HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/1998BOOK
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
September 8, 1998
6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
Maplewood City Hall
1830 East County Road B
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes - July 28, 1998
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
6. Design Review
a. Telecommunications Tower, 1221 Frost Avenue- Sprint PCS
b. Carver Elementary School Parking Lot Expansion, 2680 Upper Afton
Road - ATS&R, Inc.
c. Battle Creek Regional Park Aquatic Facility, Upper Afton Road and McKnight
Road - Ramsey County
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Board Presentations
9. Staff Presentations
a.CDRB Representative Needed for City Council Meetings on September
14 and 28
b. Discussion about the 1998 Summer Tour
10. Adjourn
p:com-dvpt\cdrb.agd
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The
review of an item usually follows this format.
1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed.
2. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium
to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community
Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant.
3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes
to comment on the proposal.
4. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments,
the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting.
5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed.
6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision.
7. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You
must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal.
jw\forms\cdrb.agd
Revised: 11-09-94
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
JULY 28, 1998
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Marvin Erickson Present
Marie Robinson Present
Ananth Shankar Present
Tim Johnson Present
Matt Ledvina Present
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IV.
July 14, 1998
Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the minutes of July 14, 1998, as submitted.
Boardmember Robinson seconded.
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ayes--Erickson, Robinson, Shankar, Johnson
Abstain--Ledvina
Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the agenda as submitted.
Boardmember Shankar seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Maplewood Plaza Sign Plan, Southlawn Drive - Welsh Companies
John Johannson of Welsh Companies, the developer, was present. Mr. Johannson said he
had read the staff recommendations and had no problem with them. Mr. Johannson asked for
clarification on who they would bring in elevations to on the future building, staff or the
community design review board. Staff said this would be an issue for the community design
review board to approve.
Boardmember Ledvina asked why the applicant wouldn't wait until they have all the signage
and then bring it to the board. Boardmember Ledvina also asked how large the lettering was
the current store where it says, Just for Feet. Mr. Johannson said that the largest letter on the
sign was six feet. Staff said the plans showed that the sign on the building was six feet tall and
32 feet long.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-28-98
-2-
Boardmember Robinson asked the applicant why the pylon poles were installed prior to the
board's approval. Mr. Johannson said the sign company came out with their boom truck and
put the poles in while the landscaping was being done rather than do it later and end up
tearing up the landscaping and curbing with the truck. The applicant would .move the poles if
they have to be moved. The pole near County Road D, however, was put where it was so that
when a car or truck turned out of the parking lot nothing hanging from the vehicle would hit the
sign. Mr. Johannson said they were granting an easement to the city there for future
expansion of County Road D. Staff said the city had originally wanted ten feet of right-of-way
dedication along the County Road D frontage. As a result of meetings with Mr. Johannson,
city staff, and their respective attorneys, the city accepted an easement for right-of-way
instead of actual land taking. Staff said the sign has to be set back far enough to be off of the
ten foot right-of-way easement.
Mr. Johannson said that, in answer to Boardmember Ledvina's question about why wait, the
future building is flexible and could accommodate one tenant of 40,000 to 42,000 feet or it
could be two tenants or it could be smaller tenants and the larger tenants would get a bigger
sign and the smaller tenants would get a smaller sign. They said they didn't know what
tenants they were going to have in the building and felt they should wait on the signs and come
back later. Boardmember Erickson asked if they had any immediate plans to build on the site
to the north. Mr. Johannson said they would like to build right now and are negotiating with a
national retailer, and if they get a commitment they will try to break ground as soon as
possible. Boardmember Erickson asked if that would change the signage for the north part of
the building that says Just for Feet on it because it would be blocked by the future building.
Mr. Johannson said he thought the sign should be moved to the south side but Just for Feet
wanted it there because it is the access point from County Road D.
Boardmember Robinson asked the applicant if the future building would be a shopping center.
Mr. Johannson said it would either be one tenant or it might be a singular building with multiple
tenants. They would like one large tenant. The city code allows a parking lot of about 42,000
feet and the undeveloped pad could accommodate this. Boardmember Robinson asked staff
if there were any restrictions if this becomes a shopping center. Staff said that was why they
wanted to hold off on approving any signage for an unknown building because they don't know
how many users there will be in the building. Staff said that when Mr. Johannson comes to the
community design review board with the design plans, the sign plans could be looked at as
well. Staff said the applicant is asking for approval of the pre-pylon signs with the Just for
Feet sign on the adjacent property so what we are going to end up with is off premises signs.
They'll each have their own message on the neighbor's property.
Boardmember Robinson asked if we were creating another problem depending on another
tenant that may come forward. Staff said the only problem that they could foresee is when
them is a change in tenants and they want something bigger or different than what we are
looking at here. Staff said the concept of having the Just for Feet sign, for example, on the
northerly parcel is fine but how are we going to deal with changes that are likely to occur.
Boardmember Johnson asked what the reasoning was for the interior sign to the southeast
corner. Mr. Johannson said that was the sign that faces the new Dayton's building. The mall
ring road them has some pretty good traffic on it and their goal was to have a prominence and
a presence to other retail shoppers. Toys R Us and Circuit City both have signs there. Just for
Feet felt this sign would pull in more business from shoppers on the ring mad.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-28-98
-3-
Boardmember Robinson moved to approve the following comprehensive sign plan
requirements for Maplewood Plaza (Just for Feet and the future building to the north) at the
southeast corner of County Road D and Southlawn Drive:
Future buildin_a signage: The criteria for wall signs on the future building are not approved.
The criteria for these wall signs shall be submitted to the community design review board
after the board has approved the architectural plans for that building.
2. Enter/exit signs: These signs shall be designed and located to comply with city code. The
design of these signs shall be submitted to staff for approval.
Just for Feet Buildinq: Just for Feet, or any future user or tenant, shall be allowed the two
wall mounted signs that are presently installed as shown in the sign criteria submittal date-
stamped July 17, 1998. Staff may approve changes to the signage on this building as long
as it meets code and they do not exceed a total of two signs. The "Just for Feet" and
"Worlds Largest Athletic Shoe Store" signs on the north elevation are considered as one
sign.
o
Pylon Signs: Three pylon signs shall be allowed as proposed on the plans date-stamped
July 17, 1998, subject to meeting all city code requirements, with the exception that the
Southlawn Drive pylon sign may have a six-foot setback from the right-of-way line instead
of ten feet. As a point of clarification, the Southlawn Drive pylon sign is west of Just for
Feet, not southwest of the building as shown on the site plan.
Boardmember Johnson seconded.
Ayes--all
B. St. John's Hospital Sign Plan, 1575 Beam Avenue - Visual Communications
Cheryl Long O'Donnell, of Visual Communications, was present. Ms. O'Donnell said that
Visual Communications was hired by St. John's Healtheast to put together the comprehensive
sign program. Ms. O'Donnell showed the boardmembers a map identifying the type of signs
and where the signs are placed. Ms. O'Donnell also talked about the colors of the different
signs and the material used for the signs. Ms. O'Donnell then answered questions from the
boardmembers. Ms. O'Donnell said there was one change from the master plan, in that, the
signs were initially to be illuminated and now they are going to use reflective vinyl on them
instead.
Boardmember Robinson asked staff if there were any equivalent signs in Maplewood as she
was wondering about the maintenance and upkeep of these signs. Staff said they weren't
aware of any. Ms. O'Donnell said that the aluminum signs have a type of paint on them that
has a nine year warranty on fading, etc.
Boardmember Erickson asked if the Dedicated to Caring sign was going to be put up on the
building and if this was part of the sign plan. Ms. O'Donnell said this was something they were
thinking about doing in the future and that it was in the master plan. Boardmember Ledvina
said he felt that the Dedicated to Caring sign seemed out of place with its close proximity to the
large centerpiece sign of the complex and he was uncertain how it would work with the
greenery and block wall there. Ms. O'Donnell said they looked at this area and how it was
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-28-98
-4-
landscaped and being there is a flowing feeling along the back retaining wall, they felt that if
they just put a sign there that it wouldn't tie in with everything else that is going on at that
corner. Boardmember Ledvina asked Ms. O'Donnell what the size of the letters were for the
Dedicated to Caring sign. Ms. O'Donnell said the letters were 18" high as a capital D, which
she said are fairly small.
Boardmember Ledvina moved to approve the sign proposal date-stamped July 20, 1998 for St.
John's Hospital, 1575 Beam Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. The design of signs not shown on the plans shall be submitted to staff for approval.
2. All signs shall follow the approved design and color scheme.
3. Sign placements shall comply with those shown on the approved site plan.
4. Staff may approve minor changes to this sign plan. Major changes may only be approved
by the community design review board.
Boardmember Shankar seconded.
Ayes--all
C. Best Buy Building Addition, 1885 E. County Road D - Best Buy Company
David Jamieson, of Best Buy Company, was present. Mr. Jamieson said he had read the staff
recommendation and had no problems with it. Mr. Jamieson said a lot of the items were
landlord things that need to be done and, at this time, Best Buy's corporate counsel has
spoken to the landowner's corporate counsel and there are no problems with it.
Boardmember Erickson wanted to know about the retaining wall that is or isn't proposed. Mr.
Jamieson said there is a retaining wall proposed in the back area, which is only going to be
about a foot high. Mr. Jamieson said there wouldn't be a retaining wall needed if the
transmission site's grading next door sloped toward Best Buy. The transmission site's grade is
sloped from both sides to the center. There is a swale there, and because there is a berm
effect at the property line, there needs to be a small retaining wall. It is too steep to do any
type of landscaping. Mr. Jamieson said it was going to be rockfaced block masonry painted
the same as the building. Mr. Jamieson said there would be landscape around it.
Boardmember Erickson asked if the trash compactor was going to be moved. Mr. Jamieson
said the compactor was going to be moved all the way in the corner next to the west side of
the building. Boardmember Erickson stated that the applicant has one dock area there now.
Mr. Jamieson said there is an existing single truck dock there and they are proposing to put a
second door in next to where they are putting the trash compactor. Mr. Jamieson said the
trash compactor would be moving more towards the southwest into the corner of the building.
Mr. Jamieson said the other dock would be their main dock and the second dock would be
used more for UPS deliveries and at Christmas time.
