Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/1998BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD April 28, 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- March 31, 1997 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review a. Telecommunications Monopole, 2220 Edgerton Street (Trinity Baptist Church) - U.S. West Communications, Inc. b. Billboard, 1255 E. Highway 36 (Metcalf Mayflower) - Universal Outdoor, Inc. c. Garages, Clarence Avenue and Skillman Street (Park Edge Apartments)- Dominium Acquisitions, Inc. 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. CDRB Representative for May 11 (Monday) and May 21 (Thursday) City Council Meetings. 10. Adjourn p:com-dvpt\cdrb.agd WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE C~OMMUNITY 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. 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~7,clrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MARCH 31, 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 Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 10, 1998 . IV. VI. Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the minutes of March 10, 1998, as submitted. Boardmember Ledvina .seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Robinson moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Shankar seconded. The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. DESIGN REVIEW A. Ayes--all Plaza 3000 Building Facade and Sign Criteria Changes, 3000 White Bear Avenuc Richard Schreier Richard Schreier, 2125 DeSoto Street, was present representing one of the partners of the Plaza 3000 Partners, owners of the shopping center. Mr. Schreier gave some background information on the center. He mentioned that the need to redo the exterior came about because a tenant had painted their storefront blue. When this store was sold, one of the terms of the sale was that this storefront had to be redone. Mr. Schreier said, at that point, they decided not to do just the one front and eventually chose to use a design that included comice fascia and E.I.F.S. (exterior insulation finish system) with entry columns for the center. He said stucco will be used below the window line. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 03-31-98. -2- Secretary Tom Ekstrand spoke about the sign revision portion of the request. He thought the increase in maximum letter height to 36 inches would make the signage on this shopping center compatible with the north portion of the center across Woodlynn Avenue. Boardmember Robinson moved the Community Design Review Board: A. Approve the plans date-stamped March 25, 1998 for the building facade changes at the Plaza 3000 shopping center at 3000 White Bear Avenue. Approve changes to the sign criteria for the Plaza 3000 allowing a conversion from cabinet signs to individual-letter signs mounted on a raceway and increasing the sign's letter height from 30 inches to 36 inches. The amended criteria shall read (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. Tenant signs are restricted to store identity only. The approved signage area on the Plaza 3000 south building is the upper building fascia. The signage shall consist of-a-continuous 36-inch-wide. individual-letter signs mounted on a raceway as shown on the remodeling _plans date-stamoed March 25. 1998 '- '' ..... :-- ·" ' th '-" -' 'th:-'---:- At the center of the mall area, a second row of signs may be used to help locate tenants. There shall be a minimum of 18 inches between signs on th[= =[.~;;, p~,~,¢',. The approved signage area on the Plaza 3000 North Annex is the upper building fascia. The'maximum letter height allowed is 36 inches. The total sign height for more than one line of copy shall not exceed four feet. These signs shall be individual, 'internally-lit letters mounted on raceways. There must be at least two feet between both ends of a tenant's sign and that tenant's store front. These signs must be centered horizontally and vertically within the upper building fascia. Staff may ap_Drove signage changes for the ma!or tenants. 0rovided the signs meet the code and are smaller or similar in size to the signs they are reDlacing. ~ 5. As ao_oroved by the city council on October 9. 1995. the sign criteria for pylon signs shall be as follows: The original Plaza 3000 oedestal sign and the 6- bv 12-foot oylon sign shall be removed. The ore_Dosed 11- by 20-foot Pylon. as shown on the Dian date-stare_bed August 18. 1995. is aDDroved, subiect to meeting the city code re(~uirements. The existing Plaza 3000 North Annex oylon sign may remain. If the shooDin0 center owner does not install the oroDosed _PylOn sign. there shall be no oylon sign changes, exceDt removal, without city a_o_oroval. 'q'LA Community Design Review Board Minutes of 03-31-98 -3- Service door signs are limited to the store name and address. Addresses must be between 3 and 12 inches in height, Store names must not exceed three inches in height. 7. All holes from signs that are removed must be properly patched and the wall. raceway or fascia must be repainted or refinished. The community design review board must review major changes to this criteria. Staff may approve copy changes for the signs ',,.~t,.