HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/2000BOOK
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
December 19, 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:
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
6. Design Review
a.
b.
November 28, 2000
Mounds Park Academy Addition - 2051 Larpenteur Avenue
Highpoint Ridge Twin Homes - Highridge Court, South of County Road D
APT Cell Phone Tower - Gervais Avenue and English Street
Visitor Presentations
Board Presentations
Staff Presentations
a. CDRB representation needed for the January 8, 2001 city council meeting.
b. CDRB Membership Reappointments - The membership terms of Board
Members Ledvina, Johnson and LaCasse end on January 1, 2001. Please let
Staff know if you seek reappointment.
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.
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~cdrb.agd
Revised: 11-09-94
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN AND REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2000
I1.
III.
IV.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina Present
Ananth Shankar Present
Tim Johnson Present
Jan LaCasse Present
Craig Jorgenson Present (Arrived at 6:08)
Staff Present:
Recording Secretary:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Lori Hansen
Board member Jorgenson moved approval of the agenda, as submitted.
Board member LaCasse seconded. Ayes-All
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 19th and November 14th minutes:
Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of September 19th and November 14th
as amended.
Board member Jorgenson seconded the motion.
The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
Ayes-All
CDRB
11-28-2000
-2-
VI.
DESIGN REVIEW
A. Beaver Lake Estates--Office Shelter Building (2425 Maryland Avenue).
Mr. Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner, gave the staff report for the city. NAI Architects is
proposing to replace the existing office shelter building at the Beaver Lake Mobile Home Park.
The proposed building would have an exterior of brick and E.I.F.S. (exterior insulation finish
system), a stucco like material. The roof would be pitched with asphalt shingles for a residential
look. The proposed building will be one-story tall and have a foundation area of 3,573 square
feet, much larger than the existing building with 1,525 square feet. Staff feels the proposed
building would be very attractive and an improvement over the existing one. The proposed design
of materials would compliment Beaver Lake Estates as well as the Rosewood Estates across
Maryland Avenue.
The present parking lot has no concrete curbing. The applicant wilt improve the site by adding a
nine space striped and curbed parking lot. This new layout would meet parking code
requirements. The shelter area would not require parking. There would be a new site light
proposed on the north side of the parking lot and the applicant has submitted a photometric plan
in their documents. This plan shows a shoebox type fixture which is the desired type of fixture for
down lighting which eliminates a lot of overspill and would not adversely affect the residents.
As for landscaping, the applicant would provide additional plantings around the site and building.
The new plantings would be an attractive enhancement to the property. Staff suggests it would
also be appealing to plant three evergreen trees in the lawn south of the building on the street
side. The evergreen trees would provide a good balance to the ones across Maryland Avenue at
Rosewood Estates. Staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff
report.
Mr. Ekstrand responded to questions from the boardmembers. A small portion of the existing
building's basement will remain, the rest of the building will be removed. In the remaining portion
there is a large water pump that serves the entire mobile home park.
Kenneth Nordby, president of NAI architects was present for the applicant. The new proposed
building is required by all mobile home parks in the state of Minnesota to meet F.E.M.A.'s
specifications for a storm shelter. The shelter will be concrete block with a precast reinforced roof
over it and a wood gable roof on top. The west side of the building will be the new office area.
The storm shelter will also be a community room available for residents use that should hold
about 40-50 people.
The storm shelter is completely on the first level to comply with the handicapped accessible
requirement. Mr. Shankar was concerned that the doorway may not be the correct width for
handicap specifications. Mr. Nordby assured the board the entrance through the vestibule area
by the office and the protected door opening were handicapped acceptable.
Chairperson Ledvina felt the building was attractive and a nice structure for this site and did not
have any concerns about the building design.
Board member Shankar thought perhaps the big brick wall on the south elevation that protrudes
towards Maryland appears as though it is showing its back towards Maryland Avenue. He was
hoping there would be a way to break up the brick wall by a band of alternative material. The
applicant stated if there was not a brick minimum requirement, they would like to carry the
wainscot through to that side. Mr. Ledvina felt if the detailing was carried through it would
enhance the appearance. Staff felt the wainscot would break up the brick with the E.I.F.S. above
it, and confirmed there is no code requirement for the amount of brick. Brick is generally a design
element the board tends to prefer.
CDRB
11-28-2000
-3-
Board member Shankar moved the board to approve the office and storm shelter for Beaver Lake
Estates Mobile Home Park, based on the findings required by the code. The property owner shall
do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Before getting a building permit the applicant shall submit:
a. A grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for
approval.
b. A revised landscape plan showing three evergreens south of the building in
addition to the plantings proposed.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
b. Plant all required plantings.
c. All parking lot improvements.
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.
b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required
work. The amount shall be one and one half times 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 if the building is occupied in the
spring or summer.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes
6. The brick, wainscot, and E.F.I.S. banding shall continue on the south side of the building
including the seven foot projection wall and both sides of the stairwell door.
Board member LaCasse seconded. Ayes-All
Motion carries.
Bo
Prelimina~ Plat and Desi_an Review-Emerald Estates Townhomes--(County Road D).
Mr. Tom Ekstrand gave the staff report for the city. Mr. Kimm Tramm, of Tramm Builders &
Realtors, is proposing to build a 12-unit townhome development on County Road D west of the
Maple Ridge Apartments. The proposed buildings would have light green horizontal-lap vinyl
siding with brick wainscot and white trim as an accent. The applicant submitted documentation
stating the building exterior colors were subject to change. Staff feels that the buildings would be
attractive and fit in well with the neighborhood in which they are being proposed.
CDRB -4-
11-28-2000
One staff concern was with the location of the driveway closing. There are currently two curb cuts
on the property, a smaller one on the east side of the site and a larger one on the west. Staff is
recommending that the easterly driveway be closed at the street curb and curbing extended
across that opening. Staff is requesting that the applicant sod all green areas with exception to
the hillside to the north towards the freeway this area may be seeded if that is a preference of the
applicant. Code requires all landscaping have in ground lawn irrigation provided. Staff informed
the applicant about the requirement to apply for a permit with the Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed due to their lot size exceeding one acre.
Staff is recommending approval to the proposal subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
Planning Commissioner Milo Thompson expressed a concern to Mr. Ekstrand regarding the
location of the driveway. There is a seven foot drop to the property abutting the westerly driveway
and was concerned this could be quite hazardous if the road surface became slippery in poor
weather conditions. Mr. Tramm felt after completion and grading of this development, the change
in grade may not be as severe. It is also a very slow traffic situation in that area and any sliding of
cars should be stopped by the curbing. If the driveway was relocated to the east there could be
more extreme traffic problems with the abutting curb cut for the Maple Ridge Apartments. In
summary, all parties involved felt it was appropriate to leave the driveway at the westerly location.
Mr. Tramm explained there will not be a centrally located trash enclosure since each owner will
have their trash collected by a service. The gas fireplaces will be vented out directly through the
wall of each unit. The narrow open space between the units will be sodded; because it is a very
narrow space the applicant feels "less is more".
The tentative color scheme for the building will be a dusty champagne (slightly green) with a linen
trim. The final color scheme has not been determined at this point but feel the tentative scheme
would definitely compliment the project to the east. Staff is not concerned with the color scheme
at this point but, at the least, would like the final decision to be based on staff approval.
Mr. Shankar asked about building separation. Staff explained there is a 12 foot space between
the patios and 28 feet from building wall to building wall. Mr. Tramm wanted to be able to look at
the finished product before deciding if screening between the patios would be a benefit without
creating the appearance of a smaller space. Mr. Ledvina agreed with Mr. Shankar that the lack
of separation and/or screening between the patios could pose a conflict. The board discussed the
possible benefits of trees or berm screening between the patios.
Mr. Tramm wanted to point out that with the project they are proposing, they have met all of the
standards under the zoning and are not asking for any variances. The privacy on the patios are
more private than in an apartment situation in Mr. Tramms eyes. He does not perceive patios in
the view of other patios as a problem. He feels incorporating landscaping in those locations may
create more of a problem by adding to the maintenance and upkeep needs.
Board member Jorgenson was concerned that the sidewalks were not apparent on the site plans.
Mr. Tramm stated their would be a concrete sidewalk from the driveway to the front door with an
area between the building and sidewalk for landscaping. Mr. Ledvina asked for a condition in the
staff report stating that the applicant shall provide a plan for the sidewalk to be approved by staff.
