HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/1998BOOK
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
March 3, 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 - February 10, 1997
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
6. Design Review
a. Delavari Convenience Store, NW Corner Highway 61 and County Road C -
Ali Delavari
b. Carver School Sign Variance, 2680 Upper Afton Road - City of Maplewood
c. Pariseau Medical Office Building, Eleventh Avenue- Greg and Mary Pariseau
d. Monopole Proposal, Western Hills Park- American Portable Telecom, Inc.
(APT)
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Board Presentations
9. Staff Presentations
a. CDRB Volunteers for March 23
b. Meeting Change Reminder: Next Meeting will be March 31
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.
o
The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium
to respond to the staffs recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community
Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant.
The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes
to comment on the proposal.
After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments,
the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting.
The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed.
The Board will then make its recommendations or decision.
Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You
must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal.
jw\forms\cdrb.agd
Revised: 11-09-94
-- IV.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 10, 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 Absent
Matt Ledvina Absent
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 25, '1997
Boardmember Robinson moved approval of the minutes of November 25, 1997, as submitted.
Boardmember Shankar seconded.
Ayesmall
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OFAGENDA
Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the agenda as submitted.
Boardmember Robinson seconded. AyesBall
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
St. John's Hospital Landscape Plan, 1575 Beam Avenu~HealthEast, Inc.
Bruce Jacobson, a landscape architect with Close Landscape Architecture, submitted a written
response to the three staff recommendations. Mr. Jacobson said the dash line showing the trail on
the west side of the parking deck was potentially for the future. St. John's is trying to create a
"park setting" and will add a "meandering trail around the property" after the landscape is
established. The proposed retention pond on the north side of the property will be a shallow,
grass-lined basin.
Mr. Jacobson said no shrubs were planned for the main driveway to the building except for a ring
of dwarf perennial plantings to accent the building. Trees planted in this area will primarily be
Colorado spruce evergreen trees and river birch. Tom Nonnemacher of McGough Construction
Co., Inc. and Peggy Ryden of HealthEast also were present at the meeting.
Boardmember Robinson moved the Community Design Review Board approve the landscape plan
date-stamped December 17, 1997, and the additional plan received February 10, 1998, for St.
John's Hospital, 1575 Beam Avenue, subject to the property owner making the following changes:
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-10-98
-2-
Revise the plan to show sod on the Hazelwood Street boulevard and on the first 20 feet of the
site. The plan shall also show sod along the north side of St. John's Boulevard. The width of
this sod strip shall be at least 30 feet. This has been shown on the revised plan dated
February 10, 1998.
2. The addition of a trail on the west side of the parking deck shall be subject to staff approval.
This trail shall be bituminous or concrete.
Boardmember Shankar seconded.
Ayesmall
The motion passed.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
A. Multi-Use Commercial Building, East of 1255 Highway 36--Metcalf Mayflower
Ken Nordby, of NAI Architects, was present representing Metcalf Mayflower. Mr. Nordby said
that rather than replace the plain concrete block with rock-face block they would like to extend
the 6+-foot-high band of rock-face, which is shown above the brick on the north, south and
east side, around to the west side. The reason is that the dock seals on the loading-dock
doors and the stairs and handrails cannot be properly positioned against the rock-face. Mr.
Nordby described the brick color as a red-brown. He said the color for the rock-face has not
been selected.
Mr. Nordby noted the buildings in the area that do not have screened roof-top equipment. He
said Metcalf Mayflower would like to do the same but would paint all mechanical units on the
roof to blend with the building. He pointed out that the viewing angle of the mechanical units
will be lessened by their position on the roof. The board and architect discussed the position of
a billboard that presently stands on the site.
Since the tenants for this building have not been determined, the parking requirement was
estimated. However, there is room for more parking spaces if needed. Mr. Nordby also felt
there was adequate drive space for semitrailers and trucks.
Boardmember Robinson was concerned about some type of screening for the mechanical
equipment. Mr. Nordby estimated that, if a mechanical unit was 4% feet high, about 1~ feet of
the unit would be visible from Highway 36. Because the tenants are not known at this time, he
said the size, number and placement of mechanical units is difficult to determine. Mr. Nordby
proposed raising the parapet on the top of the building up a step of 1 foot and 4 inches from
Grid 3 (of the plan) on the east side of the building across the south side and then to Grid 2.8
(the first dock area) on the west.
Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board:
Ao
Approve a parking reduction authorization for the proposed Metcalf Mayflower multi-tenant
building east of 1255 E. Highway 36. This approval allows the property owner to provide
136 parking spaces--38 fewer than the code requires. This waiver is approved because:'
1. The parking requirements for office/industrial buildings such as this are generally
excessive.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-10-98
-3-
2. Fewer parking spaces would preserve green space and lessen storm runoff.
3. The applicant has reserved space to add 40 parking spaces should the need arise.
The city may require that the property owner provide the additional spaces if a parking
shortage develops.
Bo
Approve the plans, date-stamped January 23, 1998, for the proposed multi-tenant building
east of Metcalf Mayflower, 1255 E. Highway 36, based on the findings required by the
code. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall provide the following for staff
approval:
a. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans.
b. Revised building elevations showing:
(1)
Brick and rock-face concrete block wrapped around the north end of the west
elevation up to the first angled wall to match the same treatment of the south
end of the building.
(2) The upper band of rock-face block to extend along the entire face of the west
side.
(3) The paint color proposed for the concrete block will be neutral and will be
subject to staff approval.
(4)
A 1-foot 4-inch raised parapet shall be built on the entire south face of the
building and extend on the east face to Grid 3 and on the west face to Grid
2.8.
c. A revised site plan showing:
(1)
Six handicap-parking spaces that meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)
requirements. These must be spaced along the building front to serve the
entire building. One of these spaces must be van accessible.
(2)
All visitor parking spaces for the manufacturing and office areas to be 9 %
feet wide and all parking spaces for retail areas to be 10 feet wide. All
employee parking spaces may be nine feet wide.
(3) Replacement of all proposed bituminous curbing with concrete curbing.
A revised landscape plan showing an increased number of Norway Maple trees at
a spacing of no more than 30 feet on center. These trees must be at least 2 %
inches in caliper, balled and burlapped.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 02-10-98
-4-
Before getting a building permit the applicant shall remove the Naegele billboard from
the site or obtain a conditional use permit for relocating it on the property.
The applicant shall obtain approval of a comprehensive sign plan before getting the
first certificate of occupancy if there would be five or more tenants in the building.
Trash containers must be kept within screening enclosures unless the containers are
kept along the back (west) side of the building.
6. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Install a handicap parking sign for each handicap parking space.
b. Paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building.
Co
Construct trash dumpster enclosures for any dumpsters that would not be kept
behind the building. The applicant must submit the plans for design and
placement to staff for approval.
d. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. The future
parking area need not be irrigated.
e. Screen or aim site lights so they do not shine into drivers eyes.
7. 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 a 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 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.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Boardmember Robinson seconded.
The motion passed.
1997 CDRB Annual Report
Ayes--all
Secretary Ekstrand reviewed the annual report for the board.
Boardmember Robinson moved the Community Design Review Board accept the 1997 Annual
Report as filed.
VIII.
IX.
Community Design Review Board -5-
Minutes of 02-10-98
Boardmember Shankar seconded.
The motion passed.
C. Election of CDRB Chair and Vice Chair for 1998
Ayes~all
Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board postpone election of the
chair and vice chair positions until the full membership is present.
Boardmember Robinson seconded. Ayes--all
The motion passed.
VII, VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
There were no visitor presentations.
BOARD PRESENTATIONS
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
A. February 23 Council Meeting: Boardmember Erickson will attend this meeting.
March 9 Council Meeting: Boardmember Shankar will attend this meeting.
B. The February 24 meeting will be canceled and rescheduled for March 3, 1998. The March 24
meeting is also canceled and rescheduled for March 31, 1998.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Variances, Conditional Use Permit, Parking Space Reduction and
Design Review - Delavari Convenience Store
Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and County Road C
Ali Delavari
February 17, 1998
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Mr. Ali Delavari is proposing to build a 2,999-square-foot convenience store with fuel sales and a
761-square-foot car wash at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and County Road C.. Refer to
the maps on pages 11-12. There would be four fuel dispensers---eight cars could fuel-up at a
time. Access to the site would be from two proposed driveways at the frontage road. Refer to
the site plan on page 13. The proposed one-story building would have an exterior of brick with
limestone and ceramic tile accents. This property includes a 10,311-square-foot strip of land on
the east side of the frontage road.
Requests
The applicant is requesting approval of the following:
1. A variance to build a major motor fuel station closer than 350 feet to a residentially-planned
property line. The nearest residentially-planned lot is 235 feet to the west across
Highway 61.
2. A conditional use permit (CUP) to build a fuel station and car wash. The code requires a
CUP for all fuel stations.
3. A parking-reduction authorization to have four fewer parking spaces than the code requires.
The code requires 15 striped parking spaces--the applicant is proposing 11. (The letter
from the applicant's consultant states that the code requires four spaces for the fuel sales.
Since these spaces would be provided at the pumps, staff is not entering them into the
calculations for the required number of striped parking spaces.)
4. Approval of site, landscape and architectural plans.
Refer to the applicant's letter on pages 15-22.
BACKGROUND AND PLAN REVISIONS
Planning Commission Action
January 5, 1998: The planning commission reviewed this request and recommended that the
city council:
1. Deny the CUP for a fuel station and car wash.
2. Deny the CUP to extend the hours of operation to 24 hours.
3. Deny the parking-space reduction.
The planning commission took no action on the variance to build a fuel station within 350 feet of
a residential district since they did not recommend approval of the CUP. They also took no
action on the parking lot setback variance and the plan review.
Plan Revisions
Since the planning commission's recommendation to deny this project, the applicant made
several changes to their proposal and requested another review with the planning commission.