~ ,,, C,.,, ,~,t .... Fc,'..'r and minor pylon sign revisions if they meet code. Boardmember Ledvina seconded. Boardmember Ledvina thought the larger size letters could be out of proportion. He did recognize that the size of the sign would be limited by the amount of retail frontage available to the tenant. Ayes--all The motion passed. B. Best Buy Building Addition, 1885 County Road D East, Best Buy Company David Jamieson, development manager with Best Buy Company, was present. Several boardmembers felt the plans did not clearly show the complete project. Mr. Jamieson said they are going to stay with the existing masonry. He said the only thing being changed was to remove the space frame and towers. They would be adding a blue wedge. Boardmember Robinson referred to a previous expansion of this building. She said the Maplewood City Council had a definite concern about the size and design at that time and were not favorable with the board's approval. Some members of the board felt there was not enough information given on the plans for the changes to the facade of the existing building. Chairperson Erickson was concerned with clearance near the dumpster. He thought that some type of retaining wall would be needed to support the blacktop that will service the 20- foot-wide drive around the compactor. Secretary Ekstrand recommended that a plan for the retaining wall, showing design and construction details, be submitted before a building permit is issued. Mr. Jamieson said there will be a retaining wall built into the wall of the new addition on the east side. The finished floor level will be the same in the new and the existing portions of the building. The board reviewed the lighting and parking aspects of the plan. Boardmember Ledvina commented on the large expanse of "nondescript* wall to the east extent. He was concerned with how the building will look with more wall added in this direction. Mr. Jamieson responded that it would almost be necessary to regrade the entire parking lot to change the entrance of the store to the center. The board also felt parking was very crowded at this site. Secretary Ekstrand said the new proposal should alleviate some of that parking congestion. Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board table the Best Buy Building Addition until more detailed plans are submitted showing: dimensions on the front Community Design Review Board Minutes of 03-31-98 facade, the extent and termination point of the blue band on the front facade, the enormity of the front wall in lieu of the east addition, further engineering and whether retainage is required to achieve the 20-foot clearance of the driveway behind the trash compactor, and more detail about the retaining wall shown between the Best Buy site and the Amoco Transmission property to the east, Boardmember Robinson seconded. Boardmember Ledvina suggested a friendly amendment that the applicant provide details as they r(~late to the corner treatments, with the space frame if that exists, and how they will be carried out on other portions of the site (the southwest and southeast corners of the building). The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Ayes--all March 30 Council Meeting: Mr. Shankar reported on this meeting. IX, STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. X, ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:25. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner U.S. West Monopole Trinity Baptist Church - 2220 Edgerton Street April 21, 1998 INTRODUCTION Project Description Patricia A. Conlin, of U.S. West Communications, Inc., is proposing to erect an 85-foot-tall monopole for cellular telephone operations. This monopole would have the availability of being extended to 100-feet-tall for co-location in the future. The proposed 16- by 21-foot monopole site would be surrounded by a six-foot-tall chain link fence. They would also place ground equipment next to the monopole inside the fence. The applicant also proposes to plant six, eight-foot-tall Black Hills Spruce and two Old Gold Juniper shrubs around the south, east and west sides of the proposed fence. The applicant proposes to place this monopole on the Trinity Baptist Church property at 2220 Edgerton Street. The proposed tower would be placed on the lawn on the Highway 36 side of the church. Refer to the maps and sketch of the proposed tower on pages 7-11. U.S. West has designed this monopole to accommodate their own antennas plus co-location by additional providers. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: A conditional use permit (CUP) for a monopole and related equipment in an F (farm residence) district. Refer to the applicant's letter of request and letter regarding co-location on pages 12-15. 2. The monopole design and site plan. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit One neighbor is concerned with the appearance of the proposed monopole and the view from his house. The city code states that, to approve the CUP, the city must determine that it is not detrimental to any neighbor because of general unsightliness. It is difficult to argue that a monopole is attractive. However, staff does not feel that the actual impact on this neighbor's view is substantial. The proposed tower would be visible from the front yards of 2232 and 2226 Searle Street. These properties are not across from the proposed tower, however, but 250 to 330 feet to the southeast. The primary view from these homes is the church and parking lot, not the proposed tower. It is not possible to screen the tower. Staff recommends, though, that the applicant substitute the chain link fence with a decorative cedar fence to conceal the widest part of the pole and the ground equipment. Ms. Conlin said that they have installed wooden fences in the past at some locations and that they could in this case. 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 grey color of the tower also meets the code. The proposed landscaping would enhance the site and add to the existing mature evergreen trees near the proposed tower location. Staff does not find any design or placement problems with the proposed tower facility. