Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/2000BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 9, 2000 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 11, 2000 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review a. Sprint PCS Monopole, 2500 Hudson Place b. Birch Run Station Sign Plan Revision for JoAnn Etc, 1725 Beam Avenue 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. CDRB Volunteers Needed for the May 22 and June 12 City Council Meetings. b. Site Lighting Presentation by Tine Thevenin is Scheduled for July 11. 10. Adjourn p:com-dvpt~cdrb.agd WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. 2. 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. 3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms~:lrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA APRIL 11, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Absent Jon LaCasse Present Craig Jorgenson Present II1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. March 28, 2000 Boardmember LaCasse moved approval of the minutes of March 28, 2000, as submitted. Boardmember Jorgenson seconded. The motion passed. Ayes--all APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Jorgenson moved approval of the agenda, amended to add 9. d. Site Lighting. Boardmember LaCasse seconded. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VI. There was no unfinished business. DESIGN REVIEW A. Forest Products, Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and County Road C--Conrad Solberg of Forest Products Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. He thought switching the three Black Hills Spruce trees from the southwest corner of the building with the nine Japanese Red Spirea at the southeast corner would be a benefit because once they start filling in they would screen the site from the homes in the area. Conrad Solberg, the applicant, had no problem with the recommendations that were made by staff. David Distad, vice president of Steiner Development, showed the color scheme proposed for the building. He said it will be a scored and rock-face building in a brown tone with brown on the stripe and the decorative portion. Mr. Distad showed photographs of several buildings in the area which are similar in material to the looks of this building. He said the cedar shakes are treated with a material that keeps them "new looking" for about three years. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 04-11-00 -2- Chairperson Ledvina agreed with Mr. Ekstrand's recommendation for changing the location of the evergreen trees. He was concerned about the maintenance of the oil-skimming device at the outlet of the holding pond. Mr. Ekstrand agreed that a condition should be added for this maintenance. Boardmember Shankar asked if the building could be smaller to meet the setback from Highway 61. Mr. Ekstrand said this was discussed and the applicant felt they needed this size facility for the function of their business. Boardmember Shankar had a problem with adding a canopy with wood shakes to a block building. He didn't think the two materials were compatible. Mr. Shankar said he would "let it pass" because it was on the northeast corner. The lighting plan is required because it was not provided prior to this meeting. Mr. Solberg said they checked the turn radius for access to the overhead door and felt it was workable. Boardmember LaCasse moved the Community Design Review Board approve: Ao Adoption of the resolution which approves a 22-foot building setback variance from the Highway 61 right-of-way and a seven-foot parking lot setback variance from the frontage road right-of-way. The code requires 30 feet and 15 feet. These variances are based on the following findings: Compliance with the code would cause the developer undue hardship because of the unusual triangular-shaped lot. The lot shape makes it difficult to meet setback requirements because of its tapered shape. 2. Approval of the building setback variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because of the wide highway boulevard. Approval of the parking lot setback variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because only a point of the parking lot would encroach into the setback area. C° Approve the plans date-stamped March 15, 2000 for the proposed Forest Products cabinet shop at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and County Road C. The owner shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit: Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. An oil skimming device shall be included at the outlet of the holding pond and maintained at a frequency determined by staff. b. Revised plans showing: (1) A handicap-parking space that is eight feet wide with an adjacent eight-foot- wide loading space. (2) Switching the three Black Hills Spruce at the southwest corner of the building with the nine Japanese Red Spirea at the southeast corner of the site. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 04-11-00 -3- (3) A site lighting plan showing the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the residents. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. b. Install a handicap-parking sign for the handicap-parking space. c. Paint all rooftop mechanical equipment, stacks and vents to match the uppermost part of the building. Roof-top equipment must be screened from view from the homes to the south and east if the roof design does not provide adequate screening. d. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. e. Stripe all customer parking spaces at a width of 9 ¼ feet and the employee spaces at nine feet. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. Signs are not part of this approval. The applicant shall apply for sign permits with staff. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Ayes--all Boardmember Shankar seconded. The motion passed. B. Fresh Paint, 1055 Gervais Avenue--Sanas Capital Investments Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Boardmembers questioned how the site plan would differ if the residence was removed and the new building located further to the south. Mr. Ekstrand said the board could discuss this but the applicant is quite certain that he would like approval from the city council to keep the house. He said screening is needed to Community Design Review Board Minutes of 04-11-00 -4- protect the house to the west from headlights. The applicant would have the option of planted materials or fencing as a screen. Tom Schaffhausen, the applicant, was present at the meeting. He said the new building will have neutral colors (tans, dark green, etc.). Mr. Schaffhausen was told by his excavator that there will be enough soil from the removal of the existing garage to provide a more level grade for the whole property. He said the brick would be a neutral tan or brown. Some of the window or door trim might be green. When final selection of the colors has been completed, Mr. Ekstrand said he would review them. Chairperson Ledvina was "a little uneasy" with this proposal. He noted that staff recommended removal of the residence. He pointed out that this would alter many aspects of the current site plan. Secretary Ekstrand thought this concern should be connected to the conditional use permit and other members agreed. Boardmember Shankar thought the color of the proposed building should be considered independently from the color of the existing residence. Chairperson Ledvina asked for confirmation that the board would review this application again to look at a screening plan. His preference was for berms and planting material or, if necessary, berms and planting material with a fence. Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board: Approve the project plans date-stamped January 20, 2000, for the Fresh Paint facility at 1055 Gervais Avenue, based on the findings required by the code. The property owner or applicant shall: 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 for the new office/warehouse, complete the following: Have the community design review board (CDRB) approve a screening plan for the area on the west side of the proposed parking lot between the proposed building and the existing house. This screening must be at least 80 percent opaque and at least six feet tall. The screening requirement may be met with a berm, a fence, plantings or a combination of design and materials. bo Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall meet all ordinance requirements. The grading and storm water plans shall direct all impervious surfaces (roofs, driveway and parking areas) to the south and into a storm sewer that the developer connects to the existing city system to the west of the site. c. Submit a building-color scheme of neutral colors to city staff for approval. Get a demolition permit from the city and remove the existing garage and house.' If the city council allows the house to stay on the site, then get a demolition permit for the garage. e. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for city staff approval. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 04-11-00 -5- 3. Complete the following before occupying the new office/warehouse building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. bo Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Restore and seed or sod any and all disturbed ground such as the areas of driveway or blacktop removal. Remove all old driveway entrances and restore with sod. c. Provide handicap-accessible parking spaces as the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requires. Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from adjacent residential properties. Such equipment visible on non-residential sides must be painted to match the building color. (code requirement) eo Construct a trash dumpster enclosure if there will be any outdoor storage of refuse. The enclosure must match the building in color and materials and shall have a closeable gate that is 100 percent opaque. f. Install an in-ground sprinkler system for all lawn areas on the front and on the sides of the new office/warehouse building and on all sides of the existing house go Provide site-security lighting as required by the city code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed or shielded so not to cause any nuisance to vehicle drivers or to adjacent property owners. There shall be no lighting on the back of the building unless required by the building code. h. Post the west side of the new driveway and the west side of the parking area for "no parking." I. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter around all parking areas and the driveway. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives cash escrow for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. If the city council requires removal of the house through the CUP process, the applicant shall resubmit a revised site plan to the community design review board for approval. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 04-11-00 Boardmember LaCasse seconded. The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII, BOARD PRESENTATIONS -6- Ayes--all April 10 City Council Meeting: Chairperson Ledvina reported on this meeting. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. CDRB Volunteer for April 24 City Council Meeting: Mr. Johnson will attend this meeting. B. CDRB Volunteer for May 3 City Council Meeting: Mr. Shankar will attend this meeting and Mr. La Casse will be a substitute. C. Secretary Tom Ekstrand reviewed items for the April 25 meeting. D. Site Lighting The board expressed an interest in hearing Tine Thevenin speak on environmentally- preferable outdoor night lighting and light pollution. Secretary Ekstrand will invite her to speak at a future meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Sprint PCS Monopole 2500 Hudson Place May 3, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Wendy Metchnek, representing Sprint PCS, is proposing to install a 75-foot-tall monopole for telecommunications equipment. They want to install this monopole west of the existing parking lot of Christ United Methodist Church at 2500 Hudson Place. (Refer to the maps and plans on pages 8-11 and the statements starting on page 12.) Them also would be equipment boxes on a pad near the base of the monopole and they would enclose the base area with an eight-foot-tall chain-link fence topped with barbwire. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a monopole and related equipment in an R-1 (single- dwelling residential) zoning district. 2. The design and site plans. BACKGROUND On December 13, 1993, the city council approved a CUP for the church to expand and for an existing pm-school day care center. This approval was subject to two conditions. On January 13, 1997, the city council adopted the commercial use antenna and tower ordinance. DISCUSSION The 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act does not allow cities to prohibit the installation of telecommunications facilities and equipment. Because of this law, local governments may only regulate, but may not prevent, the installation of monopoles or other telecommunications facilities. As such, the city may only base their decision about this request (or any other similar request) on land use and on health, safety and welfare concerns. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses all telecommunications systems. This licensing requires that the proposed or new telecommunications equipment not interfere with existing communications or electronics equipment. If there is interference, then the FCC requires the telecommunications company to adjust or shut down the new equipment to correct the situation. Maplewood must be careful to not limit or prohibit this tower (or any other tower) because of electronic interference. That is up to the FCC to regulate and monitor. As part of their site selection process, Sprint considered using several other structures in the area for an antenna site but found that these did not meet their needs. These included the Holiday Inn at 1-94 and McKnight Road, the water tank on McKnight Road north of 1-94 and the existing monopole on the north side of 1-94 in Landfall. Sprint also contacted 3M about using one of their buildings for an antenna site but 3M denied their request. At the May 1, 2000, planning commission meeting, the neighbors south of the church asked Sprint and the church to move the proposed monopole farther north on the site toward 1-94. City staff, representatives of Sprint and the church met on the site on Tuesday, May 2, 2000 to review this request. Working together we picked another possible site for the monopole that is near the northwest corner of the church parking lot. (See the site plan on page 9.) Sprint will be revising their plans to show this location after the community design review board meeting on May 9, 2000. The city council should approve this request. This project meets the requirements of the Maplewood tower ordinance and the criteria for a CUP. As proposed, the tower would be about 200 feet from the south property line of the site (the city code requires at least a 100-foot setback) and much of the base area would be screened by existing trees. The applicant is proposing to add trees in three areas on the property to help screen the base area from view from nearby homes. These planting areas include an area west of the garage, on the east side of the proposed lease area and northeast of the existing church building. (See the site plans on pages 9 and 10.) The site design, with the additional tree planting, would be compatible with the adjacent church and parking lot. In addition, the city has approved similar monopole facilities at two other churches in Maplewood that are near residential neighborhoods. These include Presentation Church on Kennard Street and Tdnity Baptist Church at 2220 Edgerton Street, just south of Highway 36. I am not aware of any complaints about these monopoles since their owners installed them. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 20 and 21. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to allow up to a 100-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval is for the property at 2500 Hudson Place. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plans dated April 26, 2000, as approved by the city. The applicant shall locate the monopole and the necessary lease area near the northwest corner of the church parking lot as noted on the site plan on page nine of this report. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant or owner shall allow the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. Approve the site and design plans date-stamped April 26, 2000, for up to a 100-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and equipment to the property at 2500 Hudson Place. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. o Before the city issues a building permit, city staff must approve a landscaping plan for the property. This plan shall show the planting of a mix of Austrian Pine and Norway Pine trees to the west of the existing garage, on the north side of the proposed lease area and northeast of the existing church building. (These are the areas noted for additional tree planting on the plans date-stamped April 26, 2000.) These trees are to help screen the base area. These trees shall be at least 8 feet tall, balled and burlapped and shall be planted in staggered rows as shown on the proposed plans. 3. The access drive between the tower lease area and the existing parking lot shall be paved with bituminous. If the landscaping or trees are not installed by the completion of the tower, the city shall require the applicant to provide a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed within six weeks of occupancy. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 3 CITIZENS' COMMENTS City staff surveyed the owners of the 43 properties within 350 feet of the proposed site. We received 15 replies. 13 were against the proposal and two had no objections. (These responses were to the applicant's original proposal. Since then, the applicant has revised the plans by moving the monopole about 100 feet north and adding landscaping in three areas on the church property to help screen the base area of the facility.) Against 1. I do not want this built in what is my backyard - I pay too much in taxes and we are constantly getting stuff shoved down our throats. Put it somewhere else. (Rowe - 179 Sterling Street) Why not place this monopole west of Carver School. This would be away from houses and far enough from the school. No one wants these towers close to their homes. (Gilbertson - 222 Sterling Street) 3. We would not be in favor of the installation of this facility - it will alter the appearance of what is otherwise an attractive suburban setting. (Recchio - 2439 Brookview Drive) We do not wish to have this monopole placed near our home. We think the Sprint Company could find a commercial area for this telecommunication monopole. Placing this pole as far away from homes as possible. I would like to receive information on the studies done, confirming the safety of this monopole. To guarantee the health and welfare of our family, down to our grandchildren. The children have a play area not far from the proposed monopole structure. (Elizondo - 2447 Brookview Drive) 5. We oppose the building of this telecommunications monopole because: 1. It will reduce our home value 2. It is too close to our home 3. It will interfere with our phone, TV, radio 4. The impact to the environment 5. The impact to our health