Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/13/2001BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD March 13, 2001 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. C. February 21, 2001 AT&T Cellular Communications Tower - 1681 Cope Avenue Gander Mountain - North of Bennigan's at Birch Run Station Maplewood Imports Addition - 2780 Maplewood Drive Visitor Presentations Board Presentations a. CDRB Membership Interviews 9. Staff Presentations a. Menard's building addition update. bo CDRB representation needed for the March 26 and April 9 city council meetings. (March 26 items include: Maplewood Imports addition, AT&T monopole and CDRB membership appointment. No item is scheduled yet for April 9) 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 chairpersor~ 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 staffs recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms~:lrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2001 II. III. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Ananth Shankar Tim Johnson Jon LaCasse Craig Jorgenson Staff Present: Present Present Present Absent Present Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Director of Community Development Recording Secretary: Lori Hansen APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 23, 2001 Board member Johnson moved approval of the minutes of January 23; 2001. Board member Jorgenson seconded the motion. Ayes-All The motion passed. IV. Vo APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Shankar moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Board member Johnson seconded. Ayes-All The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 02-21-2001 -2- VI. DESIGN REVIEW A. Service Engineering Addition and Parking Waiver-(2720 Maplewood Drive). Mr. Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director, gave the staff report for the city. Mr. John Kliethermies, is proposing to build a second story addition on his Service Engineering building. The proposed addition would cover the middle third of his southwestern style building. Mr. Kliethermies would build wing wall extensions on the front elevation to give the proposed upper floor more of a full second story appearance from the highway. The addition is needed for data storage and office space by the applicant. He is not proposing to add additional personnel. He is requesting a waiver from the parking requirements. The existing building is grand fathered to have fifteen parking spaces. There are eleven on the north side of the building and four along the street. The code requires twenty-five spaces right now for the existing building. With the proposed addition, the code would require thirteen additional spaces for a total of thirty-eight. The applicant is also requesting approval of architectural plans. There are three main issues that staff addressed in the memo. The building is attractively designed and should blend in well with the existing structure. Staff's only concern is that the applicant ensures that the back of the wing walls are colored and textured to have the same material as the front of the building so the building looks finished. The other issues are regarding the applicants parking needs and the existing five car parking lot that has been added just north of Kohlman Avenue. Staff concurs with the applicant that his current number of parking spaces is sufficient. The applicant is in the shoreland area, and to add the additional parking would take considerable excavation and retaining wall construction. Staff does not see the need for that, nor would they want to allow that based on the shoreland regulations. The applicant is slightly over the impervious surface requirement, currently, due to an earlier counsel action back in 1995. Staff is recommending to resolve that matter by either applying for a conditional use permit for the reduced green space and also a variance due to it not having a 15- foot setback from the street right-of-way. As an alternative, the applicant has the option to remove the excess hard surface and restore the ground. In lieu of not requiring additional parking, staff has talked to the applicant about signing a restrictive covenant to record against the property. This would limit future high-traffic generating businesses in this building. The exact verbiage has not been established by the staff as of yet, but the city attorney thought this covenant would be a good idea. Details would be worked out later to the city attorney's approval. The language would require that future tenants or owner of the building must not have tremendous traffic needs. Staff chose to go that route over denying the request because the applicant is a good business resident of the city. The city does not want to lose him, so staff is trying to satisfy everybody's needs. Mr. Jorgenson asked if handicapped parking is required. Staff stated they are required to have one handicapped space. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the covenant related to business use of a site or property has been used in the past. Staff responded in saying the city has used various forms of recordable agreements and restrictive covenants in the past. This was requested by the city attorney as a way to try to solve this particular issue. This will either be a denotation or a separate document written up, signed by all parties and notarized. This would become a recorded document with the county. Mr. Shankar asked if the parking spaces along Kohlman Avenue met regulation. Staff stated they do not. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 02-21-2001 -3- Mr. John Kliethermies, 2212 Beam Avenue, the applicant, was present to answer questions. He has owned the building since 1993 and has operated his business out of this building since that time. The property was originally built in 1930 and has been added onto over the years. All the current tenants are service oriented. Service Engineering designs retaining walls all across the country. In answering why they would like to add a second floor onto the building, Mr. Kliethermies stated due to the nature of previous construction, it left a fiat roof that ponds water, and occasionally seeps in. In the engineering business, they are required to keep drawings for a number of years, therefore they have a significant number of files to maintain and need additional storage room. They would like to be able to move these drawings and a storage area to the second floor. In 1994, the city improved the frontage road on Maplewood Drive. In doing that they took the unpaved road and took out all of the parking in the front of the property. Originally the parking was pull-in-straight-in parking, and ran all along the frontage road. There are two handicapped spaces on the site. The first is located on the north corner of the site on Maplewood Avenue. This parking site has extended concrete pavement for easy in and out access. The second handicapped parking spot is directly as you enter the main parking area to the right of the driveway. When the city approached the applicant with the proposed changes they suggested putting the parking lot to the north side of the building. They also proposed adding a five car lot in the southeast corner of the site. The applicant asked that it not be installed at that time due to not wanting to lose that space. Since that time the applicant has been dealing with water issues on the site and in his basement. Kohlman Avenue is very steep coming down to the site, and water runs down into the back of his property. A 3-foot wall was built and filled with gravel to keep the water on the roadway and off the property. The applicant was in agreement to the covenant. He does not feel it was any more restrictive than what he has now. Mr. Ledvina confirmed with the applicant that he was in concurrence to the staff report regarding the conditions that have been outlined. Mr. Shankar asked the applicant how many people will be working in the building after the expansion. The applicant noted there will be approximately 12 to 15 per day. The applicant explained the color scheme will be a muddy brown. The windows are going to be re-trimmed and a synthetic stucco exterior finish will be applied over insulated board. Staff has not viewed a color rendering at this point. Staff's concern would be that the exterior color would be uniform throughout the building. The top story would need to match the existing building. Mr. Shankar requested staff approve some type of color sketch be approved prior to receiving their building permit. Mr. Ledvina agreed, and decided it could be included in the conditions. Mr. Ledvina asked if the owner should be required to record the required document with Ramsey County. Staff stated recording the document is fairly easy for the city to do, therefore, they felt it would be a way for the city to ensure it got done if the city recorded the document with the county. Chairperson Ledvina felt under A in the recommendations, having two sets of numbers may be confusing. He asked that possibly an item 5a and 5b be added. Staff will address this issue and look at denoting the items in a different fashion. Item B4 states the property owner shall keep the area behind the building picked up and not store any items in that space. Chairperson Ledvina felt this was a use issue. This requirement, he felt, was beyond the terms of the construction and suggested an alternative be used. Requiring the property owner to remove the items that are currently being stored behind the building may be more appropriate. Screening requirements according to the ordinance may also be required if outdoor storage is requested in the future. Mr. Kliethermies explained there is only 6-7 feet behind the back of the building. What is back there right now is building materials for the addition. A John Deer Skid Steer, which is used for clearing the parking lot of snow, is parked in the lot during the winter. Community Design Review Board -4- Minutes of 02-21-2001 Board member Johnson moved the board to: Approve a parking waiver for Service Engineering, 2720 Maplewood Drive, based on the following reasons (1-4) and subject to conditions (5 a & b): The applicant has shown that there are enough parking spaces for the building's current parking needs. 