Roadhouse Parking Lot Screening Plan
7. Letter from Richard and Joyce Lambert
8. Letter from Eric Curtin
9. Memo from Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer dated March 8, 2004
10. Resolution for Freestanding-Sign Variance
11. Plans (separate attachments):
a. Site Plan date-stamped February 3, 2004
b. Civil Engineering Plans and Building Elevations date-stamped March 1, 2004
c. Photometric Plan date-stamped March 1, 2004
d. Revised Building Elevations date-stamped March 9, 2004
e. Venburg Tire Landscape Plan date-stamped March 1, 2004
12
Attecfrnent 1
G
VADNAIS HEIGHTS
n
O
W
Z .. ~
U
c.~;,
W ~~
~_ /',~
J
~ ;
i0 ~ PALLI
16T pt
LE DR CT.
v Ort '
i' `
1~.,
Q
Z
Q ~ ~
U ~ °
.~
.~ J 3 W
~~ ~ I
BENa AVE_ ~
3 ~
iRIDGE cr. } .
\
tr ~
PROPOSED ~
~. VENBURG TIRE
~ ~ LOCATION ~• ~N5 ~ ~
2 ~ rural
2 courlrnrnEw mow.
3 z
Y
3• . DULUTH CT.
4
L
AVE
~
G .
~
® ~
~
r AVE.
ka,, - -__
A _
V~ `.'
W
~ 2
i Kohkrwn W
~' ~°~`° GULDEN'S ~ ~
__- _ ----. - -RESTAURANT KoHUwa AvE. ~
~ ~
-~ i~ x
m
^~ (.4QIiIlOT
Pond
3
~,
5
_ ~ -" ~
Z
~8 Mort ~
~
b ~
K H r~r ~ ~ ~ 2 W ~~ _ ~ ~ N
P ~ W ~ °
Y ~ 3 ° ~ W mq
rdOR ~ ~ ~"vE°R ~ ~ ~ ~
T ppptj~ AVE. . g DE110~R ~ AVE.
gW~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AVE. ~i ~i
Y g~prCS W p ~ ¢ AVE °
y .. ~ AlfT AVE ~ ~ AVE ~ ~ I~ °
C.ERNAIS AV E >- GFJNAIS W
~ , ~
,
c, ~~,
' ~ f:RANDVIEIN AVE ~ z
~Q?~-
~~5 __J
yypNG
p~, W
Y
~ U ~ SHERItEM AVE. ~ ~~~_ _ , ~
\ `
~
~ COPE AVE. ~
SIG DR. ~.. ~t\ KaNer ~ , i ~ ~:
`
°
` ~
j
° LARKF ~ v ~
~ AVE. - u ~ LARK
~ < AVE.
r ;,
~,,,~
i -% Jr CO_ < R0. ~ c
i LAURIE RD. ~ a LA4JRIE Z RD
1
1RlE CT_ \ `~ _•` f! ~ `
~
g LEJ ILAND RD_ o ~ URSf ~ ~ ~ AVE
~ •~ z v
~~
V ~~ ~ ~~ ~ fir; /
' ~
%. ~ ~d1NCT10N AVE. W ®~ g ~ o x CO. RD.
~~
/
f ~ ~
~ ~
m BURKE AVE. ° ® BUPoCE A
ZDRRKsE
~
~/
AVrt ~ ~ ~ ~
o
~-
°o VE.
~' ~
LN ELDR WGE AVE 3
1l~OMT 4y,
,%
Dpt)R~
~
Ate- .
B
EI1AONf
AVE WW
_ 3
~.
W AV. ':.~ _ ~ FR
~~ '~ SIQLL ~ ~ AV E.
SIQLLYAN A~
IDalw K
OOD W1RRlS AVE
`".
~
~
~ s
ROSEMIOOD AVE.
....., ~ I ~
LOCATION MAP
13
4
N
Attachment 2
COUNTY ROAD D CORD D E
PROPERTY LINE MAP
14
Attachment 3
of
^
^
^
3 ~
ll7) m
y
(I6 co
0 140.03 ~ - - - - -
I(36) ~
(I~ ) _ ~.