Boardmember Erickson said that this plan has been before the board before and wanted to
know what has changed. Mr. Jamieson said it was tabled before because there wasn't
enough information and the applicant went back and got the civil engineer into it. It was their
understanding that the site was 100 feet wide and found out it was only 82 feet wide, which is
why it has taken so long to come back. They have decided to do a 6,000 square foot addition
instead of a 10,000 square foot addition.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-28-98
-5-
Boardmember Erickson asked if the pylon signs were going to be relocated. Mr. Jamieson
said that the existing pylon sign is behind the center and they would like to put it up into the
area of the new construction on a new pylon base. When they tear down the Egghead
building they will be tearing down two pylon signs. On one of the existing pylon signs is a Big
and Tall sign and there is no problem with them taking it down. It is up to Big and Tall if they
want it relocated back. Mr. Jamieson talked to city staff about Big and Tall using their existing
pylon post when they relocate their sign up to the new area and staff said that would not be
acceptable. Boardmember Robinson asked staff where the new proposed sign would sit on
the site. Staff said it would be at the northeast corner of the property.
Boardmember Robinson was concerned that the compactor be moved and stay moved and
that the area behind the buildings along the freeway be cleaned up. Mr. Jamieson said he
agreed that it needed to be cleaned up and that it will be cleaned up.
Boardmember Ledvina said there were some concerns about the wide expanse of the wall to
the east of the entrance. The plan shows a number of different colors and there is another
band of tiles indicated. Mr. Jamieson said there were three colors of bands, a beige, a tan,
and a light brown border between the colors. Because the way the tile is on this store and
trying to bring it into the new prototype look, they are going to be painting the existing block to
give the stripes in there and the chocolate brown is just to break up the two different other
colors. The light shrouds that cover the wall lighting will be metal and painted with an open top
and bottom.
Boardmember Robinson said that when she looked at the brown accent banding her concern
was that what is there now appears to be more gray than brown and her thought was that they
were bringing in another color on the existing building. Mr. Jamieson said the shops next to
them have been painted a mauve. There are two colors on the building on the back and the
new colors would be close. Mr. Jamieson said they will be painting the entire building,
meaning the Best Buy store. Staff considered any slight color changes and, being that Frank's
Nursery is also different from the rest of the center, staff felt that it was okay for Best Buy to
have different colors.
Boardmember Shankar asked what the black stuff was underneath the blue on the building.
Mr. Jamieson said the black was rockface block painted a flat black below the blue EIFS.
Boardmember Robinson asked if the applicant had any buildings with this new look here in
Minnesota. Mr. Jamieson said he had given city staff pictures of their Richfield store on 494
and Lyndale, and they are looking at putting a prototypical store with the wedge and everything
in Maple Grove.
Boardmember Ledvina asked staff if item A.2.c.(6) of the staff report should read as follows:
"Repairing broken trash enclosures and providing more screening for all trash dumpsters that
are behind the building". Staff agreed.
Boardmember Robinson asked if, on the landscaping, the applicant was in agreement with 2-
1/2 inch caliper trees along the east lot line, spaced 30 feet apart. The applicant said they did
not have a problem with this. Boardmember Robinson asked if there was a problem with
installing and replacing the seven dead boulevard trees. Mr. Jamieson said that this was a
landlord issue and, again, they will make sure it gets taken care of.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-28-98
Boardmember Shankar moved to:
A.
-6-
Approve the plans date-stamped July 10, 1998, for the proposed Best Buy addition at the
Maplewood Town Center shopping center. Approval is subject to the applicant:
1. Repeating this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Providing the following for staff approval before getting a building permit:
a. A landscape plan for the east lot line of the old Egghead Software site showing
which shrubs would be removed and which ones would be saved. This plan
should also show ten, 2 ~ inch caliper trees along the east lot line spaced 30 feet
apart.
b. A design plan for the retaining wall proposed along the east lot line.
c. Provide cash escrow in the amount of 200% of the cost of:
(1) Installing all landscaping and replacing the seven dead boulevard trees with 2
~ inch caliper, balled and burlapped ash trees.
(2) Relocating the trash compactor to the west side of the building and outside of
the drive aisle.
(3) Repairing or removing the roof-top mechanical equipment screens. If the
screens are removed, the mechanical units must be painted a cream color to
match the building.
(4) Restriping the parking lot in all areas where parking space stripes and fire
lane cross hatching is worn.
(5) Reinstalling a stop sign at the westerly exit.
(6) Repairing broken trash enclosures and providing more screening for all trash
dumpsters that are behind the building.
(7) Picking up and disposing of all litter on the site.
Escrow will not be required for any of these items that are resolved before the
building permit is issued.
d. Revise the grading plan to omit the gravel from the easterly driveway. The city
engineer shall approve this change.
e. Record a deed combining the Egghead Software site with the Town Center
property to form one legally-described lot.
Vlo
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-28-98
-7-
3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Paint any new roof-top mechanical equipment on the addition to match the
building.
b. Provide all required landscaping.
c. Install continuous concrete curbing along the edges of all new parking lots and
drives.
d. Remove the two pylon signs from the old Egghead Software property.
4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
B. Approval of the proposed sign changes for the Maplewood Town Center Shopping Center
as shown on the plans date-stamped July 10, 1998, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Best Buy pylon sign may be moved to the northeast corner of the site with the new
sign face as shown on the plans. This sign shall meet setback requirements.
2. The two pylon signs on the Egghead Software site shall be removed. Relocation to the
Town Center site is prohibited.
3. The Best Buy wall sign on the rear of the building addition is approved.
4. Staff may approve minor modifications to the sign plans.
Boardmember Ledvina seconded. Ayestall
The motion passed.
DESIGN REVIEW
A. Maplewood Eye Care, West of 1975 11th Avenue - Mulcahy, Inc.
Hank Breems, of Mulcahy, Inc., was present. Mr. Breems said that they agreed with the staff
report. Mr. Breems said that, in reference to item B.2.b.(3), they have redesigned this. The
applicant has moved the trash enclosure to the northwest corner of the parking lot in the back
of the building so it is out of the right-of-way. They show a turnaround right up to the easement
on the back side.
Boardmember Erickson asked if there was going to be any screening for the glare from the two
parking lots on either side of their building which has windows on both the east side and west
side. Mr. Breems said there is some natural screening to the west but they would like to take
that out and put some other landscaping along there if they can. Boardmember Erickson
asked staff if they had any concerns about the parking lot on either side as far as lighting.
Staff said that if it was a residential situation they would but in this case they do not. Mr.
Breems said there was a recommendation that they plant some trees along the easterly lot line
and they concur with that.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-28-98
-8-
Boardmember Ledvina asked what the color of the brick was. Mr. Breems said they were in
the process of picking out the color. They do not have the full package put together yet but the
building is going to be comparable to what they have on Heather Ridge. The color may not be
the same but the construction is quite comparable and the brick on the building will be of that
scale, not necessarily that color. Boardmember Ledvina asked if the brick went all the way to
the eave in the front. Mr. Breems said they want the block that is exposed around the back of
the building to be a colored rockface block and they may want to work that into the design of
the brick on the front.
Boardmember Ledvina asked what the construction of the retaining walls was going to be. Mr.
Breems said it would be landscape block. Boardmember Ledvina thought this should be
clarified because it is visible on both sides. Boardmember Robinson asked if item B.2.b.(3) of
the staff report should be deleted and if item B.3.c. should be changed to add the following:
"Construct a trash dumpster enclosure on the northwest corner of the property that is
compatible with or matches the building design and colors. The trash enclosure shall have a
closeable gate that extends to the ground".
Boardmember Robinson moved to approve the site plan date-stamped July 14, 1998 and the
building elevations and landscape plans date-stamped June 25, 1998 for an eye-care clinic
building west of 1975 11th Avenue based on the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Provide the following before the city issues a building permit:
a. A grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval.
b. A revised site and landscape plan showing:
(1) The preservation of the existing tree cover in front of the adjacent parking lot. The
city staff may require replacement of trees if any need to be removed.
(2) At least four trees along the east lot line.
c. Proof of the recording of reciprocal cross easements between the proposed site and
the property to the west for ingress and egress.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit onto 11th Avenue and handicap-parking
signs for each handicap-parking space.
b. Provide continuous concrete curbing around the parking lot and drives.
Construct a trash dumpster enclosure in the northwest corner of the parking lot, not in
the northeast corner as proposed, due to its encroachment in the drainage easement.
The enclosure shall be compatible with or match the building's design and colors. The
trash enclosure shall have a closeable gate that extends to the ground.
d. Install an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-28-98
-9-
e. Sod all green areas including the boulevard. Restoration of the drainage easement in
back shall be subject to the city engineer's and watershed district's approval.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
bo
The city receives cash escrow for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent
of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by
June 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.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Boardmember Johnson seconded.
Boardmember Ledvina asked that item B.3.c. read the northwest corner of the parking lot
instead of the northwest corner of the property. Boardmember Robinson said she would
correct that.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
B. Gervais Court Apartments, Gervais Court - Tri Hess Development Company
Mr. Dick Krumm, of RVK Architects, the architect for this project, and Mr. David Hesley,
representing Tri-Hess Development Company, the applicant, were present. Mr. Krumm said
he had brought drawings with him showing the color schemes. Mr. Krumm said that there will
be no trash enclosure, that all trash will be enclosed within the underground parking garage,
as well as building storage and maintenance. Mr. Krumm said they had no issue with any of
the points that were raised in the staff report. Mr. Krumm said that, relative to the landscape
plan, they don't have solutions for all of them yet, but they would work with staff as far as
readjusting where they put some of the trees and the introduction of a berm along the south
property line on Gervais Court side.
Mr. Krumm had a question with respect to existing material and trying to save as much of that
as possible on the southeast portion of the property. Mr. Krumm said the property was
overgrown with volunteer growth and they would rather replant with new material and have a
lawn area that could be manicured and maintained. Boardmember Erickson asked staff if they
had seen the proposal to remove everything and then replant. Mr. Krumm said it would be
consistent with the landscape plan they presented originally. Staff said they hadn't seen the
proposal. Mr. Krumm said that one of the concerns was that they move the larger trees off the
easement and keep them to the side of the property as much as possible so they wouldn't be
interfering with underground utilities that are in that easement. Mr. Krumm said they had a
heavy planting on that side because they wanted a screen from the parking lot.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-28-98
-10-
Boardmember Erickson asked the applicant what they were proposing for the landscaping on
the parking lot side. Mr. Krumm said it would be a combination of evergreens, with Austrian
pine and black hill spruce. Boardmember Erickson said that when he looked west and north
from the church parking lot there was a piece that comes off the parking lot in a wedge.
Boardmember Erickson said he had a concern that, if the applicant does all the nice
landscaping, the wedge is going to look pretty bad because it looks bad now. Mr. Krumm said
he didn't have anything to define the church's edge and how far over some of that might have
come. Boardmember Robinson asked how far the applicant's property ran. Mr. Krumm said it
ran all the way to the street, that it was the entire triangle. Staff said this was the church's
property and the city can't make them cut the trees.