2. The applicant is not planning to add personnel with this addition. Providing more paved parking on the site would further violate the impervious surface requirements of the shoreland ordinance. The site is currently exceeding this requirement. The applicant has verbally agreed to a restrictive covenant being recorded against his property to regulate the types of businesses in this building based on their degree of traffic generation. o This approval is conditioned upon the property owner doing the following before obtaining a building permit for the second-story addition: Submitting a signed restrictive covenant to be approved by staff. This covenant shall ensure that future occupants of 2720 Maplewood Drive are low traffic-generating businesses. The city shall record this document with Ramsey County. bo Submitting complete applications for a conditional use permit and a setback variance for the five-car parking lot on the south side of the site. As an alternative to making these applications, the property owner may agree to remove the parking lot and restore the ground. If the property owner chooses this alternative, he shall present staff with a letter of intent to do so with the stipulation that he will complete the parking lot removal and ground restoration by June 1,2001. With either alternative, the property owner shall give the city cash escrow to cover the cost of the parking lot removal and ground restoration. Bo Approve the plans, date-stamped January 26, 2001, for the proposed second-story addition at Service Engineering, 2720 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the following conditions: 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 do the following: Submit a signed restrictive covenant to be approved by staff. This covenant shall ensure that future occupants of 2720 Maplewood Drive are Iow traffic-generating businesses. The city shall record this document with Ramsey County. Community Design Review Board -5- Minutes of 02-21-2001 bo Submit complete applications for a conditional use permit and a setback variance for the five-car parking lot on the south side of the site. As an alternative to making these applications, the property owner may agree to remove the parking lot and restore the ground. If the property owner chooses this alternative, he shall present staff with a letter of intent to do so with the stipulation that he will complete the parking lot removal and ground restoration by June 1, 2001. With either alternative, the property owner shall give the city cash escrow to cover the cost of the parking lot removal and ground restoration. Submit plans for staff approval showing the placement and design of a trash enclosure. The enclosure must have a gate that extends to the ground. The enclosure must be large enough to accommodate trash and recycling containers. The property owner shall also submit screening plans for any new rooftop mechanical equipment he may install that would be visible by the residential neighbors. d. Submit a color scheme for the building to staff for approval. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Paint any new rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building that would be visible. Screen any rooftop mechanical equipment that would be visible by residential neighbors. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure with a closeable gate. Finish the back of the wing walls to have the same material, texture and color as the building for uniformity. o The property owner shall remove the items being stored behind the building. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if' The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. bo The city receives a 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 winter or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. Co The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Mr. Shankar seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. Community Design Review Board -6- Minutes of 02-21-2001 B. AutoZone plan Review and Setback Variance-(749 N. Century. Avenue). Mr. Tom Ekstrand gave the staff report for the city. The applicant, CEI Engineering, is proposing to build a one-story, 5,500 square AutoZone auto parts store on the former A&W site on Century Avenue. The proposed building would have an exterior of split face and single score concrete block. It would also have a couple four inch wide accent bands running around the building. The building would be painted in variations of grey so there would be light, medium and dark tones of grey. The applicant is requesting that the city approve a 20-foot building setback variance from the rear property line. The code requires a 50-foot setback and the applicant is proposing 30 feet. They are requesting approval of building, site and landscaping plans, and also a lot division. The current property owner plans on retaining the southerly 52-feet of the old A&W site to incorporate into his own property. There are no circumstances that are unique to this site that would prevent the applicant from meeting the 50-foot rear setback requirement. The applicant could meet setback requirements by taking the parking that was proposed in front of the building and shifting it around to the north side of the building. The building could then be shifted toward Century Avenue and a variance would not be needed. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the variance request. Regarding building design, the proposed building design would be compatible with the existing commercial development in the area, but staff is recommending that they add brick to the exterior. All the adjacent commercial buildings in the area have brick on their exterior. That would make the appearance of this building consistent with the buildings across the street in Oakdale. In addition, staff is recommending that all roof equipment be screened from the residential neighbors view, which is a code requirement, and that the applicant submit a photometric plan of the light spread. The landscaping plan seemed a little meager, there were only six trees proposed along the north lot line, and all the turf was proposed to be seeded. The turf should be sod versus seed, and trees are needed on the front and back of the site. Staff is also recommending the screening fence be pulled back twenty feet from the front lot line and be cedar for esthetic reasons. Staff felt there was a lot of opportunity to add evergreens and deciduous trees in the back to soften the back side of the building. In review of the grading plan, there were drainage concerns noted by Chris Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer. Although they do not appear to be problematic, all the drainage issues need to be worked out with the city's engineering department to ensure all of Mr. Cavett's concerns are satisfied. As for the lot division, staff is recommending the owner of the proposed southerly parcel, saw cut and remove any pavement to the new lot line to observe the five-foot parking lot setback which code requires. The owner of the southerly parcel should also abandon the old A& W well. They will need to go through a licensed well drilling company to accomplish this. Staff is recommending denial of the variance, on the basis that there are no circumstances that are unique to the site that would prevent the applicant from meeting the 50-foot setback. The applicant could meet the setback requirement as demonstrated by staff in the report. The variance would not meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since there are options to meet code requirements. The applicant could purchase additional land from the seller which could increase their site layout options. Staff is also recommending approval of a parking waiver to go along with staffs proposed revision. This would reduce the number of parking spaces required. Staff is recommending approval of the architectural and site plans subject to the addition of the brick on the exterior and resubmission of a landscape plan. Community Design Review Board -7- Minutes of 02-21-2001 Chairperson Ledvina clarified that staff has not been able to discuss with the applicant the change in the site plan and his acceptance, or not, of these changes. Mr. Ledvina also confirmed with staff that a grading plan was submitted from the applicant. Mr. Shankar asked if the applicant would still meet the parking requirement with the adjusted plan that allows for the 50-foot setback requirement. Staff said they would be short by one parking spot. A setback variance is tougher to approve than a parking waiver (the council has more discretion with parking issues). Mr. Jeremy Yee, with CEI Engineering, was present for the applicant. AutoZone's headquarters is located in Memphis, Tennessee. They are a national company with over 2500 stores across the united states. They sell new car parts with discount prices and do not provide any kind of auto repair service. Mr. Yee talked with his client regarding the setback requirement and adjusting the plans to comply with the setback. His client was comfortable with that change to comply with the ordinance. Regarding the concrete block around the top of the building, Mr. Yee felt the need for a strong structure to support the weight of the top brick. If the city would like to see face brick around the top perimeter, they will change