°` SUMMIT CT. m o
Z(a9)~
/{ `G o 5qp
~
~ ~>g ~~ ~ I o7.05
~ ~
°°
3 (ao) m
_
P 8
(zo) L n6.ai .s N ..
^ ^ ^ ^
1= io ~
%_ ~ - P
o
COUNTRy~~ •Sa ~ n ~q7.~9
CI RC Fyn,, 2 ~
9~ R=vo . 0.gy1 >~ 9
/ (93)
~1.q x;.11 p ~ S~
O
N 13 ~ ~
x(44)
~a~ N (~) ~ 228.67
1
z _ ~S g(
0q\
(31) C 30)
'
17 23
9
(`~
y ~
~ 16 ~ °
~
~a y .
a
,~yo /
~
~
b1D' fZ • bo .3f •9 p ~
\6
1
~
1
(
pULUTH CT. J `~
i 3e
4
~ 120 p ~ II
~,~ ~r 100.03
8 h w
~' (4a)
~. 2 I
13
~. 49) _
$
1
!9i ~ ,~ 22 ~) oQ ~b oo~ -
. r N
tar
2zo 0 o a
07 ~ 0 23(37) $ 0 .
14 ~ ~
r I~ .. _. ___ si__ ~.. .. .~.._. ,-... ~..~
I '3
I `o I
M1 I ;
~~
~~~~~
I
i
I ..
33~ Csm
PROPOSED ,,,
4-29 a~ VENBURG TIRE ;
LOCATION n~ I
\'~POSED C~ vl
~ T1`~S~~N i ~~
r
//l ; r
\ _~
~I
GULDEN'S ~ ~, r, I 75
I M
1 oz~
i4.~re --
±`' - t- - - ' ~p
~ ~•
ou~d.~ry ~ ~,~ .~
y ~ ~
u
` 9Q
I PN ~ ' a
+698 'o
N
CS 3~
Fe~c.s) ~ es.nt.
~---ro----~--
L---
~55~ Q i°
0
(tllS) O A
2
~ 3
~/ ~~~a ~ J 1473 r35
tl M~ ~ ~ ~ ,
O ry ~ ~" Q
40 ~~ ~ ~ .I ra 0'
-- roo8.
I.14 ac.
~'
_ ~,
~,
,.
M1 _ ~~ ry
r~ ~ m tAi<ew ~ FOF
r:'~ c~ rs " 595
,~~;,r"~.. i 8 ~
Dot IL82999 8/~Z/Gb frl U '~^
---~ ~ - 16.--~
m __ _. _ ~ rree.~,l]
ZONING DESIGNATIONS AND
LAND USE PLAN CLASSIFICATIONS
15
~r_
N
Attachment 4
REMNANT PARCEL 2
"'~,
REMNANT PARCEL 1 ~ ~ ~ ~
F'~
,~ _.
~•~~~~~••~~• `\~'~ REMNANT PARCEL 3
;:
^:r'}:•:;:L''~~:•':~{?:~::':{•'`•':•:::.}':::~:~:~~::~:~:~l:i:.. sin a'nc
. ..y . .:.. ,'
>r:~,i::~i . , .,: •: , ~ ...::.:;,.; •~': .: _ _ g_ ~ lip ~ Kr• :
.<
.__ _ n41.w 'y:' i:~}: 'Wtia+ `•'Y^' i:f!AI' .ti:SJ~ _ ..emu;1._..:' _~r" '1 ~,A•„'<;•y
1
,~ = C VY
_ '•t~7 r ~
Y ~ -. ~ .. __ i - ` ~+snk:..: < to -cam ~ +: l93" ~.•• , _ 1 3. 7° }`~ .•.
' _
..__w ~.~ ' . - ~. ~ ,,, • .. ,_ „• I ` p ~s n` , ~ _y~ art` .-f ~1 'yF ~. ' h 91-'•.
A k ~ 1~
~. ~-~~~-'- ,_ a -_ - __-' A `1, f`„...,, r .m;.--ter. ~-~w~ ~i ~r~l '"'*~ ~ ~- ?w .. ^.~~~.. ~)~i
;;;.%k. i ~,~ ..,b~ ~" 1 PH¢PC~ ; PAH~~!:~ ,d :. ~ • . ~: ~/~ `aa~.. ~ w: ~ , I J + .