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 16-17 approving a conditional use permit to allow an 85-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related ground equipment at 2220 Edgerton Street. 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 U.S. West: 1. Substituting the proposed six-foot-tall chain link fence with a 100 percent opaque fence and gate. 2. Allowing the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. 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. Substituting the chain link fence with a 100 percent opaque fence and gate. 3. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 39 property owners within 350 feet of Trinity Baptist Church for their opinion about this proposal. Of the ten replies, two had no comment, four were in favor and four objected. In Favor 1. I am in favor of this proposal provided it has no effect on radio or television transmission or home phone reception. (Carlson, 2216 Payne Avenue) 2. We do not object. It is on the north side of the church. It does not impact our views. (Mason, 2173 Payne Avenue) 3. In favor. (Johnson, 2223 Payne Avenue) 4. This a good site for the cellular network system. (Burton, 2213 Payne Avenue) Opposed 1. If intervals need to be two miles apart, why do they state ,,no existing or approved towers within ~,& mile?" Also height & obtrusiveness. Is church compensated? Why not in a wooded area i.e. County Road B west of 35E. Not convinced it enhances public safety. We don't use cellular phone service now and don't anticipate any need to in the future. This is not an essential service. Seems commercial in a residential area. (Wall, 625 County Road B) 2. No way --Hell no--unless compensated. (Gardner, 2183 Payne Avenue) 3. Why do you bother. The City of Maplewood does what it wants and has no respect for the input of its citizens. Why not save the paper? (Lassig, 650 Viking Drive) 4. I'm at 2232 Searle Street. The photo that U.S. West sent is depicted from my front yard. It is unsightly. I am within 200 feet of the site and don't appreciate my horizon being disrupted. The immediate residents should be compensated by this money hungry corporation with free cellular service and lower taxes. It is church property and is already developed. It will be an eyesore no matter where they put it. (Smith, 2232 Searle Street) No Comment 1. I have no comment if we can't see it from our home. How wide? How large? (Hanson, 647 County Road B) 2. No comment. (Haugen, 2233 Sunrise Drive) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Proposed lease area: 16- by 21-feet (336 square feet) Trinity Baptist Church property: 8.14 acres Existing land use: Trinity Baptist Church SURROUNDING LAND USES (around the proposed tower site) North: Highway 36 South: South of the church is their parking lot, a stormwater holding pond and a single dwelling West: Edgerton Street and single dwellings East: Searle Street and single dwellings 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 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 m0nopole at Western Hills Park for APT. 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: C (church) Zoning: F (farm residence district) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-606 requires a CUP for a communications tower in a residential zoning district. The ordinance requires a maximum height of 75 feet, however, 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. Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 16-17. 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:sec8\uswest.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan Enlarged Site/Landscape Plan 5. Tower Elevation 6. Applicant's letter of request dated January 30, 1998 7. Applicant's letter of monopole height and co-location provision dated April 13, 1998 8. CUP Resolution 9. Site plans dated February 2, 1998 (separate attachments) Attachment 1 NADA Sandy Lake SKILLMAN AVE. MT. VF_RNON ~WNS AVE. BELLWOOD AVE. SUMMER AVE. B£LMOf, R' SKILLMAN DR. ~IE CT. AV. BELLWOOD KtNOSTON ~AVE. .~. PALM COUNTY AVE. JUNCT (1) C~BE~S ST ~ coU~S~ t~- FROST AVE. LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 2249 2239 2233 ~ 2227 u ~ 2217: 2205,~) .... ~"=:"~" ..... l::' ..... '~" i' 628 636 , 2232 ~ 2226 2199 TRINITY ~.:, ~ BAPTIST "' ""~ ~ lURCH: ~ I~AP TI~I,T CHURCH 2180 COUNTY ROAD B z,,J. N T I'~? ~O (8) ~ Attachment 3 HIGHWAY 36 PROPOSED U.S. WEST MONOPOLE LOCATION '~AI~O I"IYHdSV NITY BAPTIST CHURCH COUNTY ROAD B Attachmen~ 4 FENCE TR EDGE OF PAVEMENT ® E) ed-. COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE Black Hills Spruce Picea Glauca Densata 8' HGT. B&B Old Gold Juniper Juniperous Chinensis 4' HGT. B&B NOTES Plant 10' O.C. Plant 2 V2' O.C. ENLARGED SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN 10 Attachment 5 USWEST '- ANTENNAS 77'-3"~ (ALPHA & GAMMA) GPS ANTENNA 65'CL (BETA) ELEVATION LOOKING WEST Attachment 6 Ms. Melinda Coleman Planner for the City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 (612) 770-4560 RE: Application for a PCS Wireless Antenna Support System to be Located at 4011 Edgerton Road, Maplewood Site No. MIN 097 Dear Ms. Melinda Coleman, This letter is designed to comply with application procedures to receive a permit to construct a PCS antenna support system at 2220 Edgerton Road, Maplewood. US WEST Wireless has been authorized by the landowner to present this application on their behalf. US WEST Wireless has been licensed by the Federal Communications Commission and is scheduled to deploy a wireless Personal