The changes are (I enclosed a copy of the previous site plan on page 14 for comparison):
1. Deletion of one pump island.
2. Revision of the on-site landscaping plan and the addition of new trees on the 40-foot-wide
strip east of the frontage road. The applicant would attempt to save the existing trees as
much as possible, while adding a proposed new row of trees.
3. Drop the request for a CUP to be open 24 hours a day. They would adhere to the 6 a.m. to
11 p.m. hours required by the code.
4. They showed the placement of the fuel tanks and tank vents. The code requires that tank
vents be at least 200 feet from any house.
5. Revision of the site plan to meet parking setback requirements for the northerly parking row.
6. Widening of the northerly curb cut to more than 24 feet.
DISCUSSION
Variance
The intent of the 350-foot separation is to buffer residentially-planned property from motor fuel
stations. In this case, it only applies to the residential property across Highway 61. Staff has no
concern about the proximity of the proposed fuel station to this undeveloped highway-frontage
property. There would be no negative impact on this land.
The proposed fuel station would be about 200 feet from the nearest homes to the east and
south. These homes, however, are on land planned and zoned for M-1 (light manufacturing).
Because of the M-1 zoning, the code does not require a CUP for the proximity to these homes.
The city council should consider methods like hours of operation, screening and light-glare
control to protect these nearby residents from disturbances.
Conditional Use Permit
The proposed convenience store with fuel sales would be appropriate for this highway-frontage
location. If the nearby homes to the east and south were on land zoned residential, staff would
not recommend approval of the CUP. The fact, though, that they are zoned and planned M-1
indicates the city's goal for commercial or industrial development in this area. The main concern
is protecting the nearby homes from light and noise nuisances during bedtime hours. Staff will
recommend that the developer provide a detailed lighting plan showing lights that are the least
obtrusive to the neighbors.
The applicant's letter on page 15 states that the site is zoned for the proposed use. Staff wishes
to clarify that motor fuel stations are a "conditional" use in the M-1 district, not a "permitted" use.
Parking-Space Reduction
Fuel-station convenience stores do not need as many parking spaces as a convenience store by
itself. Most of the customers would come to this facility for fuel. If they wanted to shop inside
the store, their cars would already be at the pumps and not in one of the striped spaces. In
March, 1997, the city council approved a parking space reduction for Super America at
11 Century Avenue. The council allowed 11 spaces when code would have required 15---the
same as this request.
To comply with another part of the parking code, the site plan should be revised to eliminate two
parking spaces in front of the attendants' window. This is to provide a clear view of the pumps
for monitoring fuel pump operations. Eliminating these spaces would reduce the number of
parking spaces from 11 to nine. Staff does not feel that this reduction to nine would be a
problem. If it is, the applicant could provide more spaces. The most logical place to add them
would be along the west lot line in the setback area. The highway boulevard is very wide so a
setback reduction to park in this area would not even be noticed. The council could evaluate the
parking need during the periodic reviews of the CUP. The council should state a CUP condition
that the property owner add parking spaces if a shortage develops.
The applicant has proposed that these two spaces be left as shown and he has marked this row
for car parking only. He feels that the intent of the code would be met if trucks and vans are
prohibited from parking in front of the building and potentially blocking the view of the pumps.
Staff's only concern with this is that it would not be enforceable. It is not realistic to expect an
attendant to leave his or her station to ask a customer to move their truck or van.
Traffic
Several neighbors are concerned that this project will increase the traffic on County Road C and
cause excessive traffic congestion at the highway intersection. According to Dan Solar, the
Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, County Road C presently carries 6,700 vehicle tdps per day on
the stretch between Highway 61 and Hazelwood Street. Mr. Solar said that the recently
upgraded County Road C is able to handle any traffic increase that may result from the
3
proposed store. Mr. Solar alsQ stated that the highway intersection is fully able to handle any
traffic increase resulting from this facility. He stated that fuel station/convenience stores do not
generate much additional traffic. They primarily draw from the existing traffic that is already
there. Staff agrees and does not feel that there will be a substantial traffic increase that would
impact the neighborhood.
The planning commission asked for information about the current traffic accident count at
County Road C and Highway 61. Staff asked the police chief, Michael Ryan, for a list of traffic
accidents at this corner. Since January 1, 1996, there have been two accidents in this
neighborhood. This count includes all streets in the vicinity of the Highway 61 and County Road
C intersection.
Building Design
The building would be attractive and constructed of quality materials--brick with limestone and
tile accents.
Landscaping
My main concern is that the applicant provide screening for the homes to the south and east. To
accomplish this, the applicant has proposed an assortment of evergreen trees, deciduous trees
and shrubs. The applicant is also proposing to add trees on the 40-foot strip east of the frontage
road. His plan is to augment the existing trees with the additional trees shown on sheet L1.
Refer to this plan.
Upon inspection of this strip, I do not see how the additional trees can be provided without
removing most or all of the existing ones. The most effective screen might best be provided by a
six-foot-tall screening fence on the westerly side (street side) of this strip. This would allow the
existing trees to remain and grow. Leaving them in place would be the less disruptive for the
neighbor to the east. A fence on the west edge of this site would also be easily maintained and
cared for by the convenience-store owner.
Site Lights
Commercial lights are often a source of complaint from nearby homeowners. Staff, therefore,
would like to see a lighting plan that shows the type of fixtures proposed before a building permit
is issued. This plan also should show the light spread and foot candle rating. The goal is to
have lights that do not have visible bulbs or lenses and that do not shine beyond the bounds of
the site. The applicant has stated in his letter that he would provide a lighting plan along with the
building permit documents.
Shoreland Ordinance
The planning commission raised a question about compliance with the land coverage
requirements in the shoreland ordinance. The ordinance allows the developer to cover
50 percent of their land if they provide an on-site method for reducing storm water flow or
provide for the treatment of runoff. The applicant has proposed a holding pond at the north end
of the site to satisfy this requirement.
The ordinance also states that the impervious surface area limits shall be determined using the
total developable area of the parcel (above the ordinary high water level and suitable for
development), exclusive of streets and sidewalks. The planning commission felt that the
40-foot-wide strip of land east of the frontage road is not developable due to setback constraints
and, therefore, should not be considered part of the site. Staff has taken a different
interpretation in that the "developable area" constraint refers to land that is undevelopable
because it is below the ordinary high water level and, consequently, undevelopable. All lots
have portions that could be deemed undevelopable because of setback requirements. Staff
does not believe this is the intent of the ordinance.
The city should not permit this 40-foot strip to be split away from the main parcel unless the land
coverage requirements of the shoreland ordinance would continue to be met.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt the resolution on page 24 approving a variance to build a major motor fuel station and
car wash 235 feet from residentially-planned property (the code requires 350 feet). This
variance is based on the following findings:
Compliance with the ordinance would cause the developer undue hardship because the
residential property that is closer than 350 feet away is undeveloped highway-frontage
property. There would be no negative impact on this residentially-zoned land.
2. Approval of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance
since it would not negatively affect the residentially-planned property.
3. The proposed site is buffered from the residentially-planned land by Highway 61.
Adopt the resolution on pages 25-26 approving a conditional use permit to build a fuel
station and car wash at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and County Road C, Approval is
based on the findings required by the ordinance and 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.
The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline
for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The city council may require additional parking spaces in the future if a parking shortage
develops. This may require a setback variance from the city council.
5. The city shall not allow a lot division to occur that would separate the 40-foot-wide portion
of this site from the main part unless the shoreland ordinance would continue to be met.
Do
Approve a parking-space reduction to allow nine parking spaces (six fewer than the code
requires). Approval is because:
1. Most of the customers that would be in the store are fuel customers who would leave
their cars at the pump islands.
2. There is room to add parking spaces along the west side of the site if more are needed.
The city council may require additional parking spaces in the future if a parking shortage
develops. This may require a setback variance from the city council.
Approve the site, grading/drainage and landscape plans date-stamped February 13, 1998
and the building elevations date-stamped December 22, 1997, for the proposed convenience
store, car wash and fuel station at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and County Road C.
The owner shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit:
a. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans.
b. A revised site plan showing:
(1) A handicap-parking space that is eight feet wide with an adjacent eight-foot-wide
loading space.
(2) Elimination of two parking spaces in front of the attendants' window. This area
shall be cross-hatched and marked for no parking.
(3) An in-ground lawn irrigation system.
c. A revised landscape plan showing:
(1) The preservation of the trees on the 40-foot-wide strip east of the frontage road.
(2) A 200-foot-long, six-foot-tall decorative wood screening fence on the west side of
this strip. The decorative side shall face the street.
d. A detailed lighting plan showing site lights that are aimed away from the nearby
residents or properly shielded from the residents so there is no light-glare nuisance.
e. A plan showing the screening of roof-top mechanical equipment from the homes to
the east and west if the roof design does not provide adequate screening.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
b. Install a handicap-parking sign for the handicap-parking space.
o
°
c°
Paint all rooftop mechanical equipment, stacks and vents to match the uppermost
part of the building. Roof-top equipment must be screened from view from the
homes to the south and east if the roof design does not provide adequate screening.
d. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas.
e. Post "no parking" signs in front of the building in the required pump-viewing area.
This area shall also be cross-hatched for no parking.
f°
Stripe all parking spaces at a width of ten feet, except for the handicap space. The
handicap parking space must be eight feet wide with an adjacent eight-foot-wide
loading space.
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 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.
Equip the car wash with a noise reduction package and keep the southerly door closed
while car washing and drying equipment is operating.
See that the external speakers do not exceed the noise standards set by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
'7
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
I surveyed the 25 property owners within 350 feet of this site. Of the 15 replies, seven were in
favor and eight objected.
