Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/20001. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, December 6, 2000, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes a. November 20, 2000 Unfinished Business None New Business a. APT Monopole Conditional Use Permit (English Street and Gervais Avenue) b. Residential parking ordinance c. Planning Commission Vacancy Interview 7. Visitor Presentations o Commission Presentations a. November 27 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman b. December 11 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer c. December 25 Council Meeting: No meeting d. January 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION o This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the 'proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jwlpc~pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2000 II. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson Commissioner Dale Trippler Staff Present: Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Melinda Coleman, Community Development Director Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Chris Cavett, Acting City Engineer Recording Secretary: Lori Hansen III. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-All The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 16th, 2000: Mr. Ledvina: Page 4, wanted to clarify the paragraph to read: Mr. Ledvina suggested the existing grade for the project may need to be corrected due to there being a four foot high hump on the property from curb to back. Discussion also took place regarding the house being a two story walk out, if it was constructed with the existing grade it would be a towering building. Mr. Trippler: Page 2, second to last paragraph, amend sentence to read: if it will have any adverse affect. The last sentence in the paragraph should read there, not their. Commission Pearson moved approval of the minutes of October 16th, 2000 as amended. Commissioner Ledvina seconded the motion. Ayes-7 (Fischer, Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Thompson, Trippler, Frost) The motion passed. Abstention-1 (Mueller) Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -2- Vo PUBLIC HEARING A. Affordable Auto Sales/Conditional Use Permit--(1930 Rice Street) Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. The proposal is for a conditional use permit to sell used cars from the property at 1930 Rice Street. The site is on the northeast corner of Rice Street and Roselawn Avenue on the western edge of Maplewood. The zoning is BC (business commercial), and used car sales are allowed by a conditional use permit in that zone. The property was previously a fuel station and a stereo installation center, and most recently an auto glass installation facility. Recently it has been sitting vacant. Staff did not have a concern with a used car lot at this location as long as the owners keep the property well maintained and operated and parking is controlled. The Design Review Board approved the proposal at their meeting last week and staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit for the used car sales subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Trippler questioned if this was the project that started construction without obtaining a permit and what reasons they gave for that action. Staff will let the applicant respond to his question. The hours of operation of the business were not included in the conditions. Staff felt because there were not any residential homes near the site the staff did not include hours of operation in the conditions. Mr. Frost questioned whether three curb cuts were excessive for a business this size. Mr. Roberts noted the review board recommended the southern curb cut on Rice Street be closed. The maintenance and repair work on vehicles was also not included in the conditions due to residential properties not being located close to the business. Cleanup and detailing is to be expected for the business, beyond that any other type of work would not affect anyone but the business itself. Mr. Thompson asked to have the parking clarified by the applicant. He wanted to know of the nineteen parking stalls, where the customers and employees park. Mr. Blaine Godes, 1930 Rice Street was present for the applicant. Mr. Godes responded to the questions from the commission. The applicant resided the building and painted the building without applying for a permit. They did not know they needed a permit for facial upgrades. As soon as the city notified them to cease working without a permit, they stopped and applied for their building permit. Regarding parking, 17 of the spaces will be for inventory cars, one will be for handicapped, one for customers, and the two stall garages inside of the building will be for employee parking. Of the two garage bays, one will be used for small repairs and oil changes and the other for employee parking. The goal of the applicant is to sell thirty to thirty-five cars per month. Every couple weeks the applicant plans to turn over his inventory and does not see a need for there ever being more than seventeen cars in the lot at a time. Mr. Mueller noticed a light that shines directly into his car window as he drives past the site and questioned whether or not the lighting was up to code. Mr. Ledvina noted the Design Review Board added a condition to the their approval stating all lighting must comply with city ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -3- Mr. Frost moved the planning commission recommend to the city council to adopt the resolution that approves a conditional use permit for used car sales at 1930 Rice Street. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed use 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 site shall be kept in neat and orderly condition. The applicant shall observe the striping pattern and not crowd additional vehicles on the site beyond what can be parked in the striped parking spaces. This shall include keeping the drive aisles clear of vehicles. 5. There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along either street. This shall be done on site. 6. Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited unless such materials can be fully concealed within a trash enclosure. The design and placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval. Mr. Ledvina seconded the motion. He also added a friendly amendment to the motion to add a condition six. He suggested the condition reads: Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited. Ayes-All Motion Carries. The item will go to the city council on December 11. B. Emerald Estates Preliminary. Plat--(County Road D). Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. The proposal is for a 12-unit town home development on the north side of County Road D. There would be four units in each of the three buildings, and each lot would be sold individually. Staff feels this site would be a fit for the area with the existing apartment building and the expected town homes to the west. The proposal does meet the cities zoning requirements and density standards. Staff is recommending approval of the proposal with nine conditions outlined in the staff report. Staff explained the reason the developer needs to submit the home owner bylaws to the city is to assure the maintenance of the utilities, driveways and structures are covered. The city wants to ensure the homeowners association is covering services the homeowners are paying for in their association fees. If a homeowner chooses not to take care of their property it affects the owner, in a town home association it could effect all 12 property owners. Mr. Thompson wanted to commend the engineer on this site for his addressing of storm water run off. He felt there are certainly different standards being used on this project than other projects recently considered. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -4- Ms. Coleman noted the staff also was concerned with there not being a sidewalk included in the plans for this project, but felt the issue would be addressed when the planning was being completed for the Hajieck parcel. The transportation concerns have also been discussed by staff. The department has started discussions with Ramsey County about traffic issues. The staff was unable to respond at this time on how people will be able to cross from north County Road D to south since there is not an accessible intersection. Mr. Kimm Tram-Tram Builders Realtors, 3289 Cad Court, Arden Hill, was present to answer questions. Mr. Thompson questioned why the entrance to the property was on the western side of the project and not on the eastern side. His concern was with the seven foot drop down to the adjacent property. Mr. Tram felt the proposed driveway in the plans is where the existing curb cut is for the property. Mr. Tram would like to talk to his engineer to discuss the driveway placement and would be willing to move the curb cut for safety reasons if there wasn't a good reason to leave it where it is at. The sales market for the homes would include all ages. Commissioner Mueller's concern was the lack of play area for children. Mr. Tram felt perhaps families with young children was not their targeted clientele when the design concept was created. Commissioner Rossbach reiterated his stand from previous meetings that he will not approve another development in this neighborhood until the city has preliminary plans and a procedure to address traffic concerns in the area. Mr. Frost moved the planning commission recommend to the city council to approve the plans date-stamped October 25, 2000 for the Emerald Estates preliminary plat. The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. * Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of any traffic-control or no parking signs. d. Provide all required and necessary easements. 2. * Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading p~an shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) The driveway grades. (4) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -5- The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) All the parking areas and driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter. (2) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (3) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all the site perimeter property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. Submit the homeowner's association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and structure. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowner's association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 11-20-00 Mr. Pearson seconded. Ayes-6 (Fischer, Thompson, Frost, Pearson, Trippler,Ledvina) Nays-2 (Rossbach, Mueller) Mr. Mueller's nay vote is due to his concerns with traffic control, the lack of a sidewalk and planning for children. This proposal will go to the city council December 11th. Mr. Pearson confirmed with staff that there will be a park fee paid on each unit developed. C. Gar.~--(Northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street). The staff report was given by Ken Roberts. Gary Blair of Carpet Court is proposing to build an 8,100 square foot two story building for his carpet store and warehouse. It would be located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street. There is a mix of commercial and residential properties in the area. Mr. Blair is asking the city for several approvals: Rezoning the westerly part of the site from R. (single dwelling residential) to BC (business commercial). The city has planned this property for BC use. Refer to the map on page 10 and the applicant's letter on page 12. 2. A 25-foot building setback variance from the west lot line. The code requires a 75-foot setback-the applicant is proposing 50 feet. A 13 percent impervious surface area variance from the shore land ordinance. The code requires that the applicant cover no more than 50 percent of the site with building, asphalt and concrete (impervious material). The applicant's sit plan shows a coverage of 63 percent. The state law is clear on variances. The city council must make two specific findings to approve a variance: The strict enforcement would cause an undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. Undue hardship means that the property can not be put to a reasonable use if all conditions have to be followed by the zoning code. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Roberts stated making the hardship determination because of a unique situation is always the most difficult to make on any variance request. That is definitely the case in this situation. With this property, it is a relatively straightforward shape and there are no unusual physical characteristics. In staffs analysis, the applicant is trying to put too much building and parking on the property in relation to city standards. Normally the city requires a 75 foot setback to the west lot line and the plans have the setback at 50 feet. Another concern is the amount of impervious surface. Code, at best, would allow 50 percent coverage of hard surfaces with the driveways, parking areas and building. This proposal is at 63 percent. Clearly, if the building was smaller there would be less need for parking, and a smaller footprint would have less impervious surface with a less building size and reduced parking. Staff has calculated that there is about 3900 square feet too much of impervious surface on this size property. With that in mind, the variance needed to the west setback and because of the impervious surface variance request, staff has major concerns with the proposal. Staff is recommending denial of all three proposals: the zoning change from R1 to BC for the Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -7- westerly lot, denial of the side setback variance, and denial of the proposed 13 percent impervious surface variance. Staff feels the applicant can not make the findings for a variance both in the setback and the impervious surface. In summary, Mr. Roberts stated "the applicant has a quart of stuff trying to go in a pint jar and because of that we have to recommend denying all three requests". Mr. Trippler was happy to see the city actually denying a variance, but was baffled as to why this request. When reading the staff recommendations on this site he kept thinking about the Kline Volvo proposal. They were requesting a 75 foot variance from a 100 foot setback right directly abutting a wetland. The city council granted a 75 foot variance so there was only a 25 foot setback. The property was right adjacent to a wetland and the impervious surface was about 85 percent of the site. The commission asked for a certain number of parking spots and the only way to get it was to double deck their cars, one on top of the other, and yet the city recommendation was to go ahead with the variance. Mr. Trippler asked staff to weigh the two and explain why one is approved and the other is denied. Staff responded by stating the Kline Volvo is not in the shoreland district. There is not a shoreland type variance there but there was a wetland variance. The difference in staffs mind was the precedent had been set with other wetland variances on Highway 61 which include the Lexus dealership and Maplewood Toyota. Maplewood Imports also has a wetland setback variance. Secondly, with their revised plans, Kline Volvo was able to make all of their parking requirements. The watershed district did work with the city on that site. They had the applicant install an underground drainage system that catches the water off of the parking lot before it goes into the wetland. The system acts as a pretreatment pond. In summary, the city did take some measures to try to mitigate the effects the development would have on the wetlands. The biggest difference is the precedent set with the wetland setback variance. The city would be hard pressed to say we've granted variances before but now we are going to stop granting them in a very similar situation. This is different in the staffs mind because we are in the shoreland ordinance and not the wetland ordinance. Melinda Coleman, Director of Community Development stated the watershed district encouraged and allowed the city to make wetland variances. The wetland ordinance came much later in the development of Maplewood (1995). Basically it would render those parcels on Highway 61 unbuildable if the ordinance was followed to the fullest extent. The shoreland ordinance has been in existence for a lot longer time period and would allow projects to be built on this current parcel. Mr. Thompson was also a little amazed with the difference in recommendation and was struggling to understand the difference in proposals, and why one can be approved and the other can be denied. Mr. Ledvina questioned the building setback from the north property line and what that setback requirement would be. Staff responded that there is no zoning code setback requirement, it would be whatever building code would require because it would be next to commercial property. Mr. Muetler asked if in talking with the builder, did they indicate if they could make that footprint smaller and still use that land. Staff has not talked to them at this point, and suggested that the question be forwarded to Tom Ekstrand who has been the point of contact up until this point. He also questioned the statement of "there would be no alternative but to forfeit the building in leu of receiving the variance" was one of the comments in the applicants proposal and was that just said to convince us to agree or are they really hard fast to that statement. Secondly, he asked if there other builders and or ideas for this piece of land. He felt it has been out there for awhile and somebody has finally come forward and said they want to use it. Staff responded that this is the first applicant that has gone this far in developing plans for this site in the eleven years he has worked for the city. Mr. Rossbach pointed out that a proposal for the property on the corner of Highway 61 and Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -8- County Road C was also in the shoreland area and was also denied by the city because they wanted to overly pave and build on the site. Even though that proposal may have had a water retention plan for the site, the same premise was true. It was in the