Mr. Krumm said the colors they are proposing for the building would be all identical to Carefree
I, II, and III as they exist in terms of the colors. The only thing they would depart from would be
the color of the brick itself. They are proposing jumbo brick in brown tones and burgundy
accent banding. The trim on the windows would be white except for the entry and solarium
which would be largely wood and glass. Boardmember Robinson asked if they had
considered making another band on the top of the building because of the height and length.
Mr. Krumm said he was trying to come up with a good blend of vertical and horizontal to work
against the length of the building and he felt that adding another horizontal band would just
add more length to the building.
Mr. Krumm said that, regarding parking spaces, they have a reserve parking area of 32 hard
surface spots and if the need were there, they could utilize this area to get adequate numbers.
Boardmember Robinson asked what they were currently proposing for this area. Mr. Krumm
said it was just open. Boardmember Ledvina said staff had a question about the turning radius
of the drive and he wondered if there was going to be a problem with the Fire Marshal in that
regard. Mr. Krumm said he didn't anticipate a problem because it is the same outside radius
that exists at Carefree III now. Boardmember Ledvina was concerned that, if the applicant
starts changing the drive, it might change the overall configuration of the site and asked if
there was enough room to make adjustments as they needed. Mr. Krumm said if they had to
make an adjustment it would have to come from the setback on the side but they would want
to maintain as much as they could along Gervais. Boardmember Erickson asked staff if the
Fire Marshal had looked at this and was okay with the radius. Staff said that the Fire Marshal
did look at it and did not comment on the turnaround but commented on the sprinkler alarms
and detectors. The Fire Marshal didn't indicate that he had a problem with the radius.
Boardmember Ledvina asked what the applicant's opinion was regarding the original request
as it relates to the zoning versus the city's thought that this should be a PUD. Mr. Krumm said
the owner hasn't had conversations with the staff relative to that point yet. Boardmember
Ledvina asked staff where that was going as it relates to the rezoning versus the PUD. Staff
said they are recommending the PUD and denial of the rezoning. It will be going to the
planning commission at the next meeting and will be dealt with there.
Staff said the board would be taking action on the site plan, landscape plan, grading and
drainage plans and building elevations, and possibly the issue of the parking waiver.
Boardmember Robinson asked staff if the city had any problems in the past regarding parking
when working with larger units such as this and accepted less parking spaces. Staff said that
so far it has not been a problem.
Community Design Review Board -11-
Minutes of 07-28-98
Boardmember Ledvina moved to approve the following:
D. 92 parking spaces (60 garage spaces and 32 open spaces), rather than the 120 spaces
required by code for the Gervais Court senior housing project, because:
1. The parking space requirement is not proper for senior housing, because there are
fewer cars per unit in these projects.
2. The city has approved fewer parking spaces for other senior housing, including the
Village on Woodlynn, the Carefree Cottages and Cardinal Pointe.
E. The plans date-stamped June 25, 1998 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage
plans and building elevations) for the Gervais Court senior housing development. The city
bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall
do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
a.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and
driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions:
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) The grading plan shall:
(a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb.
(c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed
board or by the city engineer.
(3) The entryway and driveway in front of the building shall meet the minimum
standards for turning and access for firefighting equipment.
(4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb
and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for
drainage purposes.
b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads.
¢. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction.
d. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing:
(1) That all proposed trees would be consistent with city standards for size,
location and species.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-28-98
-12-
o
(2) The 24 proposed large trees in the utility easement moved to within five feet
of the east property line.
(3) A berm and additional trees along the south side of the site near Gervais
Court, subject to city staff approval. This is to provide additional screening
and buffering from the businesses to the south of the site.
(4) As much of the existing vegetation along the eastern property line
preserved as possible.
e. The fire chief shall approve the access to the building for firefighting needs.
f. Submit elevations to the city for staff approval showing colors and materials for
all sides of the building.
Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
c. Install reflectorized stop signs at the exit, a handicap-parking sign for each
handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the
applicant shall install stop signs and traffic directional signs within the site, as
required by staff.
d. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the
building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent
property. (code requirement)
e. Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any
dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep
outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors
of the building.
f. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas.
g. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and
around all open parking stalls.
h. Install a storm shelter in a central location in the apartment building. This
shelter shall be subject to the approval of the Maplewood director of emergency
preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80%
of the planned population.
I. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff approval.
j. The developer or contractor shall:
(1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-28-98
-13-
(2)* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
(3) Remove any debris or junk from the site.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required
work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any
unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 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.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any
unfinished work.
5. This approval does not include the signs.
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
Boardmember Robinson seconded.
The motion passed.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
There were no visitor presentations.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Ayes--all
There were no board presentations.
Xl. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
A. Representative for August 10 City Council Meeting: Mr. Shankar said he would be able to
attend but would have to leave the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
B. Representative for August 24 City Council Meeting: Mr. Johnson will attend this meeting.
C. City Tour, August 17, 1998: All the boardmembers will be attending.
X, ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:50.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review
Sprint PCS Antenna
1221 Frost Avenue
August 21, 1998
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
David Hagen of Loucks and Associates, representing Sprint PCS, is asking for approval to install a
80-foot-tall antenna for telecommunications equipment. They want to install this antenna on the
site of Al's Auto, 1221 Frost Avenue. (Refer to the maps and plans on pages 6-9.) There would
also be a 15' x 20' x 2' prefabricated equipment platform near the base of the antenna. PCS would
lease a 29' x 80' area from the property owner and would enclose the lease area with a six-foot-
high chain link fence. (Please also see the information from Sprint on pages 11-17.)
Requests
The applicant is requesting that the city approve:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for an antenna and related equipment in a BC (business
commercial) zoning district.
2. The site, landscaping and fencing plans.
BACKGROUND
On January 13, 1997, the council adopted the commercial use antenna and tower ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses all telecommunications systems. This
licensing requires that the proposed or new telecommunications equipment not interfere with
existing communications or electronics equipment. If there is interference, then the FCC requires
the telecommunications company to adjust or shut down the new equipment to correct the
situation. Maplewood must be careful to not limit or prohibit this tower (or any other tower) because
of electronic interference. That is up to the FCC to regulate and monitor. The city may only base
their decision on land use and on health, safety and welfare concerns.
This project meets the requirements of the tower ordinance and the criteria for a CUP. As
proposed, the site design would be compatible with the adjacent commercial structures and uses.
(Please see the letter on pages 18-20.) The city council should approve this request.
Design and Site Issues
Access to the lease area and tower would be from the existing unpaved driveway on the east side
of Al's Auto, that connects to Frost Avenue. As proposed, the antenna would be at least 275 feet
from Frost Avenue and 108 feet from the north property line. The tower will be 86 and 60 feet from
the west and east property lines respectively. The site design would fit in with the nearby
commercial buildings. As shown on page 9, the applicant also is proposing to landscape the
perimeter of their fence with 16 arborvitaes.
The tower design will allow a potential collocation of an additional telecommunication provider.
This can be accomplished by raising the tower an additional 40 feet if a company is interested in
using the site.
The site is currently used for storing automobiles, used tires, trailers and automotive equipment.
There also are several vehicles stored on the west side of the site that are the responsibility of
D & D Towing, a tenant in the building.
Neighborhood Meeting
On September 3, 1997, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting at the Maplewood Bowl. They
invited all 36 property owners within 350 feet of the site to the meeting. Of those invited, five
property owners from three families attended. One property owner was for the proposal and two
families expressed concerns about aesthetics, possible effects on property values and the location
near the trail.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution on pages 21 and 22. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to
allow a telecommunications antenna up to 120-feet-tall and the related equipment for the
property at 1221 Frost Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance
and is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
2. The owner or applicant shall start the proposed construction within one year of council
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The applicant or owner shall allow the collocation of other providers' telecommunications
equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions.
B. Approve the site and landscape plans date-stamped August 17, 1998, and the elevations date-
stamped August 8, 1997, for a telecommunications antenna and equipment on the property at
1221 Frost Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the
applicant doing the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project.
2. Before getting a building permit, provide a grading, drainage, driveway and erosion control
plan to the city engineer for approval. Specifically, these plans shall meet the following
conditions:
a. The erosion control plan shall meet all ordinance requirements.
b. There shall be a 12-foot-wide bituminous driveway from the existing bituminous in the
parking lot to the tower site.
3. Before getting a building permit, the owner shall remove and dispose of any debris, unused
motor vehicles, motor vehicle equipment or parts, tires and ensure that the site is cleaned
up.
4. The owner or occupant may not remove any of the existing trees on the north side of the
property
5. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
b. The city receives cash escrow for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent
of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by
June 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.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work.
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
3
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
In 1997, we sent surveys to 36 property owners within 350 feet of the proposed site. Of the 9
replies the city received, 3 had no comment, 2 were for and 4 objected to the proposal.
For
I am for this proposal. (Hirsch - 315 14th Street, Pine City, and Comford - 77 E. Stevens, St. Paul)
Objections
1. I don't want to look at it out my living room window. (Rasmussen - 1211 E. Ryan Avenue)
2. I do not want to see the tower every day. I'd rather see trees. (Hawkings - 1227 E. Ryan Ave.)
3. This will be any eye sore, perceived health threat, decrease property value, and degrade
Gateway Trail experience. Just because all those businesses on Frost Avenue are already
eyesores doesn't justify making it worse! How has the City of Maplewood addressed enhancing
the Gateway Trail? There's plenty of room in Phalen Park or Keller Golf course for ugly towers.
(Herron - 1106 E. Ryan Avenue)
4. Possible hazards, eyesore, devaluates my property. Put it on the south side of Frost Avenue in
the previous site of the Maplewood Auto Clinic. It is equal distance on all sides from residential
housing.
In 1998, we again sent surveys to the 36 property owners within 350 feet of the proposed site. Of
the 12 replies the city received, 5 had no comment, 2 were for and 5 objected to the proposal.
Against
1. I am not sure if this will disturb TV or radio reception. Leave as is. (Roehling - 1940 Atlantic
Street)
2. It would ruin our view. They should donate property to the park service. (Hunt- 1981 Duluth
Street)
It is an eyesore on the Gateway Trail. The Gateway is an asset. Stop this project. Place on the
tower by Highway 36 and English or south on the open field on the south side of Frost (where
the building burned). The trail is not just a vacated railroad. Maplewood should wake up and
improve this area. Make the Gateway an asset, not an eyesore. (Herron - 1106 Ryan Avenue)
4. There is already a tower like this 1 mile or less north by Highway 36. Put it there. (Barr - 1216
Ryan Avenue)
5. Acceptable only if erected across frost in the City Open Space - why doesn't the city want it
there if it does not decrease property values, etc. (Kelcher - 1210 Ryan Avenue)
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Proposed lease area: 2,300 square feet
Existing land use: Al's auto vehicle storage
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Single family homes north of the DNR trail
South: City Open Space across Frost Avenue
West: D & D Towing
East: George's Auto Repair
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: BC (Business Commercial)
Zoning: BC (Business Commercial)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 36-607(c) requires a CUP for a antenna in BC (business commercial) zoning district.