In Favor
1. It would be a good thing for the neighborhood. (Bartlet, Dons Body Shop)
2. Ideal location. (Jerden, 2672 Maplewood Drive)
3. It would be a close place to fuel our trucks and may help bring customers to our business.
(Warner Holdings, Inc., 2688 Maplewood Drive)
4. It is well needed at this location. It will also slow down the fast traffic on Highway 61.
(Owner, 2617 Duluth Street)
5. A touchless car wash would be nice. (Leonard, 2627 Duluth Street)
I am in favor of the convenience of a gas facility on 61 vs. only White Bear Avenue, provided
property values for surrounding homeowners do not decrease and/or property taxes
increase. (Bertelsen, 2631 Duluth Street)
7. In favor. (Kline, Kline Auto World)
8. In favor. It would be great. (Gene Corby)
Opposed
1. Too much traffic on C now. This would also lower value of my house. Build homes, not
businesses. (Pitt, 1237 County Road C)
2. There is too much traffic on County Road C now. We don't need an added increase.
(Langness, 1227 County Road C)
I question whether the size of the lot is large enough. Also, the traffic problem will increase.
Perhaps a business with less auto/truck traffic requirements would be better. A professional
building or small office building would be preferred. (Lakeview Lutheran Church, 1194
County Road C)
This proposal would cause more traffic congestion to an already busy area. We don't need
more shopping areas! Please leave this property as is---as a much needed buffer zone from
the noise and pollution of busy Highway 61. (Fenlon, 1216 County Road C)
5. It would increase traffic on our streets and cause congestion at the corner of 61 and C.
(Meehan, 2625 Duluth Street)
I feel it would pose a traffic safety hazard, so close to a frontage road, major highway and
intersection. I have convenience one half mile in any direction right now. Thank you.
(Primus, 2694 Maplewood Drive)
7. Refer to the letter on page 23 from Ralph Munchow, 1210 County Road C.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 33,708 square feet (proposed site) with 10,311 square feet east of the frontage road
to be left undeveloped. Total land area is 44,019 square feet (one acre).
Existing land use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Highway 61
South: County Road C and Lakeview Lutheran Church
West: Highway 61 - west of the highway is undeveloped property
East: Frontage road and single dwellings
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: M-1
Zoning: M-1
Code Requirements
Section 36-151(b)(9)(c) does not allow motor fuel stations within 350 feet of a residential lot line.
Section 36-187(b) states that no building or exterior use, except parking, may by erected, altered
or conducted within 350 feet of a residential district without a CUP.
Section 26-22(a)(9) requires that a motor fuel station have four parking spaces plus one for each
200 square feet of floor space for the store. (We consider the spaces at the pumps to serve as
the first four spaces.)
Criteria for Variance Approval
State law requires that the City Council make the following findings to approve a variance from
the zoning code:
1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
property under consideration.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
"Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be
put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations
alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the ordinance.
Criteria for CUP Approval
Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP, subject to the nine standards for
approval. Refer to the resolution on pages 25-26.
p:sec4\delavari. 3
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Previously Submitted Site Plan dated December 22, 1997
5. Applicant's letter dated February 13, 1998
6. Letter from Ralph Munchow
7. Variance Resolution
8. CUP Resolution
9. Building Elevations date-stamped December 22, 1997 and site, landscaping and Grading/Drainage
Plans date-stamped February 13, 1998 (separate attachments)
l0
Attachment 1
VADNAIS HEIGHTS
AV~.
SI.~RREN AVl. KZ~
LOCATION MAP
11
Attachment 2
F
lmmmmmmmmmmm
S MEATS
2694 I
I
TIMBER
& TURF
4
~.~ R2
..- KLINE AUTO WORLD!
NORTH STAR
AUTO BODY &
1
Attachment 3
/
/
/
/tI
11
SITE PLAN
13
Attachment 4
7
?
/
?
?
/
?
?
C.(DUNT¥ I~(D~D "C"
CIVIL ENGL'~'EERLNG
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMEN'rAL SERVICF~
URBAN PLA,%'NLNG
Attachment
February 13, 1998
Delavari Convenience Store
Highway 61 and County Road C
Maplewood, lvIN
By:
Ali Delavari
1473 Woodland Avenue
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
REQUESTS
The following item is requested for approval:
1. Conditional Use Permit to allow for the development ora motor fuel station on a 1.01 acre parcel,
that is zoned M1 - Light Industrial.
2. A variance request to reduce the required project setback from adjacent residential lot lines from the
required 350 feet to 235 feet on the west, including Highway 61.
3. Site Plan approval for a 2,999 square foot convenience store/motor fuel station and a 761 square foot
car wash on a 1.01-acre parcel.
Following approval of the site configuration and design plans, a building permit application will be
submitted to the City of Maplewood.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of developing a 1.01-acre parcel located on the northeast comer of the intersection of
Highway 61 and County Road C along Maplewood Drive, which is zoned for the proposed use.
The proposed site development provides a tasteful and appropriate use for this triangular-shaped parcel,
which is divided into two parcels by MaPlewood Drive. The proposed site design maximizes site
orientation from right-of-ways, insures safe and orderly traffic flow and is respectful of adjacent
residential areas and Kohlman Lake. Extensive landscaping and berming will be used to screen the
parking facilities and provide an attractive boundary for the development. This project will enhance
property values for the surrounding M-1 (light manufacturing) properties as well as bringing the site into
conformance with the planned character of the M-1 district.
15
HKS ASSOCIATES INC
821 RA't.'MOND AVENUE SUITE 100
ST. PAUL~ MN 55114
PHONE 612/659-9732 FAX 612/659-0891
SUBMITTAL PACKAGE
Attached with this narrative are the plan sheets which identify the location, existing conditions, site
layout, grading, utilities and landscaping for the proposed development.
Sheet C-l:
Sheet C-2:
Sheet C-3:
Sheet C-4:
Sheet C-5:
Sheet L-1:
Title Sheet
Existing Conditions
Preliminary Site Layout Plan
Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan
Preliminary Utility Plan
Preliminary Landscape Plan
SITE DESCRIPTION
This vacant site lies northeast of the intersection of Highway 61 and County Road C, in Maplewood. The
site is accessible from the east via Maplewood Drive, referred to as the service road for Highway 61. Site
Area "A," is located to the east of Maplewood Drive, site area "B," is located west of Maplewood Drive
and is triangular in shape. It is the intent of the developer to legally combine or tie the t~vo parcels
together.
,4djacent Property
Although zoned M1 - Light Industrial, the property to the east &the site, on the opposite side of
Maplewood Drive, consists of non-conforming residential dwellings. The property across County Road
C, to the south &the site, is occupied by a church and zoned M1 - Light Industrial. The northern and
western boundaries of the site are formed by Highway 61.
Kohlman Lake, classified as a Class VI recreational lake by the DNR, is located to the northwest across
Highway 61. To the west of the site, also separated by Highway 61, is a vacant site, which is zoned for
residential development. Even though this vacant site appears to be very difficult to develop, any
potential impacts to this existing natural environment and undeveloped residential property is highly
unlikely due to the existing physical barrier created by Highway 61.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
This proposed development conforms'to M-1 Light Industrial zoning district's standards and is consistent
with its proximity along Highway 61. Careful consideration has been given to ordinances pertaining to
landscaping, screening and surface area coverages. All &the parking and service drive areas will have a
bituminous surface with B612 concrete curbs and guRers.
ILKS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Page 2
Preliminary Site Plan Submittal
February 12, 1998
for Ali Delavari
SITE DESIGN
Many factors were considered to create a functional and aesthetically pleasing development. Principal
access to the site is available via Maplewood Drive. On-site accessibility has been well organized to
manage traffic How to and from fueling service lanes and to the south of the building around the car wash.
The proposed site improvements for the development of a 2,999 square foot motor fuel
station/convenience store with canopy and gasoline service lanes adheres to the findings established for
conditional use by City ordinance. The plans have been revised to incorporate input from the Planning
Commission and local citizens. The setback of the overhead canopy complies with the fifteen-foot
setback required from adjacent right-of-ways. The location of this development within the 350-foot
setback from adjacent residential lot lines will be addressed in greater detail later in this narrative. No
repair, assembly or maintenance of vehicles will occur on this site.
Any noise generated from the site from operations and external speakers will adhere with Minnesota
Pollution Control standards. Furthermore, all fueling structures will be designed to comply with
standards set forth by the State Fire Marshal's office, the Minnesota Statutes and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) concerning installation, leak detection equipment and the location of ventilation
systems beyond 200 feet from the adjacent residential lot line.
A 761 square foot car wash is attached to the east wall of the convenience store/motor fuel station. This
facility will be equipped with a drainage system which meets City engineer standards to insure that water
does not drain onto any of the adjacent public right-of-ways. Stacking space exists for at least four
vehicles.
The proposed site is in compliance with the maximum allowable impervious surface area as required by
the shoreland ordinance. Due to presence of an on-site stormwater detention pond at the northern corner
of the site, the maximum allowable impervious surface coverage area increases to 50%. This site
currently has an impervious coverage of 45 %. A pylon sign is proposed along the western border of the
site. This sign will comply with the City sign ordinance concerning required design and dimensions.
Berming and landscaping will be developed along the east side of the property to screen fuel dispenser
islands, parking areas and drives, and lights of cars from residential lot lines. A detailed lighting plan
showing site lights that are aimed away from the nearby residents or properly shielded from the residents
will be submitted with the building permit for staff review and approval. An in-ground sprinkler system
will be installed and maintained for all landscaped areas.
Proposed parking computations are based on precedent established by the City in dealing with prior
development approvals, in which the fueling stations will be allowed to serve as temporary parking
facilities for clients. The typical client will access this site with the intent of purchasing fuel.
HKS ASSOCIATES, INC.
February 12, 1998
Page 3
Preliminary Site Plan Submittal
for Ali Delavari
17
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1.) The construction of a convenience store/fuel station and car wash.
· Ail construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
* The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the
permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
· The city council shall review this permit in one year.