CDRB
11-28-2000
-5-
Mr. Jorgenson was concerned with patios eleven and twelve sitting adjacent to the drive area into
the complex. Mr. Tramm felt perhaps that would be an area they would like to think about adding
a decorative fence or trees for screening. Mr. Ledvina wanted to ensure the appearance of the
screening from County Road D will be taken into consideration when deciding on the screening
material. He did not feel putting up a six foot wood fence on that elevation would be the right
solution. It appeared to him there may be about six to ten feet to push the drive to the south
towards the right of way. Mr. Tramm consulted with staff to determine if the driveway was
adjusted, would it pose a variance situation? Staff responded the driveway needed to be 15 feet
away from the right away line and Mr. Tramm felt that is were they are currently at. Mr. Ekstrand
stated "it is a very tight site, not leaving a lot of leeway around the perimeter to adjust the plans".
In responding to Mr. Ledvina's question if the buildings could be shifted to the north, staff noted
the required setback at the north is 30 feet and that is where the building is currently sitting. The
driveway on the south can not be moved any closer to County Road D because it is currently
sitting at 15 feet which is the minimum.
Mr. Shankar asked if the applicant could not put the two patios in for units eleven and twelve to
alleviate the safety and esthetic issues in question. Mr. Jorgenson asked if they couldn't eliminate
the drive through and have two driveways, one for the west residents, and one for the east
residents. Staff felt although it would not conflict with code but two seemed excessive for this
small of site and not necessary. Mr. Ledvina felt the compromise would be to eliminate the two
patios on units eleven and twelve. Mr. Tramm felt they could consider that option. He also stated
if the reasoning was for purely safety issues, he could understand the rational. If it was strictly for
esthetic reasons, he felt the option should be left up to the customer. Mr. Tramm also asked if it
would impose a code violation for leaving the patios on those units. Mr. Shankar responded in
saying it did comply with code, but their is still an esthetic and safety issue to consider.
Mr. Ledvina, in summary, stated the following conditions should be added to the
recommendation:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The applicant must submit the building color scheme.
The city engineer must review and approve the location of the curb cut for the site access
from a vehicle safety perspective. Consideration shall be made for this location to the west
and the existing curb cut for the property to the east.
The applicant shall revise the site plant to show sufficient sidewalks to the guest entrance
subject to staff approval.
(4) Elimination of the patios for units eleven and twelve.
Chairperson Ledvina moved the board to recommend the city council to approve the plans (date-
stamped October 25, 2000) for Emerald Estates Townhomes, based on the findings required by
the code. The developer, Tramm Builders and Realtors, shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
Before getting a building permit the applicant shall:
a. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for
approval.
b. Submit the building color scheme to staff for approval if the community design
review board has not already approved the colors.
Submit a revised site plan showing the closing of the old easterly driveway
opening. This opening must be curbed over and the boulevard restored. The
proposed curb cut shall be 30 feet wide with 10-foot turning radii.
CDRB
11-28-2000
-6-
VII.
Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except the
hillside to the north which shall be sodded or seeded.
c. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit.
do
Install an automatic in-ground irrigation system with a rain sensor for all
landscaped areas, except for the hillside to the north.
Install continuous concrete curbing.
Close the old easterly driveway opening. This old opening must be curbed over
and the boulevard restored.
g. Post "no parking" signs on site in locations required by the fire marshal.
If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if ·
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required
work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any
unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in
the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or
summer.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Building colors must be submitted to staff for approval.
The city engineer must review and approve the location of the curb cut for the site
access from a vehicle safety perspective. Consideration for the location shall be
to the west and shall take in to account the existing curb cut for the property to
the east.
The applicant shall revise the site plant show sufficient sidewalks to the guest
entrance subject to staff approval.
9. The patios for units eleven and twelve should be eliminated.
Board member LaCasse seconded.
Ayes-All
Motion carries.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
_ None
¢
CDRB
11-28-2000
-7-
VIII.
IX.
BOARD PRESENTATIONS
None
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
The community design review board representative for the December 11th city council meeting
will be Jon LaCasse.
The community design review board meeting for December 26th is canceled.
The community design review board meeting for December 12th will be rescheduled for
December 19th.
Tim Johnson, Matt Ledvina and Jori LaCasse's community design review board term expires on
December 31,2000. Mr. Ekstrand asked the board members to please let him know if they
would like to be reappointed for another two year term.
MEETING ADJOURNED
Meeting Adjourned at 7:28.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review
American Portable Telecom Monopole (VoiceStream Wireless)
English Street and Gervais Avenue (1300 Gervais Avenue)
December 7, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Steve Katkov, representing American Portable Telecom (APT), Inc., is proposing to install a 175-
foot-tall monopole for telecommunications equipment. They want to install this monopole next to
the existing monopole on the southwest comer of English Street and Gervais Avenue, just north
of Highway 36. APT would remove the existing monopole after they have finished the installation
of new monopole. (Refer to the maps and plans on pages 6-17 and the letter starting on page
19.) There also would be prefabricated equipment cabinets and equipment buildings near the
base of the monopole. APT would expand their lease area from 80' x 80'to an area 80' x 181'
and would build a new driveway to the site from Gervais Avenue. The applicant also would
enclose the new lease area with an 8-foot-high chain link fence.
Requests
The applicant is requesting that the city approve:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a monopole and related equipment in an M-1 (light
industrial) zoning district.
2. The design and site plans.
BACKGROUND
On January 13, 1997, the council adopted the commercial use antenna and tower ordinance.
On April 28, 1997, the council approved a CUP and the design plans for the existing 165-foot-tall
monopole that is on the site. (See the site plan on page 9.)
On March 27, 2000, the city council approved the CUP and design plans for the Wheeler Lumber
outdoor storage yard on the property. (See the site plan on page 10.)
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
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 concems.
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 monitor and regulate.
An advantage of this request will be the ability of the new monopole to accommodate additional
wireless telecommunication providers. The existing monopole has antennas for three service '
providers, including the applicant. The applicant has designed the new monopole for up to six
service providers, including the applicant. Having the space for three additional wireless service
companies on the site should eliminate the need for an additional monopole in the immediate
area. In fact, Sprint PCS submitted a letter of support (page 16 ) for the new monopole as they
say they are looking for an antenna site in the area of this proposal. The enlarged site plan on
page 12 shows an area near the base of the monopole for future Sprint equipment.
I spoke with Kent Smith of the Ramsey County Assessors office on April 15, 1997 about the
existing monopole and about towers. Specifically, I asked him about locating towers in
commercial/industrial areas and about this tower's effect (if any) on property values. Mr. Smith
told me that as of 1997, he was not aware of any study or documentation showing a negative
effect on property values from a tower in a commercial or industrial area. He said that he was
familiar with the site and the businesses in the area including Metcalf Moving and Storage and
Truck Utilities. It was his opinion then that the proposed, (now existing) communications tower
would not negatively effect property values in this location. Mr. Smith also noted that the
proposed monopole would probably have less effect, if any, than high-voltage power lines or
pipelines would on a site. An example of an area with power lines and pipelines is Maplewood
Mall and the new Dayton's Store.
The city council should approve this request. This project meets the requirements of the tower
ordinance and the criteria for a CUP. The site design would be compatible with the adjacent
commercial structures and uses.
Design and Site Issues
Driveway and Access
Access to the expanded lease area and tower would be from a new driveway to Gervais Avenue.
The proposed plans, however, show the driveway with a Class 5 (gravel) surface and with no
setback from the side property line. The city code requires the driveway to have a bituminous
surface and to be at least five feet from the side property line. The applicant will need to change
the plans to reflect these code requirements before the city approves the building permit.
As proposed, the monopole would be about 261 feet from English Street and 104 feet from
Gervais Avenue. As with the existing monopole and equipment, the site design would fit in with
the nearby commercial buildings. The city should require the removal of any debris, sod
replacement or restoration and general site clean up as conditions of this approval.
Site Screening and Landsca_oing
The applicant is not proposing to add any trees t° ~eJp to screen the base area. (See the plans on
pages 11 and 12). The city may want to require the applicant to plant trees on the south side of the
site to help screen the view of the base area from the south. The existing landscaping and trees
along the south side of Gervais Avenue will help to at least partially screen the base area. However,
the applicant should preserve as much of this vegetation as possible when installing the new
driveway and parking stalls. The city should require the applicant to prepare a landscape and
screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility.
