Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023 11-21 CDRB Meeting PacketMeeting is also available on Comcast Ch. 16 and streaming vod.maplewoodmn.gov AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, November 21, 2023 City Hall, Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. October 17, 2023 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Design Review Resolution, Saint Paul Educational Foundation Communications Monopole, 1210 Sterling Street South F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None G. BOARD PRESENTATIONS H. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None I. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS – 3 minute time limit per person J. ADJOURNMENT THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK October 17, 2023 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, October 17, 2023 City Hall, Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Board was held and called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Kempe B. ROLL CALL Bill Kempe, Chairperson Present Tom Oszman, Vice Chairperson Present Jason Lamers, Boardmember Present Amanda Reinert, Boardmember Present Ananth Shankar, Boardmember Absent Staff Present: Elizabeth Hammond, Planner C. APPROVAL OF AGE NDA There was no motion of approval. The agenda is set as distributed by staff. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. August 15, 2022 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes Boardmember Lamers moved to approve the August 15, 2022 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes as submitted. Seconded by Vice Chairperson Oszman Ayes – All The motion passed. E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Design Review and Parking Waiver Resolution, Bakery Addition, 1745 Beam Avenue East Elizabeth Hammond, Planner, presented the Design Review and Parking Waiver Resolution, Bakery Addition, 1745 Beam Avenue East and answered questions from the board. Frank Duan, Duan Corporation, addressed the board and answered questions. Sheng Zheng, MC Maplewood Inc, addressed the board and answered questions. Vice Chairperson Oszman moved to approve a resolution for design review and parking waiver approving a building addition to be constructed at 1745 Beam Avenue East, subject to conditions of approval. DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING WAIVER RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: D1 CDRB Packet Page Number 1 of 28 October 17, 2023 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 2 Section 1. Background. 1.01 Duan Corporation, on behalf of Million’s Crab Restaurant, has requested approval of a design review to construct a 3,508-square-foot building addition to the existing restaurant on the property. 1.02 A parking waiver was also requested. 1.03 The property is located at 1745 Beam Avenue East and is legally described as: PARCEL 1: All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22 and also all that part of Lot 8, Block 1, Maplewood Mall Addition, all in Ramsey County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 3; thence Easterly on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 16 minutes 25 seconds East along the North line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 987.04 feet; thence deflecting right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds on a bearing of South 00 degrees 43 minutes 35 seconds West a distance of 950.27 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence continuing on a bearing of South 00 degrees 43 minutes 35 seconds West a distance of 282.02 feet to the South line of said Lot 8; thence North 89 degrees 11 minutes 39 seconds West a distance of 102.33 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 8; thence South 0 degrees 26 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 23.01 feet; thence North 89 degrees 11 minutes 39 seconds West a distance of 196.59 feet; thence North 00 degrees 44 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 267.48 feet; thence South 89 degrees 28 minutes 25 seconds East a distance of 135.64 feet; thence South 89 degrees 01 minute 07 seconds East a distance of 91.00 feet; thence Northeasterly 37.62 feet along the arc of a tangential curve concave to the North having a central angle of 35 degrees 38 minutes 02 seconds and a radius of 60.49 feet; thence North 55 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds East tangent to said curve a distance of 44.72 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. PARCEL 2: Non-exclusive easements as contained in Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded February 11, 1990, as Document No. 2529217, and as amended by the following: First Amendment to Reciprocal Easement and Operation Agreement recorded May 23, 1994 as Document No. 2807610; Second Amendment to Reciprocal Easement and Operation Agreement recorded September 11, 1998 as Document No. 3085803; and Third Amendment to Reciprocal Easement and Operation Agreement recorded April 18, 2001 as Document No. 3385114. PARCEL 3: Non-exclusive easements as contained in Declaration of Easements and Restrictions dated September 26, 1989, recorded October 11, 1989, as Document No. 2513245, and as amended by the following: First Amendment to Declaration of Easements and Restrictions dated January 21, 1991, recorded February 26, 1991, as Document No. 2585793; Second Amendment to Declaration of Easements and Restrictions dated April 21, 1994, recorded May 23, 1994, as Document No. 2807611; and Third Amendment to Declaration of Easements and Restrictions dated April 18, 2001, recorded April 18, 2001, as Document No. 3385113. PARCEL 4: Non-exclusive easement for the use of the Ring Road as