· The convenience store, fuel sales and car wash shall not open before 6 a.m. nor be open after 11 p.m.
as required by code. The council may permit different hours &operation by amending this permit.
· The city council may require additional parking spaces in the future ifa parking shortage develops.
This may require a set-back variance from the city council.
· Because the area is zoned M-1 light industrial, the planned development is coinciding with the city's
goals for commercial or industrial use for this area.
The proposed development of a motor fuel station/convenience store and car wash is consistent with the
comprehensive plan designation set forth by the City of Maplewood. The proposed use will enhance the
existing and planned character of the surrounding area. Site improvements will consist of berming along
the eastern edge of the property and landscaping along all frontages of the property.
Site Area "A", to the east of Maplewood Drive will provide 10,311 square feet of green space to screen
the development from the neighboring residential dwellings. The proposed site improvements, on what is
presently a highly visible vacant lot, will provide a valuable service to the surrounding area.
Traffic generation will be concentrated on Maplewood Drive, which is considered the frontage road for
Highway 61. No access is requested along County Road C or Highway 61. Adequate public facilities and
services will be made available to this site with no additional costs anticipated for public infrastructure.
Effects to the surrounding environment have been minimized with the inclusion of an on-site stormwater
detention pond at the northern corner of the site.
The client will operate during the hours of 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. and will comply with the City's suggestions
concerning the delivery time of gasoline and other materials so as to minimize disturbance to area
residents.
The requirement of 4 stalls to service the motor fuel station and 15 stalls to meet the convenience store
needs are included within the required parking. Two additional stalls are included in the proposed
parking. It is noticed that clients will regularly utilize the motor fuel station spaces to complete payment
of gasoline and quick purchases.
HKS ASSOCIATES, INC.
February 12, 1998
Page 4
Preliminary Site Plan Submittal
for Ali Delavari
18
VARIANCE REQUESTS
1. A variance is requested to reduce the required project setback from adjacent land intended or used for
residential developments from the requirement of 350 feet to 235 feet, including Highway 61.
· Because the residential property that is closer than 350 feet away is undeveloped highway
frontage property, there would be no negative impacts on this residentially zoned land.
· Approval of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since it
would not negatively affect the residentially planned property.
· The proposed site is buffered from the residentially planned land by Highway 61.
· The site is zoned M-1 light manufacturing. Because there are residences located 200 feet to the
east and south, screening will be provided for appearance and light and noise disturbances.
The encroachment within the 350 feet setback from the residential area to the west of the proposed site is
mitigated by the presence of Highway 61. This large physical barrier serves to separate both uses. To the
east, extensive berming and landscaping will enhance the 10,311 square foot parcel along the east-side of
Maplewood Drive. This will create an attractive screen to further separate the abutting non-conforming
residential dwellings from the proposed development on the west-side of Maplewood Drive.
The variance requests included within this preliminary submittal will not jeopardize the essential
character ofthe area, nor the spirit and intent of the ordinance. As mentioned earlier, the landscaping and
further site improvements created by this development will help to improve the image and value of this
corridor.
Due to the location of this triangular-shaped property between three right-of-ways, a strict enforcement of
City ordinances would render this property unusable. Such a burden would cause undue hardship on the
property owner.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
The exterior building fagade includes a handsome tan colored'stucco canopy with a decorative
architectural light fixture band. In addition, the canopy has continuous reveals around all four sides of the
building, which reinforces the all around finished design. Each elevation is comprised ora dark pink or
red colored face brick with a continuous ceramic tile accent band at the top of the windows. The building
also has a dark bronze aluminum storefront window and door system with bronze tinted glazing. The
horizontal pattern of the facade treatment is reinforced with the continuous limestone band at 4 feet above
the ground. This is accented by forest green individual pyramid ceramic tile as shown on the building
elevations.
A photo-metric drawing will be completed showing foot candle ratings and light spread. A plan showing
the screening of roof-top mechanical equipment from the homes to the east and west. Paint all roof-top
mechanical equipment, stacks and vents to match the uppermost part of the building. The building on the
property will act as a buffer to the noise and pollution of busy Highway 61 ."
HKS ASSOCIATES, INC.
February 12, 1998
Page 5
Preliminary Site Plan Submittal
for Ali Delavari
UTILITIES/GRADING
Watermain
An existing 16" water-main is located in County Road C. A 6" water-main will be constructed to serve
the building and car wash. The proposed water-main will connect to the existing 16" water-main.
An existing fire hydrant is located on the northwest comer of Maplewood Drive and County Road C
intersection. No additional hydrants are proposed since the existing hydrant provides the required
coverage.
Sanitary Sewer
A 15" PVC sanitary sewer line is located in County Road C. A 6" stub is provided and extends from the
sanitary sewer line to the southern property line. It is proposed to construct a sanitary manhole over the
sanitary sewer stub and construct a 6" PVC sanitary sewer line from the stub to the building.
Grading
Stormwater runoff on the existing site generally flows to the west, south and east over the site. The
majority of the stormwater drains west to the ditch along the east-side of Trunk Highway 61. The
proposed grading design will direct the majority &the storm water to the north and eventually to the
retention basin located in the north corner of the site.
Soil borings have not been completed to date and it is unknown if suitable grading material exists on site.
Available suitable grading material will be used for backfill for the building and paved areas. Erosion
control measures will be placed prior to the start &grading operations and will remain in place until all
slope stabilization is completed.
Storm Sewer
The stormwater for this site will be carried overland to a retention basin located at the north end of the
site. A portion of the stormwater will be directed to a ditch on the west-side and carried to the retention
basin. Curb cuts are provided at the north curb line and stormwater will be carried overland to the
retention basin. The retention basin will be constructed to retain and treat the storm water runoff prior to
being discharged into the City's storm sewer system. The outlet for the basin will be connected to the
existing catch basin located in Maplewood Drive. The discharge rate will be limited to pre-developed
rates.
HKS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Page 6
Preliminary Site Plan Submittal
February12,1998
for Ali Delavari
2O
VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
The proposed site development plan creates a logical vehicular circulation pa~ern by clearly defining the
site entry, the parking areas for the site, and by providing a central vehicular loop system that allows
traffic to enter and exit the site efficiently. A drive is provided around the east-side of the car wash to
allow for the safe departure of vehicles.
Drive aisles and parking stalls have been designed to meet the City standards for a motor fuel station and
ample turning radii have been employed at all intersections. The northern access along Maplewood Drive
is designed to accommodate truck delivery of fuel and supplies. Pedestrian circulation is accommodated
with an ample sidewalk on the north side of the building leading to the main entrance.
According to Dan Solar, the Ramsey County 'Iraffic Engineer, County Road C presently carries 6,700
vehicle trips per day on the stretch between Highway 61 and Hazlewood Street. Mr. Solar said that
recently upgraded County Road C is able to handle any traffic increase that may result from the proposed
store. Mr. Solar also stated that the highway intersection is fully able to handle any traffic increase
resulting from this facility. He stated that fuel station/convenience stores do not generate much additional
traffic. They primarily draw from the existing traffic that is already there. Signs stating "No Vans or
Trucks "will be posted for the two parking spaces located between the pumps and the store attendant.
TIMING OF CONSTRUCTION
It is anticipated that construction will begin in the spring with completion in 1998.
CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
Issue:
Issue:
Issue:
Issue:
Issue:
Issue:
Issue:
Issue:
Issue:
Issue:
·
"Too much traffic on County Road C now."
"This would also lower the value of my house."
"Build homes, not businesses."
"I question whether the size of the lot is large enough."
"This proposal would cause more traffic congestion to an already busy area."
"We don't need more shopping areas!"
"It would increase traffic on our streets and cause congestion at the comer of 61 and C."
"I feel it would pose a traffic safety hazard, so close to a frontage road, major highway and
intersection."
"I have convenience ~A mile in any direction right now."
Ralph Munchow, (1210 Cty. Rd. C)
Already have a conv./gas station and a good size car wash less than I Va mile on the comer of Co.
Rd. C and White Bear Ave. also I ¼ mile south on highway 61.
Traffic is overcrowded both morning and evening. Large trucks on Duluth street from warehouses
using'Cty. Rd. C and Hwy. 61 intersection.
Lakeview Church Daycare facility.
Traffic jam at the intersection.
Prior requests to develop parcel turned down due to size constraint and codes.
The 8-10 homes east of Hwy. 61 on Cty. Rd. C are retired people and don't want to be
overwelmed with car dealers and eonv./gas stations.
Would like to keep the area residential.
"I have lived here for 79 years and it has for the most part always been vacant, I would just
suggest cleaning it up and leaving it to nature because of the lack of space."
HKS ASSOCIATES, INC.
February 12, 1998
Page 7
Preliminary Site Plan Submittal
for Ali Delavari
PLANNING COMMISSION ISSUES
Shoreland ordinance: only developable property should be counted in requirements to qualify for an
impervious surface area bonus of from 1-20%.
How the eastern portion of this property, which is considered undevelopable, could be used in these
calculations.
Ken Haider of public works said, he can allow a 20% increase but would like to see a skimmer device
on the outlet pipe.
Commissioner Pearson, thought there would be potential traffic problems.
Commissioner Thompson said the berm would shield the lights.
Ben Taheri: of Taheri Architects said he was in total agreement of the staff report and described the
traffic patterns within the site.
Rick Sorenson the owner of the property at 1215 County Rd. C east said:
· Headlights would not be a problem
· Would like consideration to be given to the current residential status.
* Said none of the neighbors desire project.
· Traffic problems, gas odors, ice from car wash.
Chairperson Fischer felt it was appropriate for skimmers.
* Maintenance of the pond.
Commissioner Pearson: would have a difficult time approving unless traffic in area was handled
better.
Rossbach:
· To intense for this point in time.
· East strip of land should not be included.