As proposed, the equipment building for APT would be 10-feet by 12-feet in size. It would be made of
exposed aggregate precast concrete panels and would have a fiat roof. (See the proposed building
elevations on pages 16 and 17.) The final colors and materials of this building should be approved by
city staff before the city issues a building permit for the project.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution on pages 24 and 25. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to
allow a 175-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval is for
the property on the southwest corner of English Street and Gervais Avenue (1300 Gervais
Avenue). Approval is based 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.
2. The proposed construction of the new monopole 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.
o
Se
The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The applicant or owner shall allow the collocation of other providers' telecommunications
equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions.
The applicant shall remove the existing monopole and antennas within 30 days of the
completion of the new monopole and antennas.
The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide
the base area of the proposed facility.
Any antenna that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and the city may require
that it be removed.
The applicant or APT shall post a bond or other guarantee with the city to ensure proper
removal of the antenna and monopole and the restoration of the site. The applicant/developer
may provide a copy of the lease indicating a guarantee of the removal of the monopole and
related equipment with the end of the lease as a substitute for the financial guarantee.
3
Approve the plans date-stamped November 16, 2000, for a 175-foot-tall telecommunications
monopole and equipment on the property on the southwest comer of English Street and Gervais
Avenue (1300 Gervais Avenue). 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.
2. Before the city issues a building permit, city staff must approve the following:
(a) A certificate of survey for the project area that shows the proposed new construction, the
location of the property lines and existing site features around the proposed lease area.
The proposed driveway shall have a bituminous surface and shall be at least five feet
away from the side property line.
(b) A landscape and screening plan that:
(1) Helps to hide the base area of the proposed facility.
(2) Shows the preservation of as much of the existing vegetation as possible.
(3) Includes the planting of 8-foot-tall coniferous trees between the south side of the lease
site and the existing parking lot.
(4) Shows the clean-up and the restoration of all turf areas with sod. This shall include the
boulevard along Gervais Avenue and the area between the south side of the lease
area and the existing parking lot to the south.
(c) A driveway, grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the project site.
(d) The plans for the equipment buildings that show exteriors with designs, colors and
materials that are compatible with the existing buildings in the area.
3. The monopole shall be light gray.
4. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall remove and dispose of any
debris and ensure that the site is cleaned up.
5. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work.
The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work.
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
4
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 67,776 square feet (1.55 acres)
Existing land use: An existing monopole, ground equipment and Wheeler Lumber storage area
SURROUNDING LANDUSES
North: Vacant land across Gervais Avenue
South: Metcalf Moving parking area and frontage road
West: Multi-tenant office warehouse building and parking lot
East: Truck Utilities across English Street
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light industrial)
Zoning: M-1
Ordinance Requirements
Section 36-600(5)(b)(1) requires a CUP for a tower in an industrial zoning district.
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 24 and 25.
Application Date
The city received all the application materials for this request on November 16, 2000. State law
requires the city to take action on this request by January 15, 2001, unless the applicant agrees to a
time extension.
p:sec9~apttower.00
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Area Map
4. Site Plan (Existing Conditions)
5. Site Plan (For Wheeler Lumber)
6. Site Plan (Proposed)
7. Site Plan (Enlarged)
8. Proposed Elevation
9. Proposed Elevation and Details
10. Proposed Elevation and Antenna Detail
11. Proposed Building Elevations
12. Proposed Building Elevations
13. Letter dated August 28, 2000 from Sprint PCS
14. Applicant's attorney letter dated November 15, 2000
15. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
16. Plans date-stamped November 16, 2000 (separate attachment)
5
PALM
CT.
BEAM AVE.
Kohlmon
COUNTY
K~a~an
CT. <
1. SUMMIT CT.
2. COUNTRYV1EW CIR.
3. DULUTH CT.
4. LYDIA ST.
BEAM
I.d
KOHL~ T AVE.
RO^~' ~ C ~
Z
Attachment 1
AVE.
bJ
Hazelwood
Park
DEMONT AVE.
BROOKS ~-~
Z
GERVNS
VlI~ING
Z
Z
v
BURKE CT.
~ Ju.c'no.____.~.
(1) CHAMBERS
cou~S~
K~L.L~.p' GOL~' SKILL
~ ELDR __
SHERREN AVE.
AVE.
Lake
AVE.~
LARK
AVE.
John Glenn
AVE.
ROSEWOOD AVE.
LOCATION
6
MAP
Attachment 2
~ .,~, ~o S%~] __ __ · · ' ,~.,,.,,,, I~ I' '
-- ..~ ........ I ' I I
S~~'
/.~L. ll::.l. C' ~:5 '":~' ~:':: ~'::: i X~
/ ~o . ~
I
/ . .. ~ I-.. .
I -- ~ ' ,. - .....~.~]~e4 ~-.~. ~'- ....
~ -~ GEBVAI8 AVEN~E · .~. ~ ..... ~ '.~' -- ..~
I ~ I I -- '
-- I v ,
~ TRUOK UTILITIES
METCALF MOVING , ~, .
~.Oe~. J . I. a9 ~. I.~,
~,~ .o~°
1255 <"'~'~ :0 VOMELA
~ a 2354
~-~'. ..... J
.... .... :¢"/
: ~ ~ ~' '" ........ I ~ /
~ ....~[~ -~ ~-~' ~'' ~)'e "~b.__J_: ~ /
....... ~' ~: ,= ~.~-. r.~ / ]
~=,,s...-: , .~.- NORTHERN, ~'~) ~ ~
I
ATTACHMENT 3
[!iii [] ~ ~~ ~ ii!i!!~[i!ii[~!iii[iiii!~iii[[iii![i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: [~iii[ii'":" '
............~ ..... . '". ::i:i:i:~!~!~i~i!i~! ~i~!?~i]i~i i i .:i i i i i i ~ i i ! ! .... ':':':'": : I ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ' · · ========================================= :. · ' ~ :i
~i .... ,~.~ ..w , ~ ~.q. ~.~ ! .~-~ ......................... , ~ - -.r~-'-' '~ .-'~.. ~. -r~ ~.~ ,~2_ ...... ]' t~ -I - "~ ::~
; ~ 7 . -. : .. · ~' : I · i I ::
~.:.:~:...:......:....~.:......: ..... ~ ~ ~ ]~ · :..::::.: . , , · . .: . , ::
~....-.-....-.- ......... ..........-~..x.:: ]~ ~ ~ : :'~]~' - : :.~: . : :: :.:.. ~ ~ L :¢.~ "
::~ :: [~J ~ ~:. '::~::~[~ ::-:':~ ':' :: ~- ~ - ' '~":. ~ ~ l'
..............~:: ' ...... ::~ ...... :~:~:~ ........ .-_--. ,[~~'"~'"'~'" '"'"'"'"'""-"'"'~'~'~<~ .. ....
................ ~ .................... ..~/~$~---',
::~::~: :~:: ~ ~ :... · i~ ~;.' : , ~ :~ ..:/~ :..... :.'/:';~'/= .)~:
?~ .......................... -~ ~ , ' r:x.: :'~ I~ I ' :.. :::
..................... ~ ......
':-~ ......... ' --t-.~ , .:...::~~:: :...~
P~ ..~]~ ~. ~- ', :::~:~.: · .. :...~.. ..: .~: : :
~: :. ~ :.:. ::..: . ~ ~~] ::~., ~::~ F:: .:~...~:~:::~:~ :~,.:~ ~ .:~
~. . .-.. L~_'~ ~ ~_ ~ . .....: : .... ~: . .
~ ' . : ----~---__~, -~ ~ ................ ~. - ......
~' [,. , ,,3~~,'~'~ . :~Y~ ~~~:;::~ :k~/
· ":1/}
· :": ~,. ~' ~ ~ ~ .. B kd ~-~.~ :~~ :~.~H/.. ~'~
h' ' ~ ~ Limit on L/ability: This document is not a le~al¢ ~ Cu~ent ~m; S~ ROADS06 ~::~
~[~[ / ~ ~';~"~ ~ [~::~::[ recorded mep or su~ey a~d is nor Intended to be ~:: S~RESg6; WA~R96; HALFSECL;
' , I ~ LIMITSA P~REG LIMITSP
~ ~ ~ · ~ used as one. Th,~ map s ~ ccmpi a,ion of [[ ; ; ·
::~ '~' ~ ~ ::::~::~[~::~ records ~nd info~ation from, vsnou~ stete ::~ ~::
..... ~' : ~ ........... ..... ~:~:
:~ f ~ ~ '~f~ county, and city o~'ce~, and othe/ sources ~
AREA MAP
8
ATTACHMENT 4
~ ~ERVAI$' A VENU£
~. .............................................. (~,.~o ,o ~( o,, c~ ~c~ ,~ ~c. ~ ~ ....