Findings for CUP Approval
Section 36-442(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards for
approval. Refer to findings one through nine in the resolution on pages 18 and 19.
p:sec16~PCStower.mem
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan dated 8-17-98
4. Proposed Landscape Plan dated 8-17-98
5. Elevation dated 8-8-97
6. Applicant's letter dated August 8, 1997
7. General Information on Sprint PCS dated August 8, 1997
8. Letter from Loucks and Associates dated August 21, 1998
9. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
10. Plans date-stamped August 17, 1998 (separate attachment).
PLAZA OR
ALVARADO D~
BELLECREST DR
D~ALMLLE DR
MER'fD/AN DR
~ V1KING DR.
BURKE
BELMONT
AV.
BURKE CT.
COUNTY
3ROOKS
CT.
/ SEXTANT ,'.
ROAD
NOR
GERVA/S
dUNCTION
FROST
)N AVE:.
AVE.
Attachment 1
tBROOKS
SHERREN AVE.
[] .
Z
DE~ONT
AVE.
Knucr~eod ~k
AVE,
AVE.
SAINT
PAUL
LOCATION
MAP
199~5~):
1989
,38
Attachment 2
1'1'
a, a,,& o
50
FLICEK PARK
?.- I~, -G, O
IIAVE. I~i
MAPLEWOOD BOWL
1201
z~
CITY OPEN SPACE
i C
R3"
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP
Attachment 3
5
15
5
SITE PLAN ~--~ 7- ~
8
Attachment 4
PLANT LIST
SYM NO COMMON NAME I BOTANICAL NAME
TA 16 TECHNY ARBORVITAE IThujo occidenfolis 'Techn¥'
SIZE
3' POT
PLATFORM
X
TOWER-
X
X ' X ¸
6 TA
T
X
TA
TOWER COMPOUND
NTS
Attachment 5
NOTES:
12'-0'
TYPICAL, ROADWAY SECTION
,--4'-0' RIrSIOeN'T~L ~
(.~£ NOT£ 3)
SECTION OF TOWER (~OI~,POUND FACING EAST
RELEASED FOR
CCSNSTDUCTION
klSC715A2
NISO3X¢715v2
SPRINT SPECTRUt4
PLANS, SECTIONS, AND DETAILS
AL'~ AUTO $£RVICIr
MINNrAPOLI$ MTA SITE 715
10
Attachment 6
EXIBIT A
Sprint PCS
CUP/Development Board Review
ISite Information
,I
Applicant
Contact
Site Location
Current Zoning
Comp Plan Designation
Municipal Utilities
Sprint PCS
Paul Harrington
Sprint PCS
2900 Lone Oak Parkway #140
Eagan, MN 55121
612.686.2669 (Phone) 612.686.2700 (Fax)
Al's Auto - 1221 Frost Avenue - Maplewood, MN 55109
BC, Business Commercial
BC, Business Commercial
The site is served by Municipal utilities
Adjacent Zoning
Direction
North
South
East
West
Zone
R, Single Dwelling
R-2, Double Dwelling
BC, Business Commercial
BC, Business Commercial
ICase History ]
1221 Frost Avenue is located on platted property approximately 1.25 miles East of Highway 61
on Frost Avenue. The legal description is attached to the enclosed applications. Development in
the immediate vicinity of the site includes single family residences to the North, commercial to
the East and Keller Golf Course to the West. Although currently zoned for multi-family use, the
property to the immediate South of the site is undeveloped.
IIntroduction ]
Sprint PCS is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review in order to attach six (6)
foot tall panel antennas to the top of an 80' monopole structure. The associated ground
equipment necessary for the operation of the antennas would be located on a 15'x 20' raised
(approximately two feet) platform near the base of the tower.
The Conditional Use Permit is being requested per the following sections of the Maplewood City
Code:
11
Section
36-605
36-607
ICo-Location Alternatives
Subject
Conditional Use Permit
Construction Requirements, Setback and
Height Restrictions in Districts other than
Residential
The Maplewood Ordinance requires that applicants for Antenna Tower construction provide
documentation as to the available co-location possibilities within ½ mile of the proposed tower
location prior to City consideration.
Sprint PCS conducts site selection based upon the following formula:
Step one in the site selection process involves engineering studies and projections for
"coverage" based upon topography, anticipated usage and ability to propagate signal. The Sprint
PCS Radio Frequency (RF) Engineers then provide Property Staff with an area (commonly
referred to as a Search Ring) within which to locate a site. The goal of the RF process is to
ensure that coverage for potential users is "seamless" and will not result in any dead areas where
calls may be lost.
Once in possession of a defined search ring, property representatives explore alternatives for
antenna location based upon willingness of property owners to sign a lease for location of the
equipment and zoning regulations. Co-location types include water towers, existing structures
of sufficient height and existing towers in the area. Co-locations are preferred for a number of
reasons: security is better, zoning approvals are more easily acquired and, most importantly,
costs are greatly reduced.
Within the defined search ring for the Maplewood area, there are no existing structures which
provide sufficient height for operation of the system at the level desired by Sprint PCS RF
Engineers. The closest water tower to the proposed site is over one (1) mile East of the site on
the Ramsey County Fairgrounds
Findings
The criteria to be considered by the City Council for the granting of Conditional Use Permits are
listed below with findings:
Criteria #1
The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to
be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of
Ordinances.
Finding # 1
Criteria #2
Finding #2
Criteria #3
Finding #3
Criteria #4
Finding #4
The proposed use meets all requirements of the Maplewood City Code as it relates
to Antenna Tower siting including: required setbacks, height limitations, color
and screening. The site is located within the Gladstone Planning Area of the City
Comprehensive Guide Plan. The site is designated BC, Business Commercial in
this document.
The use would not change the existing or planned character of the
surrounding area.
The site is currently designated for commercial development according to the
Maplewood Zoning Ordinance. Development of Antenna facilities is a
conditioned use within Commercial zone districts in the City. Development
within the general vicinity of the site includes long-established commercial
operations, residential dwellings and Keller Golf Course. The City
Comprehensive Guide Plan designates the subject property as BC - Business
Commercial.
The use would not depreciate property values.
Sprint PCS has found no measurable or identifiable impact on residential
property values due to tower construction. A copy of a real estate value impact
study is included with this application for your review.
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 run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical
interference or other nuisance.
There is no evidence that the use, as conditioned, would be injurious to the public
health, safety or general welfare of the community. Sprint PCS transmissions
operate at very low power levels. There is no evidence that PCS transmissions are
harmful to the health or safety of the persons living or working nearby. Sprint
PCS engineers have calculated that the worst case scenario would actually be
eight (8) times below the limit set by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted the
standards set by the ANSI. According to the FCC, measurements that have been
made near typical cellular base stations have shown that ground level power
densities are well below the limits recommended by radio frequency and
microwave safety standards. In addition, each Sprint PCS site is registered with
and approved by the Federal Aviation Administration - therefore posing no threat
to air navigation. The operation of the antenna site produces no noise, is odorless
and completely self-sufficient. Routine visits to the site for general maintenance
13
Criteria #5
Finding #5
Criteria #6
Finding #6
Criteria #7
Finding #7
Criteria #8
Finding #8
Criteria #9
Finding #9
and equipment checks are made on a quarterly basis. Visits to the site in the event
of equipment or power failure are on an as-needed basis.
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.
As mentioned in finding #4, visits to the site are limited to general maintenance
check-ups and emergency situations on an as-needed basis.
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.
Operation of the Antenna site is dependent upon the provision of power and
telephone on the property. Both of these utilities are present on the 1221 Frost
Avenue property. The Use would not require water and sewer and security is
provided by the installation of a chain link fence around the Tower compound
area (please see attached drawings).
The Use would not create excessive costs for additional public facilities or
services.
As mentioned in finding #6, the Use only requires power and telephone - both of
which are currently available on the site. As conditioned, the Use would not have
an adverse impact upon any governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing
or proposed improvements. The proposed use would not create excessive
requirements for public facilities or services. In fact, the approval of the proposal
would enhance the area's communication abilities by helping to provide PCS
services to a portion of the City of Maplewood.
The Use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's
natural and scenic features into the development design.
The proposed location of the Tower and associated ground equipment is screened
from Frost Avenue via existing commercial development on the site and to the
North by a large grove of trees.
The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
As mentioned in finding # 4, the Use exceeds all requirements established by the
Federal Communications Commission for radio frequency emissions. Also, as
stated previously, the operation of the facility will generate no odor or noise.
Attachment 7
EXIBIT B
Sprint PCS
CUP/Development Board Review
IGeneral Information - Sprint PCS and Personal Communication Services (PCS)
Introduction
Sprint PCS is a participant in the Personal Communications Services (PCS) market. It is an
alliance which consists of the following four major corporations: 1) Sprint Corporation; 2) Tele-
Communications Incorporated (TCI); 3) Cox Communications; and 4) Comcast Corporation.
The purpose of this alliance is to provide consumers with a variety of telecommunication
services including local telephone service, long distance service, wireless communications and
cable services. PCS is the result of a growing demand for improved wireless telecommunication
services, and a new infrastructure is needed to meet this growing demand.
Background
In early 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) auctioned licenses for the 1850-
1990 MHz band of the radio spectrum within the 51 Major Trading Areas (MTA's) of the United
States for use by Personal Communications Services. Sprint PCS purchased licenses within 29
of these 51 defined MTA's. These licenses, in combination with the licenses awarded to its
affiliates and other providers, will enable Sprint PCS to offer seamless Personal Communications
Services virtually anywhere in the country.
What is PCS?
PCS technology combines voice and data services using digital interfacing equipment. This
facilitates a higher quality transmission with greater voice clarity than currently used by cellular
technology. PCS will give consumers more freedom with respect to their telecommunication
needs. PCS will offer enhanced service features such as portable phones, pagers, facsimile
transmission, and wireless voice service at a lower cost than existing cellular service. PCS is on
the cutting edge of the wireless revolution.
Services of PCS include:
· Local and long distance telephone services and cable §ervices;
· All-in-one Wireless Communication Services;
· Portable phones, pagers and fax transmission;
· Numeric paging on the phone's screen;
· Interactive paging (two-way paging that allows the sender to track where the message is sent
and when it has been received);
15
Voice-mail service;
· Caller ID;
· International roaming capability;
· Reduced power needs (allows smaller units and longer battery life); and
· In the future, PCS will allow computer use and video imaging over the PCS network
Benefits of PCS over Cellular
PCS has several advantages over existing cellular telephone service, including better service
quality through the use of digital technology, more compact radio equipment, increased mobility,
enhanced service features and price.