· High opinion this parcel does not meet shoreland ordinance.
· Parking was impractical and inappropriate.
· Did not anticipate svalking from parking spaces on the north side of the lot to the convenience
store.
· Neon proposed for all four sides of building was not residentially friendly.
Pearson noted:
· Change in zoning happened around a residential use.
· Concerned about the 350 ft. set-back requirement for a commercial business.
Thompson and Fischer thought definite "duplicity" of eastern strip negated its use in calculations.
HKS ASSOCIATES, 1NC.
Page 8
Preliminary Site Plan Submittal
February 12, 1998
for Ali. Delavari
Attachment 6
Ralph Munchow
1210 E. Co. Rd. C
Maplewood MN 55109
(612) 484-3053
Reasons why I oppose the building of a convient/gas station and
Car Wash on Maplewood Drive and Co. Rd. C are the following:
Already have a convient/gas station and a good size
car wash less than 1 1/2 mile on the corner of Co. Rd. C &
White Bear Avenue. Also another Convient/Gas station 1 1/4
miles south on highway 61.
The traffic situation on Co. Rd. C and Hwy 61 is over
crowed with cars, both morning and evening commutes. We
also have big trucks, semi's and so fourth comin~ from the
warehouse areas coming up through the new Dulut~treet which
is a residential area, to get unto hwy 61 they 'are using
Co. Rd C/Hwy 61 intersection. Also Lakeview Church has a
Daycare facility right acroos from the service lane entrance
with people dropping off and picking up both morning and
evening. It seems to me that this will cause a terrific
traffic jam at the service lane and Co. Rd. C intersections
with people trying to get across.
It seems to me that before they-rebuilt Co. Rd. C, that there
had been numerous requests to build at this site but wms
always turned down because there was not enough room according
to codes, and now there seems to be even less room with the
new service lane. ,
The 8 to 10 houses at Co. Rd. C and 61 east are for the most part
here to retire and would like to spend the rest of there
life here without being overwhelmed with car dealers and
concient~Gas stations. We would like to keep this residential.
I have lived here for 79 years and it has for the most
part always been vacant, I would just suggest cleaning it
up and leaving it to nature because of the lack of space.
Thank you,
23
Attachment 7
VARIANCE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Ali Delavari applied for a variance to build a fuel station and car wash closer
than 350 feet to property planned for residential. This is a variance from the zoning ordinance.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to the undeveloped property at the northeast corner of
Highway 61 and County Road C. The legal description is:
THE EAST 150 FEET OF THE WEST 394.54 FEET OF THE SOUTH 316.30 FEET OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP
29, RANGE 22; ALSO THAT PART OF THE SOUTH 349.31 FEET OF THE WEST 199.54
FEET AT SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION
4 LYING EASTERLY OF THE ORIGINAL CENTER LINE OF WHITE BEAR LAKE ROAD.
WHEREAS, Section 36-151 (b)(9)(c) does not allow motor fuel stations within 350 feet of a
residential lot tine.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing that the facility be 235 feet from a residential lot line.
WHEREAS, this requires variances of 115 feet.
WHEREAS, the history of these variances is as follows:
1. On January 5, 1998, the planning commission took no action on this variance since they
had voted to deny several other aspects of the proposal.
2. On __, 1998, the planning commission recommended that the city
council this variance.
3. The city council held a public hearing on __, 1998. City staff published a
notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as
required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and
present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations
from the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
variance since:
1. Compliance with the ordinance would cause the developer undue hardship because the
residential property that is closer than 350 feet away is undeveloped highway-frontage
property. There would be no negative impact on this residentially-zoned land.
2. Approval of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance
since it would not negatively affect the residentially-planned property.
3. The proposed site is buffered from the residentially-planned land by Highway 61.
Adopted on __, 1998.
2.4
Attachment 8
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Ali Delavari applied for a conditional use permit to build a fuel station and car
wash.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the undeveloped property at the northeast corner of
Highway 61 and County Road C. The legal description is:
THE EAST 150 FEET OF THE WEST 394.54 FEET OF THE SOUTH 316.30 FEET OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP
29, RANGE 22; ALSO THAT PART OF THE SOUTH 349.31 FEET OF THE WEST 199.54
FEET AT SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION
4 LYING EASTERLY OF THE ORIGINAL CENTER LINE OF WHITE BEAR LAKE ROAD.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
On January 5, 1998, the planning commission recommended that the city cour~cil deny
the conditional use permit for the proposed fuel station and car wash. They also denied
a request for the facility to be open 24 hours a day.
2. On m, 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 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.
25
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.
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 proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline
for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The city council may require additional parking spaces in the future if a parking shortage
develops. This may require a setback variance from the city council.
5. The city shall not allow a lot division to occur that would separate the 40-foot-wide portion
of this site from the main part unless the shoreland ordinance would continue to be met.
__, 1998.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Sign Variance - Maplewood Community Gymnasium at Carver Elementary
School
2680 Upper Afton Road
February 20, 1998
INTRODUCTION
The Maplewood Department of Parks and Recreation is requesting approval of a 44-square-foot
sign variance. They propose to install a 68-square-foot wall sign on the new gymnasium at the
Carver Elementary School, 2680 Upper Afton Road. The city sign code allows a maximum size
for wall signs of 24 square feet. The Carver School gymnasium is jointly used by the City of
Maplewood for community recreational needs.
BACKGROUND
On December 19, 1994, the city council authorized approvals with Independent School District
622 for the expansion of Carver School gym space. The council approved a cooperative
agreement with the school district to share in the costs of this expansion.
On 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.
DISCUSSION
State law requires that the city council make two findings to grant a variance. First, they must
determine that adhering to the code would cause the applicant undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the property. Secondly, they must find that if they grant the variance, it
would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
Undue Hardship
If the proposed sign was 24 square feet it would not be easily readable from Upper Afton Road.
The gymnasium is set back 350 feet from the street which would make the sign very hard to
notice or read at 24 square feet. The substantial building setback would create an undue
hardship if the code was met.
Spirit and Intent
The intent of the code is to keep signs on schools and other institutions at a small scale because
they are typically located in residential areas. The proposed sign, however, would not be
obtrusive because of the large building setback. Furthermore, the proposed sign would be
modest in size compared to the large wall-surface area on which it is displayed.
Alternatives
The city council could consider the following alternatives to granting a variance:
Amend the code to allow larger wall-mounted signs for schools. It is true that schools often
face residential areas. We should question, though, as in the case of this proposal, whether
a 68-square-foot sign (2 1/2 percent of the wall area mounted on a 2,688-square-foot wall),
is an eyesore for residents across the street. It seems more likely that the sign is
insignificant compared to the building mass.
o
Deny the variance. The applicant could still install a 32-square-foot ground sign near the
street plus a 24-square-foot wall sign on the building. Both of these signs would meet the
code. A ground sign, however, would be more noticeable to the neighbors across Upper
Afton Road.
3. Allow a lesser variance by not permitting the address as part of the sign copy. This would
reduce the sign area to 52 square feet.
Conclusion
The proposed sign would not be too large or overwhelming because of the building mass and
substantial building setback. Staff, therefore, has no objection to the proposed variance.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution on page 11 approving a 44-square-foot sign size variance for the
community gymnasium sign on the Carver Elementary School gymnasium. Approval is based
on the following findings:
Adhering to the code would cause the applicant an undue hardship because of the large
building setback. Because of this setback a 24-square-foot sign would not be very
noticeable or easily read.
The proposed sign would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since it would appear
modest in size and not overwhelming due to the large wall mass of the gymnasium and
because of the large building setback from the street.
The proposed 68-square-foot wall sign is preferable to the applicant installing a 32-square-
foot ground sign by the street plus a 24-square-foot wall sign on the gym--both of which are
allowed by code.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 9.4 acres
Existing land use: Carver Elementary School
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Houses across Upper Afton Road
South: Ramsey County Open Space
West: Ramsey County Open Space
East: Clinic and Lutheran Church of Peace
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: S (school)
Zoning: F (farm residence district)
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 36-316(c) allows wall signs up to 24 square feet and freestanding signs up to 32 square
feet for apartments, townhomes, churches, schools, libraries, community centers or other
institutions.
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 connection with the 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/carversc.sgn
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Mr. Anderson's letter dated February 11, 1998
5. Building Elevation and Proposed sign
6. Sign Drawing
7. Variance Resolution
4
CONWAY
I,.ONDIN LA.
I~. FOI~EST
DR.
· :
Attachment 1
o
UPPER AFTON
8
r~
F J
J!
(~)
~ ,", t'~ S E "'r' COL.J N T'V'
OPEN SPAC, F_
SCHOOL
CARVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
( I 549a~ )
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP
6
Attachment 2
FUEL STATION
CLINIC
COMMI
CENTER
LUTHERAN CHURCH
OF PEACE
Attachment 3
UPPER Al=TON ROAD
LANDSCAPING HERE
PF~(~POSED
37 ADDITIONAL
PARKING SPACES
EXISTING
PARKING
LOT
EXISTING SCHOOL
SERVICE DRIVE
PROPOSED ADDITIONS
I
I
I
·
- -PROPOSED GYM (AL'I~I~RNAT~= ~1)
PROPOSED GYM (ALTERNATE #2)
I 1
!
1-18-95
SITE PLAN
CARVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
?
Attachment 4
-- CITY OF
MAPLEWOOD
1830 E. COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 55109
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
612-770.-4570
February ll, 1998
Tom Eckstrand
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Tom:
This letter is regarding a sign the city would like to put on the community gymnasium at Carver
Elementary School in Southern Maplewood. According to the ordinance, wall signs can be up to
twenty-four (24) square feet in size. As a city facility, it is important that the gymnasium is both
visible and recognizable. Because of unique circumstances, the ordinance has created an undue
hardship for the City. The building operates as a community facility and needs to be marked as such.