their design to comply and satisfy that requirement. The applicant is also willing to add more landscaping to the sides and front of the building. They will also add a cedar wood fence for screening. A photometric lighting plan was submitted to the city with the site plan. Typically AutoZone buildings have lights in the back of the building for safety purposes. The AutoZone sign is not lighted and a pylon sign is also being proposed for the parking lot. Mr. Yee has talked with Mr. Cavett regarding engineering issues. The applicant will install the silt fence inside of the property line. The drainage that is currently flowing into the parking lot will be redirected to the grassy area for pretreatment, then to the storm system. Before the city signs off on the deeds for the lot division, the owner or buyer needs to provide staff with the escrow to guarantee that this work will be completed. Mr. Yee explained AutoZone has no problem paying the money to get the work done, but if the seller does not complete the work they need to finish, it will hold the project up. Mr. Yee asked if the city could coordinate with the owner of this parcel to accomplish the necessary requirements. Mr. Ekstrand does understand another company did apply for this lot division, and what he can do is explain to this applicant what the cities conditions are. Mr. Ledvina asked what color the bollards would be in front of the building. Mr. Yee stated they are typically red to match the sign. The board felt a more neutral color would be appropriate, possibly a grey or tan color. Although Mr. Ledvina felt wheel stops may be efficient to stop a car, Mr. Yee explained all their stores have the bollards to protect the expansive glass in the front of the building. Mr. Ledvina felt the landscape plan and fence design should be approved by staff prior to receiving the building permit. Staff felt that would be workable and appropriate. Mr. Shankar moved the board to: Deny the proposed 20-foot rear building setback variance because: There are no circumstances that approve a parking waiver for the proposed AutoZone to have up to five spaces fewer than the code allows. This exception allows the applicant flexibility in laying out the site plan. This waiver would still require at least 23 parking spaces which is reasonable for a building this size. Community Design Review Board -8- Minutes of 02-21-2001 Co o The applicant can meet the setback requirements by revising the site plan as illustrated by staff in the staff report. The variance would not meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since there are options to meeting the code requirements. The applicant could purchase additional land from the seller which would increase site-layout options. Approve a parking waiver for the proposed AutoZone to have up to five spaces fewer than the code allows. This exception allows the applicant flexibility in laying out the site plan. This waiver would still require at lease 23 parking spaces which is reasonable for a building this size. Approve the architectural plans, date-stamped January 18, 2001, for the proposed AutoZone auto parts store, 749 N. Century Avenue, and approval of the staff's-alternative site plan concept for AutoZone as illustrated in the staff report. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 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 grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval. The plans shall address the concerns and issues outlined by Chris Cavett in his report dated February 12, 2001. Submit revised building elevations which substitute the single-score concrete block with face brick on all sides of the building. The applicant shall also submit a screening design for roof-top mechanical equipment that would be visible by residential neighbors. Staff shall review these revisions. Co Submit a revised site plan for staff approval which illustrates staffs alternative design with building setback compliance. The revised site plan shall also provide for a five-foot parking lot setback from the south lot line and compliance with all parking-lot dimensional requirements. do Submit a revised landscape plan for staff approval providing for plantings in the 15-foot setback area, a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees behind the building and sod in all turf areas, not seed. Submit a revised fence design for staff approval that uses cedar instead of treated wood. The applicant shall coordinate their fence design with the neighbor to the north to take their existing screening fence into account. The revised fence shall be set back 20 feet from the front lot line so not to obstruct driver visibility. The revised fence design shall be considered part of the landscape plan and shall be subject to review board approval. f° Submit a photometric plan showing the light spread from lighting fixtures. There shall not be any lights behind the building. The lighting fixtures used shall be the type that have recessed bulbs and lenses. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 02-21-2001 -9- g. Obtain an access permit from MnDOT for the proposed driveway access and for stormwater flow within their system. The applicant shall also follow MnDOT's requirements for closing the old A&W driveway opening. This old opening shall be curbed over and the ground restored. h. Show the bollards in front of the building to be grey or tan to complement the building color. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and a stop sign at the driveway exit. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. This includes the area of any future driveway connection to the lot to the south. c. Paint the roof-top mechanical equipment to match the building color if the units are visible. (code requirement) The applicant must also screen the roof-top equipment from residential neighbors' views. d. Construct the trash dumpster enclosure using the same materials and color as the building. This enclosure shall have a 100 percent opaque gate. The gate material shall be cedar to match the screening fence. e. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code requirement) except for the ponding area behind the building. f. Provide site-security lighting as required by the code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so not to cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors. g. Properly close the old A&W driveway opening with curbing and ground restoration. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. 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 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. 5. Signs are not included in this approval. The applicant shall submit sign proposals to staff for review. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Approval of the proposed lot division, subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner of the proposed southerly parcel shall saw-cut and remove any pavement within five feet of the new lot line to observe a five-foot setback (code requirement). The five-foot setback area shall then be restored and sodded. Community Design Review Board -10- Minutes of 02-21-2001 VII. VIII. IX. The owner of the southerly parcel shall properly abandon the old A&W well in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health water-well codes. The owner must contract with a Minnesota-licensed well-drilling company for this work. Obtain a demolition permit from the city, demolish the A&W building and remove all debris from the site before the city may sign the deeds to split this parcel. Allowing the creation of the proposed lot line before the removal of the A&W building would result in the building traversing the lot line. This would violate building and setback requirements. The work required in Conditions One and Two shall be accomplished before the city signs the deeds for this lot division or the property owner or buyer shall provide staff with escrow to guarantee that this work will be completed. As stated in Condition Three, the building must be removed and site cleaned up prior to the city signing the new deeds. The proposed southerly parcel (Parcel 2) shall be legally combined with the Mr. Macula's property to the south. 6. Record the new deeds within one year. Board member Johnson seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. VISITOR PRESENTATION No visitor presentations. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Mr. Ledvina wanted to discuss the excess of the "snout-house" town home style (where the garage is the prominent feature). A lot of times the developer is working off of a zero lot line, therefore locking themselves into this particular snout-house design. He wanted to make the staff aware of the problems this could potentially cause when the applicant's proposal reaches the design review board. If the board is going to provide input and review, they can't have their hands tied in terms of how the lots are set up. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. 2000 Community Design Review Board Annual Report. Unless there are comments or concerns, Mr. Ekstrand is recommending that the board approve the annual report. Mr. Ledvina would like to see the language changed for the city site lighting ordinance. He would like it to read: The board is in the process of evaluating potential changes to the city's site lighting ordinance to improve energy conservation and reduce light pollution for the City of Maplewood. Mr. Shankar made a motion to approve the 2000 Community Design Review Board Annual Report as amended. Mr. Jorgenson seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. Community Design Review Board -11- Minutes of 02-21-2001 B. Board member Shankar will represent the design review board at the March 12 City Council Meeting. C. Mr. Ekstrand has four applicants for the vacancy on the design review board. He will schedule interviews for the March 13 meeting. Board member Johnson attended the last city counsel meeting. Rose-Rice Used Car Lot was on the agenda. Due to the applicant not showing up, the proposal was denied. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review AT&T Wireless Monopole 1681 Cope Avenue March 6, 2001 INTRODUCTION Project Description Julie Townsend, representing AT&T Wireless, is proposing to install a 125-foot-tall monopole and an equipment building for telecommunications equipment. They want to install the monopole and building in the southeast corner of the existing green space and north of the parking lot at the Sheet Metal Workers building at 1681 Cope Avenue. (Refer to the maps and plans on pages 5-10 and the statement on page 11 .) 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 manufacturing) zoning district. 2. The design and site plans. BACKGROUND On January 13, 1997, the city council adopted the commercial use antenna and tower ordinance. On November 13, 2000, the city council denied a conditional permit and the design approval for AT&T to install a 125-foot-tall monopole on the Taste of India property at 1745 Cope Avenue. DISCUSSION Federal Law The 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act does not allow cities to prohibit the installation of telecommunications facilities and equipment. Because of this law, local governments may only regulate, but may not prevent, the installation of monopoles or other telecommunications facilities. As such, the city may only base their decision about this request (or any other similar request) on land use and on health, safety and welfare concerns. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses all telecommunications systems. This licensing requires that the proposed or new telecommunications equipment not interfere with existing communications or electronics equipment. If there is interference, then the FCC requires the telecommunications company to adjust or shut down the new equipment to correct the situation. Maplewood must be careful to not limit or prohibit this tower (or any other tower) because of electronic interference. That is up to the FCC to monitor and regulate. Co-location As part of their site selection process, AT&T noted that they could not find an existing structure within one-half mile of this site that would meet their needs. In fact, they claim they need this site to fill-in a gap in their coverage area. (See the statement on page 11 .) Ms. Townsend told me that she has contacted Qwest about co-locating on their property on Gervais Court. However, Qwest has indicated that they do not have room for another monopole on their property and that their existing tower cannot be raised above the existing 90 feet to the 122 feet needed by AT&T. (See the letter from Qwest on page 14). It is important to note that the city cannot force the owner of an existing wireless facility (such as Qwest) to change their equipment or to accommodate another monopole on their property. As Ms. Townsend said, AT&T would prefer to co-locate on an existing monopole if the necessary height and location are available to them. Site Screening and Landscapin(~ The applicant is not proposing to add any trees to help to screen the base area. (See the site plans on pages 7 and 8.) The existing buildings and vegetation will help screen much of the base area of the site, especially from the west, north and east sides. However, the city may want to require the applicant to plant trees on the south side of the site to help screen the base area from view from the south. 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. Summary The applicant chose this site as an alternative to the earlier proposal for a tower facility on the Taste of India property. It is important for the city council, when reviewing this or similar applications, to balance the interests of the applicant, the property owner, the neighbors and the city as a whole. The proposed location uses the existing buildings and trees to help screen the proposed tower from near by properties. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 16 and 17. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to allow up to a 125-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval is for the property at 1681 Cope Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans as approved by the city, including the location of the lease site. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the approved plan. The applicant shall verify the location of the property lines and existing site features around the lease area with a certificate of survey. 2. The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility. 3. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The applicant or owner shall allow the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. 2 6. 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 AT&T 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. Approve the site and design plans for up to a 125-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and equipment building on the property at 1681 Cope 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 monopole and equipment building shall be at least five feet from the property lines. The site plan shall be subject to city staff approval. (b) The applicant shall prepare a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility. (c) A grading and drainage plan for the project site. (d) Revised equipment building plans that show an exterior of brick and a hip roof. The color of the proposed equipment building shall be submitted to city staff for approval. 4. The monopole shall be light gray. 5. If the required landscaping or trees are not installed by the completion of the tower, the city shall require the applicant to provide a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed within six weeks of occupancy. 6. Before final inspection of and use of this facility, the applicant shall complete the following: (a) Paint the equipment building to match the color of the Sheet Metal Workers building, as approved by city staff. (b) Install the required landscaping following the approved plan. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.62 acres Existing land use: Sheet Metal Workers building and parking lot SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Highway 36 Sheet Metal Workers Credit Union Building and Cope Avenue City and County Credit Union Maplewood Office Park PLANNING Zoning and Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-607 requires a CUP for a communications tower in any zoning district other than residential. The ordinance allows a maximum height of 175 feet. 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 16 and 17. Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on February 28, 2001. State law requires the city to take action on this request by April 27, 2001, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:secl 0/1681 cope.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan dated February 28, 2001 4. Site Plan (Enlarged) 5. Proposed Elevations 6. Proposed Elevations 7. Applicant's statement dated February 28, 2001 8. Applicant's Co-location Statement 9. Letter from Joe Beck of AT & T 10. Letter from Qwest Wireless dated 9-18-00 11. Applicant's statement for criteria of approval 12. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 13. Project Plans and Color Photo of Site (Separate Attachments) ROAD AVE'. · FRISBI£ DEMONT SHERREN AVE. AVE. AVE. AVE. ROSL'WOOD AVE. S. I 1 LOCATION MAP 5 Attachment 1 coulfrY COURT KOHLMAN COPE RRMSEYCOUNTY NURS~G HOME AND F~R GROUNDS ~GOODRICH GOLF COURSE RIPLEY AVE. Attachment 2 (3) ~ ~ -, --~" [ ......... ', ~ -- - . PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION ~- 1 F'~ND ! MAPLe, LAURIE ROA~,,..,, o '"' '" '--.I I "' ~., I_" t,,'-.'.,"' 1 I. , I , "¢'J, .l~. '°°'..I ""'"':] --, L ""' I,-,.,,., I"'"I' ,_.--,. ,,, (1' Attachment 3 I I I ~ST L~4E: O4r ~ NO. 567712. "'~/d/72 LOT 1,3 I 13C oo' Pla:)oOSCO ACCESS & PARKING GAS )IT UNION '": [: ! ~rlNI -- ~'~ '-0 ---- 552.~4'-- O.[Cm~.A~ S[I~C~ I I£A~CIaI:'NT R.T. BO( #. 5~1B9 & II,/i COPE AVENUE -SOUTH UI~ O~ ~t t, ~ ~t I, g~'S ~ s~g'~'O2'W 2666..35' J LINE Off LOT 14. E.G. ROGE~ GARDEN LOTS 0~t'AIL Or Lr. AS~ TINCT 1~3NO4~X,E: 11.6'x28' SITE PLAN ~" NOI~THCAST CORNEl SECTION t0, T. 29 LEGAL DESCRiPTi ~he Eost 150 feat o~ ~ E~t 150 loci et To~ethef ~t ~t of ~ 1.1 ~ ~th ~3.3 Lot ~ DC TAJL & 0E?NL C A~ eo~m~t f~ befo~I dei~ed lhi No~t# I SOUTHEAST CO~ SECTION tO, T Attachment 4 TRUE NORTH N89'56' 17'E 30.50' P.O.B. NB9'56' 17'E POINT A 20.50~. ~---P.O.B. OF ACCESS / "-.~ /LEASE EASEMENT 1-~ ~ -- --~ ~ I I ,0 I , I __ EXISTING PARKING LOT I ~ Access I ' ~~E~EN* j _ __ S8__~9'36.~'17"W 25.00' o~ TRACT NB9'36'17'E 25.00' / PROPosED...