Anything happens due to building of this telecommunications monopole, especially our home value and our health should be the responsibility of the city. Please consider this decision very carefully. (Nguyen - 2455 Brookview Drive) Do not think it is appropriate to put this in a residential area. This is being shoved down the neighborhood's throat without a vote from the neighborhood. By the time we get this notice you have already made up your mind to approve it as evidenced by the stakes already marking its position. Why can't the pole be put in a commercial area like the one on the Cartiva lot (in Landfall)? Why does it have to be in a neighborhood? It is ugly and it does lower property values. Who wants to look out their window and see a monopole? (Edblom - 2458 Brookview Drive) We are strongly opposed to the monopole being built in our area. It will have an impact on our home values, the environment and possibly our health. Certainly no one wants one in their backyard. They are unsightly. What a disappointment that the church cares so little for this neighborhood that it sells us out for pieces of silver. (Ashley - 2466 Brookview Drive) 10. We do not want a monopole near our neighborhood as we did not want the water park. It seems that these proposals always go through no matter the opposition. (Brosky - 2474 Brookview Drive) If 2500 Hudson Place was your first choice, what were your second and third? Why is this in a residential area and not out on the high side of 694-494 and 94? What are we to expect in the future when the 75-foot pole is not high enough? It seems to me there are plenty of other high locations that are not in someone's backyard! We already have a civil defense siren which we accept. We get a water slide stuffed down our throats - which is noisy before it has been used and the thought of the area on getting rid of the deer that devastate our yards was ignored, we have bow and arrow hunting instead of sharp shooting as was deemed the best at a council meeting by the residents. Our voices are not heard, but our taxes go up. I'm not looking forward to looking at a 75' tower from my kitchen window, where I spend a lot of time. (Kuhn - 2481 Breokview Drive) I for one would not like to see a telecommunications monopole put up on the church property. I know the church could use the income it would generate, but 20 some years ago when we bought this house, the church asked us to agree to stop the sound barrier in front of the church. Reason being to keep the church visible from the freeway. For that we have to listen to the freeway noise. This time I will not support them in this effort. I can't believe with all the wide-open space around the 94 and 694 intersection there is not a better site. Did they try Evergreen in Woodbury? (Utgaard - 2496 Brookview Drive) Also see the three letters on pages 16, 17 and 18 for additional comments. 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 5.2 acres Existing land use: Church and child care center SURROUNDING LAND USES North: 3M campus across Hudson Place and Interstate 94 South: Single dwellings on Brookview Court West: Single dwellings on Crestview Court East: Single dwellings across Sterling Street PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: C (church) and S (school) Zoning: R-1 (Single dwelling residential) Ordinance Requiremer~ts 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 findings one through nine in the resolution on pages 20 and 21. Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on March 31,2000. State law requires the city to take action on this request by May 29, 2000, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec1-28/2500huds.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Site Plan (Enlarged) 5. Tower Elevation - Looking North 6. Applicant's statement 7. Applicant's criteria approval statement 8. Statement from Nelsons (2431 Brookview Drive) 9. Statement from Helminick (190 Sterling Street North) 10. Letter from Timothy Miller (2488 Brookview Drive) 11. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 12. Project Plans date-stamped April 26, 2000 Attachment I 4 ,'2 Attachment 2 Zl I I I PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 8 Attachment 3 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL TREES ~// // ~ROPOSED LOCATION (MAY 2, 2000) PROPOSED MONOPOLE CHURCH PROPOSED ADDITIONAL (~) SITE, PLAN SCAI.[: ",, SO'-O" SITE PLAN U R J.T Attachment 4 & UtlTty [a~ement I / EASE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL TREES PROPOSED' MON0POLE :'":'* LOr."i'. ~':'."i"\'. :"~"~"'~' !PROPOSED ADDITIONAL TREES 711. CHURCH ~xiefing BUlding Attachment 5 t. CI..L'VA~n(~d Qr SP~m~n' PCS __-- TOWER ELEVATION TOWER ELEVATION 11 Attachment 6 OPENING STATEMENT In its pursuit of providing the highest quality digital wireless service, Sprint PCS-- ("Sprint") proposes to construct a wireless cormnunication facility located at 2500 Hudson Place, Maplewood, MN, within a Residential Zoning District. Sprint will be leasing a 30' x 30' parcel of land on the subject parcel. The entire wireless facility will be located within the leased parcel. The facility will include a 75-foot monopole structure and equipment cabinets. Sprint is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 100-foot structure to allow for another provider to co-locate at a future date without requiring another CUP application and public hearing. Sprint's monopole will therefore be built with the structural support necessary to support a 25-foot addition to the monopole and antennas. The facility will be entirely enclosed by a 8' chain link fence topped with a one foot high barb wire. As part of Sprint's ongoing development and improvement of its wireless network, system engineers have identified the need for a new facility to serve the area surrounding the intersection of highways 94 and 694. The required location for the new facility was determined by computer modeling that evaluates population density, topography and current antenna system capacity. The potential location area is known as the "Search Ring". This Search Ring represents the area in which a facility must be located to allow it to function as an integral unit in the antenna grid system After a thorough search of the ring the site located at 2500 Hudson Place was found to be the most appropriate based on technological, practical and aesthetic concerns. While locating on the rooftop of the nearby 3M building would have been an ideal site, unfortunately, due to 3M's concern about interference