Ir~r X ' ~ ~ C ~ r E9 ~ x `b 6 }-~ (-
PROPOSED LOT DIVISION •¢~•. M'~ -°°°•" ~ '' w,"' ~~
"tr ~ .. •" ` I I it !I , ~m. grewvu ~ I rmr .. I -~~r I'~~ ~%~) E: Ir
~N~ )I ~' ~._^ 7~' ~' ~ \`. ~ .7' n. ~ k nT YI ^~ ,'r l'~ ~ ilr 5~7r• .,1 1 u. , J~'
,•f' ~.:~ ' e\\~?'::: ..,. a,$y ~; ~I'f .. -.~-.. J ~P 4CI j lyre I
4 ^ • to -` ;~i y --r'` ''~ ~--_. ~r I,l y.;,. ~ „,.. ; fl•,. ~y
..«
~~'M;w ~n~ w.n ~ ~ ., I ~ysel'
.. ,~ ~. r is lli o ~ u ~ .. SBB'16'15'W 500.08 . 1. R t [ 5 ~ 1 . ~' I '~ I
r~ 1
~I • I ~ ~ _I
SITE PLAN
16
I ~
N
~~ ~ e~osauuiw poonna~deW
~_~ Attachment 5
°c^a
~W ~ ~~in~~s 's ~~il ~~neN~n
3 =m
~ _ _ _
O j _-~~`
~= --,- o
0
I ~. ~~^-._ N N
a ~
~
v x
m
~ m ~
Hggs
~ ~
~ d
N
3 -
~ ~ gg
m
°~
A
~ d
m ~ m S
g~
Y ~ 9 a $Il
~ v m sg&m
s ~ _ e _
m F84wx
...
~o~
~
' m
9 S m
O O m
~ ~ g ~ o
~
~
n~„~ ~ z
~
3
r
gC ~~ ~ ~ ~. ~~-
I~~'_..
.., r, /
I
.%
,I
~ ~~ ~
~, ~~.
~:
I.
~:
,°
(,
;~.~ ~
' `.~,
''a'
~.,
/~ °,,~
;;
~ ~ I ip'-
~h~. . % i3
I I y
r ~
m~
3
_ _m y
c~ a
'm m
cL
~ c
m
`o a
t d
q~; o `~
a ~ / / ~ ,.,.-~- --.- -
ys~ ~ .~,'
:f... ~+.. ~ ``
fi. /, i ~_.~~._.
/ /.;
~_J~ ~ ~~ 11 I hT~._
3
~% -~: r
- If
o ;;
,, ;_T
-~ ~ ~ ~~
/ /
1
~LL ~ /
11
,,
/; /
3~ I _~~'
i3'- '>. sII~
~-~ ~' ___
~ /
l ~ ~ ~~ '~
_ ,.~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~. ~ _ ~i_~ T ~ - I I r ~ r
o ~~ :~y
i
s I Shy ~ ° ~ ~~ ~ ~
Moa~Mo~ y ~ I .~ i I I i~~~
.~ I a~\
~ .e
~~~
0 1'R~ ~ i ,F' ~ ~~~
c ~ F
~ p , _
~.
~,^ ,
~ - -'
/ ~~
~ ,~~ ~.. -
~ I
~ .. ~~ ~~
/ ~i
Z
a
a
Q
v
0
a
~_
F.
m
W
' O" `s
~~x '~
Attachment 6
_;~_. __
~.
K ~~ ~._.
J~ ~ ~..
f \"`i>
~ ~~L
T ~ 1° ~=e.~i.~„~.
/ ,.. ~ r
"a.. I
~' '+" .,. ~M'% 1ry P~,iu M v:y ~ „~r. !+ ~ "-f...... l__.____ "'_ . __ __ w ~im ~rc
i
,r .. .. _
..~.:
f r ~ -" VENBURG r~~• y,.
. ..
_-
~.
,..
_»... _ ... ....7m.. y .