--/ LEASE TRACT LAYOUT PROPOSED I25' UONOPOLE "-PROPOSED METER STAND SITE PLAN (ENLARGED) 8 Attachment 5 OI OI 6' CURB w/ 6' CRUSHED UNDERGROUND- COAX. CABLE 6' CURB W/ 6' CRUSHED NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ELEVATION PROPOSED STAND *UNDERGROUNO COAX. CABLE Attachment / 10'-0' r t 1'-5,' x SHELTER PROPOSED METER UNDERGROUND COAX. CABLE WEST ELEVATION 6' CURB w/ CRUSHED PROPOSED STAND 11'--5' · SHELTER t0'-0' UNDEROROUNO ': ~ i ~ COAX. CABLE ........... t' .... L_..,:Z.':~ HWY. 36& HAZELWOOD AVENUE $H£['T METAL WORK[RS SITE NO. MI-97A ;eat coP[ AVENUe' U~,PL~VOOO. UN I s I '--- AT&T AT&T W1RE1.E. SS SER'VtCES OF MI~NN~A, PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 10 CONSULTING ENGINEERS SINCE 1944 ULTEIG ENGINEERS, iNC. 5201 E. RIVER ROAD, SUITE 308 PHONE: 763-571-2500 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55421-1027 FAX: 763-571-1168 Attachment 7 OTHER OFFICES: FARGO, ND BISMARCK, ND SIOUX FALLS, SD February28,2001 City of Maplewood Melinda Coleman, Planning Director 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Application for Condition Use Permit, UEI # 01-5805 Dear Ms. Coleman, This letter accompanies an application for Conditional Use Pgrmit by AT&T Wireless (AWS) that will allow a 125-foot monopole at 1681 Cope Ave E. Currently AWS is lacking wireless coverage on a large portion of Highway 36 and this particular area of Maplewood. By installing the monopole at the above reference property, the issue of inadequate coverage will be resolved. PROPOSED USE AWS is proposing to install a 125-foot monopole, painted of a color acceptable by the city. Please reference the enclosed drawings for additional details. The property in question is located in an area zoned M- 1, which allows for monopoles and accessory buildings as a conditional use (Section 36.600). An unmanned prefabricated equipment shelter measuring approximately 12 feet by 28 feet will be located at the base of the monopole. The site will require single-phase 400-amp electrical service and telephone line for utilities. These will be brought in fi.om the nearest source. The shelter will be designed in color and material to match surrounding area. This monopole will be accommodating to other carriers if they so desire. Please see the attached letter of intent. I will be representing AWS during the application process and will be attending all meetings regarding the application. Please contact me for any additional information you may need. I can be contacted at 763-277-6229 Sincerely, /- ..j' ! ;/'J}lie Townsend !',.._.Contractor, AT&T Wireless Services 11 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Attachment 8 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Letter of Intent To Whom It May Concern: Please let this letter show the intent of AT&T Wireless and its successors to allow for collocation on the proposed monopole site at 1681 Cope Ave E. The monopole will be constructed to adequately allow for at least one additional carder and in many instances even more. AT&T Wireless and its successors will allow the shared use of the proposed tower if the additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use. Any questions regarding this intent may be directed to any of the following: Ted Broich, AT&T Wireless Services Systems Development Manager - 952-844-6744 Bechtel Telecommunications, Site Acquisition and Zoning Manager - 612-858-7270 Julie Townsend, Contractor - 612-819-9569 Sincerely, Contractor, AT&T Wireless Services 12 Attachment 9 Cellular Division AT&T Wireless Services 2515 24th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55406 612 721-1660 FAX 612 721-4770 I have been asked to examine two potential existing sites for the AT&T 36~ & Hazlewood site. The two locations in question are an existing water tower and an existing US West monopole. Neither location will allow us to meet the objectives of this site. The reasons are as follows... US West Site: Existing antennas for US West on this site are at 75, 67, and 87 feet. This is only a 90-foot monopole. This means that AT&T would only be able to locate antennas at the 57-foot elevation and below. This will not allow us to provide the amount of coverage that we need in order to justify building a site at this location. Water Tower: The water tower is outside of the search area. Simply put, this means that this location will not fit in well with the rest of the network. The bigger problem however is the potential interference and re-use concerns that would be created by locating our antennas on the water tower. The water tower has an additional 60 feet of ground elevation which makes the site simply too high for us to be able to manage the re-use from this location. AT&T now has too many customers for us to be building sites on this high of ground above local terrain with in the 494-694 metropolitan loop. Sincerely, 'lo~e R. Beck RF Engineer AT&T Wireless Services \,~-~ Recvcled Paper 13 10t03t~000 89:41 6128587377 WSS J TOWNSEND PAGE 02 ATTACHNENT ]~ Qwesc- * Qw~st Wireless, L.L.C. 426 North Fat~view Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 wss 0CT 032000 Wimles~ Site Specialists PO Box 6896 ,' Minneapolis, MN 55406 Alta: J. Townsend Co-Location on Qwest Wireless Monopolc Installation at 1890 Oervnis Court, Mapl~wood Monday, Sept~nber 18, 2000 D~r Ms. Townsend AT&T Wireless Services has approached Qwest Wireless, LLC, f/Ida US WEST Wireless, to co- locate on our monopole installed nt 1890 Gervais Court in Maplewood at a height of 125 fi~t. As you already ate aware, that pole is currently a 90 foot monopole strueture with Qwest's installation at the 60'0", 75'0" and 87'3" foot level. The only available space for co-location would be at approximately 50 feet and less. Since the foundation of that structure was designed for a 90 foot monopole, extension of that pole is not possible using the curr~nt foundation. The only alternative to accommodate AT&T Wireless' request would be to build a miler monopole structure, including a new foundation. In addition, while Qwest Wireless does control the monopole structure, we have a l~asing relationship with the underlying landlord, Qwest Inc., and ns such, does not control the Isad space. It is my tmderstanding that the availaSle land spac~ is also at a minimum. We would be more that happy to work with AT&T Wireless Services at this location, However, due to the limited land space as well as the inability to raise the tower to your re~tuested height, the current situation would not be a viable solution. Please call me if you have any questions. I look forward to working with you in the ~uture. Sineerely, Pat Conlin Real E~ta~e Market Manager Qwest Wireless, L.L.C. 651.642.6060 ]4 Criteria for approval of Conditional Use Permit Attachment 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. Comment: Tree, this application meets the requirements as listed in section 36.600 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. Comment: True 3. The use would not depreciate property values. Comment: Tree, it is not proven telecommunications equipment depreciates 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, runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. Comment: True, telecommunications carriers are under strict guidelines to have and maintain the safest equipment. All equipment is regulated. 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. Comment: True, a technician will visit the site only about one time every 4 to 6 weeks. 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. Comment: True, there are adequate facilities currently in existence. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. Comment: True 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. Comment: True. The shelter will be designed to match the existing area structures. The area to the east has many trees, which should not be disturbed by our installation. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Comment: True, telecommunication carriers are under strict guidelines they must follow to avoid any potential negative environmental effects. 15 Attachment 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ms. Julie Townsend, representing AT & T Wireless, applied for a conditional use permit to install up to a 125-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and equipment building. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1681 Cope Avenue. The legal description is: Subject to avenue, highway and easements and vacated street accruing, the following: except the east 150 feet of Lot I and except the east 150 feet of South 73.3 feet of Lot 2; Lots 1 thru Lot 4, Bronsons Subdivision. (PIN 10-29-22-41-0016) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On March 19, 2001, the planning commission considered this request and recommended that the city approve the request, subject to the staff recommendation. 2. The city council held a public hearing on ,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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans as approved by the city, including the location of the lease site. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the approved plan. The applicant shall verify the location of the property lines and existing site features around the lease area with a certificate of survey. 2. The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The applicant or owner shall allow the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease Conditions. 6. Any antenna that is not used for a year shall be deemed ~bandoned and the city may require that it be removed. I 7. The applicant or AT&T 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. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Design Review and Signage Proposal - Gander Mountain Beam Avenue, north of Bennigan's March 6, 2001 INTRODUCTION Project Description Oppidan Investment Company is proposing to build a one-story, 28,344-square-foot Gander Mountain store at the Birch Run Station Shopping Center north of Bennigan's Irish American Grill and Tavern. Refer to the maps on pages 7-11. The proposed building would have an exterior of rock-face concrete block and EIFS, a stucco-look material. The proposed site is the last parcel for development at Birch Run Station. The applicant is also requesting that the community design review board (CDRB) approve their identification signs. The Birch Run Station Sign Criteria requires that the CDRB review signage for the outlot sites. DISCUSSION Building Design While reviewing the building elevations, please note that the drawings are mislabelled. The south elevation should be labeled west, the west should be north, the north should be east and the east should be labeled south. The site is unique in that all sides of the building are highly visible and the site does not have street frontage. Each side has clear and easy exposure to the surrounding buildings, parking lots, internal ddves and streets. This concern about high visibility is accentuated by the building's large size. The surrounding buildings have "back" walls, but they are all substantially smaller in size. The back walls of these buildings also have been treated with the same decorative materials as the front elevations. The proposed building should not have any elevations that are distinctly lesser in design quality than the front sides. Staff realizes that all four sides cannot look like the front of the building. The applicant should revise the plans, however, to design all elevations with more decorative facades. The applicant should also use brick and other architectural elements to break up the large exterior elevations. The ordinance requires that buildings be compatible with others in the area. For comparison, Birch Run Station is rock-face block and bdck (this is carried through on all sides), McDonald's is brick and stucco, Olive Garden is stucco and Bennigan's is brick and stucco. The code requires that new buildings be comparable in design and matedal quality with surrounding buildings. The CDRB should require that the applicant resubmit the building elevations showing an improved design that dresses up the two back (east and south) elevations. The applicant should propose an exterior material that utilizes brick for compatibility with nearby buildings and architectural design elements to break up the large exterior walls. Perhaps the applicant could use columns and a variety of materials to break up the large exterior elevations. Staff does not object to the EIFS mountain detailing on the west and north sides of the building. Some of the mountain details, however, are proposed to be painted on the rock-face block. Staff feels that all mountain detailing should be EIFS rather than switching to the lesser version of painted block as the mountain-work extends from the front entry. Easement Vacation The applicant has also applied for the vacation of an unused utility easement which runs through the site, north to south, through the Birch Run Station property. Refer to page 8. The city has no plans to install utilities in this easement. This request was reviewed by the planning commission. The CDRB's motion should be subject to the city council vacating this easement before the city issues a building permit. Parking The applicant is exceeding the parking requirements. There are 160 parking stalls proposed. The code requires 142. Landscaping The proposed landscaping would be compatible with the other sites at Birch Run Station. The applicant should relocate the two larger existing trees, however, that are proposed to be removed from the west side of the site. It is desirable to save these trees rather than removing them. Site Plan Concerns Dumpster Enclosure Design The applicant is proposing a chain link fence enclosure with slats for screening. The city has allowed chain link fencing with slats for enclosure gates, but not for enclosures in highly visible locations. Staff feels the enclosure should be of the same material as the building to be comparable and compatible in design. Site Lights The applicant has proposed site lights that match those on the surrounding properties. Signs The applicant is proposing three wall signs and one pylon sign. Refer to the sign proposal on pages 12-14. The applicant has not shown the pylon sign location on the site plan but anticipates placing it in the northeast comer of the site. The city's approval of Birch Run Station's comprehensive sign plan required that the CDRB review the signs for the future outlot- location businesses on the site. With comprehensive sign plans, the ordinance allows the CDRB to approve exceptions to the sign regulations "if the sign areas and densities for the plan as a whole are in conformity with the intent of this article and if such exception results in an improved relationship between the various parts of the plan." Based on the code it is difficult to determine how many signs are allowed. Normally, the code allows a business to have two signs for each street they front on. The proposed building would not have frontage, but must, of course, have signs. Staff feels that the applicant's proposed four signs is reasonable because of their building size and location. Their size somewhat warrants the use of wall signs since they would help break up the large exterior wall surface. Building signs would also help to identify this building from Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive since the site does not have street frontage. Staff, in fact, feels that in lieu of the pylon sign, the applicant may benefit from four wall signs, rather than three wall signs and a pylon sign that would be set a considerable distance from a street. Staff recommends that the CDRB allow a wall sign on each elevation. If the applicant prefers to have their pylon sign, they should be allowed three wall signs and one pylon sign as proposed. Signage Comparisons For comparison, the adjacent businesses have the following signs: Olive Garden: Three wall signs and a pylon sign. Bennigan's: Two wall signs and a pylon sign. McDonald's: One wall sign and a pylon sign. Watershed District Requirements The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District requires that the applicant apply for a watershed district permit for this project. Mr. Karl Hammers of the watershed district recommended that the applicant install additional silt fence along the edge of the construction limits to the southeast of the proposed building. The applicant should check with Mr. Hammers for specific details about the location when they apply for a watershed district permit. COMMITTEE ACTIONS March 5, 2001: The planning commission recommended approval of the easement vacation. RECOMMENDATION Approve the architectural, site, landscaping and sign plans, date-stamped February 22, 2001, for the proposed Gander Mountain store at the Birch Run Station Shopping Center. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval. b. Obtain council approval of the utility easement vacation. Revise the design of the trash enclosure for staff approval to match the material and color of the building. The gate shall be chain link with screening slats. The enclosure shall be large enough to accommodate all of the owners needs for trash and recyclable- materials storage. d. Revise the landscape plan for staff approval showing the relocation of the two mature trees on the site. Revise the building elevations for CDRB approval showing an improved design that dresses up the building, especially the two "back" elevations. The applicant should propose an exterior material that utilizes brick for compatibility with nearby buildings and architectural design elements to break up the large exterior walls. The applicant should consider using columns and materials that break up the large exterior elevations. All mountain detailing should be EIFS rather than paint as shown in some of the areas to depict the mountain silhouettes. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Paint the rooftop mechanical equipment, if visible, to match the building color. b. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. Provide site security lighting that is aimed or shielded so not to shine into drivers' eyes. The site lights shall match the design of the light poles on the abutting properties as closely as possible. d. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lots and drives. e. Pave all driving surfaces. The existing curb cut on the north-south driveway west of the proposed building shall be closed with curb and gutter and painted yellow to match the existing curb along this driveway. g. Remove the rolled asphalt curbing along the west edge of the McDonald's parking lot. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be one and a half times (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 winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring and summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. The Gander Mountain wall signs are approved as shown on the plans. Staff shall approve the location of the proposed pylon sign. The size and height of the pylon sign shall comply with code requirements. A wall sign on the south elevation may be installed if substituted for the pylon sign. In any case, no more than four store identification signs may be used. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.84 acres Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Birch Run Station Bennigan's Irish American Grill and Tavern Birch Run Station McDonald's PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC (business commercial) Zoning: BC Application Date We received this application on February 22, 2001. State law requires that the city council decide on this project within 60 days. City council action is required by February 22, 2001. p:sec3~gandermt.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Site/Landscape Plan 5. Birch Run Station Site Plan 6. Pylon Sign 7. Wall Signs 8. Wall Sign Detail 9. Plans date-stamped February 22, 2001 (separate attachments) iS HEIGHTS WHITE BEAR LAKE COUNTY ROAD D COUNTY PROPOSED GANDER MOUNTAIN ~ JOHN'S -r 1, SUMMIT CT. ~ 2. COUNTRYV1EW CIR. BLVD. ~ 3. DULUTH CT. DEMONT EHILL RD. GERVNS AVE. GRANDVIEW SHERREN AVE. Loke AVE. ~ AVE. AVE:. ~ LARK Attachment 1 ROAD D WOODLYNN RAMSEY COUNTY COURT KOHLMAN AV V1EV COPE RO. II ~.,,/ I I I I I ,Attachment 2 PROPOSED E~SEMENT VACATION PROPOSED GANDER ,,-.,,,,~ MOUNTAIN BEAM AVENUE PROPERTY LINE MAP 8 Attachment 3 J~ US)' 'PROPOSED '~- GANDER MOUNTAIN 299.48 SITE PLAN Attachment 4 SITE I LANDSCAPE PLAN 10 /'t b bCl. L. I lllll~ I I b ~J [ PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION PTION PROPOSED :GANDER MOUNTAIN Attachment 6 12 Attachment 7 13 Attachment 8 0 TO: FROM: ~UBdEGT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM city Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Review- Maplewood Imports Addition 2780 North Highway 61 March 6, 2001 INTRODUCTION Project Description Brian Teeters, of Ryan Companies, is proposing to build a 2,600-square-foot addition onto the east (rear elevation) side of Maplewood Imports, 2780 North Highway 61. Refer to pages 7-9. The project would add four repair bays and a tool room to the existing building. The extedor of the proposed addition would be flat concrete block with an upper fascia of rough-textured, break- off block. The proposed addition would be painted beige. The materials and color would match the existing building. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision to add onto the building. The code requires a CUP for motor-vehicle repair garages. The code also requires a CUP since the proposed addition would be closer than 350 feet to the residential district to the south. The proposed addition would be 335 feet from the residential zoning line. Refer to the site plan on page 9 and the letter on page 10. 2. The building design and site plans. BACKGROUND December 9, 1996: The city council approved a CUP for vehicle showroom and repair-garage additions for Maplewood Imports. The council also approved a wetland-buffer width variance. The city code required an average of a 100-foot-wide wetland buffer in the back of this site. The applicant received approval to provide a narrower buffer which varied in width. The council also approved the design plans. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The proposed expansion meets the criteria for a CUP. This site is within the Kohlman Lake Shoreland Boundary Area, but it would not violate shoreland requirements. The proposed addition would be built on existing pavement so it would not add impervious surface to the site. I checked with Cliff Aichinger of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District about wetland issues. Mr. Aichinger said the applicant does not need a permit from his office since the proposed construction does not affect the wetland to the east since the applicant would not extend beyond any existing paved areas. Compliance with Previous CUP Conditions In 1996, the city council required that the applicant comply with the following conditions which relate to watershed district concerns: · The applicant is to submit a report to the council on an annual basis on the sump catch basin effectiveness and maintenance activities and schedules. · The applicant shall submit a landscape plan which indicates a seed plan mixture for buffer areas as suggested by the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District. · The applicant shall submit a tree buffer plan for the southern area of the site to include the use of native species as approved by the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District. The applicant has complied with the seeding and landscaping requirements, but they have not submitted annual reports on the effectiveness and maintenance of their sump catch basin. Doug Molder, of Maplewood Imports, stated that he was unaware of this requirement but he would gladly comply. Mr. Mulder recently inspected the storm catch basin and found the system clean and working. Refer to his letter on page 11. Staff suggests that these annual reviews be handled administratively rather than taking up city council time. Staff will coordinate with Mr. Molder to verify that Maplewood Imports performs the annual inspections and maintenance of his sump catch basin. Building Design The design and exterior of the proposed addition is acceptable since it would match the existing building. The existing building has an exterior of flat concrete block with an upper fascia of rough-textured break-off block. Parking There is enough parking available on the site to meet code requirements. With the proposed addition, Maplewood Imports would need 175 spaces according to the code. After the expansion, the applicant would have 204 spaces. The required parking takes into account parking for employees, customers and vehicles in for servicing. Site Lights The code requires that new site lights be designed or aimed so that they do not shine into any residential neighbors' windows or onto a public street. The applicant should submit a photometric plan if they would install any new site lights that would shine toward the residential nei9, hbors. 2 Site Clean Up There are several cardboard boxes on the north side of the building. properly store and dispose of all boxes and debris. The applicant should COMMITTEE ACTIONS March 5, 2001' The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 12-14 approving a conditional use permit revision for Maplewood Imports to enlarge their motor-vehicle repair garages at 2780 North Highway 61. This permit is based on the standards required by ordinance and is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The property owner appiiea~ shall ~$ to submit an annual a report to staff the-eotm~ on --,'~ ~,,-~,'~::--I,,oo,o ....... ,,,, the sump catch basin effectiveness and maintenance activities-arid schedules. 5. The property owner shall not park on the grass or landscaped areas. Th- c=pp:ic,~nt -~'-" ....: - ' b ff ' ' '" '" -f th- -: Approval of the plans date-stamped February 20, 2001 for the building expansion at Maplewood Imports, 2780 North Highway 61. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. The applicant shall submit the following to staff for approval before obtaining a building permit: 3 a. Grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plans. b. A photometric-lighting plan if there would be any new site lights installed. This plan shall comply with city lighting code. c. A screening plan for any new roof-top equipment that would be installed that would be visible to residential neighbors. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Paint any new roof-top mechanical equipment that may be placed on the proposed addition. Paint must match the color of the building. Any new roof-mounted equipment visible to adjacent residential property shall be screened. b. Aim or shield any new site lights so they are not a nuisance to neighbors. c. The exterior materials and color of the addition shall match the existing building. 4. Keep the trash storage and dumpster areas clean and picked up. If a problem develops, the city may require additional dumpster space and/or an enclosure at the time of future conditional use permit reviews. 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. The director of community development may All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 8.31 acres Existing land use: Maplewood Imports SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: KSTP Radio Station Don's Auto Body and single dwellings which front on Kohlman Avenue Highway 61 (Maplewood Drive) Undeveloped property PAST ACTIONS Maplewood Imports November 6, 1969: The city council approved plans for the original building. July 19, 1979: The council approved a CUP for a 3,900-square-foot shop addition. June 8, 1987: The council approved a CUP for a 1,740-square-foot car wash addition. May 23, 1988: The council reviewed the CUP and approved it for an indefinite term. December 9, 1996: The council approved a CUP and a wetland-setback variance. PLANNING Land use plan designation and zoning: M-1 (light manufacturing) Ordinance requirements: M-1 Ordinance Requirements Section 36-187(b) requires a CUP for any building or exterior use, except parking, in a M-1 district that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. Section 36-151(b)(9) requires a CUP for motor-vehicle repair garages. Criteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 12-14. Application Date The city received the complete application for this proposal on February 20, 2001. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by April 20, 2001. p:sec4\mapimpor. 301 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's letter dated February 19, 2001 5. Letter from Doug Mulder dated March 2, 2001 6 Conditional Use Permit Resolution 7. Plans date-stamped February 20, 2001 (separate attachment) ~e"~'s ALVA,;,ADO DR 3 ~£L/.ECREST D~ PALt~ .5 ~£R~D~,' DR CT. V~K!NG DR. R~ CT.( BURKE SKILLMAN AV. VADNAIS HEIGHTS KOHLMAN COUNTY ROAD /SEXTANT AVE. G£R'VA!S ~ JUNC~ON (1) CHAMBERS cOUrSe ~ GOLF SKILL Attachment 1 1. SUMMr'r CT. / 3. DULUTH CT. 4. LYDIA ST. / BEAU AVE. SH£RREN AVE. AVE. ad Lake AVE. ~ohn .f L LOCATION 7 MAP Attachment 2 i ,,' SERVICE ENGINEERING MAPLEWOOD IMPORTS t I 125~ 1263 -KOHl-MAN ~0. z~77 DIE] I PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 8 Attachment 3 PROPOSED ADDITION MAPLEWOOD IMPORTS SITE PLAN 9 Rvan Companies US, Inc. Attachment 4 YAH ~-()l) Ill/lq n~dional !)