.... ~ .............. .-- ~.
..... . .... : ...... ~.
.~' ~ --" :"~'~/'NSg~4'39'E 555.02 ' * ~' ~
I ~ _ · *
~'-- / ........ . . _ ~-~',
~._.. j '~ / ........ :' ~C~.
o~0eU: / --. ~~ ; ,.~.,
. ~ .. ~- .. '...~' . .._ · .. ~,;j~::
.....~ .- .~:__~.._.. .... ...~ _
. .. /~ ~'....- . .....
~ ~ ~ ....... [[~---~: . OUTDOOR STOOGE YARD
:[ ,I.~1/ ..
' ~-~-,c~ c
· .,. , ~ .... -- ~ ~ ~,,~,~ ~ ~.'. .......
1 ...... :. ."--.. - ' .. '"" ' -'~-~.' ....
/ I'~ I ' -~ ..... ..~ · - , , , ,
PROPOSED APT L.F..ASE TRACT DESCRIPTION
Attachment 5
Gervo;s Avenue
~JO0
SITE PLAN
(FOR WHEELER LUMBER)
ATTACHMENT 6
O£R VAIS A VENUE
SITE PLAN
(PROPOSED)
ATTACHMENT 7
SITE PLAN
(ENLARGED)
12
ATTACHMENT 8
a
APT MINNEAPOLIS, INC.
PROPOSED ELEVATION
ATTACHMENT g
v)m[w
PROPOSED ELEVATION AND DETAILS
14
·
ATTACHMENT 10
ENGINEERED
Customer VOICESTREAM BY JOHN VOIKLIS 10/19/00
ENDEAVOR8
--- .-- Dote
mC, Om,OR~T~ Structure 175' MONOPOLE Checked 8078
Job/Quote No.
SITE LOCATZON: MINNEAPOI.[S, MN REVISION
SITE NAME: A1NO50/MAPLEWOOD
ANTENNA LOADING:
~!~_ ~L (12) PCS X 065-18 PANEL ANTENNAS
1.~ LOW PROFILE PLATFORM @ 175' (FUTURE)'
(12) PCS X 065-18 PANEL ANTENNAS
~, (1) 6' OMNI ANTENNA
J, STANDARD PLATFORM w/OMNI MNTS @ 165'
165' ~ ~ (12) ANTEL EMSR/IDEN PANEL ANTENNAS
(1) 8'¢ HP MW
J'~ F~ LOW PROFILE PLATFORM @ 150' (FUTURE)
(12) DB950 PANEL ANTENNAS
150%-- .- LOW PROFILE PLATFORM @ 112' (FUTURE)
I ~1 (12) 7125.18 PANEL ANTENNAS
175'.'~ LOW PROFILE PLATFORM @ 92' (FUTURE)
112'
'I DESIGN NOTES'
92' DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIA/EIA 222-F
80 MPH BASIC WZND SPEED
1/2" RADIAL ICE
: CASE I - 50 MPH OPERATIONAL WIND SPEED
ACTUAL ROTATZON - 5.11' @ 150'
I
!
! CASE II - 80 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED
1! __~._ CASE III - 757. OF 80 MPH W~~
' ~ WITH 1/2" RADIAL ICE~~~. ~.
~[~ECEDYED E ./PROF~SS6~,~L} ?.:.
NOTE: /T IS THE RESPONSIBILITY ' ' ' t~~;'p;-" .~.,. '
or THE PORCNASER TO rY ,
THAT THE WIND LOADS AND DESIGN
ENGINEERED ENDEAVORS, INC.
7610 Jenther Drive · Mentor, Ohio 44060
Telephone: (440) 918-1101 · Telefox: (440) 918-1108
Attachment 11
~ 2'-8" [~s2"]
.., . . ~2'-0" [~.."]
I i --'32" '1 7SEE NOTE #1
EXTERIOR ELEVATION "A"
EXTERIOR ELEVATION "C"
Attachment 12
- 10'-8" [128"J ·
I
SEE
4OTE #1- ~ ///fO
SERVICE--
ENTRY /~ el
~XTERIOR ELEVATION "B"
I' 46t" -.
SEEe~ NOTE
®
NOTES:
1. WAVEGUIDE AND
BLANK PLATE
LOCATIONS TO
BE DETERMINED
BY CUSTOMER
AND PROJECT
MANGEMENT FOR
INDIVIDUAL
BUILDING SITES.
EXTERIQR ELEVATION "O"
ATTACHMENT
-Spriat
August 28, 2000
City of Maplewood
Mr. Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner
Community Development
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
RE: APT Gonditional Use Permit .A~np~icati~
Sprint PCS
~FOI \Vest tliggin~ Road. Suit~: 320
Rosemont. 11.60(118
MaiMop II.R(ISI)OIOI
Xoice 84' 3Sq 3000
Fax 8~- 3s-{ 32qo
Replacement
Dear Mr. Roberts:
Sprint Spectrum, L.P. ("Sprint") supports American Portable Telecom's ("APT") conditional use permit
request to replace its existing monopole located at 1300 Gervais Street. Although, the APT location
meets Spfint's coverage objective, APT's existing monopole is not structurally capable of supporting
the additional loading of Spdnt's antennas. The new monopole will be constructed to handle the
existing antenna loading, Spdnt's antennas, and the antennas of even another additional carrier.
Spdnt needs to locate a telecommunication site near the area of English Street and Gervais Street in
order to meet its coverage objectives. As you may know, Sprint has been searching for alternative
sites near this location and is close to reaching an agreement with a different landowner in this area
where Sprint would need to built its own monopole if APT's monopole cannot be replaced.
Sprint has examined several other possible co-location sites in this area none of which are effective in
meeting Spfint's coverage objective. For example, the rooftop location across Minnesota Highway 36
is not high enough above ground level to meet Sprint's coverage objective.
Sprint requests that the City of Maplewood approve APT's conditional use permit request to replace the
existing monopole with a new higher capacity monopole. This will make it possible for Sprint to co-
locate its antennas at the APT site and will avoid the need for a second communication tower in this
vicinity of the City.
Please feel free to cell me at (847) 384-3241, if you have any questions. Thank you for your time and
consideration regarding this important matter.
Sincerely,
Shannon Nichols
Site Development Manager
Sprint PCS
cc: Renee Zirbes
Steven Scriver
18
ATTACHMENT $4
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LmDa~Z~, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194
TELEPHONE (052) 835-3800
FAX (952) 896-3333
ADNJ & HUHTA *
NICHOI..,~ A.,L M.IET~TRA
,IER~EY D. C~HIU.
JO~l J. FrrrN~rrE, JR.
o~ COUNSEL
November 15, 2000
Mr. Ken Roberts
Associate Planner
Office of Community Development
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
APT Minneapolis, Inc.
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Replacement PCS Monopole
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Roberts:
Our firm represents APT Minneapolis, Inc. ("APT") in connection with its development of personal
wireless communications facilities ("PCS") within the State of Minnesota. APT proposes to construct a
replacement PCS monopole at 1300 Gervais Avenue ("the Site") within the City of Maplewood (''the
City"). Currently, APT has a 165-foot monopole at the Site which was approved by a CUP. However, to
accommodate the telecommunications antennas of APT and other wireless service providers, APT seeks
to construct a new, slightly taller monopole at the Site. The current monopole will be removed upon
completion of the replacement monopole. Along with constructing a replacement monopole, APT
proposes to construct a new access driveway from Gervais Avenue to the Site, in place of the English
Street access.
APT is the real estate development arm of VoiceStream Wireless Corporation, a wireless
telecommunications company with its headquarters in Bellevue, Washington and a regional office in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. APT has worked diligently with local units of government throughout the State
of Minnesota to construct telecommunications facilities which meet the needs of its PCS system, as well
as the aesthetic and safety requirements of local jurisdictions.
19
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
November 15, 2000
Page 2
Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the Telecommunications Act"), VoiceStream and
several other companies were chosen by the Federal Communications Commission (''the FCC") to
develop PCS systems within the United States. PCS systems allow greater communications opportunities
for consumers. The FCC believes such communications options enhance the quality of life for all
citizens.