_..
~.
~,c<;
~Y
`A. ;;%: ;=TIRE t' ~~,•
1 _ ».... } _ - .
M ~ l.. •HI.Br~.a~~' ~7:: /~~'~.~•.' ~ ~.N ~li: ,I a r'N.~'.~.:Y'M.
~r•'!!•.~~~~ ~~ ~~ .It :a~ r., , r, •.( ~~1~~$t'~ r ~~~ ~ ~ r" r~~ I ~~ r by I i r I
MI',~•1 ~ r "' • ~ µ 2' ur h ,' r r i ~ .,, i l
w~,a~F~YII -~ ~(r''` ih I ~ II r _ 7 ~ ~,.• ; ]., .~i1 ,. a ~fl,_ /, iiM,
;;1~ .' ~.. ; lrr l~-n ~) ~~ _1~ ~' Pv ^ as ~ .- _ '~ f / t.;,L•.; ! ~Y.
_ y .~; ; I
~dw;'~ w» "' . I! `? R.,,,wi„t ,~, i 7..I, ~ fd.J ~J.''. ' rn r ! 1 '~iQ~ I
'~~f»'{. ~ ~ _~ .:;.M,~~.:, ... ' I, w.,. ::,,:;,, .: ~~yA :;~, GULDEN'S _'~A: ; ~;' ,r ~r~r ~7 : 'p;
~~ !~~ `•.~: v .° ~g ROADHO f~,.:, ;rr ~ Qf~p ~ ~.:
~' I -: ;k~ ~,~;;~~.; '~~; • ~• ~ ~ ~ USE .~' ;~ ~ ~~:g ~ ,a'=• ~
Vrn~ I, ~. _ ~4._ rl ~ •'If r~~.'i.... .c.4 ti•(y 1~ -.-... 'r. _.r... H• 'l~_ r r.~ h~Y'~! ~.u.. ~'I' I
~„ .....
.. .
...
._. _'
.. ,.:
_. ....~ -
. .. .. .. ~ _.. ~.T.._..~~
.., .. -.. ~ ... .. ..,, we w~. --- - -'•:~%-lws ''~`_k_- •--/-ti. 1_ y_.!":; _hi '
y.,.V ° _ .
:...
~°
"~'`~. ,.w, ~ ~nluO1f:a~ci .. ,r rJ r- sesys'is~w snooe . -.~~ P• ..G..~"i~~'f !~ ~~P . .
.~ ..
SEVEN SPRUCE TREES PROPOSED ~~ ~ ~ '~~~-~--• - .~
it , ,
GULDEN'S ROADHOUSE
PARKING LOT SCREENING PLAN
,8
4
N
Attachment 7
D
~v
February 14, 2004
Thomas Ekstrand
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
I an in receipt of your letter dated February 10, 2004 regarding
Venburg Tire relocation. Since I have already spoken with your on
the phone, I would like to put in writing some of my concerns.
It would be much easier to give feedback if the maps were more
comprehensive. I know County Road D will be impacting the
proposed area for Venburg Tire, however, the map does not indicate
where County Road D will be routing through the area.
On the Property Line Map/Zoning Map the north boundary line
indicates the Venburg Tire or Gulden's has vacated the 33' of land
that was to be Lydia Ave. Is this the case? This same map has very
detailed numbers regarding the size of the residential lots, however,
the dimensions for the Gulden's and Venburg lots are not on the map.
It is very difficult to visualize and compare this proposal when
information is not included.
On the Site Plan map there is a parking lot behind Guldens. This
parking lot currently does not exist. Is there a request from Gulden's
to construct a parking lot, or has that already been approved? I have
not seen or heard anything about this parking lot, but have observed
construction activity behind Guldens.
My other concern is the noise Venburg Tire will create. Although we
live away from the Lametry business, we are able to hear noise
created from their operation. I am very concerned about the noise
level Venburg Tire would generate. I did not see any landscaping
addressing this issue.
--_
19 - ,a, ~-
.__.._.;
My other concern is the property behind Guldens. We have always
been told that this is a watershed area and would not be developed.