Communications System (PCS) in Maplewood and the surrounding areas in the second quarter of 1998. To fulfill its mandate from the Federal Communications Commission, US WEST Wireless will be developing a grid of antenna throughout its service area. These antenna must be spaced, depending on certain technical and geographical variables, at intervals approximately two (2) miles from each other and at a height of approximately ninety (90) to one hundred twenty (120) feet above the ground. The intent of the system will be to provide wireless services to all Twin City area communities. Since US WEST Wireless Communications intends to utilize PCS as an affordable Wireless Local Loop service, coverage at the neighborhood level is essential (unlike Cellular, which is typically a high-cost mobile service). Local loop is that telephone service from the central office location to local residences. It is typically the weakest link in the communication system. A wireless local loop would increase the dependability and safety of the communication system. PROPOSED USE We propose to constmct~ n'.'ncty (99, ,c~c,, tall antenna support system with associated antenna and equipment for a wireless Personal Communications Service (PCS) phone system. The foundation for the antenna support system will be a concrete caisson design. The specifications take into account soils, local wind loading guidelines and the type of equipment to be attached to the antenna support system. A safety factor is included in the design parameters resulting in a pole that typically exceeds local building code requirements. This cell site will meet both FAA and FCC requirements for this location. The antenna support system and accessory equipment would be located at the North side of the property. Set back is approximately seventy-one (71) feet North of the property 12 line and one hundred thirty-nine (139) feet West of the property line. An unmanned prefabricated equipment rack measuring approximately 12'-0" x 3'-0" x 6'-0" will be located at the base of the antenna support system. Drainage of the site will not be changed. Landscaping will be per City requirements. (Exhibit E). This site will require a single phase two hundred (200) amp electrical service and a T 1 telephone for utilities. The antenna support system will be painted gray (Ti-Kromatic Aluminum Gray) as a mitigating color. The antenna will also be aluminum gray in color. The antenna support system will not have a direct impact on any of the surrounding areas. This site will enhance public safety and welfare because it will enable US WEST Wireless to bring new CDMA cellular technology to the area. CDMA technology, which did not exist four years ago, is now considered the leading wireless access technology in the industry. Police, firefighters and motorists will have greater flexibility of wireless phone choices, which will allow them more security in placing emergency calls as needed. Additionally, CDMA encoding will virtually eliminate the possibility of phone number cloning and cell number theft. US WEST Wireless is willing to provide for and accommodate co-location on this antenna support system. ZONING REQUIREMENTS The property is located at 2220 Edgerton Road and is zoned F1 (farming). US WEST Wireless believes that the placement of a antenna support system at this site will be unobtrusive and have minimal impact on neighboring properties and will allow for the development of personal wireless service to serve Maplewood. In this regard, a certified property list showing the property owners within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the outer boundaries of the property is enclosed. (Exhibit A). The establishment, maintenance or operation of such a conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety or comfort. PCS transmissions operate at very low power levels. Special arrangements need not be made to accommodate access to the site. The proposed use will cause no traffic congestion or interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. Site visits will be rare once the monopole/antenna has been installed. Parking will not be an issue because site visits will be infrequent and of limited duration. We have also included a letter from a US WEST Wireless Radio-Frequency Engineer stating that there are no existing or approved towers or commercial buildings within one half (1/2) mile radius of this site. (Exhibit B). US WEST Wireless hopes this correspondence and enclosures address all issues. Should you have additional questions regarding the attached information or would like to discuss PCS technology further, please contact me at 612/642-6060. US WEST Wireless 13 appreciates the assistance that we have received from the City of Maplewood staff and we look forward to working with you to better serve the citizens of your community. In conclusion, US WEST Wireless has designed a wireless Personal Communications System for the Twin Cities metro area that attempts to work within the allowable zoning ordinances without compromising the intended service requirements of the system. Thank you for your time and consideration of this application. Respectfully, Ms. Patricia A. Conlin Regional Real Estate Coordinator Wireless U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C. 426 North Fairview Avenue Room 101 St. Paul MN 55014 Attachment 7 Mr. Tom Ekstrand Planning City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109-2797 MIN097 Monday, April 13, 1998 RE: U S WEST Wireless, EEC Monopole Conditional Use Permit Application Dear Mr. Ekstrand: This communication is meant to clarify the height of the co-locatable monopole structure that U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C. is proposing for the property located at 2220 Edgerton Street in Maplewood. U S WEST Wireless, L.LC. has a policy that all of our monopole structures allow for co-location. U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C. is proposing an eighty-five (85) foot monopole structure. This structure can be expanded to one hundred feet (100'), when needed, for an additional carrier. We are proposing the location of the pole to be placed with setbacks appropriate to a 100 foot pole in the event of an additional carrier and the height of the pole needs to be raised. I hope that this clarifies this issue to your satisfaction. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. , help and patience. Pat Conlin Regional Real Estate Coordinator US West Communications - Wireless 612.642.6060 Access2TM Advanced PCSTM Paging Services 'l 5 Attachment 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ms. Patricia A. Conlin, of U.S. West Communications, Inc., applied for a conditional use permit to install an 85-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2220 Edgerton Street. The legal description is: EX S 604 13/100 FT THE W429 FT OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 (SUB TO HWY AND ST) IN SEC 8 TN 29 RN 22 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On April 20, 1998, the planning commission considered this request and recommended that the city council approve it. The city council held a public hearing on May 11, 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. 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. 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 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. 3_6 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 U.S. West: 1. Substituting the proposed six-foot-tall, chain link fence with a 100 percent opaque fence and gate. 2. Allowing the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,1998. 1'7 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 newlocation 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-feett378 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 buildingt 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 setbackmthe 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 than the proposed billboard. 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) Attachment 1 (',) CNAMeE:Iq:S ST A~I~. LOCATION 4 MAP Attachment 2 z.,, ~,. ~: ! (~.,"', r,~ APT_..TOWER' ~, ~ ~,. :3 PROPO,,SE.D BUILDING '" (,9) : [[], '- '- I U-HAUL ,", .. (,.~-~' ..~ ~- ~~-, ..... ~,- ...... J f "' L.~ ~ ~ EXISTIN6" ~~' METCALF MAYFLOWER ~ -HIGHWA~ 36~- ~" ~ ~ ' BUILDING . ~', I' , I - ,=' . , _~ ..~ ~ -- . _ ~ · . -..-.~-,.., I ~ .. ~. ~ ........ ~ .... Attachment 3 _1 EXISTING METCALF MAYFLOWER BUILDING APPROVED BUILDING EXISTING BILLBOARD LOCATION PROPOSED BILLBOARD LOCATION SITE PLAN 7 Attachment 4 3225 Spring Street Northeast Minneapolis, MN 55413 612 / 869-1900 phone 6t2 / 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 from 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, front yard setbacks, side and rear yard setbacks, distance from other signs, distance from residential zones and dwellings, distance from interchanges and distances from 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 Metcalfmgving & 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 ha?ardous 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 McCa~e¥~ Real MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Alley Vacation Park Edge Apartments Clarence Street and Skillman Avenue April 21, 1998 INTRODUCTION Description of the Project Mr. Scott Fricker, representing Dominium Acquisitions, Inc., is prOposing several changes to the Park Edge Apartments at Clarence Street and Skillman Avenue. (See the maps on pages 8-10.) He is proposing to do the following: Build 40 garages in three separate buildings. The garages would have cream-colored vinyl siding, steel overhead doors and brown asphalt shingles. These colors would complement the existing apartment's colors. Each garage unit would be separated with plywood or chipboard. (Refer to the drawing on page 12, the applicant's statement on page 13 and the enclosed large drawings). 2. Regrade and patch part of the existing parking lot. 3. Regrade parts of the grass areas near the parking lots to improve drainage. City staff als° is suggesting the owner complete the following additional improvements: 1. Repair or repave and restripe the parts of the parking lot that are in disrepair. 2. Build at least three trash enclosures. There are now no enclosures for the dumpsters on the site. City staff also is recommending that the city vacate an unused alley that crosses the site. Request The applicant is asking for a conditional use permit (CUP) to expand a nonconforming use. Maplewood has zoned this property R-2 (single and double dwellings). Apartments are not an allowed use in this zoning district. Adding garages to this site would be an expansion of the nonconforming use. Reason forthe Request The new owners want to upgrade the property by making improvements to the site including rehabilitating the apartments and adding the garages. These changes will make this property more conforming with current standards for apartment developments. BACKGROUND On May 9, 1983, the city council changed the zoning of the area south of Skillman Avenue and east of Clarence Street. The change was from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The council made this zoning change as part of the city's effort to down zone areas where the zoning would allow a greater intensity of land use than shown on the land use plan. In this case, the land use plan designation for this site was RH (residential high density) while the zoning was M-1. On February 23, 1998, the city council approved a resolution for up to $2.3 million in tax-exempt financing for the Park Edge Apartments. The owners want to use this money to make several improvements to the site, including the proposed garages. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The city council should grant the CUP. As proposed, the garages would bring the apartments closer to compliance with the code. The Code requires one garage for each apartment or 51 garages. The garages would not negatively impact any neighbor and would buffer the apartments from the trail to the south. They would be neater than open parking and would protect residents' cars. However, the City should require site-security lighting on the site and around the garages, subject to the approval of city staff. Parking Spaces The code requires 102 parking spaces (including those in the garages). The plan shows 102 spaces - 66 open spaces and 40 garage stalls. All the spaces shown on the plans meet the city size standards for off-street parking spaces. However, the city should have the applicant provide handicap parking spaces next to the buildings as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires. Neighbors' Concerns A concern of two of the neighbors on Clarence Street was that adding the garages to this site would reduce the value of their properties. Improving an apartment complex that is near single dwellings by adding garages should stabilize or improve property values - not decrease them. Another concern of at least two of the adjacent property owners was storm water drainage. They note that the storm water from the south one-half of the site runs to the west onto the rear parts of the properties at 2000 and 2002 Clarence Street. These property owners want the grading of the site changed so that this drainage would not run onto their properties. This means the contractor would have to change the existing grades and drainage pattern to ensure that the storm water would run south and not to the west. The city should require the applicant to make the necessary changes in the site grading to direct the storm water away from the properties at 2000 and 2002 Clarence Street. 2 Alley Vacation Maplewood city staff is asking the city council to vacate an unused alley that is on the site. This alley runs north and south in the parking lot between the apartment buildings. (Refer to the maps on pages 9 and 10). The city is requesting this vacation because it has no plans to develop this alley. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on page 14. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for the Park Edge Apartments at Clarence Street and Skillman Avenue. The permit allows the owner to build three garage buildings, with a total of 40 garages, at the Park Edge Apartments. The permit 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. 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. The owners and management of the apartments shall ensure that the tenants use the garages for parking vehicles and not for storing personal property. 4. The city council shall review this permit again in one year. 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: 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. 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. 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. 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. Adopt the resolution on page 16. This resolution vacates the unused alley south of Skillman Avenue, east of Clarence Street and west of Ide Street. The city should vacate this alley because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build an alley in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 40 properties within 350 feet of the apartment site. Of the 13 replies, four were in favor, two were against, two were against but, with changes, would accept the proposal, four had no comment and one had a miscellaneous comment. In Favor 1. It keeps the cars off the street. (Spoden - 1353 Skillman Avenue) 2. Tax moneys and people need indoor parking (weather, break - ins). (Oss-1354 Belmont Lane) 3. The people who live in the apartments certainly need garages. It would improve the property. Looks good to me. (Fastner - 1368 Belmont Lane) 4. It would be nice for those people to have a garage, especially in the winter. I know I would not want to be without ours. (Karnowski - 1412 Belmont Lane) Against This would bring down the existing home owner's values due to aesthetics. Put the garages side by side and leave the asphalt up front. This neighborhood is mixed use enough without detracting further or devaluing our neighborhood. (Brake - 1991 Clarence Street) People who looked at houses for sale on this block - objected to the apartments - garages would make it less appealing for buyers. This would lower the value of our houses. It is their problem. They should have thought about that before buying. The alley and garages would make an unsafe environment for children at the play ground. (Olson - 1999 Clarence Street) Against (with changes requested) 1. I object unless something can be done to correct the water runoff into my backyard. (Long - 2000 Clarence Street) 2. I would like to install a fence along my property line but the existing driveway, shed and lumber pile are encroaching on my property. I am also concerned about the existing water run-off from heavy rainfalls. The amount of water