Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/1998BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 12, 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 - April 28, 1997 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review a. Comprehensive Sign Plan Revision, 1845 E. County Road D - Mattress Giant at Maplewood Town Center b. Billboard Request, 1255 E. Highway 36 (Metcalf Mayflower) - Universal Outdoor, Inc. c. Parking Lot Expansion, 1055 E. Highway 36- Hermanson Dental d. Telecommunications Monopole, 1905 E. County Road D (Aamco Transmissions) - AT&T Wireless Services 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. CDRB Representative for Council Meetings: Thursday, May 21 (Mary Erickson) Monday, June 8-Volunteer Needed b. Next Meeting is May 26. Will we have a quorum? 10. Adjourn 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 chairperso~ of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. 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. 5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 6. 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~..drb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 18:30 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA APRIL 28, t998 CALL TO ORDER Chairpereon Erickson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Marvin Erickson Present Marie Robinson Present Ananth Shankar Absent Tim Johnson Present Matt Ledvina Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 31, 1998 Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the minutes of March 31, 1998, as submitted. Boardmember Robinson seconded. Ayesmall The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Robinson moved approval of the agenda, amended to delete 6.b. Metcalf Mayflower Billboard, 1255 East Highway 36 and add 9.b. Preliminary Review of the Proposed Landry's Seafood (Joe's Crab Shack) restaurant. Ayesmall VI. Boardmember Johnson seconded. The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. DESIGN REVIEW A. Telecommunications Monopole, 2220 Edgerton Street (Trinity Baptist Church)--U.S. West Communications, Inc. Steven Mangold, the original real estate manager for U.S. West Wireless, said he reviewed the staff report and found it acceptable. Mr. Mangold thought the existing trees would remain and six Black Hills spruce trees would be added. He said three, eight-foot-high Black Spruce trees will border the facility and the Utot lot." Chairperson Erickson and Boardmember Robinson were concerned that, because of the area at the site that is presently staked, it will be necessary to remove three trees. Secretary Tom Ekstrand suggested a condition in the recommendation to require that no trees be removed. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 04-28-98 -2- Mr. Mangold said the eighty-foot pole has a three-foot lightning rod on the top. He also said U.S. West is the sixth, and last, carrier to start-up cellular operations. Mr. Mangold felt the number of requests for monopoles in Maplewood will drastically decrease. He assured the board that U. S. West does look at collocating if at all possible. Secretary Ekstrand said staff was recommending a 100 percent opaque fence as a matter of aesthetics. He saw this as an attempt to make the view of the base more appealing to the neighbors to the southeast. Chairperson Erickson was concerned that an opaque fence might allow children to enter this enclosed area to do "mischief" without being observed. Boardmembers Erickson, Robinson and Johnson said they favored a chain-link fence. Boardmember Ledvina moved the Community Design Review Board: Approve the site, landscaping and design plans date-stamped April 3, 1998, for an 85-foot- tall telecommunications monopole and ground equipment on the north side of Trinity Baptist Church at 2220 Edgerton Street. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeating this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. 2. Construction of a chain-link fence, with a gate, subject to staff review. 3. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 4. The mature trees which are located on the site shall be preserved. Boardmember Johnson seconded. Boardmember Robinson mentioned that a condition in the recommendation to approve a conditional use permit, as part of this project, requires a 100 percent opaque fence. Secretary Ekstrand advised the board to make its recommendation, and he would give consideration to an appropriate manner in which to handle this situation. Ayesmall The motion passed. C. Garages, Clarence Avenue and Skillman Street (Park Edge Apartments)mDominium Acquisitions, Inc. Scott Fricker of Dominium, the proposed purchaser of the apartments, had no problems with the recommendations. Chairperson Erickson noted that there was no brick shown on the garages but the apartment buildings were brick. Mr. Fricker said this was a cost consideration. Boardmember Robinson questioned why brick was not being required. Secretary Tom Ekstrand mentioned that a precedent had been set because other vinyl-sided garages for brick apartment buildings have been approved in recent years by the city council. Mr. Fricker said down lighting will be used. He stated that they had changed the drainage plan so water will not drain onto neighboring properties. It will drain back towards the trail instead Community Design Review Board Minutes of 04-28-98 of off the side of the property. He also said that money had been budgeted to do some redesigning of the entrances to the buildingS. Overhead power lines will also be buried to improve the looks of the property. Boardmember Robinson moved the Community Design Review Board: Bo Approve the plans (date-stamped March 30, 1998 and April 21, 1998) for three garage buildings (40 garages) at the Park Edge Apartments, subject to the findings required by the Code. The property owner shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Sweep, patch and stripe the parking lot. The owner shall submit a parking lot striping plan to the city for approval. This plan shall show 9 ~-foot-wide parking spaces where additional parking spaces can be gained. There also shall be handicap-parking spaces and handicap-parking signs for each building that meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Install at least three trash enclosures with materials and colors that match the apartment buildings. The enclosures must extend to the ground to contain debris. The enclosures and gates must be 100% opaque. There shall be concrete-filled steel posts anchored in the ground at the front corners of the enclosure, if the contractor builds the enclosures with wood. (code requirement) The design and location of the enclosures shall be subject to city staff approval. 4. Before the city issues building permits for the garages, submit the following to city staff for their approval: The final plans for the garage buildings. 'These plans shall show the style, color and type of all materials on the buildings. The colors shall complement the existing apartment buildings. b. A plan for site-security lighting. Co A grading and drainage plan for the city engineer's approval. This plan shall ensure that drainage from the south one-half of this site is directed to the south and away from the rear parts of the properties at 2000 and 2002 Clarence Street. d. The plans for the trash enclosures. 