Digital Technology: Digital technology facilitates cleaner voice quality, but
more importantly, clean data communication. A PCS customer will be able to
communicate through voice and data simultaneously using the same handset
without interference to either activity. In addition, computer users will be able to
run applications and retrieve data faster from remote locations using their handset.
PCS technology also provides less static and fading, and there are fewer dropped
or lost calls.
Improved Security: Calls in digital format cannot be overheard with the kind of
simple scanners currently used to eavesdrop on cellular calls. Although it is
technically possible to eavesdrop on a digitally transmitted call, the effort would
require special equipment and an advanced technical knowledge of the system.
Improved Equipment: PCS will utilize smaller antennae and handsets along
with a more advanced telecommunication technology that will result favorable
rates to consumers. Handsets will be lighter and use longer lasting batteries than
the current cellular "flip" phones. Because of Sprint PCS' assigned radio
spectrum, there will be more antenna's. However, every effort has been made to
locate equipment on existing structures rather than building free-standing towers.
Increased Mobility: With PCS, mobility means seamless roaming across
existing cellular and landline service areas. A PCS handset can be taken
anywhere and be expected to function the same as in the coverage area of the
original service provider.
One Telephone Number: With PCS; one Personal Communications Number
(PCN) will be assigned to each individual user. Today, when a person changes
their residence, the old landline telephone number is frequently lost because these
numbers are assigned and based on geographic area. Cellular telephone numbers
are also lost when carders are switched because cellular service companies are
provided a limited range of numbers, and the numbers have to be recycled or
16
reused. A PCN associates a telephone number with a person, regardless of where
he or she is located, and regardless of who is the service provider.
Lower Cost for Service: PCS will be cheaper in the long term because it will
utilize digital technology. Initially, the cost for the service and handsets will be
similar to that of cellular. However, with increased demand, both carriers and
manufacturers will be able to lower their price significantly. Eventually, PCS
service will be less than cellular and will be close to the cost of wireline telephone
service.
Increasing Demand
Today, cellular telephone systems in the US are expanding at the rate of over 28,000 new
subscriptions per day, far beyond the growth rate of new subscriptions for wireline telephone
service. The popularity of cellular telephone service is due to the freedom, mobility and
enhanced productivity that it provides. No longer are people tied to fixed telephones or pay
phones. Yet cellular telephone services are just one step toward another type of service, one
expected to revolutionize telecommunications. The next rung on the evolutionary ladder is PCS.
17
~,~ .~.,~a~e_s,
August 21, 1998
Ms. Melinda Coleman
Community Development Director
City of Maplewood
1830 East Count Road B
Maplewood, Minn. 55109
Re:
Attachment 8
I'L \NNINt~
L.\N[) S/'H\ EYIN( ~
Proposed Sprint Spectrum L.P. Monopole Tower and Antennas at 1221 Frost Avenue
Dear Ms. Coleman:
This letter is intended to supplement earlier submissions relative to the above captioned matter.
It covers the alternatives considered within one-half mile radius of the proposed tower and
factors to be considered by the City Council in reviewing an application for a conditional use
permit for construction of commercial antennas, towers and accessory structures.
Section 36-610 of the Maplewood City Code indicates that a new personal wireless service tower
shall not be approved unless it can be documented by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City
Council that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be
accommodated on an existing or approved tower or commercial building within one-half mile
radius, transcending municipal borders, of the proposed tower due to one of several reasons.
Attached is a map of the city with a circle of one-half mile radius from the tower shown. No
existing towers or commercial buildings of more than two stories within one-half mile radius of
the proposed tower were found. Two apartment buildings and a church within the one-half mile
radius were found. Even if permitted by the zoning ordinance, however, the proposed tower
cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or commercial building within one-
half mile radius of the proposed tower at a height necessary to function per Section 36.610.3. of
the Maplewood City Code.
Exhibit A included with the original August 8, 1997 submission set forth findings relative to
standards for approval of a conditional use permit as set forth in Section 36-442 of the
Maplewood City Code. The standards parallel closely the factors to be considered by the City
Council in reviewing a conditional use permit for construction of commercial antennas, towers
and accessory structures. Following in regular type are the factors to be considered as set forth in
Section 36-605 of the Maplewood City Code and, in italic type, excerpts out of Exhibit A of the
August 8, 1998 submission:
(1) Standards in the City code, and (5) Effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive
plan.
The proposed use meets all requirements of the Maplewood City Code as it relates to Antenna
Tower siting including: required setbacks, height limitations, color and screening. The site is
located within the Gladstone Planning Area of the City Comprehensive Guide Plan. The site is
designated BC, Business Commercial in this document.
~' L(~t cNs & ,'~SSOCIATISS. Ix:t:. · 7200 HEX~t_{)<K L\NtL St H't~ 3(~) · M kl'l_l~ G~q()xl¢. MINNES{)T.X 533GO-3302 * TILL: {Gl2) 424-3303 * lZxx: {t512~ 424-3~22
e-mail: IoucksOmirul.nel ,wel)l)age: hlll*://wwwl.minn.nel/-Iouc'ks/
18
Page 2- August 21, 1998 letter to Ms. Melinda Coleman
(2) Recommendations of the Planning Commission and Community Design Review
Board.
Not addressed in Exhibit A of August 8, 1998 submission.
(3) Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of
residents of surrounding areas.
There is no evidence that the use, as conditioned, wouM be injurious to the public health, safety
or general welfare of the community. Sprint PCS transmissions operate at very low power
levels. There is no evidence that PCS transmissions are harmful to the health or safety of the
persons living or working nearby. Sprint PCS engineers have calculated that the worst case
scenario would actually be eight (8) times below the limit set by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted the
standards set by the ANSI. According to the FCC, measurements that have been made near
typical cellular base stations have shown that ground level power densities are well below the
limits recommended by radio frequency and microwave safety standards. In addition each
Sprint PCS site is registered with and approved by the Federal Aviation Administration-
therefore posing no threat to air navigation. The operation of the antenna site produces no
noise, is odorless and completely self-sufficient. Routine visits to the site for general
maintenance and equipment checks are made on a quarterly basis. Visits to the site in the event
of equipment or power failure are on an as-needed basis.
(4) Effect on property values.
Sprint PCS has found no measurable or identifiable impact on residential property values due to
tower construction. A copy of a real estate value impact study is (was) included with this (the
August 7, 1997) application for your review.
Through the original submission of August 8, 1997 and the supplemental submittals on August 3,
1998 and August 17, 1998 and this submittal it has been demonstrated that this to construct a
monopole tower and antennas at 1221 Frost Avenue meets all standards and requirements for the
granting of a conditional use permit. We respectfully request that the City of Maplewood
grant the requested conditional use permit.
Sincerely,
David Hagen
Senior Planner
Copy: Gary Gandrud- Faegre & Benson
19
Parkview Court
Park Edge Apartments
i _____ .___
Lake Phalen.~
Community Church
Paul
ssifications
Attachment 9
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. David Hagen of Loucks'and ASsociates, representing Sprint PCS, applied for a
conditional use permit to install a 80-foot-tall telecommunications antenna and related equipment.
City staff is recommending a CUP for installation of a 120 foot tower to allow for easy collocation.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 1221 Frost Avenue. The legal
description is:
East 1/2 of the vacated Duluth Street accruing and following; except the east 8.57 feet, Lots 11
through 14 and Lots 16 through 19 also all of Lot 15 in Block 3, of the northwest 1/4 in Section 16,
Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 16-29-22-14-0090)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On September 1, 1998, the planning commission recommended that the city council
approve this permit.
The city council held a public hearing on ............ ,1998. City staff published a notice in the
paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council
gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The
council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning
commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, 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.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular {raffic on local streets and would not create
traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
o
The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
2. The owner or applicant shall start the proposed construction within one year of council
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The applicant or owner shall allow the collocation of other providers' telecommunications
equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
1998.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Conditional Use Permit Amendment - Carver Elementary School Parking
Lot Expansion
2680 Upper Afton Road
September 2, 1998
INTRODUCTION
Projection Description
Todd Wichman, of Armstrong, Torseth, Skold & Rydeen, Inc., is requesting approval to build a
38-space parking lot on the east side of Carver Elementary School. The applicant proposes to
transplant 17 trees and remove three mature ones for this project. This proposal includes a
possible six-foot-wide bituminous sidewalk that would loop around the south side of the school
from the proposed parking lot to the existing parking lot west of the building. Refer to the maps
on pages 8-10.
Requests
Mr. Wichman is requesting that the city council:
Amend the conditional use permit (CUP) for Carver Elementary School to allow the proposed
parking lot addition. The city code requires a CUP for schools. Refer to the letter on pages
11-12.
2. Approve the site plan.
BACKGROUND
December 19, 1994: The city council approved a cooperative agreement with the school district
to share in the costs of building a gymnasium addition at Carver Elementary School.
March 27, 1995: The city council approved:
1. A conditional use permit to expand the school.
2. The design plans for the addition.
3. A waiver of the rooftop-equipment screening requirement.
4. An underground lawn sprinkler variance.
March 25, 1996: The city council reviewed the CUP for Carver School and decided not to review
it again unless a problem develops.
May 11, 1998: The city council approved a sign size variance allowing the Maplewood Parks
Department to install a wall sign on the new gymnasium at Carver Elementary School. The sign
was to identify the community gymnasium.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
parking Considerations
During the CUP review for the proposed building addition in 1995, the city council also approved
a parking lot expansion on the west side of the existing parking lot. Refer to the map on page
13. The applicant now feels that this previous location for additional parking is no longer
feasible. They now wish to retain this area for recreational purposes. They feel that the
proposed easterly site is more suitable because it is unused and would provide convenient staff
parking.
Landscaping and Tree Relocation/Removal
The applicant is proposing to remove two, six-inch-caliper pin oak trees from the boulevard. The
city planted these trees as part of the Upper Alton Road improvements in 1990. If these are to
be removed because of the proposed parking lot, staff recommends that the applicant move
them to the landscaped median in Upper Alton Road adjacent to Battle Creek Regional Park
near McKnight Road. There are several pin oaks that have died since their planting. It would be
beneficial to move these city-owned trees to this location.
The existing trees in front of the proposed parking lot would provide sufficient landscaping. The
applicant is not proposing any landscaping in the two parking lot islands within the proposed
parking lot, however. They are planning to add landscape gravel to these islands to cut down on
maintenance. Landscape gravel is a good idea, but these islands should have trees as well for
aesthetic reasons like the parking lot islands on the west side of the school. The code requires
that trees be at least 2 % inches in caliper and balled and burlapped.