contained in Roadway Easement Grant dated June 6, 1986, recorded April 8, 1987, as Document No. 2372913 and as defined in Amended and Restated Operating Agreement dated October 21, 1998, recorded November 12, 1998, as Document No. 3099907 and the Addendum to Operating Agreement dated September 17, 1986, recorded May 6, 1987, as Document No. 2378445. D1 CDRB Packet Page Number 2 of 28 October 17, 2023 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 3 PARCEL 5: Non-exclusive easement for the limited use of storm sewer facilities as contained in Utilities Easement and Expanded Usage Agreement dated December 31, 1986, recorded January 5, 1987, as Document No. 2354006. The legal description in the Title Commitment for Parcel 5 references Doc. No. 2345006, it appears the Doc. No. should be 2354006. PARCEL 6: The beneficial rights as contained in that certain Operating Agreement dated December 29, 1972, recorded January 12, 1973 as Document No. 1846579. Said rights were released in that certain Agreement dated November 29, 1988, recorded January 4, 1989 as Document No. 2475868. Abstract Property PIN: 032922140013 Section 2. Site and Building Plan Standards and Findings. 2.01 City ordinance Section 2-290(b) requires that the community design review board 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. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development are in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and are not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. 2.02 City ordinance Section 44-17 permits the city council to approve waivers to the parking requirements. Section 3. City Council Action. 3.01 The above-described site and design plans are hereby approved based on the findings outlined in Section 3 of this resolution. Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the design plans. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. All requirements of the fire marshal, city engineer, and building official must be met. 3. Satisfy the requirements in the engineering review authored by Jon Jarosch, dated September 13, 2023. 4. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. D1 CDRB Packet Page Number 3 of 28 October 17, 2023 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 4 5.Rooftop vents and any mechanical equipment shall be located out of view from all sides of the property and screened as required by city ordinance. 6.This resolution approves a parking waiver for (79) parking stalls. 7.This approval does not include signage. Any identification or monument signs for the project must meet the city’s ordinance requirements, and the applicant must apply for a sign permit before installation. 8.Before the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for staff approval the following items: a.The applicant shall provide the city with a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. b.Elevation perspectives of the proposed trash enclosure are required to be reviewed and approved by staff. The elevations must include all sides of the enclosure and detail the materials and colors. c.Additional details to accompany the photometric site plan – architectural plans and description of each luminaire, including the manufacturer’s catalog cuts and drawings. 9.The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a.Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b.Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. c.Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. d.Install all required outdoor lighting. e.Install all required sidewalks and trails. 10.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 public health, safety or welfare. b.The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 11.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Boardmember Lamers Ayes – All The motion passed. D1 CDRB Packet Page Number 4 of 28 October 17, 2023 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 5 F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS None G.BOARD PRESENTATIONS None H.STAFF PRESENTATIONS None I. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None J.ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Kempe moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:25 p.m. Seconded by Vice Chairperson Oszman Ayes – All The motion passed. D1 CDRB Packet Page Number 5 of 28 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CDRB Packet Page Number 6 of 28 COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Meeting Date November 21, 2023 REPORT TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager REPORT FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director PRESENTER: Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director AGENDA ITEM: Design Review Resolution, Saint Paul Educational Foundation Communications Monopole, 1210 Sterling Street South Action Requested:  Motion ☐Discussion ☐ Public Hearing Form of Action: Resolution ☐ Ordinance ☐Contract/Agreement ☐ Proclamation Policy Issue: Dale Romsos, VMC LLC, proposes installing a 195-foot communications monopole to house equipment that currently resides on a ski jump owned and operated by the Saint Paul Educational Foundation. The proposal includes moving the equipment off the ski jump and onto a new tower, to be located on the ski jump property at 1210 Sterling Street South. To move forward, the applicant needs city council approval for a conditional use permit, height and setback variances and design review. Recommended Action: City staff is providing three actions for consideration by the community design review board. The community design review board may make a motion on any of these three actions or create its own recommended action. a.Motion to approve a design review resolution for a 195-foot communications monopole with a height variance of 70 feet and a setback variance of 45 to be constructed at 1210 Sterling Street South. b.Motion to approve a design review requiring the applicant to resubmit revised plans to allow for a ___-foot communications monopole with a height variance of __ feet and a setback variance of __ to be constructed at 1210 Sterling Street South. (Height and setback variances to be determined by the planning commission) c.Motion recommending denial of the proposal. (A motion to deny must include findings of fact germane to the request.) Fiscal Impact: Is There a Fiscal Impact?  