(~(l%~'~'~)li(I \x~'n,l~~ February 19, 2001 Tom Ekstrand City Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: MAPLEWOOD IMPORTS ADDITION CUP WRITTEN STATEMENT FEB 2 D 200~ Dear Tom: This letter is in response to the City of Maplewood's requirement of a written statement for the Conditional Use Permit application for the Maplewood Imports Addition. The intended use for the addition is primarily for service work to automobiles. Three new automobile hoists are being added to the new space along with a frame machine. We feel that this project is in accordance with the City of Maplewood's CUP guidelines and causes no adverse effects to any nearby residences and businesses. Please contaCt me with any questions you may have @ (612) 340-9674. Sincerely, Brian Teeters Project Manager Q ,J3EPT~PROJ-NEWX1100\1138-000 WAYZATAALrrOCENTERB ODYSH OPXLETTERS''CUPCRITERIALETTER DOC/JL 10 l)csign Build · lit.al Es-tat,' Dcxt.h,pn,cnt ' · l)rol~cl't5 Mana~untent MAPLEWOOD IMPORTS RY~]N COMPANIES a ?70~00 ~ 6~17662323 03/02/0~ Attachment MAPLEWOOD F' M Po R T S 15:31 M E R C E D E S - B E N 7 - A U D I - P (..) I~' S C H E NO. 1G? P002/002 [~: 01/01 N0: 84 March 2, 2001 R.yan Companies Mr, Teeters: Regarding our conversation about the maintenance of the catch basin as stated in the conditional use permit, I trove gone out and investigated the condition through the view pipe. We removed the top cap and looked down into the basra. Thc pipe and thc basin were clear, so we took some meohanical wire to measure the depth at the bottom of the bain. There appears to be about 2-3 inches ofwster, but no build up of silt or sludge. In the spring and on a yearly basis, we will inspect the flow of these basins to insure they are functioning as designed. Since installation we have had no incidents of back up or ovcrI]ow, Sincerely, Doug Mulder Ocncral Manager Maplewood Imports North Hiuhwav 61 · Maplcwuod. Minnesota 55109 · 651-493-26g I Attachment 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company applied for a conditional use permit revision to add vehicle-repair space onto an auto dealership building. The addition would be within 350 feet of a residential lot line. WHEREAS, this permit applies to Maplewood Imports at 2780 North Highway 61. The legal description is: Lots 97, 98 and 99 of GARDENA ADDITIONAL OF RAMSEY COUNTY, Minnesota together with the west % of vacated English Street lying between the Easterly extension of the North line of said Lot 97 and Easterly extension of the South line of said Lot 99. The North 114 feet of Lots 16 and 17, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The Northerly 300 feet of Lot 14 and all of Lot 15, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. All that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the South east 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22, which lies East of the Easterly right of way of Trunk Highway No. 61, and North of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point distant 531.75 feet West and 122 feet South of the Northeast corner of the above-described fraction of Section 4, thence running Northwesterly at a range of approximately 66 degrees, 28 minutes, from said point 107 feet, more or less to a point on the Easterly right of way line of said Highway No. 61, which said point is 90 feet Southwesterly from the point of intersection of said Eastedy right of way line with the North line of said quarter-quarter-quarter section line except that part platted as KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION.. The North one-half of Lot Twelve (12) of KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota together with that part of vacated English Street lying within the SE 1/4 of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22 and lying between the Eastedy extension of the North line of Lot 12, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, and the Easterly extension of the South line of the North % of Lot 12, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION. The North 300 feet of Lot Thirteen (13) of KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The North Half (N %) of Lot Eighteen (18), KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, together with an easement for ingress and egress over the West 10 feet of the South Half of Lot Eighteen (18), KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The North 335.00 feet of Lots 73 and 74, GARDENA ADDITION to Ramsey County, Minnesota; and the East 40 feet of English Street, vacated, lying between the Westerly extensions across said street of the North line of Lot 74 and the South line of the North 335.00 feet of Lot 74, all in GARDENA ADDITION to Ramsey County, Minnesota. 12 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On March 5, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On , the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10. There would not be a significant affect on the development of the parcel as zoned. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on The city council shall review this permit in one year. The property owner shall submit an annual report to staff on the sump catch basin effectiveness and maintenance activities. The property owner shall not park on the grass or landscaped areas. ,2001. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Interview of Applicants for CDRB Membership March 6, 2001 INTRODUCTION Five people have applied for the vacancy on the community design review board (CDRB). The applicants are: Diana Longrie-Kline, Richard Eugene Currie, Linda Mae Olson, Michelene R. Miner and Richard Oie. BACKGROUND The vacancy is for the remainder of Board Member LaCasse's two-year term which would end January 1, 2003. RECOMMENDATION Interview the applicants and forward a recommendation to the city council. p:~niscelNnterview, drb Applications Attached for: 1. Diana Longde-Kline 2. Richard Eugene Curde 3. Linda MaeOIson 4. Michelene R. Miner 5. Richard Oie CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM PHONENO. Work:(~Y~-'q~,0t-15S I Home: (oSl~:~['-Iq"ClO DATE Attachment .- :_;,,; ........... ZIP S,~ I I-:~ ./lo_loo 1) 2) HOW long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? I~)/~ ~1~ Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Comments: ~JOr~ dO~ ~ ~/~i~ ~ Yes No X' 3) On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) ~ Community Design Review Board ~ Park & Recreation Commission ~ Housing & Redevelopment Authority __ Planning Commission ~ Human Relations Commission __ Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any se~ areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? 5) List other organizations or clubs in tho Gommunity in which you have b~en or aro an active padicipant: 6) Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? ,,,-,,-~ ~"" .,:, o,., ~ ,~E,,,,.~ / ,.o..L~.t.,.,~,,~. '~' t~s,f~ % ~ ~ ~ ~ ~... ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: ~ ~E INFORMATION OONTAINE~ IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE O~SSIFIED AS PUBLIC, CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM NAME "~ F,, o..c~ ADDRESS ~~. ~o~,~ ~ PHONE NO. Work: 4, ~/- ~ ~. ~-d/¢¢/ Home: Attachment 2 DATE ZIP 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Comments: Yes. No X___ 3) 4) On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) ~ Community Design Review Board ~ Park & Recreation Commission ~ Housing & Redevelopment Authority ~ Planning Commission ~ Human Relations Commission ~ Police Civil Service Commission Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: 6) Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? "~ ¢,~r~ ~,~ ~',o ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC. FORMStBRD&COMM]APL 10/96 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM NAME L,//Jb~ ~J///~ 0/..~~../ ADDRESS ~'~2~" ~--J~'/' ~...~L)~ J~ ~ PHONE NO. Work: ~,/Z. - 37,.~'-.~,/-///--/ Home: ~,5"/-" 72?-/2. ~ DATE tt:chment 3 .... ~-,--. ZIP ~5--/dD ~ 1) HOW long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? /7// ~.~5- ¢r)1 ~'~ 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No~~.~ Comments: X.~ ,~"~'-~ ~.. ~'~_.~Z~_~ ~ ,,~t-~/.,.,~ ~ 3) On which Board or Commis you ~nteres~ea in serving? (please check) ~ Community Design Review Board ~ Park & Recreation Commission ~ Housing & Redevelopment Authority ~ Planning Commission Human Relations Commission ~ Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any s_~ecific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? 5) List other organizationsor clubs in the Community in which,, you have been or are an active participant:. / 6) Why wo~ld yo/u like t~serve on this Board or Commission? "~" "7 .... ,r /- ADDITIONAL COMMENI~: . g/ . FORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC. FORMS~BRD&COMM.'APL 10/96 NAME PHONE NO. Work: CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM FFr~ Attachment 4 ZIP ,._~/~ 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? ~' ,~ /4 ¢¢~.~' 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes Comments: No X/_ 3) On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) .~' Community Design Review Board ~ Park & Recreation Commission ~ Housing & Redevelopment Authority ~ Planning Commission Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? 5) E~st ot"~"C~er orgamz~~tl~e C~' · f~~-~'~' "' ommunity in which you have been or are an active participant: 6) Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? FOI~MSt'BR D&COMM.APL 5 Michelene R. Miner 2382 Gall Avenue E Maplewood, MN 55109 651/779-9770 February 12, 2001 Mr. Tom Eckstrand, Planner City of Maplewood Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Tom: Enclosed is my application for the City of Maplewood's Boards and Commission in response to the vacancy on the Community Development Review Board. I appreciate the opportunity to submit my application to this committee for their review, and look forward to an interview should you desire more in-depth information about my design background. Thank you in advance for your consideration. I hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely, Michelene R. Miner NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. Work: ~o ~')- z/? ~. 4//-4 ?-3 Home: '~ WIAPLEWOOD '20,~' ,~,ND COMMISSIONS 'APPU,~ANT INFORMATION FORM Attachment 5 ZIP ._~"-~-'~ / oq) DATE 7_.- / 2- O/ 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? /---~-' -/- 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes ~ Comments: No.~ 3) On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) 5q Community Design Review Board ~ Park & Recreation Commission '~ Housing & Redevelopment Authority ~( Planning Commission Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: 6) Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC. FORMS~BRD&COMM.'APL 10/96