with their technical research and development, we were unable to secure a lease at that location. In addition to the technical requirements of the facilities' location, Sprint selects the location which meets the requirements of the local zoning code. Pursuant to section 36-600 (5)(b)) of the Maplewood Zoning Ordinance, the location of this facility on church property is a preferred primary land use. These two factors make the church candidate the most appropriate choice, based on the constraints of locating within the Search Ring. The proposed facility will not cause harm to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. As a condition of its license fi.om the FCC, Sprint's technology does not cause interference with any other form of communication, whether public or private. To the contrary, Sprint's technology provides vital communications in emergency situations and will be commonly used by local residents and emergency personnel to protect the general public's health, safety and welfare. Wireless telephone technology provides many benefits to the communities it serves. These services include, but are not limited to, the following: · 911 program allowing motorists to summon aid and report dangerous situations. 12 Support for emergency services by providing wireless communications to paramedics, firefighters, and law enforcement agencies. · A backup system to the land-line system in the event of a natural or man-made disaster. · Communication capabilities in remote areas, enhancing the safety of travelers by allowing immediate access to emergency assistance. · Support for the busy lives of people in the area reducing stress and increasing productivity. Site Analysis During Sprint's site selection process it first determines what the requirements are bom the governing municipality. Once informed, the acquisition specialists search the area designated by the engineers at Sprint. In the City of Maplewood church property is a preferred candidate for Conditional Use Permits. To utilize church property Sprint is proposing to utilize the grounds of Christ United Methodist Church located at 2500 Hudson Place. In Sprint's search for an acceptable location in the area surrounding the intersection Highways 94 and 694, only a few potential sites were discovered. An existing AT&T tower is located near the proposed site. This tower, however is outside the Search Ring and did not provide the coverage needed by the Sprint engineers for the new facility. The coverage is essential to the operation of the new facility within the antenna grid system. There is a Holiday Inn located at 2201 Bums Avenue, in St. Paul which was also evaluated but again, was outside the Search Ring and did not provide adequate coverage. Therefore, to meet the coverage and capacity needs of the surrounding area, the best feasible location for the facility is on the church property at 2500 Hudson Place. 13 Attachment 7 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. The Conditional Use will conform to the applicable regulations of Residential Districts. Pursuant to the Maplewood Zoning Ordinance, Sections 36-66 (b)(3) and 36-606, the proposed use requires a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed monopole will be built to conform to all Maplewood Zoning Ordinance provisions, including the regulations concerning height, setbacks, and landscaping. The Conditional Use will be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Maplewood Zoning Ordinance. Wireless telephones provide an alternate communication system which has repeatedly proven its effectiveness in emergency situations and is commonly being utilized by police and fire departments to protect the general public's health, safety and welfare. Therefore, the granting of the Conditional Use will be in conformance with the general and specific purposes imposed by the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. Due to the minimal size of the leased parcel and the nature of the surrounding uses, there will be little impact on the character of the locality, with no adverse effect on existing or future development in the area. This is also supported by section 36-600 (5)(b) of the Ordinance which designates this location as a preferred land use. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The proposed facility consists of a monopole structure that has very little aesthetic impact on the surrounding area. This structure is similar to a light standard. The proposed facility will consist of a monopole antenna structure not to exceed 75 feet and accompanying unstaffed equipment cabinets. The entire facility will be located within a 30x30 parcel of land. With such a small footprint and its location on church property, a preferred primary land use area (see section 36-600 (5)(b)), this facility will have little impact on the use and enjoyment of property in the immediate vicinity, nor will there be an adverse effect on property values within the neighborhood. To the contrary, enhanced wireless communications will have a positive influence on the development of this area. 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-oS w'bration, general, unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. Due to the diminutive size of the facility, it will not interfere with an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, increase the danger of fire, nor will it substantially diminish or impair the enjoyment or aesthetics of the neighborhood. The proposed facility 14 will not injure the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. Wireless technology does not interfere with any other form of communication, whether public or private. To the contrary, wireless technology provides vital communications in emergency situations and will commonly be used by local residents and emergency personnel to protect the general public's health, safety and welfare. 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. Sprint's PCS facilities are unstaffed and entirely serf-monitored. Therefore, there will be no impact on the existing traffic nor will there be any traffic hazards generated. Maintenance personnel will visit the facility at most once a month. Access will be provided via existing entrances. Thus the safety and efficiency of public streets and highways will be maintained. o The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage ~, water and sewer systems, schools, and parks. The only utilities necessary for this facility are telephone and electricity, both of which are readily available. Because the facility is unstaffed, there will be no impact to the existing traffic patterns nor will there be any need for additional access roads. No drainage, sanitation, refuse removal, parks, library, or school services will be necessary for this facility. Existing police and fire protection are more than adequate to provide security for the facility. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for publi~ facilities or services. As stated above, existing police and fire protection are more than adequate to provide security for the facility. Therefore, there will be to additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services. o The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. Due to the fact that Sprint PCS has been sensitive in selecting a site that will minimize the impact on the surrounding property, their facility will be compatible with the existing environment and will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of any natural, scenic, or historic feature of significant importance. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Again, because of the facilities small size, it will not injure the public health or safety and wifl pose tittle, if any, adverse environmental concerns. Attachment 8 We oppose the above conditional use permit for Sp~nt's PCS Telecommunication Monopele. We feel it does impact the character of the residential neighborhood surrounding the Christ United Methodist Church property site. There is nothing higher than a two-ston/dwelling anywhere in this area. Consequently, a 75 foot tower or "monopole" would be out of place and unpleasant aesthetically, es well as ha~ing a delinite effect on property values in the area. We are sure that Sprint would like to believe this stmoture would have no threat to public health, but we do not believe they really know at this point. VVireless technology is still relatively new enough that long term effects on health and emimnment cannot really be proven one way or the other. This neighborhood was intended to be residential use and the taxpayers of the surrounding properties bought into this community in good faith that that is what it would remain. We believe the chumh may have seen this offer es an answer to financial concems they are experiencing es a congregation. However, they must remember that as our neighbor, if it is not good for the entire area as a whole, it should be a consideration for them to rethink their position and motives for agreeing to the proposal. Their building not only houses a congregation pert- time but also houses a 4 day per week Nursery School for pre-school children on the property. We do not believe the site is necessarily compatible. If the area to be sewed reaches from our area to 1-94 and 1-694, there must be better commomial or public grounds that could be chosen for this use. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this issue. Jacque A. & Diane K. Nelson JAOQUE & DIANE NELSON ~431 BROOKVlEW DR ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA ~119 16 · Attachment 9 Sprint PCS Telecommunication Monopole Request: We do not approve of a conditionally use permit for Spdnt PCS. We do not agree with Spdnts statement that this so called small footprint, which is 30'x 30' with a enclosed 8' chain link fence topped with one foot high barb wire, plus a 75' pole with antennas will not in anyway have little impact on the enjoyment of a wildlife type property. Nor adversely effect property values within the neighborhood. What proof or guarantee do we have that this statement is true. Especially referring to property values. In Sprints opening statement, one of the benefits we would receive is, and I quote. Support for the busy lives of people in the area reducing stress and increasing productivity. Spdnt must be talking about the 3M people, and 3M said they don't want the facility on their property, nor do we want it near ours. Give us a break, I'am 66 years old, and lived in this area for 24 years. I don't want or need to look at a 75 FT tower as the sun sets in the west.. In Spdnts site analysis they state that AT&T has an existing tower but outside the search area. What is the size of this search area? There is a lot of open land near 94 & 694. My other question would be, does each wireless company put up tower for service coverage, rather then share facilities. Sprint also states the facility will not injure the public health. Is there any radiated energy coming off these towers, if so ,what is the peak power energy output and range? ,.-,T__HANK YOU ~ , DON & JUDY HELMINICK 190 Sterling ST N. MAPLEWOOD 651-738-0110 17 I ~50~'~'~D At. tachment, Timothy E Miller 2488 Broolcview Drive 4~ Maplewood, MN 55119 10 Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner Office of Community Development, City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood MN 55109-2797 April 8, 2000 Re: Sprint PCS Telecommunications Monopole - 2500 Hudson Place This letter represents our objection to the proposed installation near our home of a PCS Cellular Communications Tower by Sprint. Please find herein our comments and concerns. In reviewing the Opening Statement and other materials included with the Neighborhood Survey sent to us by your office, we find that we have a couple of sincere reservations about the proposed installation which remain unaddressed. Most notably, we are concerned that this communications transmission facility might indeed interfere with other communications which we use or depend upon. The Opening Statement attempts to address this issue with the sentence: 'As a condition of its license from the FCC, Sprint's technology does not cause interference with any other form of communication, whether public or private.' Frankly, this seems a weak and ineffective statement. Rather that a simple declarative, to whit: "Sprint guarantees that this facility will in no way interefere with any of your communications.", the sentence in the Opening Statments quoted above seems to more circle the issue than to address it head on. That fact, coupled with the fact that 3M apparently does not regard that sentence as sufficient assurance for themselves, leaves us with a suspicion that this facility might in fact cause communications problems for us. One specific communication form we are concerned about is computer wireless networking. We have and depend upon a computer network in our home for both personal and business use. While not yet deployed, we have been planning to expand this network through the use of wireless networking technology. We are concerned that the Sprint PCS monopole could interfere with that. 18 If it were possible to get a direct statement from Sprint to us stating that they will interefere with NONE of our communications - telephone, television, radio, computer, etc - and that Sprint would guarantee remedy in the event of such interference, we would withdraw our objection. Thanks for taking the time to both inform us and listen to our feedback. Sincerely, Donna & Tim Miller 19 Attachment 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ms. Wendy Metchnek, representing Sprint PCS, applied for a conditional use permit to install up to a 100-foot-tail telecommunications monopole and related equipment. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2500 Hudson Place. The legal description is: All that part of the East % of the NW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 28, Range 22, described as follows: Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of Section 1, Township 28, Range 22, thence Westerly along the North line of said Section 1, a distance of 474.9 feet to a point, thence Southwesterly by deflection angle of 60 48' to the left, a distance of 460.39 feet to a point; thence Southeasterly by a deflection angle of 110 54' to the left, a distance of 711.55 feet to a point on the North-South Quarter line of said Section 1; thence Northerly along said North- South Quarter line by a deflection angle of 98 50' to the left, a distance of 505.13 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to Highway 12 right-of-way and Great Lakes Pipeline easement. In Section 1, Township 28, Range 22 in Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 01-28-22-21-0001) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On May 1, 2000, the planning commission recommended approval of this request. The city council held a public hearing on May 22~ 2000. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 20 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 plans dated April 26, 2000, as approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant or owner shall allow the collocation of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2000. 21 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Comprehensive Sign Plan Revision - JoAnn eto. at Biroh Run Station 1725 Beam Avenue May 3, 2000 INTRODUCTION Request Laura Berjon, of Advance Sign Group, is requesting that the community design review board (CDRB) revise the sign criteria for Birch Run Station. Refer to the maps on pages 4-5. The proposed change is so JoAnn etc can install seven additional signs on the front of their building. One sign of tag-line copy would say "experience the creativity," below the main "JoAnn etd' sign. Ms. Berjon is also requesting six sub-text signs in line with "experience the creativity" across the front of the store. These would say "fabrics, crafts, floral, seasonal, frames and home." Refer to the letter of request and the proposed signs on pages 6-7. (The applicant also would install a 24-inch-tall JoAnn etc sign on the east elevation of the building as well as sign panels in the spaces allotted in the existing pylon signs. These are allowed by the Birch Run Station sign criteria and are not part of this review.) Existing Birch Run Station Sign Criteria Refer to pages 9-10 for the complete Birch Run Station sign criteria. Signs for the anchor stores were approved based on the plans submitted to the board. There was no specific cdteria created for these stores. Any new anchor-store signs that would be consistent with the size and placement of previous signs on that space would be approved. The proposed seven additional signs are excessive according to the previous sign approval for this space. 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. BACKGROUND Fashion Bug August 13, 1991: The CDRB denied a request by Fashion Bug, a tenant in the Maple Ridge Shopping Center, to revise their sign cdteria to allow an increase in letter height from 32 to 36 inches. Mattress Giant May 12, 1998: The CDRB denied a request by the Mattress Giant, a tenant at Maplewood Town Center, to revise the sign criteria to allow an increase in letter height from 36 to 48 inches. Buy-n-Save May 24, 1999: The city council denied a request by Buy-n-Save, a tenant at the Crown Plaza Shopping Center on Rice Street, to install two cabinet-type signs for the new Buy-n-Save store. The appreved sign plan required that all signs be of individual-mounted letters. DISCUSSION The purpose of a comprehensive sign plan is to create a set of cdteda for uniform and consistent signage for a shopping center. The proposed signs would create an excessive number of signs on the front of this store. If allowed, it would set a precedent for other anchor stores at Birch Run Station that may wish to install similar signs to identify their product types. The applicant had presented an earlier design for their main "JoAnn etc" sign which incorporated the tag line "experience the creativity" into it as one sign. Refer to page 8. Staff had already verbally accepted this sign since it met the intent of the sign plan for this anchor-store space. The applicant subsequently revised the plan as presented to place this copy in line with the six sub-text signs. To compare with the applicant's other stores, staff looked at the JoAnn etc store in the Tamarack Village Shopping Center in Woodbury. This store only had the copy "JoAnn etc." None of the other signs were displayed. It is difficult, therefore, to justify them for Birch Run Station. RECOMMENDATION Denial of the proposed comprehensive sign plan change at Birch Run Station for JoAnn etc, based on the following reasons: 1. Allowing the seven additional signs would set a precedent for allowing similar additional signs for the other anchor stores at Birch Run Station. The proposed seven additional signs are excessive. JoAnn etc is already allowed four signs---one on each of the two pylon signs, one on the east elevation and one on the store front. Four signs is what the code would normally allow for a business on a comer lot. The applicant has an optional design for the "experience the creativity" tag line which would incorporate this message into the main "JoAnn etd' sign. This sign would meet the intent of the current sign allowance for this tenant space. 4. The Woodbury JoAnn etc store is identified only by the words "JoAnn etc." Staff sees no reason why the applicant must have the additional signs in this instance. 