Under the Telecommunications Act, local units of government have the fight to make traditional land use
judgments regarding the location, height and design of telecommunications facilities. However, local
units of government cannot regulate telecommunications facilities in a way that prohibits the provision of
wireless telecommunication services. Nor can local governments discriminate among
telecommunications providers. The FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions from PCS facilities and primary jurisdiction over the
regulation of radio signal interference among users of the radio frequency spectrum. VoiceStream and all
wireless companies are allocated radio frequency spectrum to avoid any risk of signal interference.
Attached please find executed copies of the City's Community Design Review Board and Conditional
Use/PUD Applications and sixteen (16) sets of APT's plans including: (1) Site Plan; (2) Survey; (3)
Power and Grounding Plan; (4) Sections and Elevation Plan; (5) Design Calculations; (6) display of
general project information; (7) letter from Sprint PCS representative regarding co-location; and (8)
National Environmental Policy Act review.
CUP Justification
The Site of the proposed replacement monopole is owned by the Mr. Randall J. Samuelson. A 165-foot
monopole is currently erected on the Site. The structure accommodates telecommunications antennas for
three (3) wireless telecommunications service providers, including those of VoiceStream. APT proposes
to replace the existing monopole with a 175-foot monopole. The replacement monopole will
accommodate telecommunications antennas for up to six (6) service providers, including VoiceStream.
APT has entered into an agreement with one service provider to co-locate its antennas on the new
monopole. Another company has expressed interest in co-location if the monopole is reconstructed.
The property is within the City's M-l, Light Industrial Zoning District ("M-1 District").
Telecommunications structures are a permitted use in the "M-I" Zoning District subject to a CUP. The
replacement monopole will be located approximately 20 feet from the current structure. APT has
renegotiated its lease with the property owner to allow for a larger lease tract to facilitate the equipment
siting needs of additional antennas. The proposed structure will not be equipped with obstruction marking
lights as it does not reach the 200-foot threshold required by the Federal Aviation Administration ("the
FAA"). The height of the replacement monopole will not exceed the City's height restriction for
telecommunications towers.
The proposed structure accomplishes the purpose articulated in the City's Zoning Ordinance ("the
Ordinance") of facilitating the provision of commercial wireless telecommunications services while
maximizing the use of the City's Industrial Zoning Districts for such purposes.
20
LAP, KIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDOREN, LTD.
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
November 15, 2000
Page 3
The Site complies with the CUP standards of the Ordinance as follows:
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.
The proposed monopole complies with zoning standards in place regulating the construction and
operation of telecommunications towers. APT merely seeks to modify its existing CUP to build a taller
structure in accordance with the Ordinance.
2. The use will not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
The proposed monopole will not change the character of the area. It will enhance the City's ability to
provide telecommunications services to residents and businesses in the City, with minimal disruption to
the surrounding area.
3. The use will not depreciate property values.
There is no evidence that the existing monopole has negatively affected property values. The replacement
monopole will not have a negative effect, either.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation
that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or
property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
The proposed monopole will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare. Telecommunications towers do not emit hazardous radio waves of any kind. Nor do they create
intrusions to nearby property owners because of the emission of noise, glare or vibrations. APT's PCS
structures are consistently maintained to ensure design and structural integrity, as well as, general
appearance.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create
traffic.congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
The proposed monopole will not cause traffic congestion. The Site will have a 20-foot wide access
easement from Gervais Avenue to the tower structure for easy ingress and egress. Routine, but infrequent,
visits will be made to the Site to maintain the monopole; however, no parking facilities will be necessary
as the access drive and the surrounding land around the Site will provide adequate parking for APT
service vehicles.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police, fire
protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
The proposed monopole will be accessible to emergency vehicles in the unlikely event that the tower
became the subject of a fire or other emergency. However, no service personnel will be permanently
stationed at the facility. Therefore, no water, sewage or drainage systems are necessary to operate the
tower.
LAP. KIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
November 15, 2000
Page 4
7. The. use would not create excessive additional costs for pubic facilities or services.
The proposed monopole will not create 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.
APT will strive to incorporate the existing vegetation at the Site to ensure maximum screening. The
proposed monopole also maximizes the preservation of other parts of the City by placing a taller
monopole in an industrial area.
9. The use would cause minimal environmental effects.
The Site creates no adverse impact for adjacent properties. APT strives to have its structures blend into
the surrounding landscape to have no adverse impact on the value or livability of neighboring properties.
In this instance, the proposed structure will be a natural steel color to blend into the surrounding
environment. The base of the pole will be shielded from view on English Street by a building and from
view on Gervais Avenue by a wooded area. The proposed monopole will not create a burden on City
services or the public infrastructure. In addition, the proposed structure will not interfere with any other
public or private communications facilities.
10. The City Council may waive any of the above requirements for a public building or utility
structure, provided the Council shall first make a determination that the balancing of public
interest between governmental units of the state would be best served by such a waiver...
APT is pleased to comply with all regulations regarding the placement of the proposed monopole. APT
views its proposal to be in the public interest.
The proposed structure complies with the underlying zoning standards of the "M-1" Zoning District. The
standards of the "M-I' Zoning District require a setback of 30 feet to a public street. The proposed tower
is substantially more than 30 feet to Gervais Avenue. In addition, the City requires that towers be set back
a distance of the height of the tower plus 25 feet from any residential lot. There is no residential lot
within 200 feet of the proposed tower.
We have enclosed APT's check in the amount of $1,407.00 representing the City's fee for processing
APT's request. We look forward to working with the City of Maplewood to develop the proposed
replacement structure at the Site, in compliance with the Maplewood Zoning Ordinance.
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDOREN, LTD.
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
November 15, 2000
Page 5
Please feel free to contact me at 612-g96-3214 if you have any questions regarding APT's CUP
application.
Pete? J. Coyle, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
Enclosures
¢c: Mr. Mike O'Rourke
Mr. Steve Katkov
Scott Slattery, Esq.
::ODMA~t~CDOCSR.IB 1\631306~1
23
Attachment 15
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Steve Katkov, representing American Portable Telecom (APT), Inc. applied for a
conditional use permit to install a 175-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property on the southwest comer of English Street and
Gervais Avenue. The legal description is:
Subject to streets; except the South 100 feet; the East 353 feet of Block 24, Clifton Addition in
Section 9, Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 09-29-22-41-0019)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On December 6, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve
this permit.
The city council held a public hearing on January 8, 2001. 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. At
this meeting, the council tabled action on this request.
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 runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or
other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create
traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police
and 'fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
24
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.
The proposed construction of the new monopole 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.
5. The applicant shall remove the existing monopole and antennas within 30 days of the
completion of the new monopole and antennas.
6. The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide
the base area of the proposed facility.
7. Any antenna that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and the city may require
that it be removed.
o
The applicant or APT shall post a bond or other guarantee with the city to ensure proper
removal of the antenna and monopole and the restoration of the site. The applicant/developer
may provide a copy of the lease indicating a guarantee of the removal of the monopole and
related equipment with the end of the lease as a substitute for the financial guarantee.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
2001.
25
TO:
FROM:
SUB,JEGT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Review- Mounds Park
Academy
2051 Larpenteur Avenue and 1801 Beebe Road
December 11, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Mound's Park Academy is proposing to build an addition between their school and the former
school district building to the north. Refer to pages 8--12. Mounds Park Academy now owns the
northerly building which will be used as an education center. This center would house
councilors offices and a preschool facility. The proposed addition would have seven classrooms,
a student commons room and a senior lounge. Refer to the letter on page 13.
The proposed addition would be 12,600 square feet in area. It would be predominantly a one-
story structure with a lY=-story-tall roof line over the senior lounge. The addition would have an
exterior of brick and windows. The brick, window glazing and window frames would match the
existing buildings. The shingled roof over the lounge would match the blue shingles on the
existing school.
Mounds Park Academy does not plan an increase in enrollment or faculty due to these changes.
Requests
The applicant is requesting:
1. Revision of their conditional use permit (CUP) for the school expansion. The city code
requires a CUP for schools.
2. Approval of building design and site plans.
BACKGROUND
April 27, 1992: The city council approved a CUP for Mounds Park Academy to build two
additions and expand their recreation areas. Refer to pages 15-17. Condition 5 stated that "the
city council may require that the academy build a driveway to Beebe Road through the school
district's property if the academy buys the school distdct building."
October 11, 1993: The city council required that there be no parking along both sides of Price
Street east of Ruth Street.
November 14, 1994: The city council reviewed the CUP for the academy. The council required
their review again six months after Independent School District 622 completes their proposed
roadway to Beebe Road or in three years, whichever is first.