No ☐ Yes, the true or estimated cost is $0 Financing source(s): ☐ Adopted Budget ☐ Budget Modification ☐ New Revenue Source ☐Use of Reserves  Other: N/A E1 CDRB Packet Page Number 7 of 28 Strategic Plan Relevance: ☐ Community Inclusiveness ☐ Financial & Asset Mgmt ☐ Environmental Stewardship ☐ Integrated Communication  Operational Effectiveness ☐ Targeted Redevelopment The city deemed the applicant’s application complete on October 18, 2023. The initial 60-day review deadline for a decision is December 17, 2023. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days, if necessary, to complete the review. Background: The Saint Paul Educational Foundation is the nonprofit foundation that owns and manages the ski jump. In 1997, two wireless cellular carriers approached the Saint Paul Educational Foundation about installing cellular antennae on their ski jump. The existing ski jump is 100 feet in height. In 2015, a third wireless carrier was located on the ski jump. As carriers made upgrades over the years to their facilities, the property owner restricted additional upgrades to reevaluate the use of the ski jump as a communications tower. The property owner conducted a design and structural analysis it was determined that the ski jump tower could not hold the equipment needed for additional upgrades without structural modifications. This has led to the Saint Paul Educational Foundation proposing the installation of a new 195-foot communications monopole. Conditional Use Permit Section 44-1327 of the city’s zoning code requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for a communication tower in a residential zoning district. The site at 1210 Sterling Street South is zoned Farm Residential. The code also states that communication towers can only be located in the following residentially zoned locations or properties: a. Churches or places of worship. b. Parks, when the city determines the facility would be compatible with the nature of the park. c. City-owned property, government, school, utility and institutional sites or facilities. This site would be considered an institutional use site and, as mentioned, currently has wireless communication equipment on-site. A CUP was not required previously for this site as the equipment is located on the ski jump, which is permitted by the code. In reviewing an application for a conditional use permit for the construction of commercial antennas, towers, and accessory structures, the city council shall consider the following: 1. Standards in this Code. 2. Recommendations of the planning commission and community design review board. 3. Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of residents of surrounding areas. 4. Effect on property values. 5. Effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. As the site already contains equipment for three wireless carriers who previously submitted coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis to the city, the applicant was not required to supply this information with this application. Towers in residential zoning districts designed and built for collocation are allowed to be 125 feet in height. The applicant is requesting approval for a 195- foot communications monopole, requiring a variance, which is discussed later in this report. If the tower is located next to a residential property line or next to a property that the city is planning E1 CDRB Packet Page Number 8 of 28 for residential use, the tower must be located at least the height of the tower plus 25 feet from the nearest residential structure. The proposed tower would be located 175 feet from the nearest residential structure, thus requiring a setback variance, which is discussed later in this report. The owner of the home to the south has written to the city to support the project. The applicant has stated that the proposed monopole will be designed with a 50 percent breakaway fall zone, allowing a fall zone of half the monopole's height, approximately 97.5 feet. If this tower design is acceptable to the city council, staff recommends that a structural engineer be required to sign off on all design plans related to the tower. Code states that all ground equipment and accessory structures are required to be located at least ten feet from side and rear property lines. The ground equipment for the wireless carriers already exists on-site and meets the setback requirements. No changes to the location of the ground equipment are proposed. Variances Height Variance As mentioned in the CUP section, the application proposes a 195-foot communications monopole. The maximum height allowed for this parcel and zoning district would be 125 feet, thus requiring a 70-foot variance. For reference, the city’s zoning code allows communications towers to be constructed up to 175 feet in zoning districts or locations other than residential. While the ski jump is a non-residential use and adjacent to a major freeway, the site is zoned farm residential and is surrounded on three sides by single-family homes. The planning commission should consider