Under the current ordinance, we are not able to sign the building in a way that is both legible and in
keeping with the character of the area.
The City would like to put aluminum letters on the building. Enclosed examples show both the text
and where we would like to place the sign on Carver School. However, the north elevation of the
gymnasium is 350 feet from the street. In order for the sign to be legible, we must use twelve (12)
inch letters. This sign, as proposed, is 68 square feet. Although fids is larger than the ordinance
permits, the distance from the street would alleviate any obtrusiveness created by the size of the sign.
The very nature of the sign is simple, not attention-grabbing.
The intent of fids sign is to promote a community facility without altering the character of the area~
The sign is neither oversized nor gaudy in relation to the are~ Because of the unique circumstances
in fids situation, the spirit of the ordinance is not broken. Mike McGuire, City Manager has made
signing fids facility a priority. I can be reached at extension 4573 should you have any questions
regarding the proposed sign. Thank you for your attention in fids matter.
8
Equal Opportunity Employer
Attachment 5
Ft:'E- 4:~ I~EIT ~r:/'F [A~D:'I,]0t:' b'lti'l,]' I'-~X' I~, 41Nb~N5- F, V'Z/rZ~
Attachment 6
~" CarverSchool/Maplewo-od -T
~"Community Gymnasium
~0"2680 Upper Afton Road
17'-5"
1/4" THICK ROUTED ALUMINUM LETTERS
HELVETICA MEDIUM TYPEFACE
ISCALE: 3]4"- 1'-0"!
REVISED 2-3-98
THiS DRAWING APPRO%:;
AS TO DESIGN & COL~'~..
By ...... Purchaser
10
Attachment 7
VARIANCE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance.
WHEREAS, this variance 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 1/2 of the SE 1/4) of Section 1, Township 28, Range 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.
WHEREAS, Section 36-316(c) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires that wall
signs for schools not exceed 24 square feet in area.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 68-square-foot wall sign.
WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 44 square feet.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On
city council
,19._, the community design review board recommended that the
this variance.
The city council held a public hearing on ,19__. City staff published a
notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as
required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and
present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations
from the city staff and community design review board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described
variance for the following reasons:
Adhering to the code would cause the applicant an undue hardship because of the large
building setback. Because of this setback a 24-square-foot sign would not be very
noticeable or easily read.
The proposed sign would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since it would appear
modest in size and not overwhelming due to the large wall mass of the gymnasium and
because of the large building setback from the street.
The proposed 68-square-foot wall sign is preferable to the applicant installing a 32-square-
foot ground sign by the street plus a 24-square-foot wall sign on the gym--both of which are
allowed by code.
Adopted on ,19__..
]!
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Design Review - Pariseau Office Building
East of 1975 11th Avenue
February 20, 1998
INTRODUCTION
Greg and Mary Pariseau are requesting approval to build a 5,668-square-foot medical office
building east of their existing building at 1975 11th Avenue. The proposed building would have
an exterior of brick and stucco. The rear elevation would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding with
stucco. Refer to the maps on pages 4-6 and the enclosed plans. The applicant's have shown a
2,500-square-foot future addition on the back of the building and expanded parking at the north
and south ends of the parking lot.
BACKGROUND
November 14, 1995: The community design review board (CDRB) approved the plans for
Dr. Mary Pariseau's existing dental-office building at 1975 11th Avenue.
DISCUSSION
Building Design
The proposed building would be attractive and would be compatible in design and material with
their existing building to the west.
Landscape Plan
The applicant would screen the parking lot from the townhouses to the east as the code
requires. They would install alternating sections of cedar fencing and evergreen trees much like
Slumberland installed at their site on County Road D. This plan shows three-foot-tall
evergreens. Mr. Pariseau said that this was an error and that they intend to plant six-foot-tall
evergreens as the code requires.
The balance of the plan is somewhat sparse. The applicants should increase the amount of
trees between the parking lot and the street.
Future Addition
The community design review board should not approve the future expansion plans at this time.
We should wait until the applicant's addition plans are received in case codes change that would
affect their proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the plans (stamped February 11, 1998) for a medical office building east of 1975 11th
Avenue for Greg and Mary Pariseau. Approval is based on the findings required by the code.
The applicant 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 a building permit:
a. A grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval.
b. A certificate of survey.
c. A revised landscaping plan showing additional trees between the parking lot and street.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit and a handicap-parking sign for each
handicap-parking space.
b. Stripe the parking spaces to meet these minimum requirements: nine feet wide for
employees and nine and a half feet wide for visitors.
c. Provide continuous concrete curbing around the driveway and parking lot.
d. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers that may be used.
The design and placement of an enclosure shall be subject to staff approval.
e. Install an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas.
f. Sod all green areas forward of the back wall of the building. The boulevard must also be
sodded. The area behind the building may be sod or seed.
Submit the site and building plans to the community design review board for the future
addition.
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 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.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
o
Appeals
Anyone may appeal the community design review board's decision to the city council. An
appellant must notify the community development department within 15 days after the board's
meeting.
p:secl 1/pariseau.298
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line / Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Plans date-stamped February 11, 1998, (separate attachment)
3
Attachment 1
RD. D
1. SUIaMrT CT.
2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR.
3. DULUTH CT.
4. LYDIA AV~:.
KOHL.MAN
WOODL
MAPL
GERVAIS
Lake
RD.
CTo
~ICllON
LOCATION MAP
4
Attachment 2
AVE.
PARISEAU
DENTAL OFFICE°'~'(7> ®
PROPOSED SITE
TOWNHOMES
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP
Attachment 3
SITE PLAN
6
#
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOGATION:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
American Portable Telecom Monopole
Western Hills Park - 1750 Adolphus Street
February 24, 1998
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Mr. Peter Coyle, representing American Portable Telecom, Inc. (APT), has applied to Maplewood
for approval to erect a 164-foot-tall monopole for telecommunications equipment. They want to
install this monopole at the south end of Western Hills Park at the north end of Adolphus Street
north of Larpenteur Avenue. Refer to the maps on pages 6 and 7. APT has designed this tower to
accommodate their own antennas plus co-location by two additional providers.
The applicant would lease a 60- by 60-foot area from the city for their proposed monopole. Refer
to the site plans on pages 8 and 9 and the tower drawings on page 10. APT proposes to enclose
this site with eight-foot-tall, chain link fencing. They also would have three prefabricated equipment
cabinets measuring 5-feet by 3-feet by 3-feet next to the base of the tower.
Requests
The applicant is requesting that the city approve:
1. A tower height variance of 64 feet. The city code allows a maximum height of 100 feet if the
tower is designed for co-location. The proposed tower would be 164 feet tall.
2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a monopole and related equipment in an F (farm residence)
district.
3. The design, site and fencing plans.
BACKGROUND
On January 13, 1997, the council adopted the commercial use antenna and tower ordinance.
On July 28, 1997, the council held a public hearing to consider a request by APT to put a 165-foot-
tall monopole on the MnDOT property at 1779 McMenemy Street. After much testimony and
discussion, the council tabled action on the proposal. The council asked the applicant to provide
more information to the city.
On August 11, 1997, the council again considered APT's request to put a monopole on the MnDOT
property on McMenemy Street. At this meeting, the council denied APT's request.
The city council has approved at least three telecommunications monopoles in Maplewood. These
include the 165-foot-tall tower on the southwest corner of English Street and Gervais Avenue and
monopoles on the US West property on Gervais Court and on Carlton Street.
DISCUSSION
Variance
As proposed, the tower would be 164 feet tall. The city's commercial tower ordinance limits towers
in residential zoning districts (including the farm zone) to 100 feet, if the tower can accommodate
additional users. The applicant has designed this tower to accommodate up to three sets of
antennas. For the city to approve a variance, the council must decide that the enforcement of the
tower ordinance would create an undue hardship and that the proposal is in keeping with the spirit
and intent of the tower ordinance.
The applicant's attorney noted in the application letter (starting on page 11) that APT needs the
height variance for this location because of the rolling topography and mature trees near the
proposed site. They note that a shorter tower on this site might leave gaps in their phone service
coverage. It should also be noted that APT had proposed a 165-foot-tall tower for the MnDOT site
across the freeway from this location. Since the city has zoned the MnDOT property M-1 (light
industrial), the proposed tower on that site did not require a height variance approval.
Conditional Use Permit
Concerns of the neighbors included esthetics of the tower, interference with other radio
frequencies, safety issues, and decreased property value if the city approves the tower. City staff
received many comments from nearby property owners expressing their concerns that the tower
might cause interference with other radio, television and satellite systems. We sent out 81
neighborhood surveys to area property owners and received 36 responses. Many of the neighbors
thought the tower should be on the MnDOT property across 1-35E from this proposed site. (See the
letters starting on page 19 for examples of neighbors' comments.)
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 any such problems. The
city may only base their decision on land use and on health, safety and welfare concerns.
Design and Site Issues
Access to the lease area and tower would be from the existing driveway and parking lot at the
south end of the park at the north end of Adolphus Street. As proposed, the monopole would be at
least 120 feet from the Adolphus Street parking lot and 400 feet from Interstate 35E.
Conclusion
The placement of a monopole or other large utility structures in a developed city park raises policy
issues for the city. These include the size of the park versus the size or height of the proposed
tower, the impact on the users in the park of having such a tower in the park and the leasing of city
property to a private business. The city council must decide how and what direction they want to
guide the city in these issues.
RECOMMENDATION
Direct city staff to prepare the necessary resolutions for the city council's preference for this
request.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
City staff sent surveys to 81 property owners in the area around Western Hills Park and the
proposed tower site. Of the 36 replies, four were for the request, 30 objected, and two had no
comment.