However, during our discussion, you informed me that there would be
some development on this property. I view this development as
having a negative impact on the properties abutting this land. As with
the property development south of Gulden's where there is a good
amount of space between the business's and homes, it should be the
same for the property behind Guldens.
To ask for a conditional use permit to deviate 120' from the code
when there is a possibility of purchasing additional footage behind the
proposed site and requesting a zoning change does not make sense
to me. The space is there, just how much does the city want to cram
into it?
For the above reasons, We are against granting Venburg Tire the
conditional use permit. _
Sin erely,
~~t ~~ ~~
_ ..- -->
_,:` j^
~., ,,,
~~~~
Richard and Joyce Lambert
2986 Duluth St.
Maplewood, MN 55109
~-
._ _ ~ ~~'
r _ ~ ~~'~
20 i
____.......b.._!
Attachment g
Tom Ekstrand
From: Eric Curtin [curtin@IP-FIRM.comJ
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 11:38 PM
To: Tom Ekstrand
Subject: Venburg Tire -Proposed Relocation
Tom:
I am responding via this email to your letter of February 10, 2004
regarding the above-referenced matter. The lot division to divide the
proposed site from Gulden's Restaurant would increase the number of
residents per unit area along that strip and therefore generate a more
congested feel. In addition, the division with corresponding
construction of a new commercial enterprise will increase noise and
other pollution in the area. Given the relatively immediate nature of
the adjacent residential area, I believe it paramount that the larger
lot size be maintained to facilitate lower congestion along that area.
I oppose the conditional use permit for similar reasons. The code
requiring 350 feet of space between any building and the westerly lot
line serves a significant purpose - keeping space between a residential
area and a commercial area.
The proximity of residential areas with commercial areas dictates that
existing rules and lot divisions be maintained. We strongly oppose the
division of the Gulden's Restaurant site and the approval of the
conditional use permit.
Thank-you for your attention and for apprising us of this matter. Good
luck in solving the surrounding issues - regardless of the decision that
is made, people will be disappointed and in that regard, you have a
difficult job. We appreciate your efforts.
If you would, please confirm that you have received this email by
responding with a brief acknowledgment. If necessary, I can return the
letter you sent to us with these comments attached. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Eric J. Curtin
Attorney at Law
Crawford Maunu PLLC
Intellectual Property Attorneys
1270 Northland Dr., Suite 390
St. Paul, Minnesota 55120
651/686.6633 x103 (office)
651/686.7111 (fax)
612/747.2828 (mobile)
curtin@ip-firm.com <mailto:curtin@ip-firm.com> / www.ip-firm.com
<http://www.ip-firm.com/>
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED/WORK PRODUCT
This transmission contains confidential information. The attorney-client
privilege and the attorney work-product doctrines may protect this
confidential information. This confidential information is to be
reviewed only by the addressee identified above. If you have received
this transmission in error, you are instructed to destroy all pages
immediately and to call the sender at the telephone number indicated
21
Attachment 9
Maplewood Engineering Review
Project: Venburg Tire & Venburg/Guldens Lot Split
Reviewed by: Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer
Date: March 8, 200~-
Background Summary:
In conjunction with the County Road D Realignment projects, the Maplewood Public
Works Department has been working directly with the McFarlanes over the last year with
regards to the relocation of Venburg Tire to this new proposed location. The Maplewood
engineering department and the city's consultant URS has been working closely with the
Venburg site plan and the layout of the proposed frontage road.
There is a considerable amount of project coordination that must take place as part of this
project. As part of the relocation and exchange agreements associate with the County
Road D Realignment projects, the frontage will be constructed by the city as well as the
rough grading of the proposed Venburg site. Construction on the Guldens/Venburg
frontage road is scheduled to begin in late-April. Guldens must be connected to the
proposed water main before the applicant can begin much work on the proposed Venburg
site, as it is the location of Guldens well. In addition the applicant has an agreement with
Guldens to construct the rear parking lot of Guldens before the Guldens north Parking lot
can be eliminated.
No ponding is required on this site as the runoff from this property has been accounted
for in a regional pond located to the SW of the Guldens property. Pre-treatment of runoff
will be accommodated by individual private treatment structures.