shoreland district, and it was in a situation where they were trying to put too much in too small of a piece of property. As it ended up; the convenience store went by the wayside and the site now has the Forest Products building. Mr. Rossbach said that he has always been an advocate of the theory that Maplewoods property is desirable whether it be commercial or residential and it is going to get built on. As such, he feels there is no pressure on the city whatsoever do jump on every proposal that comes through. The commission has very little control with what does go on in some areas, so if there is any thought that they could get a better development or a more well suited development for a particular parcel of land, it seems like it would behoove the city to wait for that proposal. Melinda Coleman also wanted to point out to Mr. Rossbach's comment that the convenience store was actually denied. The city was taken to court over the request and the city prevailed. She also added that the wetland variances for the car dealerships on Highway 61 was due to the watershed districts opinion that in that particular case the existing buffer to that wetland was so degraded those developments and the improvements that were made were actually an improvement to the quality of the wetlands and to the buffers. She agreed that there are some significant differences to the variances approved to the car dealerships on Highway 61 and the applicants proposal. Mr. Trippler wondered if there have been any discussions with the watershed district on this particular application. Ms. Coleman felt the property was too small to even have to go to the district. The property is less than an acre, and therefore they do not go to the watershed district. Mr. Gary Blair, the applicant, 1769 Reany Avenue in St. Paul, was present. Mr. Blair is the owner of Carpet Court in St. Paul, and has owned this business for 27 years. This building that he now occupies is less than 2000 square feet and does not have a warehouse, and has owned this building on the corner of a residential area for over 20 years. Mr. Blair distributed business cards that displayed a picture of the current building he owns. His business is the only business on the corner, and it is commercially rated. They have outgrown this building and need a new place to set up business. It is family owned and operated with his wife and two sons. The property they purchased (the proposed site) is on the border of St. Paul and Maplewood. They had looked all over town for property and really like the proposed site. When they found this property they spoke to the real estate agent and had concerns that they would be able to put a building up with a warehouse that would provide for their business needs and to show their product. At that time, Mr. Blair, his wife and their real estate agent spoke with Tom Ekstrand. Tom provided them with the requirements for the development of the site. Mr. Blair supplied the commission with a copy of the note Mr. Ekstrand provided him. Mr. Blair then informed his Realtor he would need some time to meet with an architect. He then spoke with an architect (this was about two years ago), who designed the drawing very similar to what they are using currently. On that drawing the same square footage is used as the current drawing. They had a contingency with the oil company to buy the property on whether or not this building would be buildable. Based on the contingency that they could build this building, Mr. Blair purchased the property. Due to their type of business, they have a customer here and there, Mr. Blair felt that coming up with parking for 20 cars would not be a big issue. The chances of having that many customers at one time is slim, (he wishes that would be the case, but in all probability and case history, it just isn't going to happen). They were told by the design review board, at that point, the parking issue was workable but now feels they are not being given any leeway. Mr. Blair said he has had three architects work on the drawing and the current plans are the closest they can come to fitting a building in the lot. The recommendation states the applicant can Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -9- put a building of 5,000 feet on a 30,000 foot piece of property. Mr. Blair strongly feels that in itself indicates their is an apparent hardship with this property. The other main problem, Mr. Blair feels, is the required setback to the west. The building behind the property where this variance is being request is classified as residential, however, it is a group home. It is not a single dwelling home and the applicant does not feel the variance should be applicable. The applicant stressed he is not inferring the city has not been cooperative. He does feel as though the information they have been given over the last two years while they have been working on this proposal has not been timely. The applicant has already developed plans for a pond with a filtering system on the property that he feels is going to be much more effective than what is in place currently. It will catch all the water in the back area and take it into a filtering pond that is connected to the 5 foot main sewer line from the city. They are taking the water off of the roof and the back of the property and putting it in this filtering pond. They feel the zoning proposal should be approved because they do not believe they have to be building to apply for zoning change from residential to commercial. The other areas they feel are definitely hardships. Brian Phelps, Stegner -Phelps Architects, Brainerd, MN was present for the applicant. Mr. Rossbach questioned whether Mr. Phelps requested from the city a copy of all ordinances and setbacks required for designing this building and if any of them are other than was is being presented in the report. Mr. Phelps answer was no. He also added that he spoke with the planning person on the 75 foot setback and he felt that it could be a 50 foot setback. Mr. Rossbach reiterated that it was the planners "thoughts" and not what was in the codes and ordinances. Mr. Phelps also noted the planner commented on stepping the building and because the master plan had the whole area rezoned to commercial (in the comprehensive plan), that someday the setback would not be a requirement. The percent coverage of the land in the shoreland area was also discussed. The architect also acknowledged knowing, when designing the plans, there would be variances necessary. In addressing the parking situation, Mr. Blair stated that the church has used his lot more than once for overflow parking. If the parking is a problem he wondered if it possible to make a written agreement with the church or with Bacchus next door to use two or three of their spots. Mr. Blair did not know if there was a law or not preventing this agreement, but he was told that may be a possibility and could be done. The three parking spots were for employees in the back of the plans were added in by the engineer. If those three spots were taken out, it would lessen the impervious surface on site. If it is necessary to obtain more land in order to meet qualifications, Mr. Blair wanted to know if they purchased a lot next to the proposed site if that would take care of the problem. Staff responded in saying that there was no question that if the lot area was made bigger by purchase and combined with the current property it would definitely help their case. Also, with the parking issue, there have been occasions were the city has allowed shared parking with some type of written agreement. If something can be put together to reduce the impervious surface on the site, staff felt it would definitely help. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -10- Mr. Thompson confirmed the applicant has owned the property for a couple of years, and stated the city frowns on outside storage, and yet there has been a lot of outside storage on this property. Mr. Blair confirmed a lot of vehicles have been parking on the property that are not owned by the applicant. On a regular basis they have posted a note right on the vehicle to move them. For the most part that has been effective, but not always. The City of St. Paul has also been using the space to store their utility vehicles overnight and an excavating company has been doing the same. There is also equipment under cover that was brought in almost one and a half years ago for the building of the property. It is remaining there, waiting for the go ahead to start the project. The two boats sitting on the property do belong to Mr. Blair, they are for sale, and the applicant was told it was ok to do that. Other people have not been allowed to have property sitting on the site for sale. The texture of the building was a concern as documented in the staff notes. Mr. Blair stated that he was not aware the smooth brick was not preferred and had no problem switching to a rock face brick. Mr. Blair would like an attractive building and sees no problem using an all textured colored brick. He displayed a drawing of the proposed outside of the building. He wanted to ensure the commissioner understood he is not trying to overstep their