2 p:sec3\joaannetc.sgn Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Letter from Rebecca J. McAdams dated April 6, 2000 4. Plans for the Proposed Store-Front Signs dated May 1,2000 5. Earlier Sign Design dated April 7, 2000 6. Birch Run Station Sign Criteda 7. Colored Elevation Drawing date-stamped May 1,2000 (separate attachment) Attachment R&V AV · %·1 t PO/VD BIRCH RUN STATION ~,~'~'~' AV ~ KOHLMAH G~RYAIS CO RD TZgN,RZZW (HILL RD IOI "' CT VIKING nAOATZ I ! "l ! I AV RVNS AV ' · LOCATION MAP ~--~ 4 · Attachment F.&M. SITE PLAN JO-ANN stores inc' ID:3304B3B?e0 Attachment 3 ^priI6, 2000 l~. 'Tom Ekstran4 City Inapector Maplewood Ci~' Hall l $30 EM County Road M~l~ood, ~ 55109 RE: Jo-Pmn etc #1970 Bir~h Run Station Maplewood, MN Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Thank you for taking ;he time to review our request for additional signage at our Birch Run Station location. We are very excited to be introducing our exported format lo-Ann ere "experience 1he creativity" to z market that we have served for many years m~d have enjoyed ma. king good friends and great customers, We believe that our new tbm~at will continue :o sen,e those customers well for many years to come. We apprec, i~te your approval of the additional signage to get our trade nme including the "experience the creativity" tag line on the face of the building. Jo-Ann ere "experience the creativity" is :he branding that we use to convey the difference between our new format and our traditionai Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft Stores. Your approval of the side building sign will also help with that message. Our final request is for the sub-text signing on the face of:he building. Sub.text signing.helps the customer further identify the store with major department catego~es (fabrics, 'craf~;.:frmning, floral, home, and aeason~l) and help us further define the concept to.new ..ai~d old emtomer$ alike. We have invested many resources into developing the Jo-Arm ere "experience the creativity" concept and image. We consider the signage as presented to bo part of that image. We hope that you will take this into consideration and approve our sub-text signage submittal. Thank you once again. Please do not hesitate to call should you have further questions ...... ;., Sincerely; Director of Construction liltfibution Center Attachment 4 m z m mmm Z PROFESSIONAL O")N'SULTATION * DESIGN · FABRICATION * INSTALLATION * MAIN~I'ENANCE Attachment 5 m erect J ~ ;~p;J siqn with a limit of 300 sq. ft. and 50 ft. in heiqht, . and a panel on the siqn on Beam. Attachment 6 Seconded by Councilmember Juker ~. ~...~Ayes - Councilmembers Juker, Zappa ' Nays Hayor Bastian, Councilmembers Carlson, Rossbach HoT'Z'~i~T'A! L£D ~ e. Councilmember Ros~siqQ pn Southlawn and SIGN CRITERIA Seco~ ----';2~-'~-"- .... Juncilmembers Juker, Zappa ...... ' - I. 11- -9 ~yo,' Bastian, Councilmembers rlson, Rossbach HOTION FAILEQ~ f. Hayor Bastian moved to accept the staff recommendation to: 1. Waive the maximum sign area for the existing sign on Beam Avenue and the proposed sign on Southlawn Drive. lhis would allow a 420-square-foot sign on Beam Avenue and a 720-square-foot sign on Southlawn Drive. The maximum size allowed by Code for each sign is 300 square feet. 2. Waive the maximum combined area for the two ground signs on Southlawn Drive and Beam Avenue. The combined area of these two signs would be 1140 square feet, or 6go square feet over the Code limit. · 3. Waive the maximum height to allow a 70-foot-tall sign on Southlawn Drive. The maximum height allowed by the Code is 25 feet. 4. Change the Birch Run Station Sign Plan to be as follows: a) Signage for the outlots shall be subject to CDRB approval upon submittal of those, individual sign proposals. b) The shopping center identification clock tower sign is not approved. Plans shall be submitted for CDRB approval. c) A pylon sign is approved on Beam Avenue as shown on the sketch dated August 12, 1993. A second pylon sign is approved at a maximum size of 720 square feet and a maximum height of 70 feet. lhis sign shall replace the existing pylon sign on Southlawn Drive. lhe wall signage for the five original anchor stores are approved as described in the memorandum dated September 5, 1989. The Office Hax wall sign is approved as described in the October 7, 1993 staff memo. Changes to anchor store signs may be approved by staff, based on code compliance and proper design, lhe applicant may place the Maplewood City logo on the pylon signs, subject to design approval by staff. d) Tenants shall be limited to one sign on the front fascia of the canopy. These signs shall be neon or constructed of individual letters, mounted on a raceway. Copy height shall not exceed 4~ inches. Signs shall not be closer than 18 inches to either side of the tenant;s store Front. This criteria allows an exception fo)' the Famous Footwear sign to be eight inches from the right side of the store's edge. A future sign for the tenant / 9 11-8-93 e) f) to the north must be at least three feet [rom the Famous Footwear sign. When the Famous Footwear sign is removed, a new sign shall be at least ten inches from either side of the gable facade. Business identification signs for the west and north sides of the shopping center shall be subject to approval ~Y the CDRB if proposed in the future. Six anchor store tenant signs are allowed on the east- end eleVation facing Southlawn Drive. lhese signs shall not exceed two feet in height and must be centered horizontally on this wall. Ayes - Mayor Bastian, Councilmembers Carlson, Rossbach Nays - Councilmembers Juker, Zappa Seconded by Councilmember Carlson IA¥OR BASTIAN LEFT IE MEETING AT 8:53 P.M. AND ACTING MAYOR OUK' ASSURED THE CHAIR. ,ii 3. Truth-in-Hous g Ordinances: a. Manager McG re presented the staff report. b. Director of C report. lunitY Development Olson :ed the specifics of the Co Acting Mayor Juke regarding this if anyone w" The followi to speak before the Council heard: Lori LaBey, 1758 Ordinance Exempting Family k, repres ng the St. Paul Board of RealtOrs (page 3): 1st Reading d. Counctlmember Zappa moved report. ::~":~ ~'~ ~' ~" MOTION OIEO FOR LACK OF A the Ordinance on paqe 3 of the staff NO FURTHER ACTION WAS Ordinance Deleti e. Councilmm staff re ExemptiOns (page 4): 1st · Carlson moved to approve the Or Ig ance on paqe 4 of the Seconded Councilmember Juker Ayes - A Nays - Counc ng Mayor Juker, lmember Carl son members Rossbach, Zappa fe Mayor Juker moved to table for two weeks to Nov by Councilmember Carlson Ayes - all 10