run-off from the parking lot floods the back parts of 2000 and 2002 Clarence. If these things can be solved, I will be able to accept the proposal. (Long - Mahtomedi) Miscellaneous Comment 1. I would like to see my street redone to fix all the potholes. Stop wasting money on patching in the spring because it does not fix the problem. (Kirkpatrick - 1360 Belmont Lane) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.1 acres Existing land use: The 51-unit Park Edge Apartments SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Houses across Skillman Avenue South: Houses on Clarence Street and DNR trail West: Houses across Clarence Street East: Robinhood Park PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R-3H (high density multiple dwellings) Zoning: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Ordinance requirements: Section 36-27(a)(2) requires a landscaped area of at least twenty feet in width where multiple dwellings abut property that the city has zoned for single dwellings. Section 36-22(a)(2) requires two parking spaces for each living unit. One of these spaces must be enclosed. Section 36-17(e)(2) requires that no existing building or premises devoted to a use not permitted in the district in which such building or premises is located shall be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, unless there would not be a significant affect, as determined by the city through a CUP, on the development of this parcel as zoned. Section 25-70 of the City Code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Criteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the City Council may approve a CUP, based on certain findings. (Refer to the required findings in the resolution on pages 14 and 15.) kr/p:sec15/parkedge.des Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan dated March 27, 1998 4. Proposed Grading Plan dated March 27, 1998 5. Building Elevations dated April 21, 1998 6. Applicant's Statement of Use 7. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 8. Alley Vacation Resolution 9. Plans (full size) dated-stamped March 30, 1998 and April 21, 1998 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 LOCATION 8 MAP Attachment 2 2,49 ~c. ~rm~ 7 (~rS) IloC IO 1991 SITE 2010 4 $ -' CITY PARK ~ - i i~. I 7 PROPOSED ALLEY VACATION Attachment 3 qk LLMAN A",/ENiJ[ (PJbLiC) / \. 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 -- PROPO$£D ALLFY VAOAT~ON J 9 '~0 DNR TRAIL ~;ITE PLAN &: DETAILS SITE PLAN 10 or CITY PARK 6 @ 10 EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED GARAGE BUILDINC '~5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 Attachment 4 SKILLMAN 4'V~',"IUE' [ :"l.- -~: ;-. 17 10 GRADING PLAN 10 PROPOSED GRADING 11 PLAN Attachment 6 Park Edge Apartments Statement of Intended Use The new construction for which a Conditional Use Permit is required consists of constructing three parking garages on the property's existing parking lot. The garages will consist of two "double-loaded" garages with fourteen stalls each and one "single- loaded" garage with seven stalls. The garages will have overhead doors and will be used by the pi'operty's tenants for storing vehicles. This project should be approved by the City because it improves the marketability and value of the subject property and because it complies with all the Criteria for Approval of a Conditional Use Permit as outlined in the Application. 13 Attachment 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Scott Fricker of Dominium Acquisitions, Inc., applied for a conditional use permit to expand an existing nonconforming use by building garages at the Park Edge Apartments. The proposed garages would be an expansion of an existing nonconforming use in the R-2 zoning district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the properties at 2024 Clarence Street, 2025 Ide Street and 2005 Ide Street. The legal description is: Lots 1-6, and Lots 12-22, Block 10, Gladstone Addition in Section 15, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, MN WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On April 20, 1998, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On April 28, 1998, the Community Design Review Board recommended that the City Council this permit. On May 11, 1998, 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: 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. lA 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 owners and management of the apartments shall ensure that the tenants use the garages for parking vehicles and not for storing personal property. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1998. 15 Attachmen~ 8 ALLEY VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Maplewood city staff initiated the vacation of the following-described alley: The alley that is between the south right-of-way of Skillman Avenue and the north line of Lots 7 and 16, Block 10, Gladstone Addition, east of Clarence Street and west of Ide Street, in Section 15, Township 29, Range 22 in Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On April 20, 1998, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this vacation. On May 11, 1998, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: Lots 1-6 and Lots 17-22, Block 10, Gladstone Addition, in Section 15, Township 29, Range 22, in Maplewood, Minnesota. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacations for the following reasons: It is in the public interest The city and the applicant have no plans to build an alley in this location. The adjacent properties have street access. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on May ,1998. 3.6