For
1. The city will receive the benefit from this location and it will not interfere with anyones
enjoyment of the park. (Louis Gilbert - 1942 Kenwood Drive)
2. If a share of rental revenue is designated for park program at this site. (Thompson - 1794
Onacrest Curve)
3. If the city receives enough rent from each company that uses the pole - $30,000 to $50,000
each year. (Bjostad - 1823 Onacrest Court)
Opposed
Because of the large number of negative responses, I have summarized the comments as follows:
1. Why put it in a park?
2. Put it on the MnDOT property across the freeway.
3. It should not be in a park. The city just finished redoing the park. Leave the park alone.
4. It would be an eyesore.
5. It would lower property values.
6. Are there health risks?
7. It would not be safe for kids to play on or by.
8. Why can't the tower go on another commercial property?
Also see the letters on pages 19 and 21 for samples of neighbors' comments.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Proposed lease area: 60 feet by 60 feet (3,600 square feet)
Western Hills Park area: 5 acres
Existing land use: Western Hills Park
SURROUNDING LAND USES (around the proposed tower site)
North: Western Hills Park
South: Maplewood drainage pond and apartments
West: Single dwellings
East: Interstate 35E
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: P (park)
Zoning: F (farm residence district)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 36-606 requires a CUP for a communications tower in a residential zoning district. It also
requires a maximum height of 75 feet. The height may be increased to 100 feet if the tower is
designed for the co-location of another provider's antenna.
Findings for CUP Approval
Section 36-442(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards for
approval.
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 will not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms
of the ordinance.
p:sec18\apttower.wst
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Enlarged Site Plan
5. Elevations
6. Applicant's letter dated January 30, 1998
7. 2-3-98 letter from Pat Blanck
8. 2-12-98 letter from Ron Mandel
9. Site plans dated February 2, 1998 (separate attachments)
Attachment 1
LFITLE CANADA
F~ON
AVE.
LOCATION
MAP
Attachment 2
1823;
~826 ~
182o E PROPOSED
TOWER
1778'
1821
II ~ ~
1790
APARTMENTS ,.-.-.
Attachment 3
1
0
XW
w~
w
~o
o ~oo
X
Z
--.~
XW
W~-
Z w
I
Z
W
U~
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1":50'
SITE
PLAN
Attachment 4
b
nuj
O~--
13::Z
~...,~
v3av 033N3_-I .O-.gc~
v':JaV 3SV3'1 .0-.09
ENLARGED PLAN
SCALE: 1/8'=1'
SITE PLAN
Attachment 5
10
dO~l E. ~EI4.
JOl~ ~a. LLJNDQ~T
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDOREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS Al' LAW
1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-11~4
TELEPHONE (612) 835-3800
FAX (612) 896-3333
Attachment 6
C.~
January 30, 1998
Ms. Melinda Coleman
Community Development Director
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
Re:
Application for Conditional Use Permit, with Community Design
Review Board Application and Variance Application
Proposed PCS Wireless Telephone Antenna Tower
Site A1N061
Dear Ms. Coleman:
This letter accompanies an application from APT Minneapolis, Inc. ("APT"), for a Conditional Use
Permit (the "CUP Application") for a proposed Personal Communications Services ("PCS") wireless
telephone antenna tower and cell site in Maplewood, Minnesota. The proposed tower site is located at
Western Hills Park (the "Park") on Adolphus Street (the "Site"). The property underlying the Site is
owned by the City of Maplewood (the "City").
Along with the CLIP Application, APT is submitting a Community Design Review Board Application
(the "CDR Application") and a Variance Application (the "Variance Application") for the Site.
Hereinafter the CUP Application, CDR Application and Variance Application shall be collectively
referred to as the "Application." This Firm has been retained by APT to act on APT's behalf in
connection with the Application.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APT is a subsidiary of Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. ("TDS"). TDS is a Chicago-based
telecommunications company that provides cellular telephone, local telephone, and radio paging
11
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Ms. Melinda Coleman
Community Development Director
City of Maplewood
January 30, 1998
Page 2
services to more than 1.9 million customers in 37 states and the District of Columbia. These services
are offered through TDS's subsidiaries, including United States Cellular Corporation, TDS
Telecommunications Corporation, and American Paging, Inc. APT directs PCS technology for TDS.
In 1996, APT was granted a license by the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC") to
operate a PCS Wireless Phone System in the Twin Cities market area as well as five (5) other major
markets in the United States. APT is committed to providing quality PCS service to the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area. APT is currently the fifth largest PCS license holder in the
United States in terms of population equivalents.
PCS is one of the newest emerging low-power wireless technologies. PCS allows businesses,
individuals, and government services to communicate in an entirely new way. Although similar to
traditional cellular systems, PCS looks, sounds and works better, with the added advantage of being
able to provide fax service, paging, computer data, and video transmission in one portable handheld
phone. PCS wireless is digital so it transmits with more clarity than cellular. Also, PCS is secure.
User verification systems eliminate cloning, and encryption prevents calls from being overheard.
These are just some of the features PCS can offer.
PROPOSED USE
The Site is zoned Farm-Residential and is currently being used as a City park. APT is proposing to
lease the Site from the City pursuant to a lease (the "Site Agreement") a drat~ of which is attached
hereto. The Site Agreement allows APT to construct a fifty (50) meter (approximately 165 foo0
monopole tower (the "Tower") at the Site. APT will mount up to nine (9) directional panel antennas
(77" high x 6" wide x 1.5" deep) on the Tower for APT's use (the "Antennas"). These Antennas
operate within the 1.9 GHz to 2.2 GHz radio frequency range. The Tower will be designed and
constructed to accommodate up to two (2) additional users. APT will have three (3) unmanned
prefabricated equipment cabinets (the "Equipment") measuring (approximately 5' high x 3' wide x
3' deep) located near the base of the Tower. Typically, the Equipment is connected to the Antennas by
1 5/8" cables (each Antenna requires one cable) nm within the Tower superstructure. The Equipment
requires 100 amp, 220 volt, single phase electrical service. The Antennas will transmit and receive low
power radio signals. The Tower will be constructed of galvanized metal which weathers to a light gray
color. The Antennas and Tower are not required to be lighted, according to FAA requirements. The
Tower and Equipment will be enclosed within an eight (8) foot high chain-link fence.
APT has initiated discussions with the City staff regarding APT constructing the Tower, and then
transferring ownership thereof to the City, subject to a long-term lease pursuant to which APT would
occupy space on the Tower and grounds surrounding the same. Under this scenario the City would-
maintain control over the use of, and co-location on, the Tower, as well as derive rental-income from
all other users of the Tower.
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Ms. Melinda Coleman
Community Development Director
City of Maplewood
January 30, 1998
Page 3
ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENTS
1. The use will be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated in conformity
with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
The proposed use will be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
The City's Commercial Use Antennas and Towers ordinance (the "Tower Ordinance") was adopted in
1997. The Site is located in a Farm-Residential District. Under the Tower Ordinance, towers are
allowed in Residential Districts if all of the requirements of the Tower Ordinance, including
Sections 36-606 (Communication Towers Proposed in Residential Districts), and 36-610 (Co-Location
of Personal Wireless Communication Service Equipment) are satisfied.
APT's radio frequency engineers have determined that the Site is necessary to meet the frequency
reuse and spacing needs of APT's system. The location of the Site was selected to establish a buffer
zone at least the height of the Tower from the nearest residential structure. The nearest residential
structure is approximately four hundred and fifty (450) feet from the Tower. The Equipment will be
located at least ten (10) feet from the side and rear lot line of the park, and will be landscaped and
screened as necessary.
APT has selected the Site because there are no available co-location opportunities within a one-half
mile radius of the Site. In this vicinity, the Antennas must be located at least one hundred fifty (150)
feet above the ground. There are no structures within such radius that are tall enough to accommodate
those needs. APT has explored the possibility of locating the Tower at various sites, including the
Minnesota Department of Transportation ("MN-DOT") property directly east of the Site (across
Interstate 35E), and other sites suggested by the City and neighborhood. However, the City denied
APT's application for the MN-DOT property, and none of the other locations are technically feasible.
APT is committed to allowing up to two (2) additional tower users to co-locate on the Tower. A letter
of intent to allow co-location on the Tower (the "Co-Location Letter") is enclosed herewith.
2. The use will not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
The Site is located within the Park. The fenced area surrounding the Tower and Equipment will
occupy approximately three hundred sixty (360) square feet, and thus will not restrict or affect the
current use of the Park. Additionally, although there are residential uses surrounding the Site, towers
have been successfully placed in various parks and residential areas throughout the state without
changing the residential character of the neighborhood or affecting the use of such parks. The
proposed use involves no loud noises or odors, and maintenance visits to the Site would average only
one (1) trip per month.
13
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & L1NDGREN, LTD.
Ms. Melinda Coleman
Community Development Director
City of Maplewood
January 30, 1998
Page 4
3. The use will not depreciate property values.
There is no information indicating that constructing a tower at the Site would diminish or impair
property values within the area. To the contrary, towers have been placed in industrial, commercial,
residential, and agricultural zones throughout the State of Minnesota without depreciating the value of
surrounding properties. In this regard we refer you to the Property Value Analysis prepared by
Mardell, Amundson, Johnson & Leirness, Inc. (the "Property Value Analysis"), a copy of which is
attached hereto. This Property Value Analysis shows that property values do continue to increase
regardless of the presence of a tower in a neighborhood.
The use will 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.
There are no activities associated with the proposed use that would produce airborne emissions, odor,
vibration, heat, glare, radioactive materials, or loud noises. Since the proposed use will not require
water or sanitary facilities, it will not generate any waste water. The existing activities undertaken at
the Park will not become dangerous due to the addition of the proposed use. As a matter of necessity,
the Tower will extend into the air, but it is of a monopole design which is the least intrusive tower
design.
5. The use will generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and will not create
traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
No personnel will be stationed at the Site, and once construction of the Site is completed, routine
maintenance checks would occur approximately once a month. Therefore, the proposed use will not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access onto existing streets.