June 12, 1995: The city council approved a CUP revision and the plans for Independent School
District 622 who at that time owned the northerly building. This was so the school district could
expand their parking lot and reroute their driveway to Beebe Road.
March 25, 1996: The city council moved that they would not review this CUP for Mounds Park
Academy again unless a problem develops or if the school proposes any changes.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
The proposed addition would meet the requirements for CUP approval. It would be attractive
and would not impact any neighbors. The addition would be virtually hidden from the neighbors
to the east because of a tall hill covered with a thick stand mature evergreens. The proposed
addition would also be hidden from the neighbors to the west by mature trees in the summer.
During the winter months, the addition would be far enough away (550 feet) to not cause any
negative impact.
The replies from the neighbors were largely supportive. Those who objected, as well as some of
those in support, expressed concerns/complaints about the traffic congestion on Larpenteur
Avenue at drop-off and pick-up times. This has been an ongoing concern for some of the
neighbors. In addition to the traffic on Ruth Street and Larpenteur Avenue, some neighbors at
Ruth Street and Price Avenue would like the city to require that the school permanently close the
parking lot opening at Price Avenue with fencing. Presently, this driveway is barricaded and can
only be used by emergency vehicles and pedestrians. One last traffic concern is that the
northerly site (the old school district building) is separated from the southerly site (the school) by
a chain to prevent cross traffic flow. As mentioned above, the city council stated by motion in
1992 that "the city council may require that the academy build a driveway to Beebe Road through
the school district's property if the academy buys the school district building."
Street Traffic (Ruth Street and Larpenteur Avenue)
Staff observed the "schools out" traffic at 3 to 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 5. There was no
increase in traffic due to the school on Ruth Street that staff could tell. There was no vehicle
activity either at the Price Street entrance to the school's west parking lot. As mentioned this
driveway entrance is barricaded to prevent vehicular use.
I spoke to Lieutenant John Banick of the Maplewood Police Department about the traffic concern
at Price Avenue and Ruth Street. Lieutenant Banick felt that the Price Avenue entrance to the
school's parking lot is already sufficiently blocked off--cars cannot access the site at this point.
Complete fencing of this opening is unwarranted. It is beneficial for police officers to be able to
see into the school property and to have access if needed for emergencies.
The Larpenteur Avenue traffic was much heavier. The traffic due to school start and end times
creates a mini "rush hour" for 20 minutes twice a day.
I spoke to Dan Solar, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, about the Larpenteur Avenue traffic
concerns. Mr. Solar felt that it is true that school-generated traffic is busy for a short time twice
2
a day. Larpenteur Avenue traffic is still moving though. There are going to be cars and busses
at the school the during drop-off and pick-up times. Other than these two short periods of
increased traffic congestion, Larpenteur Avenue functions properly in moving traffic.
Internal Traffic Flow
Keeping the two sites open for cross traffic flow would be beneficial for emergency access.
Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, said that he would prefer that the school remove
the chained barricade which separates the northerly site from the main school property. The
applicant would like to prevent the traffic flow between the two sites for child safety. They feel
preventing the flow of traffic between the north and south parts of the site is safer for
pedestrians. They also feel that the connecting ddveway is too narrow for safe two-way traffic
and the flow through the abutting northerly parking lot is cumbersome. These two points are
true.
The Larpenteur Avenue residents would like the school to use the Beebe Road Access to
alleviate the Larpenteur Avenue traffic. Staff feels that putting bus traffic on Beebe Road would
not benefit the traffic situation. It would be introducing traffic into a residential neighborhood and
to a roadway that is not designed for heavier traffic use. The Larpenteur Avenue residents would
likely disagree, but Larpenteur is designed for higher traffic use compared to Beebe Road. All
schools generate increased traffic twice a day. There is no way to avoid that.
Staff recommends that the chained barricade remain. The northerly parking lot is currently being
used by the school nearly to its capacity. Putting bus traffic on Beebe Road would worsen the
internal traffic flow of this property. The city's public safety personnel can cut the chain if
emergency access is needed.
Landscaping and Screening Fence Repair
The applicant has not proposed any new landscaping. Staff does not feel any is warranted for
the proposed addition. There are a few areas in the existing screening fence that need repair.
The school has been doing so as needed. The remaining damaged areas on the fence should
be repaired or replaced.
Lot Combination
The applicant should combine their two sites as one legally-described parcel since they own both
pieces and would cross the lot line with the proposed addition.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt the resolution on pages 18-19 for the Mounds Park Academy conditional use permit
revision. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following
conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out):
All construction must comply with the site plan, date-stamped January 14, 1992
November 17. 2000. The city council may approve major changeso,-'-'--,~, = ~,,,,,,,.-" "- ,"---'-,~o, ,, ,~-
.,, , .... L ........ ; - ~ The director,,, '-~
commun._, development may approve minor changes. , .......... y .... y ~, .........
3
o
The city council shall review this permit revision one year from the date of approval,
based on the procedure in the city code. Th~ c:,ty may o, thor :---.~,,-' `,...-' th`, ..', ...... f
The school shall turn the tennis court lights off by 9:00 p.m. Only the school shall use the
tennis court lights.
The school shall only use the area between the tennis courts and pond and the west lot
line as a track or route for running dudng fall and spdng cross-country meets.
~' y$ - :- -' - ",:d:,n.3
.......... p p ......... b~ th~ ..... ' .... b;; Thecitv
,L L 'd,ot,,ct'o re, ~ if th ..... ,,,y _
council may reconsider the need for the school to build a ddveway to Beebe Road from
time to time,
The city may rsquJr~
council ............ ' ,,ho,,, th~ ....... '"" o,.,,.,`,oo f,.,, ..... :-- ~,`,, '
if' thsy ....... ~- ............ = ~, ......... requires that the school keep_ the westerN_ access at Price
Avenue barricaded, except for ememency-vehicle access.
7_. The wooden screening fence shall be kept in good repair.
Approve the plans date-stamped November 17, 2000 for the proposed addition to Mounds
Park Academy, based on the findings required by the code. The property owner shall do the
following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Before obtaining a building permit for the addition, the property owner shall provide staff
with evidence that their two properties have been combined into one legally-described lot.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building addition:
a. Repair or replace any broken or missing parts of the wooden screening fence.
b. Restore all ground that is disturbed by the proposed construction.
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.
b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work.
The amount shall be 1% times 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 if the building is occupied in the spring or summer.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
4
CITIZEN COMMENTS
I surveyed the 120 surrounding property owners within 350 feet of this property for their comment
about this proposal. Of the 35 replies, eight had no comment, four objected and the remaining
23 were in favor or gave miscellaneous comments.
In Favor/Miscellaneous Comments
1. It's OKwith me. (Fitch, 1689 Beebe Road)
2. Sounds OK to us. (Heller, 2117 Southwind Drive)
I have no problem with this addition as long as in the future they have no plans to reopen
Price Avenue. Actually a permanent closure would be much appreciated. Something nicer
looking. (Dzwonkowski, 1727 Ruth Street)
4. This will have little if any affect on us. (Kemal, 2102 Larpenteur Avenue)
5. OK to build. (Southwind Home Association of Maplewood, 2117 Southwind Drive)
6. Let them build the structure as requested. They have been good neighbors. Lets to what is
reasonable to keep them that way. (Gustafson, 1714 Stanich Place)
The kids already are using my backyard as an extension of their playground. With the
addition would my problems increase? I would highly recommend a fence being installed
between our properties. (Rogers, 1743 Beebe Road)
Remove the barricades and extend the wooden fence across the old Price Street entrance
to the school property. This entrance is barricaded presently, but is still used for pedestrian
traffic. (homeowner at comer of Pdce Avenue and Ruth Street)
9. No objection so long as fir trees along east property line behind 1757 Beebe Road are not
disturbed. (Pfaff, 1757 Beebe Road)
10.
11.
12.
13.
A very good neighbor. Should be allowed to expand. (Harling, 1980 Price Avenue)
We would like to have the Price Avenue entrance to Mounds Park Academy parking lot
closed completely. It now has barricades in place. This would eliminate foot traffic from the
school and parking in a posted no parking zone. I have no comments on the addition.
(Moeckel, 1722 Ruth Street)
I am writing in response to the survey on Mounds Park Academy. My answer is "GO FOR
IT." They are excellent neighbors in every way. Our property values have gone up in this
neighborhood. A few years ago this neighborhood was invited up there for open house. I
was impressed. Thank you very much. (Tauer, 1700 Stanich Place)
After the first improvements the school made the traffic was still terrible. If they expand,
there just has to be another entrance to the school the way it is now at 3 p.m., people can't
even get out of their driveways. Cars are lined all the way to Beebe Road. Please demand
that they make a better flow of traffic. (Adams, 2052 Larpenteur Avenue)
5
14.