The relocation of the 15, one-inch-caliper trees would be moved on the school site to locations
unknown at this time. Staff has no comment about this. These trees were planted by a parents
group and were not part of a required landscape plan.
Sidewalks
Staff does not have an opinion about the possible bituminous sidewalk that the applicant may
install around the south side of the school to connect the two parking lots. The applicant should,
however, provide a section of sidewalk from the north building entrance to the proposed parking
lot so persons using the new parking lot can walk to either set of doors.
Trash Container Storage
The school should provide a larger trash enclosure for the trash storage area. They presently
have two dumpsters--one is enclosed and one is sifting in the open. The applicant should
remove the second dumpster or put it in an enclosure.
Alternative Previously Approved Parking-Lot-Expansion Layout
The site plan approved in 1995 showed a parking lot expansion on the west side of the existing
parking lot. The following comments discusses the pros and cons in that earlier proposal:
Positive Aspects in Adding Onto the Existing Parking Lot
It would be less disruptive to the site if the school district expanded the existing parking lot to
the west as previously proposed and approved. Sticking with this original plan would save
three trees from being cut down and 17 from being relocated (15 one-inch-caliper trees and
two boulevard trees).
2. It would preserve a neighborhood amenity--this easterly side yard is attractive with its trees
and lawn.
3. The boulevard in front of the approved parking lot addition has already been landscaped with
evergreens to screen this parking lot expansion area.
Negative Aspects
1. It would remove 15,750-square-feet of playground and lawn area as well as part of the
outfield of the nearby ball field.
It would cause a longer walk for employees--320 feet from the furthest parking space to an
entrance vs. 200 feet with the proposed parking lot. The applicant also pointed out that it is
an opportunity to utilize unused property.
3. It would affect more homes across Upper Affon Road than the proposed parking lot location.
Conclusion
The additional parking would be less disruptive to the neighborhood if it was placed on the east
side of the building as proposed. It would also preserve play area for the children. Staff,
therefore, recommends approval of the proposed parking lot east of the building.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Ao
Adopt the resolution on pages 14-15, amending the conditional use permit to expand the
Carver Elementary School parking lot at 2680 Upper Afton Road. The permit is based on
the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions are
underlined and deletions are crossed out):
All construction shall follow the plans for building the 1995 building expansion stamped
January 18, 1995 and the utility, grading and erosion control plan stamped March 9,
1995 as approved by the city. The proposed parking lot expansion shall follow the plans
stamped Au(~ust 14. 1998. The director of community development may approve minor
changes.
..... t, ~,,.t .... must be started within one year
The proposed parking lot expansion project ........ :--
after council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for
one year.
The city council shall review this permit in one year.
Bo
Approve the plans stamped August 14, 1998 for the proposed parking lot expansion at
Carver Elementary School. The applicant shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this project.
2. Complete the following before occupying the additions:
a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
b. Install continuous concrete curbing around the proposed parking and drive areas.
(code requirement)
Install site security lighting. (code requirement) Lighting shall not exceed one foot-
candle of light at any residential property line. The property owner shall shield or aim
the lights so the light source is not visible.
d. Move the two pin oak trees into the landscaped median in Upper Afton Road near
McKnight Road, subject to the city engineer's approval.
Plant a 2 ~-inch-caliper, balled and burlapped tree in each island within the proposed
parking lot. Ornamental trees, such as crab apple trees, may be 1 ~ inches in
caliper.
f. Remove the second dumpster that is out in the open or provide a larger enclosure to
conceal both dumpsters.
g. Provide a sidewalk from the northerly building entrance to the proposed parking lot.
3. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
I surveyed the owners of the 36 properties within 350 feet of Carver Elementary School.
19 replies, 13 were in favor of the proposed parking lot, three objected and three had no
comment.
Ofthe
In Favor
1. I have no problems with this proposal as long as my property taxes do not go up.
(owner, 9 Century Avenue)
2. It will help the school. (owner, 2716 UpperAfton Road)
3. It should extend to the clinic and pharmacy. (owner, 21 Century Avenue)
4. There is a real parking shortage. (Meyer, 2689 Upper Afton Road)
5. More parking is needed for school events and plans include trees to remain to buffer vision
of lot to Upper Afton Road. (Afton Group LLC, 2715 Upper Afton Road)
6. It would appear to provide needed off-street parking. (Johnson & Gillespie, 2716 Upper
Afton Road)
7. This would decrease on-street parking. It is nearest commercial property. Should help the
school bus loading and unloading. (Backie, 2631 Upper Afton Road)
o
The additional off street parking will help. When a special activity is planned for Carver, I
recommend police be available as traffic on Upper Afton is heavy and all the kids and
parents move in and out of road. Police parked west of school would slow down thru traffic.
(Irwin, 22 Dennis Lane)
9. It would add parking for events. (Hoist, 28 Mayhill Road)
10. It would cut down on parking and driving on both sides of our driveway. (Heinz, 15 Farrell
Street)
11.
I objected strenuously to an additional parking lot on the west side when that was proposed.
That playground is sorely needed as it is. Keep the parking lot as far back as possible off
Upper Alton Road so that the trees will serve as a blind. (Grill, 27 Mayhill Road)
12. The east side of Carver School is adjacent to the clinic and other commercial properties.
(Eastman, 21 Farrell Street)
Opposed
The school has enough parking. Fire all the grief counselors and you'll have enough
parking. Build a basketball court or buy "Hooked on Phonics". We need to educate the
children not hire more administration. (VValsh-Brady, 2647 Upper Afton Road)
This project has no positives about it from my point of view. I live across from the existing
ugly parking lot. UGLY! Carver would be surrounded by asphalt. Use the clinic and church
parking lots and the side streets. Only a few times is there overflow/inadequate parking.
Use existing lots with permission of church and clinic and drug store. Use side streets. VVith
permission, park along one side of Upper Afton. This is too costly and disruptive to nature
for only 39 cars.
Use as open space/nature area for school. Leave it as it is now--a green space between
buildings.
The existing parking lot could be expanded to fix the problem--we have enough concrete
and asphalt around here the way it is now! Lets think of the future. As far as special events
at the school and parking on Upper Alton--it is not legal to park on Upper Alton Road. By
the way, during events and meetings at Carver--people park on (& all over) Mayhill Road
and they block our driveway. I am very tired of people going to the school, using my
driveway as a turnaround--this problem needs to be dealt with. As I stated, expand the
parking area that exists and stop the destruction of land. Thank you. (Johnston, 15 Mayhill
Road)
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 9.4 acres
Existing land use: Carver Elementary School
SURROUNDING LAND USES (around the proposed parking lot)
North: A single dwelling across Upper Afton Road
South School property and Ramsey County Open Space
West: Carver Elementary School
East: Afton Road Dental Clinic and Super America
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: S (school)
Zoning: F (farm residence district)
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 36-437(3) requires a CUP for schools.
CRITERIA FOR CUP APPROVAL
Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on ten standards.
Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 14-15.
p:sec1-28/carv-cup.2
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's Letter dated August 13, 1998
5. 1995 Parking Plan
6. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
7. Plans date-stamped August 14, 1998 (separate attachment)
7
Attachment 1
HUDSON
Z
JAMES
UPPER AFl'ON RD.
Z
CREEK
I LONDIN CT.
2 POND CT.
.3 DORLAND IN.
4. DORLAND DR.
LOWER
5 DORLAND
ci'.
~ ~-~ ~,,,. CORR£CT~ON,~
d ~ · o
LOCATION MAP
J~
Attachment 2
UPPERAFTON RbAD_I~ ~ '
8
SCHOOL
CARVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
FUEL STATION
CLINIC
COMME
CENTER
LUTHERAN CHURCH
OF PEACE
~)
I~AH,SE"r' COUNTY'
( I 5.49a~ )
F
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP
9
N
Attachment 3
SITE PLAN
10
Attachment 4
ARMSTRONG TORSETH SKOLD & RYDEEN INC
August 13, 1998
Mr. Tom Eckstrand
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Attn: Tom Eckstrand
Re:
Carver Elementary School
ATS&R Project Number:98050
Dear Mr. Eckstrand:
Attached for you information are applications for Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit
revision for a new parking lot at Carver Elementary School located at 2680 Upper Afton Road,
PIN 1-28-22-41-0005.
The original Conditional Use Permit Resolution was granted by City Council on March 27, 1995.
This permit included a proposed alternate parking lot for about 35-40 stalls on the west side of
the existing parking lot. Due to budget considerations, the parking lot was not installed. The
School District would now like to install this additional staff.parking lot on the east side of the
building as shown on the attached drawings.
The new parking lot will accommodate about 39 stalls and will be primarily used for staff.parking
The City will also benefit from the use of this lot for events at the Gym and Carver site. The lot
will partially alleviate the problem of parking on and along Upper A~on Road for events at the
school.
There are no wetland or tree replacement issues pertaining to developing this site. A number of
small trees will be transplanted by the school that exist at this site already. We will be removing
(3) trees and transplanting (2). The large existing Scotch Pine will remain and be protected
during construction.
We have already discussed this project with Ken Roberts and Ken Haider of your office. Mr.
Haider has reviewed preliminary plans, and his recommendations are reflected in the drawings.
The adjacent land use is already office and parking lots, therefore we feel that we are compatible
with the surrounding land use. We have requested a list of adjacent property owners from
Ramsey County. This will be ready next week and forwarded to your office.
ARCHITECTURE · ENGINEERING · PLANNING · TECHNOLOGY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE · INTERIOR DESIGN
4901, OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY MINNEAPOLIS MN 55422 612 . 545 . 3731 612 . 525 , 3289 FAX
11
Mr. Tom Eckstrand
August 13, 1998
Page 2
We kindly ask for you immediate attention in reporting on and scheduling this project through the
appropriate City channels. This is a small project and are hoping that your review period and
approval process to gain a building permit will be reflected by this. We hope to begin
construction yet this fall.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. If you need anything else or have any
questions, do not hesitate to call me at 525-3253.
Sincerely,
Todd R. Wichman, ASLA
Landscape Architect
TRW:kjr
Enclosure:
Conditional Use Permit Revision Application
Community Design Review Board Application
CC~
Ron Parrucci, ISD 622
Bob Gunderson, ATS&R
Mark Hayes, ATS&R
UPPER
ROAD
Attachment 5
LANDSCAPING HERi
pI~6POSED
37 ADDITIONAL
PARKING SPACES
Rill
EXISTING
PARKING
LOT
EXISTING SCHOOL
SERVICE DRIVE
PROPOSED ADDITIONS
I
I
I
4' 0 ~ el · ,,,
....... 'PROPOS'~- .......