6. The use will be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
Current levels of all government services are adequate to meet the needs of the proposed use. The
proposed use does not require water or sanitary services. The cabinets which enclose the Equipment
are intended only to enclose and protect such Equipment. All equipment and materials, including
without limitation heating, ventilating, and air conditioning, needed to operate at the Site are located
within the equipment cabinets.
14
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Ms. Melinda Coleman
Community Development Director
City of Maplewood
January 30, 1998
Page 5
7. The use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services.
As discussed in immediately preceding paragraph, the proposed use requires minimal public facilities,
and therefore will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. In fact, the
Site Agreement will generate revenue for the City.
8. The use will maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
The base of the Tower will be partially screened from view by existing facilities and vegetation in the
Park. The Site has been designed so that no existing trees will be removed to accommodate the
proposed use. However, if existing trees must be removed during construction, it is APT's intent to
relocate or replace the same within the Park, to the extent feasible. In addition, no signs will be posted
on the Tower or Equipment, except applicable warning or equipment information signs.
9. The use will cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
The Federal Government has determined that there are no adverse environmental effects associated
with the proposed use. The FCC closely regulates the proposed use, and APT maintains compliance
with all FCC regulations. Generally, interference from the proposed use is not a concern, because all
users operate on different frequency levels. However, APT maintains compliance with all FCC
regulations and if a problem did arise, APT would act promptly to correct it.
CDR BOARD REQUIREMENTS
1. Parking Lots.
Since the proposed use will not generate additional traffic (except for a monthly service call), parking
can be accommodated on the proposed access route set forth in the site plan attached hereto (the "Site
Plan") or in the existing parking lot for the Park.
2. Minimum Setbacks.
The Site complies with the setback requirements of the Tower Ordinance.
3. Screening.
The additional screening requirements of the CDR Application are not applicable to the proposed use.
4. Landscaping.
The Site has been designed so that no existing trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed use.
However, if existing trees must be removed during construction, it is APT's intent to relocate or
replace the same within the Park, to the extent feasible and in compliance with the CDR Application
requirements.
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Ms. Melinda Coleman
Community Development Director
City of Maplewood
January 30, 1998
Page 6
5. Lighting.
The lighting requirements will be complied with, to the extent they are deemed applicable to the Site.
VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS
The Tower Ordinance allows towers located in Residential zoning districts to be a maximum of
seventy-five (75) feet tall, with an additional twenty-five (25) foot allowance for towers designed to
accommodate multiple users. The Site calls for the Tower to be one hundred sixty-five (165) feet tall
and designed to accommodate multiple users. Therefore, APT is seeking a height variance in
connection with the Site. The Tower Ordinance allows variances to be granted subject to the City
determining that: (i) strict enforcement of the ordinance would create an undue hardship; and (ii) the
variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
1. Undue Hardship.
As APT began to build-out of its PCS system, it determined that it needed a tower site in the vicinity of
the Site. In exploring its alternatives for acquiring such a site, it determined that there were two (2)
locations that would meet its technical requirements (i.e. coverage and signal reuse). Those
requirements included the need to locate APT's antennae at a height of one hundred fifty (150). This
height requirement is due to the rolling hills and mature trees in this area. Hills and trees present a
high level of attenuation to the PCS signals. The Tower height allows APT's antennas to be above the
"clutter" of trees and hills. In certain situations, shorter towers, such as those permitted in Residential
Zoning Districts under the Tower Ordinance, are possible where the terrain is flat and the land is clear
of mature trees. However, in Maplewood, shorter towers would leave coverage gaps, because the hills
and trees would block signals, or would require additional towers in nearby locations.
The two (2) locations identified by APT were the Site and the MN-DOT property. In consideration of:
(i) its technical requirements; (ii) the Tower Ordinance requirements; and (iii) the City's hierarchy of
preferred zoning districts for locating towers, APT applied for a CUP to locate a tower on the
MN-DOT property. The City Council denied APT's application at the MN-DOT property
(notwithstanding that it was supported by City staff and the Planning Commission), which forced APT
to seek an alternative location. Consequently, APT is now pursuing this Application. However,
because the Site is zoned Farm-Residential, as compared to the MN-DOT property which was zoned
Light Industrial, the Tower Ordinance requires APT to obtain a height variance in order to locate a
tower of sufficient height to meet APT's needs. In addition, a one hundred sixty-five (165) foot tower
will not alter the essential character of the Site, as compared to the character of the Site with a one
hundred(100) foot tower which is permitted under the Tower Ordinance's without a variance.
Therefore, APT faces an undue hardship if the Tower Ordinance height requirement is strictly
enforced.
16
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDOREN, LTD.
Ms. Melinda Coleman
Community Development Director
City of Maplewood
January 30, 1998
Page 7
2. Variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
The requested variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Tower Ordinance, in that the
Tower Ordinance expressly provides for the issuance of variances from the strict requirements set forth
therein, in order to effectuate the purpose of the Tower Ordinance. The purpose of the Tower
Ordinance is to "accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the
public health, safety and general welfare of the community." In order to do so, the Tower Ordinance
states that the City determined that it was necessary to "facilitate the provision of wireless
telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the City." Therefore, since allowing the
increased height will not jeopardize public health, safety or general welfare within the community,
granting the requested height variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Tower Ordinance.
DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED
Enclosed please find:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
The completed CUP Application;
The completed CDR Application;
The completed Variance Application;
Sixteen (16) full size copies of the Site Plan;
One (1) copy of the Site Plan reduced to 8 1/2" x 11";
The Co-Location Letter;
Design specifications for the Tower;
The Property Values Analysis; and
Three (3) copies of the Site Agreement between the City and APT's subsidiary (APT
Minneapolis, Inc.).
APT respectfully requests that this proposal be placed on the next Community Design Review Board
Agenda. APT appreciates the assistance you have provided and looks forward to working with you to
provide PCS wireless capability in the City.
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Ms. Melinda Coleman
Community Development Director
City of Maplewood
January 30, 1998
Page 8
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Peter J. Coyle, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
Enclosures
CCi
Mike O'Rourke, APT Minneapolis, Inc.
John Bm'stow, APT Minneapolis, Inc.
0366252.01
18
Attachment 7
!
February 3, 1998
FROM Pat Blanck (489-3250)
RE: C~m~Lunications tower proposed for Mindot/Western Hills property
TO:
George Rosbach, Mayor
Individual members of Maplewood City Council
Individual members of Planning Co~nissio
Individual members of Parks Commission
Office of Community Development
Neighbors and friends residing on Onacrest Curve,Onacrest Court,
portions of Sun, her, Bellwood, Adolphus Streets
My name is Pat Blanck; my husband Gary and I have resided at 1782
0nacrest Curve since the area was developed in 1958. We lived here prior to
the construction of 35E, the Mndot facility, Adolphus apartments and the
champps restaurant. I have not yet circulated a petition to all and sundry,
and I do not necessarily speak for other residents. At the january meeting
held at the Multi Cultural School, those attending were all firmly against
-building at Western Hills.
~D~l~--It is my understanding that the cox~[Lunications tower was
originally slated to be erected on MNDot property east of 35E. This would
seem to be a good fit as I have never, in all these years, seen chldren at
play on that property; have never seen people sipping lemonade and relaxing
on lawn chairs there. As to visability, there are few residences on the east
side of Mcmenemy and even less on the west side. Most of the tower would not
be visible from many of these homes. To lots not yet developed to the north,
I understand, the tower would be visible from some sites, including the
access road. Now we find that installation of the tower is being considered
(Hill be constructed ?) for Western Hills Park property. MnDot is already
designated as con~nercial, surely an apropriate site.
Western Hills is five acres; a very small park. The tower, as proposed,
would totally dominate this Dark setting. I have been told that the area
being considered is "not used". I have found that parks, playgrounds and
children use whatever open area is available for unconstructed play. Both
times the park was developed, it was specifically promised the hills would
remain to be used for sleds in winter and kites etc in summer. Walkers enjoy
19
the paved paths to exercise and give them the feeling that they are in a
park. A tower would intrude on that feeling and further commercialize an
area already dotted with commercial buildings. I fail to see how the eight
foot fence could be camouflaged to blend with the setting. Our property
values will be affected as much or more than the MNdot neighborswould be.
The idea of using the park for commercial use seems to be a step backward in
community development.
The neighborhood. Most of the houses here were built in 1958.
Since that time the residents (some for as long as 40 years) have
concentrated on improving and maintaining their homes, paying taxes
and working to maintain an attractive, friendly, neighborhood. Our area
small and could easily deteriorate were it not for the committment of owners
of residential lots. An access road would not be necessary for a view of
the tower; The view from our homes would be TOTAL. The antennas would be
directly in line with my view and others on 0nacrest Curve. Homes on
0nacrest Court would have the tower essentially in their yards. None of us
could escape the "in your face" pole.
Responsibility. While monitoring the park as best we can, none of us
have the finances or know-how to recruit and pay for security at or
improvement at the park. While monitoring the park as best we can, it has
always been our understanding that the city of Maplewood, everywhere in
Maplewood, would provide help as needed; that the police department as well
as other departments, our elected officials, commissions and dedicated city
volunteers are working for our best interests.
I find it strange that the first choice, the best choice, for this tower
is now being shunned. I understand that at MnDot any future revenue from
this tower would be lost to the state, while the city would retain those
funds if it is established in the park. I wold like to think that the
council would not put aside other considerations in order to retain this
money. We are a neighborhood of modest houses and moderate incomes; we have
no influence to exert, but are concerned citizens of Maplewood. solution;
Thank you for reading this and considering our point of view. I am not saying
"not in MY back yard". I am saying that the best location should be
utilized, and that is NOT a small park. We need a solution; does the
"solution" have to be a 164' towen:in our park?
Z0
Attachment 8