5. Mark the "no parking" areas as required by the fire marshal or fire chief. The applicant or contractor shall remove from the site the storage shed that is on the south end of the alley. This shall be completed before the city grants a certificate of occupancy for any of the new garages. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Boardmember Ledvina seconded Ayes--all Community Design Review Board Minutes of 04-28-98 The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Boardmember Johnson reported on the April 27, City Council Meeting. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. Representative for May 11 City Council Meeting: Ms. Robinson will attend this meeting. Representative for May 21 City Council Meeting: Mr. Erickson will attend this meeting. B. Landry's Seafood (Joe's Crab Shack) Discussion Secretary Ekstrand introduced a preliminary proposal for this restaurant on Beam Avenue next to the Olive Garden. The applicant is requesting comment on their building design, the number of signs on the building, and the pylon sign. They will have 13 fewer parking spaces than code requires. The board discussed the available parking area at this site and the Olive Garden restaurant. The board felt there was too much signage on the building. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:05. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Comprehensive Sign Plan Revision - Mattress Giant at Maplewood Town Center 1845 E. County Road D May 6, 1998 INTRODUCTION Request Dennis Mellem, of Signcrafters and the Mattress Giant Superstore, are requesting that th® community design review board (CDRB) revise the sign criteria for Maplewood Town Center. They are requesting that the CDRB allow an increase in the letter height for a single line of wall signage from 36 inches to 48 inches. Refer to the maps on pages 3-5, the elevations on page 6 and the letter on page 7. Reason for the Request Mr. Mellem has explained that the previous sign on this store front for Total Bedroom was 48 inches tall. He feels that this set a precedent to allow another 48-inch-tall sign. BACKGROUND Fashion Bug August 13, 1991: The CDRB recommended denial of a request by Fashion Bug, a tenant in the MapleRidge Shopping Center, to revise their sign criteria to allow an increase in letter height from 32 inches to 36 inches. (The Fashion Bug had asked for several previous sign-size increases starting at 48 inches then revised their request to 42 inches and finally to 36 inches which was subsequently denied.) Code Requirement Section 36-231 requires that a comprehensive sign plan be provided for business premises with five or more tenants. Comprehensive sign plans shall be reviewed by the CDRB. The applicant, staff or the city council may appeal the CDRB's decision within 15 days of the board's action. DISCUSSION Sign Size According to the Code The proposed 48-inch letters comply with the size limitations in the city code. If the Mattress Giant was in a stand-alone building they could put up a sign that would cover 20 percent of their store front. The sign code, however, requires that a comprehensive sign plan be submitted by shopping center developers to create uniform sign rules for all their tenants to follow. The developer did so and proposed 36 inch letters for the smaller tenants in this building. (Franks Nursery and Best Buy are exceptions and have been allowed larger signs due to their anchor-store status.) Question of Precedent and Other Sign Sizes The applicants feel that since the previous sign was 48 inches tall, they should be allowed to replace it with the same size sign. Our records show that the previous sign for Total Bedroom had 29 inch lower case letters and 40 inch upper case letters. The 40-inch upper case letters were technically four inches too tall, but overall, the integrity of the sign plan was upheld. The Total Bedroom sign has been removed so we cannot verify it's letter height. I disagree that several other signs in this shopping center exceed 36 inches. The plans on record show compliance with the criteria. By my observation, they do not appear to be larger than required. Effectiveness of the Proposed Sign Size There is no basis for allowing 48-inch-letters based on the effectiveness of the sign's readability from the street. Three-foot-tall letters like those of Big & Tall and Carpet King, and even the 18-inch-tall R. Lock and Key sign, are quite easy to read from County Road D. Staff does not see how a 48-inch-tall sign is vital to this stores success. RECOMMENDATION Denial of the request to increase the letter height permitted for a single line of sign copy for the smaller tenants at Maplewood Town Center from 36 inches to 48 inches. Denial is based on the following reasons: 1. There is no precedent for allowing a larger sign. If the previous sign was 48 inches tall, it was installed in violation of the sign permit. 2. The allowed letter height of 36 inches for a single line of copy is easily seen from County Road D. The additional letter height is not needed for sign readability. p:sec35\tncenter, sgn Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Building Elevations 5. Applicant's Letter of Variance Justification dated April 20, 1998 2 Attachment 1 COP[ LOCATION 3 MAP Attachment 2 MATTRESS GIANT LOCATION Attachment 3 MATTRESS GIANT LOCATION ~F SITE PLAN 5 Attachment 4 42'-6" 40" & 48" Channel neon letters / red returns/ROSE neon / Front wall thru wall mount / Back wall letters n raceway white bear 6 ~....~PR-20-1998 12:20 FROM SIGNCRAFTERS, INC. TO 7704506 P.O1 Attachment S City of Maplcwood Community Design Review Board 1830 County Road B ~a.st Maplewood MbT 55109 To whom it may exmcern: Signcrafters and Mattress Giant Supcrstorc are requesting a change in the sign criteria the lVlaplewood Town Center. We are asking for a change in thc maximum allowable height of tenant signag¢ fi.om 35" to 48". We are basing this roquest on the £ollowing A. The currcnt Total Bedroom sign is 48" in height and has been in place for s~veral years. Therefore we feel that this sign sets a precedent and we believe that we should be allowed a sign ora similar size and area. B. Several other signs in the development have signs that exceed 36" md therefore also set a precmlcnt for thc cnfirc dcvclopment. The success of thc Mattress Giant Superstore is directly related to the effectiveness of its advertising, o£which signagc plays a major role. It is Mattress Oiant's contention rlmt a larger sign is vital to its success as a business partner in ~h¢ city of Maplcwood. $~cerely, Dennis Mellem' Signeraf~ers 7775 Main St. N.E, * .Minneapolis, Minn. 55432 * (612) 571-3995 FAX 571-3588 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit- Billboard Relocation at Metcalf Mayflower 1255 E. Highway 36 April 16, 1998 INTRODUCTION Request Mr. Chris McCarver, of Universal Outdoor, Inc., is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to relocate a billboard on the Metcalf Mayflower property, 1255 E. Highway 36. Refer to the maps on pages 4-6 and the applicant's letter on page 7. The billboard is currently placed along Metcalf Mayflower's Highway 36 frontage near the site of their recently approved multi-tenant building. Refer to the site plan on page 6. The applicant is requesting a CUP to move the billboard to a new location on the site with a pole placement 20 feet to the west of the existing Metcalf Mayflower building. The leading edge of the billboard would be 11 feet from the building. The proposed billboard would be a 