bounds, but felt the site was very limited to work with. They want a building put up that they can be proud of as well. Eileen Blair, the joint owner of the property, spoke on behalf of the applicant. The one area she wanted to address was the content of the meetings with Mr. Ekstrand. The drawings were based on the recommendations from Mr. Ekstrand. She felt that when a person is in the position of dictating what is required they should be held responsible for the decisions they make or the requirements they give. "This is a two year project that has not been done hastily. They have attempted to work within the guidelines that were outlined by the city ordinances." She feels it would be an injustice to rule them out because of the setback issue. They have attempted several sets of plans with several architects to accommodate the square footage needs with the property. Mr. Rossbach reiterated that the applicants have had several architects and that no one could figure out how to design the plans to comply with the ordinance very well, and wondered if at any time did that not raise a flag that maybe they were attempting to put too big of a building on the site? Ms. Blair responded that if Mr. Ekstrand had not thought they could do it, yes. The main issue seemed to be the setback therefore they tried moving the building to the front of the property and putting the parking in the back of the property, but then you are going to have a full massive wall near Highway 61, and they were told that was not attractive, and that it may be an eyesore. Although Mr. Rossbach felt sorry for their situation, and that he felt they made a good effort to work with the city, he asked that they do not hold the commission responsible for what one person has told them and how that activity went. The Planning Commission can not change their mind and change what they have been trained to do and interpret issues based on one persons experience. When the Blair's first decided to purchase the land, Ms. Blair explained they went in and asked for a rezoning of the back lot, that was the first thing they wanted done. They were told no, the city wanted to see the entire project in its completion before the one lot was rezoned. They did not understand that since you do not need to have a building on a property to have it rezoned. Mr. Rossbach explained they typically do want to see what the project is otherwise why would they rezone the property if the project is not suitable. Although the entire triangle was going to be rezoned for commercial, Mr. Rossbach explained you could indeed build residential on commercially zoned property. He further stated the residence living to the west of the site deserve every right and respect that they would get even if it wasn't planned for commercial and they are protected by the rules of the city. The applicant has the burden to prove to the commission why they should bend the rules for the applicant to make it so it is less convenient or esthetically pleasing for someone who already lives there. Ms. Blair questioned if there was a special use permit issued to the property behind the site Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -11- because it is used for multi-family rather than a single family residence. Ms. Fischer explained that by state law, if a group home is for six or fewer residents, it is a permitted use in an R1 district without the need for a special permit. Staff confirmed this. Mr. Blair wanted to explain their intent was not to blame anyone for the situation at hand. The reasons he mentioned earlier in themselves, are self explanatory why they would like the variances. The reason is specifically for the hardship the property has, not because of misunderstandings between the applicant and Mr. Ekstrand. The property they feel is a hardship. The architect has worked a long time to try to prepare a plan to get the property developed. A building of 5000 square feet is not a workable building especially when they are looking at twenty to thirty thousand dollars a year that need to be generated just for taxes. Mr. Trippler asked Mr. Blair how likely it would be that they could purchase an additional piece of property adjacent to the lot. Mr. Blair has talked to some of the property owners and felt it was a possibility. They may be able to purchase a potion of a parcel to add the 3-4000 square feet needed. It is a possibility at this point, but not firm. Mr. Trippler asked how much of a hardship it would be for them to table their plans at this point to further explore purchasing additional property. Mr. Blair said they have spent two years working on this project and that they could spend another couple weeks on it if it takes that long. Mr. Thompson felt the commission needed more specific information that the purchase of additional land would satisfy all of the requirements. Ms. Coleman stated he needed to pick up enough land to meet the coverage requirement which is 50 percent, and needs to meet the setback requirements on the west side. Staff was not equipped to calculated out at the moment the amount of land that would entail, but it appeared that it may be a viable solution. Mr. Roberts stated staff is very happy to look at revised plans and do some calculations on a revised plans, but it is important to remember it is up to the applicant to show the city what is being proposed and what is going to work and that the city would not design it for the applicant. Mr. Roberts wanted to make sure that was made clear to all parties. Mr. Pearson suggested the eight spaces on the east side of the building could be eliminated to help increase non-impervious surface. Staff responded that may be a possibility, but the one concern is if Carpet Court was built and in the future they go out of business, would there be enough parking for the next business who wants to occupy the building? Mr. Rossbach reiterated it isn't just if the applicant is proving business from the site, it is whether in the future someone else is there that has different needs. If the commission can not prove they can fit the required parking spots on the lot in question without a variance, it won't work. Mr. Phelps stated whether the parking is there or the amount of impervious surface, the major problem is the twenty five foot set back. Right now the building is forty feet wide with the sixty-six parking in front and sidewalk, and if we have to do seventy-five feet in the rear, we are down to a fifteen foot wide building. If the city rezones that area to commercial, we went to the 50 foot setback in that area. Mr. Rossbach stated there are no plans to rezone in this area. The land use plan states that sometime in the future we would not mind if it turned over to commercial but we are not forcing that to happen. The people that live there and residences may live there for the rest of our lives, so there is no plan to make it commercial. Mr. Blair disagreed, and stated the committee indicated to the applicant it was the intent of the city to convert that entire area over to commercial. It wasn't left up to the residents, but to the city. Staff responded by saying the city could reconsider rezoning without a plan, but they usually do not. The comprehensive plan is real clear, we show it planning commercial for that triangle, but Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -12- there is no pressing plan by the city to change that. If a developer comes in to buy it or 10 properties and put a package deal together and worked out one commercial development over the whole area, that would be the kind of thing we would look at. An example would be Cub and Home Depot on a larger scale. The original comprehensive plan was adopted by the city around 1972 to make that area commercial. Ms. Coleman stated the city has never been is a position to push people out of their residences until they are ready to do so. Mr. Fischer feels the city would be hesitant to rezone and make a homeowner a nonconforming use. We may have had over the period of decades after things were adopted, have had some used that pre-existed zoning. They were existing pre-plan type nonconforming uses. Mr. Trippler moved to table the application to give Mr. Blair a couple weeks to work with staff and to explore other options to resolve some of the problems. Mr. Thompson seconded. Ms. Coleman added if the commission is going to table the proposal they need to get the applicants approval. With the new sixty day rule, the city council would have to take action by January 2nd, and the council is only meeting once in December. Mr. Blair agreed to sign a statement agreeing to table the proposal at this time to explore his options. Mr. Rossbach asked if the Blair's could come in with their architect without a full set of plans and say here is what we want to do, before they invest a few thousand dollars more redrawing plans. Mr. Roberts from the staff agreed, as long as the plans are clear enough to discern what they are proposing. If is looks like it is going to work, a full set of revisions would need to be submitted to come back before the planning commission and ultimately the city council. Ayes-All Motion passes. Mr. Mueller wished to thank Mr. Blair for the work he is doing and his willingness to work with the planning commission. 