these factors to determine if a 90-foot variance is appropriate for this site. Setback Variance Again, as mentioned in the CUP section, the city’s zoning code requires towers to be setback the height of the tower plus 25 feet. The nearest home to the proposed tower location is setback 175 feet. So, considering setback requirements alone, the maximum tower height could be 150 feet. The applicant proposes a 195-foot monopole communications tower requiring a 220-foot setback. Again, the nearest home is 175 feet, meaning a setback variance of 45 feet would be required. As previously mentioned, the applicant has stated that the proposed monopole will be designed with a 50 percent breakaway fall zone, allowing a fall zone of half of the height of the monopole, approximately 97.5 feet. If this tower design is acceptable to the city council, staff recommends that a structural engineer be required to sign off on all design plans related to the tower. Overview To approve any variances, the city council must consider the practical difficulties with the property, preventing the applicant from complying with city code requirements. Staff does believe there are unique factors affecting the site. The elevation of the site is very steep north and east of the ski jump. The location of the ski jump provides a challenge in locating a new tower. With that said, staff has concerns with the height of the proposed tower and its location compared to the home to the south and is looking to the planning commission to provide its guidance on what it deems appropriate in this situation. Additionally, the applicant requests a 195-foot communications monopole to provide room for four wireless providers – one more carrier than the site currently holds – at the 125’, 140’,155, and 170 levels and for community emergency response equipment at the top. Currently, the applicant has no agreements with local agencies to use the top of the proposed tower. E1 CDRB Packet Page Number 9 of 28 Design Review Site Plan The proposed monopole tower would be located just south of the ski jump. The applicant desires to have the new tower within 40 feet of the existing ground equipment so that the entire site would not have to be reworked. The operations of the ski jump and the site's steep elevations also limit a tower's potential locations. The proposed tower site would be 233 feet from the property line to the west and 357 feet from the property line to the east. The tower would be setback 109 feet from the property line to the south and 175 feet to the house, as described above. The existing ground equipment is to the southeast of the ski jump, is not proposed to move its location, and meets setback requirements. Monopole Elevation and Landscaping/Screening Sec. 44-1327(13) requires the community design review board to recommend the plans for towers, utility, equipment or accessory buildings, site plans, and proposed screening and landscaping. The proposed 195-foot communications monopole would have a flush-mounted installation instead of the projecting triangular antenna installation. Staff finds the flush pole an improvement over the standard tower design seen throughout the Twin Cities metro area. Sec. 44-1328(3)9 requires that towers be light blue, gray, or another color shown to reduce visibility. The applicant would need to meet this requirement. The existing ground equipment does have a chain link fence, but staff feels there is an opportunity to add additional landscaping screening around this equipment area. Environmental staff reviewed the plans and found that the proposed monopole is close to two 18” oak trees. The applicant should submit a tree plan showing the significant trees' size, species, and location within the disturbed area. The applicant should also be required to submit a landscape plan to show tree replacement, if necessary, and additional screening for the monopole and ground equipment. Department Comments Engineering – Jon Jarosch A grading permit is required for this project. Environmental – Shall Finwall •Submit a tree plan showing the size, species, and location of all significant trees within the disturbed area. A significant tree is any hardwood tree 6 diameter inches or larger, conifer tree 8 diameter inches or larger, and softwood tree 12 diameter inches or larger. The plan must show which trees will be removed with the development of the monopole, or how the trees near the project will be preserved. If significant tree removal is proposed, the plan must show tree replacement per the City’s tree ordinance. •Submit a landscape plan to show tree replacement if necessary and how the monopole will be screened per the City’s antenna and tower ordinance. Building Official – Randy Johnson The proposed building is required to meet the minimum requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code. Applicant must also submit a written report certified by a Minnesota licensed E1 CDRB Packet Page Number 10 of 28 structural engineer detailing how the 50 percent breakaway is achieved without compromising the required design of the monopole. Board and Commission Review Community Design Review Board November 21, 2023: The community design review board will review this project. Planning Commission November 21, 2023: The planning commission will review this project and hold a public hearing. Citizen Comments Staff sent public hearing notices to the 50 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site and invited owners to provide their opinions about this proposal. Staff did not receive any comments. Reference Information Site Description Project Area: 17.99 acres Existing Land Use: Ski jump Surrounding Land Uses North: Single-family homes East: I-494 South: Single-family homes West: Single-family homes Planning Existing Land Use: Open Space Existing Zoning: Farm Residential Attachments: 1.Conditional Use Permit and Setback Variances Resolution 2.Design Review Resolution 3.Overview Map 4.2040 Future Land Use Map 5.Zoning Map 6.Applicant’s Narrative 7.Site Plan 8. Monopole Elevation 9.Applicant’s Plans (separate attachment) E1 CDRB Packet Page Number 11 of 28 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SETBACK VARIANCES RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 Dale Romsos of VMC LLC has requested approval of a conditional use permit and variances to permit a 195-foot communications monopole. 