GYM (ALTERNATE
PROPOSED GYM (ALTERNATE #2)
1-18-95
SITE PLAN
CARVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL N
Attachment 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Independent School District No. 622 is requesting that Maplewood approve an
amendment to their conditional use permit to expand a school parking lot.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2680 Upper Afton Road. The legal description is:
Beginning at a point twenty (20) rods west of the Northeast corner of the North Half of the
Southeast Quarter (N % of the SE 1/4) of Section One (1), Township twenty eight (28), Range
Twenty two (22); thence South forty (40) rods; thence West forty (40) rods; thence North forty
(40) rods; thence East forty (40) rods to the point of beginning. (PIN 1-28-22-41-0005)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit amendment is as follows:
1. On September 21, 1998, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit.
2. On , the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice
in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave
everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also
considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit amendment based on the building and site plans. The city approves this
permit because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. 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 run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical
interference or other nuisances.
5. 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.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
]4
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
10.
The city council may waive any of the above requirements provided the council determines
that the balancing of public interest between governmental units would be best served by
such a waiver.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
All construction shall follow the plans for building the 1995 expansion stamped January 18,
1995 and the utility, grading and erosion control plan stamped March 9, 1995 as approved by
the city. The proposed parking lot expansion shall follow the plans stamped August 14,
1998. The director of community development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed parking lot expansion project must be started within one year after council
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
]5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Wetland Setback Variance and Design Review - Battle Creek Regional Park
Aquatic Facility
Battle Creek Regional Park-Upper Afton Road and McKnight Road
September 2, 1998
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Larry Holmberg, of the Ramsey County Regional Parks and Recreation Department, is requesting
approval of plans for the proposed Battle Creek Regional Park Aquatic Facility. This facility would
be located at Battle Creek Regional Park on the north side of Upper Afton Road at the northeast
corner of the main parking lot. Refer to the maps on pages 8-10.
There would be two pools. The larger of the two would be a zero-depth-entry pool that increases to
a depth of 18 inches with a play structure in the middle. The other pool would be four feet deep
with a slide and would be set up for activities like volleyball. There would also be a sand play area.
Refer to the site plan and building elevations.
The applicant is also proposing to build a 100-space parking lot south of Upper Alton Road for
overflow parking. Refer to the site plan on page 10.
Requests
The applicant is requesting that the city council approve:
An 80-foot wetland setback variance from the wetland-protection buffer ordinance. The city
code requires that the proposed aquatic facility provide a 100-foot-wide, no-disturb wetland-
protection buffer from the edge of the wetland. The Ramsey-VVashington Metro District
classified this wetland as a Class 1 wetland. Class 1 wetlands are those with conditions and
functions most susceptible to human impact, are most unique and have the highest community
resource significance. The applicant is requesting a variance because their grading edge would
be 20 feet from the wetland. Refer to the applicant's letter on page 11.
2. Building, site and landscape plans.
PERMITTED USE
The Aquatic Facility is a Permitted Use
This proposed aquatic facility is a permitted use in a public park and in accordance with the zoning
ordinance. The ordinance requires, however, that the Maplewood Community Design Review
Board (CDRB) review the site and building plans to consider design elements. The CDRB's
authority permits them to make changes in the plans relative to building design, landscaping and
parking layout. They do not have the zoning authority to deny this project based on land use.
DISCUSSION
Wetland-Buffer Variance
Staff does not recommend approval of this variance. According to state law, the need for a
· variance must be due to circumstances unique to the property--not created by the land owner.
This is not the case. The applicant has available land to shift the aquatic facility 80 feet to the north
and comply with the wetland ordinance by providing a 100-foot wetland-protection buffer. There
would still be 280 feet of mature woods to buffer this facility from the nearest homes at the south
end of Crestview Drive.
Building Design/Screening, Landscaping, Grading and Noise Concerns
Building Design / Screening
The proposed building would be attractive. The facility would be sufficiently screened from the
houses to the north by 280 feet of mature tree growth--provided the city council denies the
variance and requires shifting of the facility 80 feet to the north. (Presently, the plan shows a
setback of 360 feet from the nearest home at the south end of Crestview Drive.)
Landscaping
The proposed landscape plan for the aquatic facility indicates a significant number of plantings
around the complex. The plan, however, does not show what the plant materials are. The
applicant said that they will provide a plan identifying these plantings for the CDRB meeting.
Grading
The plan for this facility did not show the before and after contour elevations and grading limits.
The applicant said they would provide this material for the meeting. Before issuing grading or
building permits, the city must make sure that the facility meets all grading, erosion control and
wetland setback requirements.
,Noise
Several neighbors had concern about noise from this facility. Brian Timerson, of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Noise Division, told me that it is very difficult to determine the decibel level created
by the non-amplified human voice. Voices go up and down whether in play or during normal
conversation. According to the PCA, the decibel level that cannot be exceeded is 65 decibels for a
period of six minutes within an hour (referred to the L10--a time duration meaning one tenth of an
hour). Mr. Timerson said the only way to get the best information about the noise impact with this
facility is by an evaluation by a consultant. Mr. Timerson, however, stated that he felt it is unlikely
that the 65 decibel L10 level would be exceeded.
Fire Chief's Concerns
Maplewood Fire Chief, Joel Hewitt, said that the pool should utilize a pelletized chlorine system, not
a gaseous system. Gaseous systems can be hazardous if there were a leak. With a gaseous
system, a gate would be needed in the back of the fence for escape. The applicant informed me
that they would be using a pelletized system, not gaseous. The applicant should work with Chief
Hewitt to meet all public safety requirements.
Proposed Overflow Parking Lot
Staff's only comment about this proposed parking lot is regarding landscaping. The applicant
would remove five trees when they put in the curb cut to the proposed parking lot. These trees
were planted by the city as part of the Upper Afton Road improvements in 1990. The applicant
· should move these trees to the north side of the proposed parking lot to benefit the streetscape and
provide landscaping for the proposed parking lot.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Deny the variance request for an 80-foot encroachment into the required 100-foot-wide wetland-
protection buffer around the class I wetland south of the proposed aquatic facility. Denial is
because:
To approve a variance, state statute requires that the city council determine that strict
enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property
under consideration. "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.
The need for this variance request is created by the landowner in this case. It is not
because of circumstances unique to the property. The applicant can place this facility in the
park and meet city regulations. There is no reason that the applicant cannot meet the
standards in the code.
2. The variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
Bo
Approve the plans (stamped August 18, 1998) for the proposed Battle Creek Regional Park
Aquatic Facility, based on the findings required by the code. The property owner, Ramsey
County, shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Provide the following before the city issues grading or building permits for the proposed
aquatic facility:
ao
A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan, subject to the city engineer's
approval. This plan shall show at least 100 feet of undisturbed wetland-protection buffer
from the adjacent wetland. There shall not be any ground disturbance within this 100
foot buffer. The applicant shall move the placement of the proposed aquatic facility to
comply with this requirement.
b. A revised landscape plan that identifies the proposed plantings around the aquatic
facility.
c. A revised landscape plan for the overflow parking lot that shows the relocation of the five
boulevard trees to be removed for the new curb cut. The applicant shall move these
trees to the north side of the proposed parking lot.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit from the proposed overflow parking lot at
Upper Afton Road.
b. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers for this facility.
(code requirement) The enclosures must by 100 percent opaque, match the color of the
building and have a closeable gate that extends to the ground.
c. Dedicate and record a wetland-buffer easement for the wetland buffer south of the
aquatic facility. This easement shall describe the boundary of the wetland buffer and
prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer.
d. Install wetland-protection buffer signs along the wetland buffer south of the aquatic
facility. These signs shall state that there shall be no building, mowing, cutting, filling or
dumping within the buffer.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work.
The amount shall be 200% of the cost of the unfinished work.
The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work.
5. The director of community development may
All work shall follow the approved plans.
approve minor changes.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
I surveyed the owners of the 60 properties shown on the map on page 12 for their comments about
this proposal. At the time of this writing, all of the replies are not yet in. So far, one neighboring
property owner had no comment and 18 objected.
Opposed
1. The following is a summary of comments of those who oppose this proposal:
a. It is too close to the Crestview Drive neighborhood. It would increase traffic and noise.
b. It would disrupt the quiet park. People come to this park to enjoy quiet walks. There is
already too much noise from 1-94.
c. This facility would diminish from the beauty of the park which is used for skiing, walking and
running.
d. Don't develop it at all.
e. It would drive away wildlife. Leave this park in its natural state.
f. Move this facility to the northeast corner of McKnight Road and Upper Afton Road where it
can be patrolled easily and would not be a disturbance to the Crestview Drive
neighborhood. Or, move it to the part of the park between Lower and Upper Afton Roads.
g. Move it closer to Carver school where they can share parking.
h. There are already plenty of pools and swimming beaches nearby. We do not need another.
Leave this land natural.
I. I think that this will decrease our property value.
2. Refer to the letter on page 13 from Floyd and Ferris Ashley, 2466 Brookview Drive.
3. Refer to the letter on pages 14-16 forwarded from John and Colleen Rasmussen.
4. Refer to the letter on page 17 from Henry Dembiczak and Warren Robens.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size (project area): Two acres
Existing land use: Battle Creek Regional Park
SURROUNDING LAND USES (surrounding the proposed facility)
North: Wooded park property and single dwellings at the south end of Crestview Drive
South, West and East: Park property
PAST ACTIONS
Other Wetland Setback Variance Approvals
February 26, 1996: The city council approved a 75-foot wetland setback variance for Lexus on
Highway 61. Code required 100 feet. Lexus was required to provide an "improved, quality" 25-foot-
wide buffer in lieu of the poor-quality 100-foot-wide buffer that was there.
December 9, 1996: The city council approved a 50-foot wetland setback variance for Maplewood
Imports on Highway 61. Code required an average of a 100-foot setback from the wetland edge
with a minimum of 50 feet. The council allowed Maplewood Imports to build up to the wetland
edge.
December 9, 1996: The council approved a 60-foot wetland setback variance for Frank Wienicki of
General Sprinkler. Code required 100 feet.
April 14, 1997: The council approved a 60-foot wetland setback variance for National Tire and
Battery on White Bear Avenue. Code required 100 feet.
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: P and OS (park and open space)
Zoning: F (farm residence district)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 25-70 of the City Code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve
plans:
1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring,
existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of
investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use
and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create
traffic hazards or congestion.
A 2.
That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive
development contemplated by this article and the City's comprehensive municipal plan.
That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is esthetically of good
composition, materials, textures and colors.
Section 9-196(h)(3) requires a 100-foot-wide, no-disturb, wetland-protection buffer around
Class 1 wetlands.