The only concern I have is the level of cars gets very busy on Larpenteur at end of school
day. Now would this add much more traffic to our already very congested area at certain
times of the day? (Gonia, 631 Wilkens, Stillwater, MN)
15. We don't see any problem with this request, but our townhome is facing North St. Paul Road
so we are a distance from the addition. (Sundberg, 2036 Holloway Avenue)
16. They seem to have done a good job with everything through their own resources and are
good neighbors. (VanLaningham, 1700 Ruth Street)
17.
MPA has been a good neighbor, we have no objections to them improving their property. I
would like them to revisit the original CUP in which landscaping, including trees were to be
planted in parking islands. Foot tall weeds just don't do it! (Ewald, 1744 Ruth Street)
18. I have no objections to this expansion as long as it does not interfere with the nearby
residents. (Handrahan, 1722 Stanich Place)
19. Great Ideal We think MPA makes a good neighbor. And thanks for asking. (Flister, 1763
Beebe Road)
20. I think that it would be great! (Rauch, 2027 California Avenue)
21. We have no reason to not go along with their request. (Minehan, 2068 Holloway Avenue)
22. This proposed building plan at Mounds Park Academy would be fine with me. (Ikier, 1713
Ruth Street)
23.
I have a concern regarding the traffic on Beebe, Holloway and Larpenteur. We already have
cars, police cars and trucks going thru the stop signs on Beebe & Holloway. (Kasprzak,
1904 Beebe Road)
Objections
I would like to see more information on this addition. What I need to know more about is the
height of this addition. Also how far being extended to the north. The lighting of the new
building and lot. The one level building with no height increase would be the best scenario
as per my concern. I would like to see the sun light in the morning. Also, don't need to look
out at more buildings. The tree line covers the existing building right now. Building to north
ok if keep only one floor building. (Palony, 1758 Ruth Street)
We are very much against any enlargement to the school. The traffic in the morning and
afternoon is already awful. It would seem that there should be some consideration to the
already heavy traffic congestion. (Oehme, 2065 California Avenue)
3. Refer to the letter on page 14 from Steve and Sheila Schell.
Traffic is a severe problem and has been for some time. That is the traffic on Larpenteur
Avenue. Another entrance and exit should be considered or a form of traffic control.
Without either option, I would object to this request to enlarge the facility. (Sailor, 100
Oakmont Lane)
" REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 30,000 square feet (construction-site area)
Existing land use: Mounds Park Academy
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The proposed addition would be bordered by two existing school buildings and the school grounds.
There are single dwellings to the east.
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: R1 (single dwelling residential)
Zoning: S (school)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 36-437(3) requires a CUP for schools.
Section 36-448(b) requires that the city council review any proposed revisions to an approved CUP.
Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval
Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to
the findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 18-19.
Application Date
We received the applications for these requests on November 17, 2000. State law requires that the
city take action within 60 days of receiving proposals. City council action is required on these requests
by January 17, 2001.
p:sec14\moundpk.cup
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Une / Zoning Map
3. Full Site Plan
4. Partial Site Plan
5. Building Elevation Reductions
6. Applicant's letter dated November 7, 2000
7. Letter from Steve and Sheila Schell dated December 1, 2000
8. 4-27-92 council minutes
9. CUP Resolution
10. Plans date-stamped November 17, 2000 (separate attachment)
7
ATTACHMENT
NORTH SAINT PAUL
o CO
rAN
.okA A~ ....
COPE[ AV
RIE RD
NORTI-I
'SAINT
PAUL
· ':~'!?' .LARPE#TEUR
LOCATION
8
MAP
(~.3G
B
'
ATTACHMENT 2
F ~ R1 APARTMENTS
AVE
/ AVE.
t '1722 . :'~',, ~
! 3 1714 "~x"'
I--i ,
~)' ,
$: ~,',',,:.~. ~
' ,~J'.41 --.
'"'"' ~' 1700 MJ
" STATION'
"~ 2025 "
"'.LARPENTEUR AVE."--
ATTACHMENT 3
LOCATION OF
PROPOSED
3 LINK
/
FULL SITE PLAN
10
ATTACHNENT 4
FORMER
SCHOOL DISTRICT
BUILDING
EXISTING
MOUNDS PARK ACADEMY
o
PROPOSED
CONNECTING UNK
PARTIAL SITE PLAN
'Il
ATTACHMENT 5
12
I.BUXELL
A~CH1TECTUKE LTD.
T~NCKlt4 SB3~D~. ~01
(61 2) 338-3773
FAX (612) 338-0040
Date:
Project
Re:
To
Cc:
ATTACHMENT 6
November 7, 2000
Mounds Park Academy Addition
City Approvals
City of Maplewood
File.
Dear Sirs,
The Mounds Park Academy, in its pursuit of excellence has
developed an opportunity to improve its facilities, and better serve
its student population by acquiring the St. Paul District Building
adjacent to Mounds Park Academy.
The academy would like permission to build an "Upper School
Extension" between the existing school building and the newly
acquired "District Building". The Upper School Extension would
serve as a link between the existing school building and what would
become the new "Education Center" (formerly the St. Paul District
Building). The Upper School Extension Addition would also house
seven classrooms, and a student commons room, and senior
lounge.
The newly remodeled building, to be known as the "Education
Center" would house councilors offices, and a preschool facility to
serve the special needs of the academy.
It has been my good fortune and unique opportunity to have had
this opportunity to assist Mounds Park Academy develop its plans
for expansion and improvement. Mounds Park Academy is unique
in the Twin Cities. Its programs represent the best in today's
practices of primary and secondary education.
It is my sincere hope that the City of Maplewood will approve this
application, and in so doing help to further the success of this
wonderful institution.
Respectfully,
Michael E. Hale
Project Architect
J. Buxell Architecture, Ltd.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
13
ATTACHMENT 7
December 1, 2000
Thomas Ekstrand
Associate Planner
City Of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Mr. Ekstrand,
Please don't let M.P.A. add on to their school. Our street (Ruth Street) can not
handle the extra traffic from the parents of M.P.A. students who don't care about the
small children in our neighborhood as they race up and down Ruth Street in their fancy
cars. There is already too much congestion on Ruth and Larpenteur when school is
starting and ending. We pay a lot of money in property taxes, yet our street is in
bad shape, maybe from all the extra traffic. If they have only 20 students in a
classroom, adding seven more classrooms would mean 140 more students and 140 more cars
using our streets. We don't think we need to be subjected to that much more traffic
in our neighborhood. Perhaps M.P.A. should look for a place to build that doesn't have
residents trying to live peacefully in small neighborhoods like ours. If this was
in Shoreview, White Bear or North Oaks (where these students come from) you can bet
it wouldn't fly!
SincerenesS/
S t~~e v '?&~~Sh~t~il a Schel~
1694 Ruth Street
Maplewood, MN 55109
14
· ~-' ATTACHMENT 8
,~!:.~.~ (~ ¢ondtttonml Use Permit: 2051 E. Lmrpenteur Ave. (Hounds Park Academy)
a. Manager McSutre presented the staff report.
b. Director of Public Works Hatder presented the specifics of.the report.
c. Mayor Basttan asked if anyone wished to speak before the Council
regarding this matter. The following were heard:
Oacob Buxell, Architect
Kathleen Wind, Assistant Superintendent of District 622
d. Counctlmember Zappa introduced the followtna Resoluttcn an~ mgved its
adootton:
g2 - 04 - 39
CONDZTXONAL USE PERXXT
WHEREAS, Mounds Park Academy applied for a revision of the conditional
use permit for a school.
WHEREAS, they applied for this revision to allow them to expand the
existing school.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2051 E. Larpenteur Avenue. The legal
description is:
Tracts D, E and N of Registered Land Survey No. 395 as recorded in
the office of the Ramsey County Registrar of Titles and a parcel of
land described as follows:
Commencing at a point distant 33 feet West of the Northeast corner
of the West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, Township 29, Range ZZ; thence running
West 26 rods; thence South 22 rods; thence East 26 rods; thence
North 2~ rods to the point of the beginning, which lies within the
West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section
14, Rmmsey County, I~.