35-foot-tall, two-sided sign and could be viewed from the east over the top of the building. Each face would measure 10.5- by 36-feet--378 square feet. Reason for the Request/Code Requirements The billboard ordinance requires a CUP if the required setbacks would not be met. As stated, the proposed billboard would have an 11-foot setback from the building-- 89 feet less than required. The sign code requires the following billboard setbacks: From an intersection - 300 feet From a building or on-site sign - 100 feet From a lot line - 10 feet BACKGROUND Metcalf Mayflower Property February 23, 1998: The city council approved building plans for Metcalf Mayflower to build a 55,000 square-foot, one-story multi-tenant office/warehouse building east of their present building. The building would be used for office, warehouse, manufacturing and retail purposes. The council also approved a parking reduction to have 38 fewer parking spaces than code requires. The code requires 176 and the applicant would provide 138. March 30, 1998: The city council revised Condition Three of their previous approval to state that before getting the first certificate of occupancy for the building, the applicant shall remove the billboard from the site or obtain a CUP for relocating it on the property. Previously, the condition had required the billboard removal or the applicants obtaining a CUP for relocation before the issuance of a building permit. Other Billboard Actions December 10, 1984: The city council denied a CUP request for 3M National Advertising to install a 360-square-foot, two sided billboard on the south side of Highway 36 on the present site of the MDG Properties building, 1387 Cope Avenue. 3M was requesting the CUP because their proposed billboard woUld have been 440 feet from the nearest dwelling to the south. The code requires a 500 foot separation. The council gave no findings for denial. DISCUSSION. The city council should deny this request. In reviewing the standards for CUP approval (page 8), it is clear that Standard One would not be met. The billboard would not be located to be in conformity with the code because of its substantially reduced setback. With an 11-foot setback, the proposed billboard would be too close to the building. The required 100 foot setback is needed to avoid an appearance of crowding and clutter. In the past, billboard's have not been perceived by former Maplewood City Councils to be a land use they wish to promote and encourage. The last time the city reviewed such a request, the council denied the billboard installation along Highway 36. This billboard would have met all spacing requirements along the highway but would have been too close to the residences to the south. RECOMMENDATION Deny the conditional use permit for the relocation of the billboard on the Metcalf Mayflower property, 1255 E. Highway 36. Denial is based on the following reasons: The proposed billboard would not be located to be in conformity with the city code of ordinances because of its substantially reduced setback from the Metcalf Mayflower building. The applicant proposed an 11 foot setback--the code requires 100 feet. 2. The proposed billboard would appear to crowd the building and, therefore, give a cluttered appearance. 3. The city previously denied a conditional use permit for a billboard that would have had less aesthetic impact along Highway 36 then the proposed billboard. 2 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 5.47 acres Existing land use: Metcalf Mayflower SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Gervais Avenue and undeveloped M1 (light manufacturing) property South: Highway 36, Northern Hydraulics, Oasis Market and Handy Hitch West: Asphalt Driveway Company and U-haul Self Storage East: English Street, Vomela Specialty Company and Truck Utilities PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M1 Zoning: M1 p:sec9\billbord.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's Letter date-stamped April 6, 1998 5. Plans date-stamped April 6, 1998 (separate attachment) 3 AVE. KO+ILMAN Attachment 1 ~,~s'Kg~ L'N AV~. COPE: AV O) c~i~ae~s sT LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 I I ----.I --~l~i/iiiiiiiDI VACAT C O ,,, ;' PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP Attachment 3 I I EXISTING METCALF MAYFLOWER BUILDING APPROVED BUILDING EXISTING BILLBOARD LOCATION PROPOSED BILLBOARD LOCATION SITE PLAN Attachment 4 3225 Spring Street Northeast Minneapolis, MN 55413 812 / 869-1900 phone 612 / 869-7082 fax City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Attention:"Building and Zoning To whom it may concern: Universal Outdoor, Inc. currently has a billboard on the Metcalf Moving & Storage property at 1255 E. Highway 36 in Maplewood. A few months ago, we had gotten a call fi.om Al Metcalf Jr. saying that he was planning to expand his building on the above referenced property. Since we were a long term tenant with a long term lease, he was willing to work with us to relocate the existing sign from the east end of his property to the west end of the property. I have been told that our relocating on the same parcel still needs tO have a conditional use permit approved because it would be in a different location on the property. I have also been told that the expansion plans that Metcalf Moving & Storage have been put on hold until the sign issue gets resolved. I believe that we meet the City's requirements for a conditional use permit for the following reasons: 1. The sign shall conform with a applicable building codes with regard to wind loads, height, square footage, illumination, fi.ont yard setbacks, side and rear yard setbacks, distance from other signs, distance fi.om residential zones and dwellings, distance from interchanges and distances fi.om parks. We are, however, asking for relief to be closer to a commercial building than is allowed by code (150 feet). The building we will be closer to is the Metcalfmoving & Storage building currently on site. We have tried to fred another alternate site on the property, but have been unsuccessful. We can meet all other criteria, but we cannot fred a practical site on the property other than the one applied for. 2. The approved site wouldn't change the surrounding area because the sign already exists on the property. 3. It wouldn't depreciate property values for a couple of reasons; the sign is already on the property and this is a commercial and industrial area. This is exactly where signs should be located. 4. The sign wouldn't have any dangerous or baTardous materials on the structure, displays, illumination facilities, etc. 5. No vehicular traffic would be generated as a result of the sign because we aren't directing traffic to the property. 6. The sign wouldn't require water hook up, sewer use, schools, or other public facilities so numbers 6 & 7 are not applicable. 7. Relocating the sign would maintain the existing character of the property as well as the future use of the property. 8. The sign would have no adverse environmental effects. I will be happy to provide you with any other information as you request. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Chris McC_~ _~ Real Es~.~e.~ TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM Tom 1. 