Review Comments:
In concept the Venburg Tire project as presented in the submittal material is feasible;
however there are still a few details that must be addressed in revised plans. The
engineering staff is quite comfortable that these details can be addressed before any
permits are issued.
With that said however, there appears to be a lack of coordination between applicant's
plans and the city's frontage road plans. A design review meeting will take place with
~~licant's proiect mans eg r engineer architect the city's consultant - URS and the
Maplewood En 'nom Bering Department before final plans will be accepted.
The following issues shall be addressed:
1. The city and their contractor shall be responsible for initial erosion control
following the rough site grading. The applicant shall show on their Grading and
Erosion Control Plan where and what permanent and temporary erosion control
measures will be utilized.
22
2. It will be impractical to have any private utilities installed in the frontage road due
to timing and coordination of the projects. Show the water, gas and electric
entering the building in a location away from the street construction.
3. It is extremely doubtful that St. Paul Regional Water Service, (SPRWS), will
permit the water service in the right-of--way to be located in such close proximity
to the gas and electric services, nor is it a good practice within the property.
Coordinate any water service issues with Mike Anderson of SPRWS.
4. The sanitary sewer was shown being extended in from the proposed main in
County Road D. It appears that the segment of sewer may not be constructed
until the realignment project takes place. Therefore staff and URS have proposed
that the sewer service be located on the T.H. 61 frontage. It would seem logical
that both the sewer and water services be located next to each other also.
5. The connections of the Venburg and Guldens storm sewer systems to the
proposed city storm system shall be located at one of the storm structures being
constructed during the city's project. Location and size shall be coordinated with
the URS plans.
6. Provide the city with the proper drainage and utility easements over the public
sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer. Easements will be needed from both
the Guldens and Venburg Properties for the public infrastructure along the T.H 61
frontage and from the Guldens property along their south property line. Exact
locations and sizes will be determined with the revised plans.
Provide 20-foot drainage and utility easements on either side of the common lot
line, (proposed frontage road).
Provide 10-foot drainage and utility easements along the west property lines of
both properties and the north and east property lines of the Venburg Tire site.
7. Before utility permits will be issued for the construction of storm sewer, provide
design calculations and sizing determination of the treatment structures,
(Stormceptors), for both the Venburg site and Guldens site.
Before utility permits will be issued for the construction of storm sewer,. both the
owners of Venburg Tire and Guldens shall sign respective BMP Maintenance
Agreements with the city ensuring private maintenance of their respective storm
water treatment structures.
9. After the above conditions have been met, the applicant(s) may submit
applications for Grading and Utility permits. Applications for both permits may
also be obtained on the city's website: www.ci.maplewood.mn.us
23
Attachment 10
VARIANCE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Carol and Pat McFarlane applied for a variance from the sign
ordinance.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to the property north of Gulden's Roadhouse,
2999 Maplewood Drive. The legal description is:
That part of the north 409.50 feet of the east 500.00 feet of the South Half of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota,
lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said Northeast Quarter of
Section 4 distant 235.77 feet south of the northeast comer of said South Half of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 4 to a point on the west line of said east 500.00 feet of the
South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4 distant 115.53 feet south of the
northwest comer of said east 500.00 feet of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 4.
WHEREAS, Section 44-802(a) and (c) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances
requires that all freestanding signs shall be at least 10 feet from any lot line. Also that all
signs shall not project over public property, except where specifically allowed by the
code.
WHEREAS, the applicants are proposing to install their freestanding sign on a
piece of excess highway right-of-way.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On March 23, 2004, the Community Design Review Board recommended
that the City Council this variance.
2. The City Council held a public hearing on , 2004. City staff
published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the
surrounding property owners as required by law. The Council gave
everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written
statements. The 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:
1. The proposed sign placement would meet the spirit
and intent of the code since the sign would comply with
the required 10-foot minimum setback from the actual
right-of-way.
2. Compliance with code would cause the applicant
undue hardship since the 30 feet of excess right-of-way
would require the applicant to place their sign further
back than would otherwise be allowed.
Adopted on , 2004.
24