WHEREASj the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
The Planntng Commission discussed this application on February
18, lgg2. They recommended that the Ctty Counct1 approve satd
. permt_t._
The City Council held a public hearing on April ]3, 1992. City
staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the
surrounding property owners as required by law. The Counctl
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 Planntng Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-
described conditional use permit for the following reasons:
15
· 4-27-92
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 use would not change the existing or planned character of
the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials,
equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous,
hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any
person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke,
dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-
off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference
or other nuisances.
5. 'The use would 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.
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 must comply with the site plan, date-stamped
January 14, 1992. The City Council may approve major changes,
after a public hearing and recommendation from the Community
Design Review Board. The Director of Community Development may
approve minor changes. The Academy may phase the development
plan.
2. The City Council shall review this permit one year from the date
of approval, based on the procedures in City Code. The City
may, at that time, direct the closure of the Price entrance if
traffic problems continue.
3. The school shall turn the tennis court lights off by g:o0 p.m.
Only the school shall use the tennis court lights.
4. The school shall only use the area between the tennis courts and
pond and the west lot line as a track or route for running
during fall and spring cross-country meets.
5. The City Council may require that the Academy build a driveway
to Beebe Road through the School District's property if the
Academy buys the School District's building.
16
4-27-92
6. The ¢tty Counct1 may requtre that the school chatn the westerly
access for eventng events tf they become a problem.
Seconded by Counctlmember Rossbach Ayes - Counctlmembers Carlson, Juker,
.. Rossbach, Zappa
h Nays - Mayor Basttan
e. ortze all-way stoo starts a~ Price and
Secondedl~CounctlmemberCarlsil._. Ayes-CounctlmembersCarlson, 3uker,Nays - Hayore°ssbach'BasttanZappa
17 ''
Attachment 9
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mounds Park Academy requested a revision of their conditional use permit.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2051 Larpenteur Avenue East and 1801 Beebe Road.
The legal description is:
Tracts A, D, E, F, G and H of Registered Land Survey No. 396, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1. The planning commission discussed the conditional use permit revision on December
18, 2000. They recommended that the city council approve the revision.
The city council held a public hearing on January 8, 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 heating 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 revision for the following reasons:
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.
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.
18
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
All construction must comply with the site plan, date-stamped November 17, 2000. The
city council may approve major changes The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
2. The city council shall review this permit revision one year from the date of approval,
based on the procedure in the city code.
3. The school shall turn the tennis court lights off by 9:00 p.m. Only the school shall use
the tennis court lights.
4. The school shall only use the area between the tennis courts and pond and the west lot
line as a track or route for running during fall and spring cross-country meets.
5. The city council may reconsider the need for the school to build a driveway to Beebe
Road from time to time.
6. The city council requires that the school keep the westerly access at Price Avenue
barricaded, except for emergency-vehicle access.
7. The wooden screening fence shall be kept in good repair.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on January 8, 2000.
19
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Design Approval - Highpoint Ridge Twin homes
Highridge Court, south of County Road D
December 11, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Mr. Gordie Howe, representing Masterpiece Homes, is proposing to develop 18 twinhomes (36
units) in the Highpoint Ridge development. These units would be on an 11.8 -acre site on the
south side of County Road D, in the northern part of the development. Refer to the maps on
pages 5-8. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Each
building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on
the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. (See the elevations on pages 9
and 10 and in the enclosed plans.)
Request
To build this part of Highpoint Ridge, Mr. Howe is requesting that the city approve the design
plans for the site, including those for the landscaping and for the buildings.
BACKGROUND
On August 14, 2000, the city council approved the following for the Highpoint Ridge
development:
1. Changes to the comprehensive plan. These were from R-1 (single dwellings), R-lS (single
dwellings - small lot) and M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-3(M) (residential medium density) for
the site.
The city also dropped a planned minor collector street that would have gone through the site
from County Road D on the north to Highway 61 on the east.
2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 65-unit housing
development. The applicant requested the CUP because the existing F (farm residence), R-1
(single dwellings), R-1S (single dwellings - small lot) and M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning
districts limit the uses to single dwellings in a typical or standard subdivision or to commercial
uses near Highway 61 in the M-1 zone. (See the property line/zoning map on page six.) As
approved, the project will have 29 single dwellings and 36 town houses. Having a PUD gives
the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details
than the standard zoning requirements would normally allow. The existing F and M-1 zoning
districts on the site also do not allow twin homes, town houses or other multiple dwellings.
This approval, however, did not include the design of the twin homes.
3. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. (See the maps on pages seven and
eight.)
4. Having no parking for one side of private streets and driveways.
DISCUSSION
The proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing homes
in the area. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding with brick veneer on the fronts
and the roof would have asphalt shingles. (See the proposed elevations on pages 9 and 10 and
the enclosed project drawings.) Staff has the following concerns with the plans, however:
It should be noted that the city will allow parking along one side of the street since it will be 28
feet wide. There is not room on the site to add off-street parking within this part of the
development. Parking on only one side of the 28-foot-wide streets was allowed by the city
council during the conditional use permit approval.
· The deciduous, over-story trees that are shown on the proposed landscape plan do not show a
size. The city code requires these trees to be at least 2 % inches in caliper.
Landscaping
As proposed, the developer would plant 36 trees on the site (one for each unit). The landscaping
plan (separate attachment) also shows the proposed plantings around each unit which will include
hostas, spirea, mugho pine, spreading yew and viburnum. The mix of plantings will vary from unit
to unit depending on whether the unit faces north and east or south and west.
The applicant should revise the landscape plan to be consistent with Maplewood Ordinance
standards. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 %) inches in diameter, be
balled and burlapped and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. The plantings
proposed around the units should remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all yard areas
should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds).
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the plans date-stamped November 29, 2000 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and
drainage plans and building elevations) for the Highpoint Ridge Twin homes. The city bases this
approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall include: grading, drainage, erosion control, tree and driveway and street plans. The
plans shall meet the following conditions:
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2). The grading, drainage and erosion control plan for each building shall include
building, floor elevation and contour information.
(3)
All the parking areas and the street (Highridge Court) shall have continuous
concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not
needed.
2
(4) There shall be no parking on one side of the 28-foot-wide street (Highridge Court).
The developer or contractor shall post one side of the street with no parking signs.
b. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following
details:
(1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species.
(2) The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 %) inches in diameter, balled
and burlapped and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples.
(3) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan
date-stamped November 29, 2000, shall remain on the plan.
(4) In addition to the above, all front, side and rear yard areas shall be sodded (except for
mulched and edged planting beds).
(5) No landscaping shall take place in the County Road D boulevard and the boulevard
shall be restored with sod.
c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a
registered land surveyor.
d. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this part of the development.
3. Complete the following before occupying each building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas except for the area within
the easement which may be seeded.
c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all the driveways.
d. Put addresses on each building for each unit.
e. Complete all landscaping for that building.
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.
b. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The
amount shall be 150 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.
_ 3
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 11.8 acres
Existing land use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
South:
West:
East:
Houses across County Road D
Future houses on new Carey Heights Drive and Duluth Street
Houses on County Road D
Houses on County Road D
Ordinance Requirements
Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the community design review board (CDRB) make the
following findings to approve plans:
1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring,
existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of
investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use
and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create
traffic hazards or congestion.
2. That the design and location of the proposed development 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. ..
3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment
for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition,
materials, textures and colors.
Application Date
We received the CDRB application on November 29, 2000. State law requires that the city take
action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city action is
required on this proposal by January 28, 2001.
p:seC4/highpont.des
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Approved Preliminary Plat
4. Site Plan
5. Proposed Building Elevations dated 11-29-00
6. Proposed Building Elevations dated 11-29-00
7. Proposed Landscape Plan
8. Project Plans date-stamped November 29, 2000 (separate attachments)
4
Attachment
PARK
VADNAIS HEIGHTS
--- COUNTY ROAD D
' NSP POWER LINES .... ~-r~ .', .... ~- ..
PROJECT SITE
·
C
t
~ 2975~
2970
GULDENS
2999
iiIIt
FUTURE AUTO USE
=LaMETTRY COLLISION
MAPLe=WOOD T0¢oTA ,
!'BUILDINO
J
2980 ,
GOLF COURSE
2889 ;,.2 '~'
~BEAM AVENUE
,% ,, 18
14
14
t§
r Attachment 4
COUNTY ROAD D ~ r-,~..,~.~ --
_, =__ '~._'~_v2 ~ _ _~.~. , __
:~:~ ~ ~~~ ~--- .~ ....
32 31
SITE PLAN
Attachment 5
'L
'L
Attachment 6