1.02 The property is located at 1210 Sterling Street South and is legally described as: PIN: 132822430022. The South seventy-four feet (S. 74') of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter (W 1/2 of SE 1/4) of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, lying North of the South twenty-five (S. 25) acres, East of Sterling Street, and West of State Trunk Highway 494, it being the intention of the granters to convey a seventy- four foot (74') strip immediately to the North of the South twenty-five (S. 25) acres of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter (W 1/2 of SE 1/4) of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22. AND Outlot A, HIGHWOOD ESTATES NO. 2, according to the recorded plat thereof. AND That portion of the SW 1/4 of the SE1/4 of Sec. 13, T. 28, R.22, according to the Government Survey thereof, described as follows: Commencing at the SE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Sec. 13, thence N. 50 rods, thence W. 80 rods to the Quarter Sec. line, thence S. 50 rods to the Sec. line, thence E. along the sec. line 80 rods to the place of beginning, being 25 acres, more or less. Less and Except that portion of the property conveyed by the following: As referred to in Warranty Deed recorded as Instrument No. 2717756: The east one-half of Sterling Street right-of-way that is located in the south half of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22 which is south of the south line of the following-described property and south of the (easterly) extension of said south line: the north 487.99 feet of the SW l/4 of the SE l/4 of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22. AND Outlet A, Maplewood Highlands, Ramsey County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof. As referred to in Warranty Deed recorded as instrument No. 2718516: That part of the South 180.00 feet of the West 233.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota lying East of the West 33.00 thereof. Ramsey County Abstract Property E1, Attachment 1 CDRB Packet Page Number 12 of 28 Section 2. Standards. 2.01 City Ordinance Section 44-1327 requires a Conditional Use Permit for Communications Towers. 2.02 Communication Towers Conditional Use Permit Standards. City Ordinance Section 44-1326. 1.Standards in this Code. 2.Recommendations of the planning commission and community design review board. 3.Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of residents of surrounding areas. 4.Effect on property values. 5.Effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. 2.03 General Conditional Use Permit Standards. City Ordinance Section 44-1097(a) states that the City Council must base approval of a Conditional Use Permit on the following nine standards for approval. 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 not exceed the design standards of any affected street. 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. 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. E1, Attachment 1 CDRB Packet Page Number 13 of 28 2.04 Variance Standard. City Ordinance Section 44-13 refers to state statute which states a variance may be granted from the requirements of the zoning ordinance when: (1) the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this ordinance; (2) when the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and (3) when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. Practical difficulties mean: (1) The proposed use is reasonable; (2) the need for a variance is caused by circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner, and not solely based on economic conditions. Section 3. Findings. 3.01 The proposal meets the specific conditional use permit standards. 3.02 The proposal meets the specific variance standards. Section 4. City Review Process 4.01 The City conducted the following review when considering this conditional use permit and variances request. 1. On November 21, 2023, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Pioneer Press and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. 2. On December 11, 2023, the city council discussed this resolution. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council _______ this resolution. Section 5. City Council 5.01 The city council hereby _______ the resolution. Approval is based on the findings outlined in section 3 of this resolution. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. 3.The city council shall review this conditional use permit in one year. 4.This conditional use permit is conditioned upon the applicant allowing the collocation of other provider's telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower. The applicant shall submit a letter to staff allowing collocation before a building permit can be issued. 5.This resolution approves a 195-foot tall communications monopole with a height variance of 70 feet and a setback variance of 45 feet. __________ by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on December 11, 2023. E1, Attachment 1 CDRB Packet Page Number 14 of 28 DESIGN REVIEW RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 Dale Romsos of VMC LLC has requested approval of a conditional use permit and variances to permit a 195-foot communications monopole. 