8:47 A brief recess was called. D. Planning Commission Vacancy Interviews Ms. Coleman stated their is a vacancy created by the resignation of Michael Seeber. The term ends December 31st, 2001. Mr. Thompson also has resigned, his term is up December 31st, 2000. After interviewing with the commission, the candidates will be interviewed by the city council. The commission will forward their top two selections to the city council. The applicants: Planning Commission -13- Minutes of 11-20-00 VIII. 2062 English Street, resident of Maplewood for 8 years. Mr. Ahlness is a major in the national guard. He is employed as a government technician and is currently based out of southeast Minnesota, but will be based out of the St. Paul office within six to eight months. When Mr. Ahlness was a graduate student, his assistanceship was as a coordinator for the Minnesota Association of County Planning and Zoning Administrators. He was instrumental in developing their professional accreditation program. His interests include the relationship of business placement to residential properties and how Maplewood's developments have an impact on other cities and municipalities. He has actively participated in neighborhood programs since moving to Maplewood and would like to participate in making Maplewood an excellent place to live and raise a family. Maj--, 2720 Carver Avenue, resident of Maplewood for 13 years. Ms. Dierich is currently a nurse practitioner/specialist. Her interests lie in the use of open space and how those areas are developed. As a mother of four children she would like to see a place for children to play and safety issues addressed in the planning stage of development. She would like to make sure that Maplewood continues to pursue its same policies and that they have the infrastructure to support their ideas and plans without sacrificing open spaces and community areas. As a resident of south Maplewood she feels there is a lot of misused open space and would like to be a part of being involved in the process of applying consistency of land use, and implementing a long term land use plan. Diana Lon_arie-Kline, 1778 De Soto Street, a resident of Maplewood for 16 years. Mr. Longrie-Kline is an attorney with a strong real estate background. As a property administrator in a real estate department of a large corporation, she feels she has a strong background and understanding of planning and how everything fits into the overall scheme of development. Being active in the community and staying in touch with were they live is very important to Ms Kline. She feels objectively balancing residential needs and commercial needs while maintaining some green space is key. In response to a commissioners question, Ms. Longrie-Kline feels a major problem with Maplewood would be older stip malls not updating their exteriors and maintaining their appearance and "eye-appeal". Ms. Coleman explained there were two applicants not present tonight. Staff will contact these applicants to find out if they are still interested. All applicants will then be called back to interview with the city council on December 11th. The commission ranked the applicants 3 to 1 with three being their first choice. The commissions first choice was Diana Longrie-Kline, and second being Eric Ahlness. The commission will forward their recommendations to the city council. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. October 23rd City Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina attended and gave the report. Emma's Place was approved with no people present speaking in opposition to the proposal. Individuals that lived across the street spoke in favor of the proposal. Mr. Ledvina felt the applicants did an excellent job of educating the neighborhood as to what they were doing. In terms of staff recommendation following the planning suggestion of play equipment in the center area of the site, and additional detailing of the building abutting County Road B, the applicant agreed to dress it up. It was left up to staff to work out final details. B. November 13th City Council Meeting: Planning Commission -14- Minutes of 11-20-00 IX. Will Rossbach attended and gave the report. The AT & T Monopole proposal on the Taste of India site was denied. There were other more appropriate options for the site that could be explored but were not. The lot-area and lot-width variance request from Mr. Dennis Campbell to build a home on the southeast corner of Roselawn and Kenwood was approved. C. November 27th Meeting: No planning commission member is needed. D. December 11th Meeting: The applicants for the Planning Commission will be interviewed. The commission will request that the council select two applicants for the two vacancies available. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Coleman reported on a suggested moratorium on cell monopoles. She spoke with the city attorney and through his work he has been doing with the White Bear Township has a good connection with the six or seven cell providers in the twin city area. He suggested the city get together with them and try to map out a plan that shows the needs for additional monopoles without having to impose a moratorium. Ms. Coleman feels there are changes that could be made to the city ordinance that addresses some of the concerns. For example, steering future monopoles to city properties where the city has more control over the projects. Tom Ekstrand and Melinda Coleman met with the Met Council last Tuesday and was awarded a planning grant to study land use and transportation issues in the Hillcrest Area. Although a dollar amount was not attached to the grant, the Met Council will be paying for the planning consultants. The planning study should be underway by the first of the year with a scheduled completion date by the third quarter of next year. There is a "meet the city manager" reception on Tuesday, December 5th, 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Thompson gave Ms. Coleman an article related to growth and saving tax dollars in the metropolitan area titled"Smart Growth". Copies will be available to those that would like one. The next Planning Commission meeting will be on Wednesday, December 6th, at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. 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) November 29, 2000 INTRODUCTION Proj,ect 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 corner 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- 15 and the letter starting on page 17.) 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 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. 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. 2 Site Screeninq and Landscaping The applicant is proposing to add any trees to ~help to screen the base area. (See the plans on pages 11 and 12.) The city may want to require the ~li~ht {~ 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. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Adopt the resolution on pages 22 and 23. 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. 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. 3 Bo Approve the plans date-stamped November 16, 2000, for a 175-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and equipment on the property on the southwest corner 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) The applicant shall prepare a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility (for any location). (c) A driveway, grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the project site. (d) Revised equipment building plans that show an exterior of brick and a hip roof. 3. The color of the proposed equipment buildings shall be submitted to city staff for approval. 4. The monopole shall be light gray. 5. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall remove and dispose of any debris and ensure that the site is cleaned up. 6. 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. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 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 LAND USES 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 22 and 23. 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. Letter dated August 28, 2000 from Sprint PCS 12. Applicant's attorney letter dated November 15, 2000 13. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 14. Plans date-stamped November 16, 2000 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 MAP LOCATION AttaChment 2 /~., 16 ~ . · · co.., co_ 20 I GERVAIS AVENUE I (,o) 2390 q~ TRUCK UT,UT,ES p D3~&q~' DO~- Il '~.., M~- METCALF MOVING ~.. . .4.ot,a~... I I. a,I ~. I.,~o.~.. ('~) 1<,.,4..~ ~ VOMELA 1255 -- "" 2354 ~-~ HIGHWAY36 ~ ' '~ ' '"'- ~ V I . ~.... ~,-. I~ N - 2303 '1~ ~~~1..I ~:l-l~l:;~!.~l · ~ ~ ,,, ATTACHMENT 3 Lim, t on Liability: This document is not a legally :ii cu.~t ~; stair; .o^osgs; recorded map or survey and IS pot intended to bo ::::: STR~ ~u~R~E~S,9.~,W~A~T~E~.R. ~9?u~HA~L~SECL; records and information from various state ATTACHMENT 4. PROPOSED APT LEASE TRACT DESCRIPTION Gervoi$ Avenue SITE PLAN (FOR WHEELER LUMBER) 10 ATTACHMENT 6 SITE PLAN (PROPOS£D) ATTACHMENT 7 I I i t SITE PLAN (ENLARGED) 12 ATTACHMENT 8 ~ Et.EVA31~I MINNEAPOLIS, INC. PROPOSED ELEVATION ATTAGHMKNT 9 V)EW 'A-A' VIEW 'B-B' KLrLLUMS HO<3K DE:TAIL 6' X 12' HANDHOLE DETAIL I) ' ~.