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