1.02 The property is located at 1210 Sterling Street South and is legally described as: PIN: 132822430022. The South seventy-four feet (S. 74') of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter (W 1/2 of SE 1/4) of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, lying North of the South twenty-five (S. 25) acres, East of Sterling Street, and West of State Trunk Highway 494, it being the intention of the granters to convey a seventy- four foot (74') strip immediately to the North of the South twenty-five (S. 25) acres of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter (W 1/2 of SE 1/4) of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22. AND Outlot A, HIGHWOOD ESTATES NO. 2, according to the recorded plat thereof. AND That portion of the SW 1/4 of the SE1/4 of Sec. 13, T. 28, R.22, according to the Government Survey thereof, described as follows: Commencing at the SE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Sec. 13, thence N. 50 rods, thence W. 80 rods to the Quarter Sec. line, thence S. 50 rods to the Sec. line, thence E. along the sec. line 80 rods to the place of beginning, being 25 acres, more or less. Less and Except that portion of the property conveyed by the following: As referred to in Warranty Deed recorded as Instrument No. 2717756: The east one-half of Sterling Street right-of-way that is located in the south half of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22 which is south of the south line of the following-described property and south of the (easterly) extension of said south line: the north 487.99 feet of the SW l/4 of the SE l/4 of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22. AND Outlet A, Maplewood Highlands, Ramsey County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof. As referred to in Warranty Deed recorded as instrument No. 2718516: That part of the South 180.00 feet of the West 233.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota lying East of the West 33.00 thereof. Ramsey County Abstract Property E1, Attachment 2 CDRB Packet Page Number 15 of 28 Section 2. Site and Building Plan Standards and Findings. 2.01 City ordinance Section 2-290(b) and 44-1327(13) requires that the community design review board 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. 2.That the design and location of the proposed development are in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and are not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3.That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Section 3. City Council Action. 3.01 The above-described site and design plans are hereby approved based on the findings outlined in Section 3 of this resolution. Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the design plans. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1.Obtain a conditional use permit and variances approval from the city council for this project. 2.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 3.All requirements of the city engineer, fire marshal and building official must be met. 4.The flush mount design for the telecommunications tower shall be utilized. 5.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for staff approval the following items: a.Submit a tree plan showing the size, species, and location of all significant trees within the disturbed area. A significant tree is any hardwood tree 6 diameter inches or larger, conifer tree 8 diameter inches or larger, and softwood tree 12 diameter inches or larger. The plan must show which trees will be removed with the development of the monopole or how the trees near the project will be preserved. If significant tree removal is proposed, the plan must show tree replacement per the City’s tree ordinance. b.Submit a landscape plan to show tree replacement if necessary and how the monopole and ground equipment will be screened per the City’s antenna and tower ordinance. E1, Attachment 2 CDRB Packet Page Number 16 of 28 c. Submit a written report certified by a Minnesota licensed structural engineer detailing how the 50 percent breakaway is achieved without compromising the required design of the monopole. d.The applicant shall provide the city with a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 6.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 public health, safety or welfare. b.The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 7.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. __________ by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on December 11, 2023. E1, Attachment 2 CDRB Packet Page Number 17 of 28 Overview Map - 1210 Sterling Street South City of Maplewood October 12, 2023 Legend !I 0 950 FeetSource: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County Project Parcel E1, Attachment 3 CDRB Packet Page Number 18 of 28 Future Land Use Map - 1210 Sterling Street South City of Maplewood October 12, 2023 Legend !IFuture Land Use - 2040 Low Density Residential Rural/Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mixed Use - Neighborhood Commercial Public/Institutional Utility Open Space Park 0 950 FeetSource: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County E1, Attachment 4 CDRB Packet Page Number 19 of 28 Zoning Map - 1210 Sterling Street South City of Maplewood October 12, 2023 Legend !IZoning Single Dwelling (r1) Rural Single Dwelling (r1r) Planned Unit Development (pud) Farm (f) Open Space/Park Mixed Use (mu) Business Commercial (bc) 0 950 FeetSource: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County