2. City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Parking Lot Expansion Hermanson Dental 1055 E. Highway 36 May 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION Project Description Hermanson, of Hermanson Dental, is proposing to: Build a new parking lot on his adjacent lot west of his building at 1055 E. Highway 36. Regrade and restripe his existing parking lots by adding parking on the west side of his building and eliminate a two-foot-tall retaining wall in the parking lot north of the building. 3. Build a holding pond to collect runoff for pretreatment before it flows into the wetland. 4. Close the existing curb cut at the intersection of Cypress Street and Gervais Avenue. 5. Increase the number of parking spaces from 112 to 161. Refer to the enclosed maps on pages 5-7 and plans (separate attachment). Requests Mr. Hermanson is requesting that the city council approve the following: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) to increase the impervious surface area on his property to 67 percent. The ordinance allows a maximum of 60 percent if the applicant provides a method for pretreating storm runoff. Refer to the applicant's letter on pages 8-9. 2. Approval of the site plan. BACKGROUND Hermanson Dental Site September 7, 1972: The city council approved plans for the original building. August 22, 1988: The city council approved a CUP for an addition on the west side of the building. Other CUP Approvals December 14, 1992: The city council granted a conditional use permit (CUP) to Maplewood Toyota allowing them to enlarge their parking lot. This expansion increased their impervious surface from 66% to 68.7%. The code allowed a maximum of 40%. October 10, 1994: The council granted a CUP to Lakeview Lutheran Church to enlarge their building. This addition increased the impervious surface from 38% to 40%. The code allowed a maximum of 30%. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The proposed increase in the impervious surface area will not be a problem. The city engineer has reviewed this plan and determined that the adjacent wetlands would not be negatively impacted. The proposed pretreatment pond would handle the runoff from the proposed parking lot as well as pretreat runoff from the existing parking lot that currently flows directly into the wetland. The parking situation will improve and elimination of the curb cut at the road curvature will improve traffic flow on the streets. Site and Screening Considerations The ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requires that there be six handicap-accessible parking stalls for the 161 parking stalls. The applicant should revise the plan showing these spaces. The screening ordinance requires that the parking be screened from the residential lot to the north. The trees that would be left north of the parking lot would provide a certain amount of screening. They would not provide much screening, however, in the fall and winter months. To comply with the code, the applicant should install a fence or evergreen plantings north of the proposed parking lot. The code requires screening to be six feet tall and 80% opaque. The community design review board may waive the screening requirement if they determine that screening is not needed or would not protect surrounding property values. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on pages 10:-11 approving a conditional use permit to expand the parking lot at 1055 E. Highway 36. This permit allows an impervious surface area coverage for this property to 67 percent, seven percent over that allowed by ordinance. Approval is based on the findings required by the code 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. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 2 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The quality of the adjacent wetland will improve due to the pretreatment of runoff. Approve the plans date-stamped April 27, 1998, for a the parking lot expansion at Hermanson Dental, 1055 E. Highway 36. 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 the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Submit a screening plan to staff for the north side of the proposed parking lot. b. Revise the site plan providing for six handicap-accessible parking spaces as required by the ADA. 3. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.44 acres Existing land use: Hermanson Dental SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Gervais Avenue and single dwellings South: Undeveloped city open space land. West: Undeveloped city open space land. East: Hermanson Dental's existing parking lot. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 Ordinance Requirements: Section 36-566(a)(2)(4) of the city code allows a maximum impervious surface area of 60 percent for this property, provided the property owner installs a method for pretreating storm runoff. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city may approve a CUP, based on the nine standards in the resolution on pages 10-11. p:sec9\hermson.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's letter dated April 27, 1998 5. CUP Resolution 6. Plans stamped April 27, 1998 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 PALM CT ROAD GER'VNS AV VIKING LAURIE CT. BURKE AV. JUNCTION (l) CHA~B£R"S ST mON AVl. KiNGSTOe4 <~AV~:. SAINT PAUL LOCATION 5 MAP Attachment 2 / CONSTUCTION)' ~ ~ , . ~~, ~oX .._ /,- ---: :-- ~ m ~W,..=~ ~ ~.~..-., ~ .... ,,,~ ~1 /'. ........... [ ~ ~ ! ~ ~,1 · & ~,~ ETHAN [OPEN SPACE a~, ~ ~ ~l~ ~l I ., ~[ ~ /PROPERTY ~ = ~'~ I I ~'! ~'1 I ~ i ~ ~1 / , i~[. ciw DIAMOND ,1 ;~ ~ / , I ] ,.. iVieD[NO VOGEL ;~~-a ~ _._ I - , - ' ~ -- ~ IVl I ; /~ [-_ ~-.~. BUILDING ~~ ~1' ,', /I / Attachment 3 ! SITE PLAN MIDWEST Attchment 4 Land Surveyors & Civil Engineers, Inc. 199 Coon Rapids Blvd. Coon Rapids, Mn. 55433 Ph. 612-7'86-6909 Fax: 612-786-9208 Toll Frae 1-888-786-6909 Commttnity Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 April 27, 1998 RE: Hermanson Dental Parking Lot Expansion Hermanson Dental located at 1055 East Highway 36 in Maplewood is interested in expanding the on-site parking space for its employees and customers. In order to accomplish this goal, land was purchased to the west of the existing facility. Midwest Land Surveyors & Civil Engineers has been retained to design this addition. The current on-site parking is basically divided into three areas. The front of the building is accessed offofthe frontage road along the North side of State Trunk Highway No. 36 this lot has one entrance and is separated from the frontage road by a fairly deep drainage swale. The second parking area is located on the north or rear of the building. This lot is accessed off of Gervais Avenue at the northeast end of the property. The third parking area is located at the northwest comer of the property. Due to the grade sloping dramatically from the east to the west a retaining wall drops the grade to this parking lot. The access point for this lot is located at the intersection of Gervais Avenue and Cypress Street. Gervais Avenue is occasionally used for overflow parking. The planned expansion will provide for a total of 161 parking spaces. Included in the expansion plan is a water treatment pond which will remove sediment prior to discharge to the wetland located south of the proposed expansion. The pond will also control the rate at which the nm off will be discharged to the wetland. The area ofnmofftreated by this pond is shown on the plan and includes the rear portion of the building roof area, the rear parking lot area, the entire additional property purchased for parking lot expansion and a portion of the single family lots to the north. Currently this area discharges to the wetland without treatment. The existing topography of the area of the parking expansion slopes from the north and east to the south where there is a class 5 wetland as delineated by Pat Conrad of Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed. The vegetation consists of underbrush and trees but no quality trees. Construction would require clearing trees and brush on about 75% of the expansion site for both parking and ponding. The North 38 feet of this area would remain natural and provide a buffer for the single family residence directly to the north. The proposed parking area is substantially lower in elevation than the residential lot to the north. This difference in grade provides an additional screening and buffeting effect. 