~ REIN, RING DETAIL · 10' x 30' ACCESS PO~T ~'.l~ mr-o- I0" x 30" AC~SS OP~N]N~ COVER PL DETAIL .- SECTION '~-~' ....,s[~,oN 'D-D"~ ' ' "' ~'~'~a~ S~P B~T ~TAIL GR~ND LUG ~T~xm ATTACHMENT 10 ENQINEERIED Customer VOICESTREAM BydOHN VOII<LIS 10/19/00 ENDEAVOR8 D o t e INCORPORATED Structure 175' MONOPOLE Checked 8o78 Job/Quote No. SITE LOCATION: MINNEAPOLIS, MN REVISION I SITE NAME: A1NO50/MAPLEWOOD ANTENNA LOADING:  (12) PCS X 065-18 PANEL ANTENNAS ], LOW PROFILE PLATFORM @ 175' (FUTURE)'  (12) PCS X 065-18 PANEL ANTENNAS ~ (1) 6' OMNI ANTENNA ~ STANDARD PLATFORM w/OMNI MNTS @ 165' (12) ANTEL EMSR/IDEN PANEL ANTENNAS 165' ~===~ (1) 8'¢ HP MW l~~' ~' LOW PROFILE PLATFORM @ 150' (FUTURE) (12) D9950 PANEL ANTENNAS 150'.[~ ----~==~ LOW PROFILE PLATFORM @ 112' (FUTURE) 'l [ (12) 7125.18 PANEL ANTENNAS 175'/ LOW PROFILE PLATFORM @ 92' (FUTURE) 112' i t DESIGN NOTES: 92' DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIA/EIA 222-F 80 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED 1/2" RADIAL ICE CASE I - 50 MPH OPERATIONAL WIND SPEED ACTUAL ROTATION - 3.11' @ 150' CASE II - 80 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED ,r __ CASE III - 75% OF 80 MPH WIN~.~I~ ~ WITH 1/2" RADIAL ICE OF THE PURCHASER TO VERIFY THAT THE WIND LOADS AND DESIGN i I f ENGINEERED ENDEAVORS, INC. 7610 denther Drive · Mentor, Ohio 44060 Telephone: (440) 918-1101 · Telefox: (440) 918-1108 ATTACHMENT ll -Sprint 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 Applicati~ Sprint PCS ~t-01 \\'est )liggin.', Ro:td. Stlilc 320 l~o:,cmont. 11, 6001S \htihq.p II.R()SI)010] ~oicL, 8~- ,{S4 3000 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 Spdnt's coverage objective, APT's existing monopole is not structurally capable of supporting the additional loading of Sprint'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. Spdnt has examined several other possible co-location sites in this area none of which are effective in meeting Sprint's coverage objective. For example, the rooftop location across Minnesota Highway 36 is not high enough above ground level to meet Sprinrs 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 call 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 16 R~ERT I. GENE N. FUU.ER JOHN O. RA.UdER FRANK I. HN~EY CHN~I.E~ S. MOOEU. CHRISTOPHE~ J, {~IETZEN UNDA H. FISHER THOM, ASP. STOLlt~N ~J. P..Yt~I JOHN& COTTER* ~'4)E~ J. OHL,ROGGE ATTACHMENT 12 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 55431-1194 TELEPHONE (952) 835-3800 FAX (952) 896-3333 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 finn 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. 17 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 right 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 VoieeStream. 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. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, 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 thc 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. 19 LARKIN, 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-I" 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. 20 LAP, KIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Kenneth Roberts November 15, 2000 Page 5 Please feel free to contact me at 612-896-3214 if you have any questions regarding APT's CUP application. Pete~r ~le, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. Enclosures CC: Mr. Mike O'Rourke Mr. Steve Katkov Scott Slattery, Esq. ::ODMA~uCDOCS~LIB 1 \631306~1 ATTACHMENT 13 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 corner 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 18, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. 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. 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. ?.2 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. 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. 23 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Residential Parking Issues and Code Change November 13, 2000 INTRODUCTION On September 25, 2000, the city council again discussed the issue of residential parking. Because of strong support and interest in this issue, the city council directed staff to prepare city ordinance revisions about parking in residential areas. BACKGROUND On October 4, 1999, the council reviewed several concerns and alternatives about off-street parking in residential areas. The council had varying opinions and concerns with the proposed ordinance and took no action on the matter. Therefore, the city made no changes to the parking ordinance. On February 14, 2000, the city council again reviewed this matter. The council took no specific action at this meeting about residential parking issues but agreed to have this matter on an upcoming workshop agenda for further discussion. DISCUSSION Over the last 2- 3 years, staff has seen an increase in the number of complaints received about junk vehicles and cars parked in front yards. We are concerned that a large number of vehicles and improper storage can have a detrimental effect on the character of residential neighborhoods. In March of this year, the City Council asked staff to review city regulations about parking in residential areas. They also directed staff to seek public input on this issue. Before writing any new ordinances, staff and the city council felt that it would be beneficial to hear from the community and see how they feel about the issue. As such, we had information published in the Maplewood Review and the Maplewood in Motion. Several residents responded to our request for comments by writing or telephoning city staff and several persons spoke at the September 25, 2000, council meeting. The majority of the people that commented supported code changes as outlined by staff. The items or ideas listed in the articles included the following: 2. 3. 4. Limiting the amount of driveway area or pavement in the front yard. Requiring a paved or hard surface area for parking. Requiring all vehicles parked or stored outside to be licensed and operable. Requiring a paved driveway when an owner requests a building permit to improve his property. Prohibiting vehicle parking or storage in the front yard on grass or unimproved areas that are not intended for a vehicle. Creating an exemption provision that would allow city staff or the city council to waive these requirements under certain circumstances. Citizen Response After publicizing the above-listed information, staff received 39 phone calls and 21 letters about this issue. One of the letters had signatures of support for code changes signed by 21 residents. Another had signatures of support from three households. Following is a representation of the kind of responses received through the phone cells and letters. * Several offering general support for the proposed changes. * Something should be done about overnight parking on city streets. People are parking boats, RV's and semi's on the street. * Should not be allowed to park multiple vehicles, bobcats and other items in front yards. * Junk cars should not be allowed to be stored anywhere outside. * Car repair businesses should not be allowed in residential areas. * Need consistent enforcement of overnight parking ordinance. * Home businesses that have vehicles for non-residents should not be allowed in residential areas. * Un-licensed vehicles should not be allowed to be parked in yards. * No parking (period) on unpaved areas. * Need also to address junk and appliances that are stored in yards. * No vehicle parking on lawns and owner is required to obtain permission from neighbor to expand/create additional parking surfaces besides a standard driveway. * Recreational vehicles, boats, etc. should not be allowed to be parked in front of a house, only on a driveway or improved side yard. * Class 5 or crushed rock should be considered to be a hard or improved surface. * New ordinances are fine, but need city staff to enforce them. * Penalties and fines for violations need to be defined. * Need to define what improved or hard surface means. * Should be allowed 30- 60 days to make vehicles operable. * Exemption provision a good idea but need defined criteria. * Something needs to be done about cars for sale on city streets, private property and business parking lots. * Why can't we park on the street overnight? * The city should not require paved parking or limit the number of vehicles on a property. * The city should not limit the number of vehicles people park, consider small lots that don't have a lot of options. This is a violation of personal property rights. The list above is a representation of the comments received. The number of times a statement was made was not recorded but staff noted the responses that were opposed to any code changes. We received two calls against any new prohibitions on parking and 3 letters, one which was more concerned about lack of enforcement of existing rules. I have attached a small representation of letters (starting on page four) we received for your review. 