Findings 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.
p:sec1-28\aquatic.2
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Letter from Greg Mack of Ramsey County dated August 31, 1998
5. Neighborhood Notification Map
6. Letter from Floyd and Ferris Ashley
7. Letter from John and Colleen Rasmussen
8. Letter from Henry Dembiczak and Warren Robens
9. Plans date-stamped August 18, 1998 (separate attachment)
'7
Attachment 1
AVE:.
PROPOSED
AQUATIC
FACILITY
PROPOSED
PARKING LOT
I tON~N
2 I~NO cr.
3
LOW~
LOCATION
8
MAP
Attachment 2
F
F)
COUNT'Y OF RAMSEY
F
FACILITY
F
~ ~ PROPOSED
- OPEN SPACE
Attachment 3
EXISTING
PICNIC SHELTER /'-'
AND PARKING LOT'
PROPOSED
AQUATIC
FACILITY
UPPER AFTON ROAD - ,.~ '~
PARKING LOT ,[ '~[
SITE -PLAN
BATTLE CREEK REGIONAL PARK
10
RAMSEY COUNTY
Parks and Recreation Department
Gregory A. Mack, Director
2015 N. Van Dyke Street
Maplewood, MN 55109-3796
Attachment 4
Tel: 651-748-2500
Fax: 651-748-2508
August 31, 1998
Mr. Tom Ekstrand
Planner
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
RE: Battle Creek Regional Park Water Recreation Area
Dear Mr. Ekstrand:
I understand from your review that a portion of the proposed water
recreation area lies within the 100-foot wetland buffer area
established by the Maplewood Building Code. Ramsey County has
positioned the proposed improvement in close proximity to the
wetland in response to the expressed interest of adjacent property
owners to maximize the distance between their homes and the
proposed improvement. Accordingly, Ramsey County requests an
80-foot variance from the city of Maplewood in order to accommodate
the interests of adjacent property owners.
The alternative for Ramsey County would be to shift the facility to
the north, outside of the 100-foot wetland buffer and, therefore,
closer to the adjacent property owners. Grading will occur 20 feet
from the wetland, however, permanent facilities will be 55 feet
from the wetland. Ramsey County believes that granting the
variance will have no negative impact on the existing wetland.
Thank you for consideration of this variance request.
me know if you need additional information.
Please let
Sincetrely,
Gregor~y~
Director
GAM/cj
11
Minnesota's First Home Rule Couty
printed on recycled paper with a minimum of I0~ post-consumer content
BATTLE CREEK PARK AREA
PIN LIST
Attachment 5
N
HWY 94 ~
12
Attachment 6
I am in favor of this proposal because
_~1 have no comment.
object to this proposal because -- ,,~ z.~ /~..C.cL,~,_.,~-/ ,4~..~Z.~ '--,~~ --
If yOU object, descdbe below or draw on the enclosed map any changes that would make
this application acceptable. If no ch.anges would make it.acceptable, h~ow sho~uld this
property be developed? ~ ~.Z ~ ~ ~_a ,-J_ /-~--~ ~ ~ ,~L~~ ~ ~
(County Aquatic Facility) (Section 1-28)
13
..... Attachment 7
Together We Can
JOHN M RASMUSSEN
COLLEEN M RASMUSSEN
212 CRESTVIEW DRIVE N
MAPLEWOOD MN 55119-4708
August 24, 1998
NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY
Thi~ is to get your .n.p![fion on ~..,3 application the city h~.~ received fo,-" .~..-o.r-.rety in your
neighborhood. Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department is requesting approval of site
and building design plans for a proposed aquatic facility. This facility will have swimming and
activity pools, and a sand play area. There would be a concrete block building for changing
rooms, concessions, and an office. The county is also proposing an overflow parking lot on the
south side of Upper Afton Road.
I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city
council. Please write your opinion and comments below. Return only this cover letter (and any
attachments on which you have written comments) to me in the enclosed postage-paid envelope
by September 3, 1998.
If you would like further information, please call me at 770-4563 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. I will
send you a notice of any public hearings on this application. Thank you for your comments. I
will give them carefu~
THOMAS EKSTRAND -ASSOCIATE PLANNER
pf
Enclosures
~ I am in favor of this proposal because
I have no comment.
~ I object to this proposal because O~' 7"H£ ~e~¢-/-~,~$ ~--r,3--r~__~ ~ 7-~/} ~
If you object, describe below or draw on the enclosed map any changes th'at would make
this application acceptable. If no changes would make it acceptable, how should this
property be developed?
(County Aquatic Facility) (Section 1-28)
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
14
612-770-4560
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD · 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD E~ · lV~APLEWOOD, MN 55109
Juno e-mail pdnted Thu, 21 May 1998 1Z47:48, page 1
A'-rom: Dembi
:ulI-Name: Henry P Dembiczak
To: Tony. Bennett~co.ramsey. mn.us, Dino. Guerin{~co.ramsey. mn.us,
Susan. M.Haigh~co.ramsey. mn.us, RafaeI.Ortega~lco.ramsey. mn.us,
Victoria. Reinhardt~co, ramsey, mn.us,
Janice. Rettman~oo. ramsey, mn.us, Jan.Wiessner~oo. ramsey, mn.ua
Cc: Terry, Schutten(~co. ramsey, mn. us
SubjecL. Water Park in Ramsey County Regional Park
X-Status: Unsent
May 21, 1998
Dear Commissioners:
We request a compassionate review of
Battle Cresk Regional Park Water Reor, tion Ares in the site C location. ----~_?~. ~~/1b.,~,,~,,~y'
Sound control cannot be achieved by berming. It is much too c~3s~a3-our
backyards and will flood our ares with noise~a-ki~ls enjoying the ~ ,,'
s,de. is not neces. ry to be at sit C wh -!
requirements so well an,d. doesn~ infringe o~'~-~'se~W'~ent of our
yards & homes. It doesnt make sense to put this facility so clo-~J~,.to our
backyards when there is so much space available away from resid~k~s. We
are already at the unacceptable sound level density due to the 1 94
Freeway and will exceed it when the widening takes place in 2002 or so. ~ ~, _ ._ . .~ .~.,,.~.~
Our homes will be subject to the same problems that plague the airport. ~....~
_ There is adequate space beside the entry to the site C parking ~_~.~,~
3t due south of the lot by the picnic shelter. It looks like the oaks ~' - ./~"'.:..j~'~'"
nave oak w~It and some are dead or dying anyhow. If there ~s concern to ~...~--~,,.
save them immediate attention should be given to their root connections.
There also are areas to the West of the parking lot between the lot and
wetland that could supply the needed space and give us the separation we
desire-if the will is there to meet our objections.
The people on Norl~ Crestview Drive were shocked to hear about
two weeks ago a water park was to be built in our backyards. We had not
been advised so we could represent our interests. We had cooperated with
the commission when the perk wes developed and your gm'.up moved the
pavilion away and bermed it to reduce sound levels. The pavilion was said
to be the end of development. It has not been a major sound problem
except when band concerts or cross country races take place - but these
are infrequent events.
The park has not been trouble free for us. People urinate behind
bushes thinking others cannot see them. They are incorrect about that and
may just not care. We've had people having sex across from our home on
Labor Day when there were a lot of families in the park. Kids have
crossed the creek and vandalized our yard. Our neighbor lady wes
surprised by a male in her garden. We feel a facility like this so close
to our property will increase the probability of this kind of problems. ~.~...,,
We don't think Ns fair to uddl® us w~h the Water Park~-~t.~ ~ -'-'
neighbors did not want by moving ~t to stte C. $~ ~ will not im~"t us
like sf~ C will. We hug our tr~ and wild life too. We'~ plan~l aress
to control ercaion and feed duck~ to kesp them in the ar~. We g~t
of ~ duok~. Your d~ision may wall ruin our enjol~'nent of our yards.
~ Ho~ do you plan to polic~ the ar~ to con~rol the I~ol~e coming
.o the ~flO Some n®ighbors h~ had picnic~rs in their I~clo~rd. Young
kids play in the creek - usually without problems. Unfortunately many
young teens come through the area cursing and throwing rocks at the
wildlife.
The proposed water park is quite close to our baokyarda and
Juno e-mail printed Thu, 21 May lgg8 1:Z47:48, page 2
cannot be bermed according to Larry Holmberg. The beaebal~l field
noise coming from the East edge of Itm park is qurm noboeable and is
much further away than the proposed waM, r park. The water park should be
much further away from ua so our ouldoor apace can be enjoyed free from a
major noise source.
We'll be flooded with noise from this faoility in addition to
noise 'we already get from I-g4 to the north.
The site B location ia much preferred by the neighbors. There are
also locations .in the park to the south of the pavilion and also to the
west which seem adequate for the proposed facility. We're not anti Water
Park, we just don~ want it oven~helming our space when ~uiteble area ia
available fiat will not impact us so severely. You may be tired of
discussing this project but we're the ones who will have to live with
the consequences as long as we live here. Please show us some
understanding for our situation.
Please advise ua your resporme to our concema.
Sincerely,
Warren Robens
Henry Dembiczak
140 N. CrestvJew Dr.
Maplewood, MN 55119
Tel. # 739-5996
E-mail address: Dembi~Juno.com
Attachment 8
August 31, 1998
To: Thomas Ekstrand
We object to this propoal because wc don't fccl the facility is needed. There arc other
water recreation facilities nea~'by at Carver Lake, Tanners Lake, Washington County Rcsct-ve Park,
Lake Phalcn, and thc Maplcwood Commtmity Center. This facility will bc used only a couple
months whereas thc Maplcwood Community Center facility can be used ycar around.
Furthc'tmorc, thc Maplcwood facility is losing money. Why spend more money for an unneeded
facility.
Thc installation is beside a slough filled with mosquitoes, and mosquito borne diseases will
have a fertile source of blood to work on. Wc understand there is a typc of cnccphalitis spread by
mosquitos. Wc also understand there is no defined plan to control watcr purity and fcc, al coliform.
This type of facility is out of character for thc m'ca where it is proposed. The water slide is
an amusement park type structure and doesn't belong in a quiet wildcrness type area. Earlier a
propose, d swimming pool near McKnight between Upper and Lower Aflon Roads was cancelled
because it would deslroy a wilderness area. This proposal will do thc same thing. Wc do not oppose
a wading pool which would fit in with other existing children activity facilities.
If thc facility must be built why pm it so close to residences whc-n there is so much acreage
in lhc park wh~r¢ it would not impact residences.
If it must bc built in ~hc proposed site it should bc movcd further south so it will be fttrthcr
away from people's homes. In addition sound barriers should be included in the plan to assure a
lowcr level of sound pollution can be assured. Wc undcrstand newer proposals will do this.
Hcnry Dcmbiczak
Warrcn Robcns
140 Crcstview Dr.
1Vlaplcwood, MN 55119
17