8 The maximum allowable percentage of impervious area within a shoreland boundary is 60% when ponding is provided. What we are proposing raises the percent impervious to 67% which is not a significant amount considering the benefits that are provided by the proposed pond which will help maintain the character of the existing wetland by pretreating the runoff that flows thru it and controlling the rate at which that runoff is introduced to it. The parking lot expansion would ease congestion along Gervais Avenue due to cars that are being parked along the street. The expansion plan includes plans to close a curb cut at the intersection of Gervais Avenue and Cypress Street, this would provide a safer situation along Gervias by minimizing access points. Another key design feature related to safety is the connection of the existing parking lot located in front of the building and the lot located in the rear of the building. This connection allows access to both sides of the building from either entrance. If a police or fire emergency were to occur the specific location and access to be used would not an issue for prompt response. The redesign of the rear parking lot to one continuous space rather than its current multi level design will provide a more aesthetically pleasing appearance, an easier space to maintain, a more efficient use of space. The design provides safer access for the public and emergency vehicles. The location of the expansion will be completely surrounded by vegetation and screened from neighboring properties and preservation of the site's natural features has been incorporated into the design. The expansion would not change the planned character of the surrounding area. No additional cost for public utilities would be created. We would recommend approval of the Conditional use Permit for the expansion of the parking lot for Hermanson Dental noting that the owner and designer has made every effort to blend the goals of Hermanson Dental and the City of Maplewood into a plan that benefits both the owner and the public. MIDWEST LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC. John M. Anderson, P.E. 9 Attachment 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Tom Hermanson, of Hermanson Dental, applied for a conditional use permit to expand his parking lot, thereby, increasing his impervious surface area. WHEREAS, Section 36-566(a)(2)(4) of the city code allows a maximum impervious surface area of 60 percent for this property. WHEREAS, this permit allows an impervious surface area of the site of 67 percent--seven percent over that allowed by the code. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1055 E. Highway 36. The legal description is: That part of the West 171.32 feet of the East 662.32 feet of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 9, township 29, range 22 lying Northerly of State Trunk Highway No. 36-118, subject to the right of way of Gervais Avenue over the Northerly 33 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof. AND That part of the West 77.20 feet of the East 739.52 feet of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, lying Northerly of State Trunk Highway No. 36-118, Ramsey County, Minnesota, according to the United States Government Survey thereof. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On May 12, 1998, the community design review board recommended that the city council this permit. 2. On May 18, 1998, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. 3. On , the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 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. 10 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 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 end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one yea[. 4. The quality of the adjacent wetland will improve due to the pretreatment of runoff. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,1998. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner AT&T Monopole Aamco Transmissions - 1905 E. County Road D May 6, 1998 INTRODUCTION Project Description Ron Mielke, of AT&T Wireless Services, is proposing to erect an 125-foot-tall monopole for cellular telephone operations. AT&T proposes to place this monopole on the Aamco Transmissions property at 1905 E. County Road D on the north side of the building. Refer to pages 5-8. AT&T would lease a 29- by 30-foot site from Aamco Transmissions for the proposed tower and an adjacent 10- by 20-foot equipment building. This building would be 10 feet tall and constructed of precast concrete painted brown. Refer to page 9. Aamco Transmissions is light grey in color and built of plain and split-face concrete block. The proposed building would contain all necessary support equipment. There would not be a fence around this facility. AT&T proposes to landscape their site. Refer to the landscape plan (separate attachment). Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a monopole and related equipment. Refer to the applicant's letter on pages 10-16. 2. The monopole and building design, the site plan and the landscape plan. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The three property owners that responded to our survey were in favor of this request. The only concern expressed was a hope that there would be no interference with the communications system at Town Center. 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 a proposed tower because of electronic interference. That is up to the FCC to monitor and regulate. The city may only base their decision on land use and on health, safety and welfare concerns. Design and Site Issues The tower meets the setback requirements specified in the code. The proposed brown color should be substituted with light blue or grey to minimize visibility as the code requires. Staff does not have a problem with the precast concrete structure. The applicant should, however, paint it grey to match the color of Aamco Transmissions. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the'resolution on pages 17-18 approving a conditional use permit to allow a 125-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and 10- by 20-foot building for ground equipment at 1905 E. County Road D. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 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. This conditional use permit is conditioned upon AT&T allowing the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed monopole with reasonable lease conditions. Approve the site and tower design plans date-stamped April 3, 1998 and the landscaping and building elevations date-stamped May 5, 1998, for a 125-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and a 10- by 20-foot building for ground equipment on the north side of Aamco Transmissions at 1905 E. County Road D. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeating this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. 2. Substituting the brown color on the tower with light blue or grey as the code requires. 3. Paint the equipment building light grey to match the color of Aamco Transmissions. 4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 19 property owners within 350 feet of Aamco Transmissions for their opinion about this monopole proposal. Of the three replies, all were in favor. In Favor 1. AT&T promised there would be no interference with existing services in the area. (Marco Property Management representing Maplewood Town Center, 1845 E. County Road D) 2. It is next to freeway and should be a good location for one. (Store manager for Aamco Transmissions, 1905 E. County Road D) 3. It looks like a good location next to the freeway. (Whitney & Whitney, 6449 Zinnia Lane N.) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Proposed lease area: 29- by 30-feet (870 square feet) Aamco Transmissions site: .69 acres Existing land use: Aamco Transmissions SURROUNDING LAND USES (around the proposed tower site) North: 1-694 South: Aamco Transmissions building West: Vacant Egghead Software building and Best Buy East: Goodyear Tire PAST ACTIONS January 13, 1997: The city council adopted the commercial use antenna and tower ordinance. July 28, 1997: The council held a public hearing to consider a request by American Portable Telecom, Inc. (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. 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. March 30, 1998: The city council denied a request for a monopole at Western Hills Park for APT. The city is presently reviewing a request by U.S. West to install a monopole on the Trinity Baptist Church property at Highway 36 and Edgerton Street. The city council has approved four telecommunications monopoles in Maplewood. These include the tower on the southwest corner of English Street and Gervais Avenue near Metcalf Mayflower, monopoles on the US West properties on Gervais Court and Carlton Street and the MCI tower near Carver General Repair on Highwood Avenue. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC (business commercial) Zoning: BC Ordinance Requirements Section 36-607(c)(1) allows monopoles by CUP in commercial districts provided they do not exceed 175 feet in height. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards for approval. Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 17-18. Section 36-605(a) states that the city council shall consider the following when reviewing a CUP for a monopole: 1. The standards in the city code. 2. The recommendations of the planning commission and community design review board. 3. Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of residents of the surrounding areas. 4. The effect on property values. 5. The effect on the proposed use in the comprehensive plan. p:sec35\at&t.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Monopole Elevation 5. Building Elevations 6. Applicant's letter of request dated April 13, 1998 7. CUP Resolution 8. Plans dated April 17, 1998 (separate attachments) 9. Landscape Plan date-stamped May 5, 1998 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 HEIGHTS COUNTY D 1. ~Jt4MIT CT. 2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR. 3. DULUTH CT. 4. LYI~ AV~. K~ LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 ,~ AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS MAPLEWOOD I TOWN CENTERI~) BEST I liner ~1 'l '::) i ! TO I'E COMM= ~'1~ ''', I EGGHEAD .~., ~. ~ SOF~ARE ' H CARE ZIEBART _ /-' ~ I I k l 'ff-.~J .. . lq /"t ^ ri 2~,--.-3-~4z..V'~ ~ ~'" ~ _~ ~_ '"' '~'",L_;'_ ............. ~_~ r"---""-~--~.-L'"-"-"-'"_'__-'-~-'-~:%~-L-L~ ...... ~'-- ! : I I CIRCUIT CITY ¢ TOYS-R-US ,' I I .. II ---- , ,' I Ir t~; II ~ . I '"'; '~ ~ '; ~=~ :1 JUST FOR FEET .!" "~ 'LtZJ, ,~-?1' .- Dqi~ /' ' MAPLEWOOD ~.~o~ -~;!-~ / ..,.,.,,,o, .....,.,,.,..,....~ ............. ,q- .-- .~ . ~3>~" ~"-~' ' ~-~.~_ " ..... ~' " "?~""' Z _ ~-~,) '!,~ .~"' I % ' · ........ 7'-.--7---~ ..................... '- ' ...... ....... ,/--:'// .......... 1 ' '"' ....... '" ./'/ I ..,..=woo.:..,,....... Attachment 3 PROPOSED AT&T MONOPOLE SITE ~ROPOS[O 10'=20' SHELTER SITE PLAN~ ~ULTEIg ~~~~££~$ ~ ULTEIG ENGINEERS, INC. 5201 EAST RIVER ROAD, SUITE 508 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55421 PHONE (612) 571--2500 FAX (612) AT&:T WIRELESS SERVICES OF MINNESOI^, INC. MAPLE]WOOD SITE MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Attachment 4 571--1168 ANTENNA SIZES SECTOR ANT. ND. H ~/ D ALPHA, t)ETA & P]310177 ' 86" 103/e" '5" GAMMA ~:QUIPN£NT ?'ROUND LIN~- SCALE:: 1" ~ ~O'-O" Attachment 5 SIDE VIEW END VIEW i'; .' .~/' DO014 L. OCATION ' .. I!:'~:.. ~-~...,.~t--~.-?-,--?-,.--t.--.:--~, -- SIDE VIEW END VIEW Attachment 6 AT&T Cellular Division AT&T Wireless Services 2515 24th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55406 612 721-1660 FAX 612 721-4770 April 13, 1998 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning Commission City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Conditional Use Permit Application Wireless Communication Antenna Site 1905 East County Road D. Dear Honorable Mayor, Council Members, and Commissioners: This letter accompanies an application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a Wireless Communication antenna site on land owned by Whitney & Whitney Partnership. The property is located at 1905 East County Road D. and is zoned as a Business Commercial. The property is currently being used by Thomas E. Whitney and Walter F. Whitney in conducting business under the name of Aamco Transmission. The request is being made in the name of AT&T Wireless Services of Minnesota, Inc. The fee o~ner has consented to this application and have entered into a Lease Agreement with the applicant for a portion of their property. Drawings and site surveys of the property accompany this letter. The Proposed Use. The site would be used by AT&T Wireless Services, one of the two companies who were originally licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide essential cellular communications services to the Twin Cities. The proposed project would include a steel monopole with antennas attached to it and the construction of an equipment building to accommodate cellular radio and switching equipment. ~ Recycled Paper 10 Wireless Communication Antenna Site Maplewood, Minnesota Page 2 The proposed location on the above mentioned property would be located to the rear of the current building on the Northeasterly portion of the property. This specific site was chosen based on the following criteria: AT&T Wireless Services' engineering and system development needs The need for improved cellular coverage as dictated by our customers The proposed site will be contained within approximately a 29' X 30' area. Landscaping will be placed within the Lease Tract area as per the requirements of the City of Maplewood. A site plan, drawings, and photographs of the proposed project accompany this application. The Monopole. The proposed monopole will provide the support for the cellular antennas and related cabling necessa~, to connect the antennas themselves to the radio