2 It was and is the city's intention to listen to resident input on this issue and then, with direction from the city council, draft an ordinance that starts to address the problems identified by residents, city staff and the planning commission.~ The council, at their meeting on September 25, 2000, suggested that city staff include the following items in a code change about residential parking: The city will consider crushed rock or gravel as a hard surface for parking and storage purposes. 2. The city should not require a paved driveway with other home improvements. The city may allow exceptions to the rules, subject to the input of the neighbors, city staff and city council. The council also wants to see a comprehensive approach to address junk and debris in yards. Our goal is to develop an ordinance that balances the interest of private property rights with one that provides more control and order to the parking of trucks, cars and recreational vehicles. The proposed ordinance puts into writing the direction the city council gave to city staff after they considered the testimony of the interested parties. RECOMMENDATION Approve the code change on page 12 about off-street parking in residential areas. p\ord~parking2.00 Attachments: 1. Response Letters 2. Proposed Ordinance Amendment 3 A1-FAP. I-IV~NT 1 4 September 5, 2000 Ms. Melina Coleman Community Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Ms. Coleman: We read about the upcoming plans to review zoning regulations relating to parking in residential areas in the September issue of the Maplewood Motion. If it is necessary to review these regulations, we would like to share some comments and concerns. By limiting the amount of driveway area in the fi~om yard would certainly limit the number of vehicles allowed. How would the amount of driveway area be determined? Many households have three or four members that are licensed drivers and these families have more than two vehicles and only a one-car garage. Requiring a paved or hard surface area for parking is a good idea. However, the term hard surface needs to be defined (e.g., rock, gravel, asphalt, or blacktop). · Requiring vehicles to be licensed and operable is also good. However, we think there should be a time limit allowed for repairs (e.g., 30-60 days). · Prohibiting vehicle parking on unimproved areas or without a hard surface also is a good idea. · Creating an exemption provision may be a good idea, but what criteria would be used for allowing an exemption (e.g., financial hardship, medical reasons). · Residemial areas should not be used as a repair shop unless garage space is available to store them. We feel the issue of a "well maintained" yard should be addressed in conjunction with vehicle issues. We have seen yards that look like a '~unk yard" that are unkept and have multiple storage areas with various equipment laying around (even though their vehicles are parked on a paved surface. 6 Ms. Melinda Coleman Page 2 September 5, 2000 We can really appreciate the difficulty the city faces in making changes, trying to balance property rights and having a nice looking neighborhood. If you have questions or need clarification, please contact one of us. Thank you for the opportunity to share our views. Sinte~r~ely, ~/~ ~f~ Diane and Jurgen Droeger 1443 Laurie Road Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 777-3768 and Jim Ole~et - 1451 Laurie Road Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 773-8327 Sheryl Brunner 1446 Laurie Road Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 770-0270 7 July 14, 2000 Ms. Melinda Coleman Mr. Ken Roberts Community Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Ms. Coleman and Mr. Roberts: This letter is to enthusiastically endorse the proposed new zoning regulations relating to parking in residential areas. We are in favor of this proposal because we realize it will help maintain our property values and preserve the character of our quiet suburban neighborhoods. We endorse all of the following proposed regulations: 1. Limiting the amount of driveway area or pavement in the front yard, 2. Requiring a paved or hard surface area for parking. 3. Requiring all vehicles parked or stored outside to be licensed and operable. 4. Requiting a paved driveway when an owner requests a building permit to improve his property. 5. Prohibiting vehicle parking or storage in the front yard on grass, unimproved areas or areas without a hard surface that are not intended for a vehicle. In addition, we would also like to propose the following additional regulations: 7. Limit to 2 the number of vehicles that can be parked or stored outside. 8. Prohibit on-street parking completely between midnight and 6 am. 9. Increase the penalty in existing noise regulations for vehicles that do not have fully functioning mufflers. Thank you for your efforts to preserve the quality of our suburban neighborhoods. Sincerely, Name Address / Phone 8 Name Address Phone July 14, 2000 Ms. Melinda Coleman Mr. Ken Roberts Community Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Ms. Coleman and Mr. Roberts: This letter is to enthusiastically endorse the proposed new zoning regulations relating to parking in residential areas. We are in favor of this proposal because we realize it will help maintain our property values and preserve the character of our quiet suburban neighborhoods. We endorse all of the following proposed regulations: 1. Limiting the amount of driveway area or pavement in the front yard. 2. Requiring a paved or hard surface area for parking. 3. Requiring all vehicles parked or stored outside to be licensed and operable. 4. Requiring a paved driveway when an owner requests a building permit to improve his property. 5. Prohibiting vehicle parking or storage in the front yard on grass, unimproved areas or areas without a hard surface that are not intended for a vehicle. Thank you for your efforts to preserve the quality of our suburban neighborhoods. Sincerely, Name Address Phone '77o-/0/(o '7 77- 10 Name Address Phone "11 A1-F~ 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ABOUT OFF-STREET PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS The Maplewood City.Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: SECTION i. This section revises Section 19-29 as follows: (I have underlined the additions.) Sec.19-29. Violation. Abandoned motor vehicles and vehicles that are unlicensed or in an inoperable condition are prohibited in Maplewood. Any person who abandons a motor vehicle or leaves a vehicle in inoperable condition in the city or on any public or private property is guilty of a misdemeanor. SECTION 2. This section adds the following definition to Section 36-6 of the Maplewood City Code. Vehicle: A device for carryin.q or conve¥in.q persons or property that may be self-propelled or may be propelled, drawn or towed by a self-propelled vehicle. SECTION 3. This section adds Subsection 36-22(j) to the city code as follows: Section 36-22(i) (1) Purpose The purpose of this Article of the City Code is to control, throu.qh zonin.q re.qulations, certain land uses and activities that have a direct and detrimental effect on the character of the City's residential nei.qhborhoods. As such, the Maplewood City Council finds that, in order to accommodate the off-street parkin.q needs of residents while protectin,q the interests of the public, re,qulations and performance standards are desirable and necessary for off-street parkin.q areas in residential zonin,q districts. Findin.qs To the purposes listed above, the Maplewood City Council finds that the use and possession of vehicles are an important factor in the lives of many residents of Maplewood. The city council also finds that the number of vehicles, the improper stora,qe of vehicles and the parkin.q of and storage of excessive numbers of vehicles can affect the nei,qhborhood character as well as the public health, safety and welfare, property values and the reasonable use and enioyment of nei.qhborin.q properties. The city council further finds that the establishment of these re.qulations further the .qoals in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan relative the establishment and enhancement of residential nei.qhborhoods and similar .qoals. In makin,q these findin.qs, the City Council accepts the recommendations of city staff and plannin.q commission that have studied the experiences of other suburban cities that have reviewed and re.qulated off-street parkin.q in residential areas. The Maplewood City Council establishes these re.qulations as a means to balance the interests of the owners of vehicles, nearby residents and the public. 