E1, Attachment 5 CDRB Packet Page Number 20 of 28 August 29, 2023 Conditional Use Permit Request City of Maplewood Attn: Mr. Michael Martin 1830 County Rd B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Mr. Martin, The St Paul Educational Foundation (SPEF) is a non-for-profit foundation that supports local educational programs and has owned and managed the ski jump property since 1975. In 1997 two wireless cellular carriers approached the foundation about installing cellular antennae on their ski jump. The foundation viewed this offer as a win-win offer. The foundation could give elevated space while reducing the number of communication towers to be installed. In 2015 a third wireless carrier leased space and installed equipment on the ski jump. Over the years the carriers have made upgrades to their site to improve coverage and capacity to area and residents. In 2020, several events took place that made the Foundation restricted site upgrades and reevaluated the use of the ski jump as a communications tower. During that year Two of the carriers had proposed upgrades but not reflective of one another. When a comprehensive design and structural analysis was performed it was determined the ski jump tower could not hold the proposed equipment as it sat without major structural modifications. St Paul Educational Foundation retained VMC LLC to perform a feasibility study as to the carrier need, regulatory due diligence, and construction cost of installing a new communications mono pole adjacent to the ski Jump and continue as a communications facility. The goal of SPEF was to continue to provide a wireless telecommunications site that would serve the needs of the cellular carriers presently and into the future. Also, to allow for future growth of additional wireless providers and emergency response needs for the region. With the demand for wireless equipment the SPEF felt it was best to create better coverage and connectivity to residents of Maplewood and neighboring communities. E1, Attachment 6 CDRB Packet Page Number 21 of 28 To date VMC LLC has the following items: 1 The existing carriers have shown interest in staying on site and moving onto a neighboring mono pole tower. 2 To move from this parcel/tower location will require a complete regulatory determination process that can take as long as 2years, not including local approval. 3 Technology upgrades will not take place until a new tower is built reducing the performance of cellular coverage and connectivity until such time. 4 Soil boring were performed showing good conditions to provide a tower foundation at a reasonable cost. 5 1A survey was conducted and submitted for regulatory review. 6 FAA Determination was received with approval of up to a 199’ tower. 7 With the new technology developing there has already been interest from new providers to collocate at this site. 8 To move the mono pole location any further than 40’ from its prosed location would create a complete rebuild of the site for the cellular providers base on communication line length and regulatory “Change out” procedures. The utility and site infrastructure is in place and would not hinder the construction of the mono pole. 9 The height under 125’ is considered unusable or “RF Shadowed” by the ski jump. Moving the proposed location will only increase the unusable vertical space on the mono pole. 10 The monopole will be designed with a 50% break away fall zone. The design will only allow a fall zone of half of the height of the mono pole (approx. 97.5’). As per Section 44-1326 of The City of Maplewood City zoning code, St Paul Educational Foundation is applying for a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a 195’ mono pole. The monopole would be designed to accommodate 4 wireless providers (125’, 140’,155,170’) and 1 elevation for community emergency response (190’). The monopole will be shadowed for reception at levels under 125” by the ski jump and deemed non usable. A tower over 199’ would need to be lit and deemed unfeasible for this location. This request allows for future colocation of wireless providers and emergency response while not exceeding FAA approval. The location of the pole is 175’ from the nearest home and the pole is being designed to have a 50% break away E1, Attachment 6 CDRB Packet Page Number 22 of 28 design. That meant the farthest it would fall from the foundation is 97.5’ which is within the property of the SPEF. Installation of the mono pole would stay consistent with previous installation of cellular equipment that have already been approved by the City of Maplewood: •6’ chain link fence. To be attached to the ski jump and Verizon fence compound. •Gravel compound •Secured mono pole climbing system. Application form requirements. Submission Items •Certified Survey. •1A Survey report. •Existing condition topographic map. •Proposed Draft topographic map1. •Proposed Draft topographic map2. •Application letter. •Proposed monopole design (Sabre). •Soil boring report •Proposed Monopole location •Verizon site construction documents. •500’ resident listing •500’ parcel mapNotes – Acknowledged and identified in application review letter. Criteria for Approval of a Conditional Use Permit – Acknowledged. Respectfully submitted. Dale Romsos Dale Romsos VMC LLC, Cc: Kathleen Wallace- St Paul Educational Foundation Dale Romsos – VMC, LLC E1, Attachment 6 CDRB Packet Page Number 23 of 28 E1, Attachment 7 CDRB Packet Page Number 24 of 28 E1, Attachment 7 CDRB Packet Page Number 25 of 28 E1, Attachment 7 CDRB Packet Page Number 26 of 28 E1, Attachment 8 CDRB Packet Page Number 27 of 28 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CDRB Packet Page Number 28 of 28