equipment shelter. It is constructed of steel, is completely self-supporting, and will be painted brown to blend in with the lighting standards south of the site located in the parking areas of Maplewood Mall. We will provide detailed engineering data for permitting purposes to your Building Inspections Department when this request is granted. AT&T has specifically engineered this monopole to allow for potential future collocation by other wireless providers. Equipment Building. The proposed equipment building will house radio, computer, and climate control equipment for this site. The equipment is powered by 220 volt, single phase, AC electric. It will be connected to AT&T Wireless Services central switching offices via traditional telephone lines. As a result, no one will need to be present at the site on a daily basis. There will only be an occasional visit (average of once a month) for routine maintenance. The equipment produces no noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odor. The building itself is approximately 10' wide, 20' long, and 10' high. It will be constructed in such a way that it will look like the existing structures on the property, with the color matching the existing building. Antennas. The antennas will be attached to the monopole and will transmit and receive the FM radio signals that carry voice and data between the cellular system users and AT&T Wireless Services' central switch. The physical size of the antennas depends on the type and manufacturer. Wireless Communication Antenna Site Maplewood, Minnesota Page 3 The area in which cellular coverage is needed largely defines the required antenna height. Naturally, topography and surrounding trees and buildings also play an important role in arriving at the appropriate height. AT&T Wireless Services' engineers have determined that the height necessary at this location is 125 feet. The Cellular Phone System. Users of cellular telephone service include members of the business community as well as the public sector. Commuters, doctors, salespeople, business owners and executives all benefit by using cellular phones. Additionally, cellular telephones are used extensively by fire, police, and other public safety officials and departments. The system allows police and others to conduct discreet communication in the field, and it enables direct communication with individuals in need of assistance even when a traditional telephone is unavailable. Cellular phone users can contact "911" to report accidents, fires, or other emergencies without first having to search for a telephone. Mr. James R. Beutelspacher, 9-1-1 Project Manager for Minnesota, wrote that "the unimpeded growth of cellular service is an important adjunct to 9-1-1 emergency reporting." Cellular is a low-power system. The amount of energy generated from a single cellular phone channel is approximately 100 watts. This is less energy than is generated by the typical cordless telephone which is used in many homes today. The Question of Interference. The cellular phone system operates on a specific set of channels set aside by the Federal Communications Commission. The filtering of spurious signals is very tightly controlled. Cellular telephones operate within a strictly regulated set of allotted frequencies between 825 and 845 megahertz (MHz) and between 870 and 890 MHz. AT&T Wireless Services is currently licensed to operate in over 100 maj or markets nationwide with hundreds of antennas. There has not been any instance of television or radio interference reported. All AT&T Wireless Services sites must be operated in accordance with our FCC license to provide cellular service in this area. Mr. Albert S. Jarratt, Jr., Engineer in Charge of the St. Paul Field Office, Field Operations Bureau of the FCC, confirmed that the FCC has not received any complaints of interference by cellular phone transmissions with home electronic entertainment equipment in any of the five states in which Mr. Jarratt's office has jurisdiction. 12 Wireless Communication Antenna Site Maplewood, Minnesota Page 4 The Cellular Grid. Cellular service provides subscribers with highly portable phone service by developing a grid of radio cells arranged in a geographically hexagonal pattern. Each "cell" is created by an antenna which serves as the link. between the customer and the system while the customer is within that particular cell. As callers move from one cell to the next, their calls are switched, or "handed off," to the next cell's antenna site. Each cell can only handle a finite number of calls at any one time. As the number of customers increases, the grid must be changed to handle the increasing number of calls. This usually means that more cells need to be created within the same geographical area, resulting in a new grid pattern of smaller cells. This need for more cellular calling capacity originally brought this antenna site to this location. Accompanying this letter is information that more thoroughly explains the cellular system. While the area in which cellular coverage is needed largely defines the required antenna height, topography also plays a role in arriving at the appropriate height for the tower. This is true because cellular telephone signals cannot travel through large structures or through the earth. One of the keys to cellular engineering is to take care to design each cell to be the proper size. If a cell is too large, it will interfere with the operation of neighboring cells, and callers will hear other conversations or "cross-talk." If a cell is too small, some areas between cells will be left without any service and callers will not be able to use their phones. If a caller is in a valley or if a hill lies between the caller and the cell's antenna, the area acts as if there is no antenna at all. When topography comes into play, cellular telephone service can be both difficult to provide and frustrating to use. Cellular engineers now employ the use of directional antennas in an effort to accommodate the topography. By increasing the elevation of the antennas and tilting the antennas downward, the cellular signal is projected over the top of hills and down into valleys without increasing the cell's overall size. Indeed, this technology will be employed at this particular site. Requirements for the City of Maplewood. For a new personal wireless communication tower or monopole, the applicant shall document to the city that the proposed telecommunications equipment cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or commercial building within one-half mile radius because of one or more of the following: a. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or commercial building. The only existing tower that is within one-half mile radius of 13 Wireless Communication Antenna Site Maplewood, Minnesota Page 5 the proposed site are those owned by NSP. The high power transmission towers that exist to the south do not meet the standards for proper Radio Frequency coverage because of their height and the close proximity to the high power transmission wires. b. The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building. The close proximity of the high power transmission wires with the proposed antennas would cause Radio Frequency interference. c. Existing or approved structures and commercial buildings within one-half mile radius cannot or will not reasonably accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function. In order to meet the proper separation from the transmission lines, the antennas would have to be placed at a lower height which would not give the adequate coverage that is needed. d. For residential district sites, the applicant must demonstrate, by providing a city-wide coverage/interference and capacity analysis, that the location of the antennas as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication service system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district or on existing structure. The proposed site is located on property zoned Business Commercial, so this section does not apply. e. For all commercial wireless telecommunications service towers, a letter of intent committing the tower, the owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable term and conditions for shared use. The monopole for this proposed location is being designed to allow for additional users as it is depicted in the zoning ordinance for collocation. AT&T Wireless Services of Minnesota, Inc. is open to collocation and is willing to work with other Companies that offer wireless services. The Conditional Use Permit. The City of Maplewood, in its Conditional Use Permit Application and zoning ordinances set forth the following standards by which the City Council shall approve, amend, or deny a conditional use permit: 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. One of the purposes and intents of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan is to provide essential services to the public, including communication services. For the reasons set forth in greater detail above, a cell site in this general location is necessary to provide adequate cellular telephone service to this area of the City and 14 Wireless Communication Antenna Site Maplewood, Minnesota Page 6 surrounding areas. Allowing the cell site to be located here, subject to reasonable conditions, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Business Commercial uses. The cell site is consistent with and serves this type of use. The use is therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The communication tower being a commercial use will not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The area to the West, East and South of the proposed site are zoned Business Commercial and the property to the North abuts the right of way for 1-694. The use is consistent with the general area and should not have any affect against the properties. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. AT&T Wireless Services has installed over 100 cell sites throughout the state. In no instance has there ever been any evidence that a cell site has caused any depreciation of surrounding property, values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operations 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 run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The cell site that is being proposed will not cause any hazardous or detrimental activities to any person at the site or surrounding area. All equipment is self contained within the building which will not create any noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, 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. The site has its own access from County Road D, which will provide ingress and egress to the property. As stated previously, site visits will be infrequent which will eliminate any traffic congestion or interferefice with traffic on the surrounding public streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. The only public utility and service need of this proposed site is for electrical and telephone services, which are ample for AT&T Wireless Services needs at this location. The proposed site has access by a service road. Because of the computerized operation of this technology, site visits will be infrequent, approximately one visit per month, which will eliminate any traffic congestion or interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. As it was stated earlier, the site would have access that is already constructed. The site visits will be infrequent, 15 Wireless Communication Antenna Site Maplewood, Minnesota Page 7 approximately one visit per month, plus there is no need of public facilities other than power and telephone service, which is already present on the property. 8. The use would minimize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. Because of the nature of the proposed site, minimal construction will take place which will not cause any damage to the site or surrounding area. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. This site was proposed because of the existing structures that are near the proposed site. To the south of the proposed site there are light standards that are located within the parking lot of Maplewood Mall. The height of these light standards are approximately 125 feet. This is the same height that is being proposed for the monopole to help replicate the surrounding structures. This will help to preserve the visual impact of the site. 10. The City Council may waive any of the above requirements for a public building or utility structure, provided the Council shall first make a determination that the balancing of public interest between governmental units of the state would be best served by such waiver. The granting of the CUP will alleviate problems for AT&T Wireless Services and its customers in this area, including city and county departments of public safety. Conclusion. This letter should serve to better explain our application and to answer some of your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me at 612-844-6741. I, as well as other representatives of AT&T Wireless Services will be in attendance at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings to address any additional questions that you may have. AT&T Wireless Services appreciates the assistance that we have already received from the City's staff, and we look forward to working with you to better serve the area. Thank you for your consideration. Ronald L. Mielke Real Estate Manager Enclosures 16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION Attachment 7 WHEREAS, Ronald L. Mielke, of AT&T Wireless Services, applied for a conditional use permit to install an 125-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and a related equipment building. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1905 E. County Road D. The legal description is: LOT 4, BLOCK 1, TOUKLEY COMMERCIAL PARK, RAMS COUNTY, MINNESOTA. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On ,1998, the planning commission considered this request and recommended that the city council approve it. 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, 'I:HEREFORE, 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. 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. 1'7 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. This conditional use permit is conditioned upon AT&T allowing the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed monopole with reasonable lease conditions. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,1998. 3_8 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING April 7, 1998 The community design review board meeting scheduled for April 14, 1998 has been cancelled. The next meeting of the CDRB is scheduled for April 28, 1998. jl C: Department heads CDRB Members City Council CDRB mailing list