12 (3) Goals (4) Goals in adoptin.q this ordinance include the followin.q: Preservin.q nei.qhborhood character, public health, safety and welfare and property values. b_. AIIowin.q all residents a reasonable use of and a chance to enjoy their property. Minimizin.q the adverse effects of off-street parkin.q throu,qh careful site desi.qn standards. Requirin,q the owners and builders of residential driveways and parkin.q areas to desi,qn and build them to reasonable standards. Avoidine potential dama.qe to adjacent properties from off-street vehicle parkin,q and parkin.q areas throuqh desi,qn standards and setback requirements Off-Street Parkinq Standards for Sin.qle and Two Family Dwellin,qs. The followin,q standards shall apply to off-street parkin,q for properties less than one (1) acre in size in the RE-30, RE-20, F, R-l, R-I(S) and R-2 zoninq districts. Vehicle parkin.q in the front yard setback area of residential areas shall only be on a hard surface driveway or on improved and desi.qnated parkinR areas. Such a hard surface shall include bituminous, concrete, bdck, .qravel or crushed rock. The city prohibits vehicle parkinR or stora.qe in the front yard on qrass, unimproved areas or areas without a hard surface that are not intended for ~' vehicle. All driveways and parkin.q areas shall have an improved surface of bituminous, concrete, brick, Rravel, crushed rock or another hard surface approved by citv staff. Driveways and parkin.q areas shall be at least five feet from a side property line and at least ten feet from a street-side property line. No owner or operator shall park a vehicle that would block a sidewalk. All vehicles parked or stored outside on a residential property shall have a current license and re.qistration and shall be in operable condition. (Also see Sec. 19-29, Violation.) The total area in the front yard of a sin,qle dwellin,q lot improved for parkin.q and driveway purposes shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the front yard area. The total area in the front yard of a duplex or double dwellinR lot improved for parkin.q and driveway purposes shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the front yard area. 13 The city may approve an increase in front yard driveway covera.qe or for a different driveway surface for a residential property by administrative review of minor construction plans as outlined in Section 25-65 of the city code. The city may approve an increase in front yard driveway covera.qe or for a different driveway surface where such approval would meet the standards required by code for unique circumstances where the above ordinance standards do not fit or would create a hardship for the property owner. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2001. (After the City Council approves it and the official newspaper publishes it). The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2000. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Ayes- Nays- 14 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Melinda Coleman, Community Development Director PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS November 29, 2000 INTRODUCTION The planning commission has two vacancies created by the resignations of Milo Thompson and Michael Seeber. Mr. Thompson's term ends on December 31, 2000 and Mr. Seeber's term ends on December 31,2001. I have attached a map of where the current planning commission members live, a map of where the candidates live and the candidate's applications. (See pages 2-16.) BACKGROUND The planning commission's rules of procedure state that the commission shall recommend candidates based on qualifications and a representative geographical distribution of members. On November 20, 2000, the planning commission interviewed three candidates for the planning commission. RECOMMENDATION Interview the applicant's for the planning commission vacancy and then rank them as a recommendation to the city council. After the interviews, the city council should appoint two persons to serve on the planning commission. One of these persons would fill the unexpired term on the planning commission that would end on December 31, 2001. The other person would serve a three-year term that would end on December 31, 2003. krlp:misc/pcappt.00 Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Membership Map 2. Planning Commission Applicants Location Map 3. Four Applications C~T~ OF ~APLEWOOD County of Romsey, Minnesota (6,51) 770-4500 55109 LEGEND 4 MAPLEWOOD Lorraine B. Fischer, Chair 1812 Furness Street Maplewood MN 55109 Dale Trippler 1201 Junction Avenue Maplewood MN 55109-3433 Paul Mueller 1820 Onacrest Court Maplewood MN 55117 Milo J. Thompson 1794 Onacrest Curve Maplewood MN 55117 PLANNING COMMISSION Matt Ledvina 1173 Lakewood Dr S Maplewood MN 55119 William Rossbach 1386 County Road C Maplewood, Mn 55109 Gary Pearson 1209 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Jack Frost 2324 Maple Lane East Maplewood MN 55109 ATTACHMENT 1 N 2 l- CITY OF MAPLEWOOD County of Romsey, (651) 770-4500 LEGEND 2 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANTS 1. Eric Ahlness 2062 English Street Maplewood, MN 55109 Ricky DeVries 817 Kenwood Lane Maplewood, MN 55117 Mary Dierich 2720 Carver Avenue Maplewood, MN 55119 Diana Longrie-Kline 1778 DeSoto Street Maplewood, MN 55117 3 ATTACHMENT, 2- - I NAME Eric D. Ahlness CITY OF MAPLEVV )Hr E T 3 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM N0¥ 1 3 2000 ADDRESS 2062 Enqlish Street Maplewood MN PHONE NO. Work: 651 282-4401 Home: 651. 486-9402 ZIP 55109 DATE 10 Nov 2000 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? 8 years 2,) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Comments: Yes No ~ N 3 2000 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 ofinterest withinthis Board's or Commission's scope ofresponsibilities? I am interested in the relationship of business placement to residential properties. Urban planning and zoning ordinances is very interesting to me and directly applicable to local issues. The community of Maplewood has special challenges due to the extensive boundaries and dynamic growth within its borders. 5) List otherorganizations orclubsinthe Communityin which you have been orare an a~ive padicipant: I have actively participated in neighborhood programs since my family and I moved to , Maplewood. We quickly formed a neighborhood watch group and have been block captains ever since for our area. Both my wife and I have "graduated" from the Maplewood Citizen Academy sponsored by the city's police department. I am also an active member of a local church and its outreach programs (Joseph's Coat and food shelf programs). 6) Why would youliketo serve onthis Board or Commission? First, I want to participate in my communit and continue to make Maplewood an excellent place to live and raise a family· I believe t~at citizens have a responsibility to involve themselves in their local government to facilitate continued community development. Second, I have an undergraduate degree in Geography that includes courses in conmlunity development and urban geography. I also have a Masters degree in Political Science that includes courses in local government. My practical experience is in working with zoning administrators as a graduate assistant. My role as the coordinator ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: for the Minnesota Association of County Planning and Zoning Administrators was to develop professional accreditation programs, seminars, and newsletters for the association· I have extensive recent experience in facilitating a major building project between the city of Mankato, Blue Earth County, and the Minnesota National Guard. I facilitated discussion, design, funding, and approval of this $7.5 million facility· The project was a cooperative effort between federal, state, and local officials and staff· THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC. FORMS~RD&COMM.APL 4 10/96 NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. Work: Home: CITY oF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM ZIP DATE 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? _ 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Comments: Yes No Y- 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 inter~st within this Bo~ard's or Commission's scope of responsil~i!itie§? 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'~ ~Z'-.~ ~--'f'7 ~o ~ ' /j.~, ' ' / =o~.'~ ¥~,~. ,'~/,,,~i ,~,12 ~,'/X ~x~ A~,'I~ ~ ~ ;4. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC. FORMS~BRD&COMM.~PL 5 10/96 CITY oF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM NAME ~r¥ ~),'e~,~. ~ PHONE NO. Work: ~ IR-/~ ~--Oq ?'7, Home: DATE 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? I~) V, r ,~ 2) VVill 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) VVhy would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? ADDITIONAL~ COMMENTS: 0 ' ~ ' ' ' THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE C~SSIFIED AS PUBLIC. F~S~aRD&CO~M.~PL 6 ~0~ Curriculum Vitae MARY DIERICH, RN, MSN, C-NP, CURN 2720 Carver Avenue Maplewood, Minnesota 55119 (651)-731-8083 EDUCATION University of Minnesota, School of Nursing Minneapolis, Minnesota 9/90-6/93 Graduated with Master of Science Degree in Nursing Completed course work for Gerontological Nurse Practitioner Plan B Project: Development of a teaching tape for upper endoscopy and subsequent exploratory study evaluating the effectiveness in patient teaching and cost containment. 9/76-12/80 Graduated with Bachelor of Science Degree in Nursing College of St. Catherine St. Paul, Minnesota 9/75-6/76 Undergraduate study I also have extensive course work in Psychology, Adult Developmental Psychology, Chemistry and Biology. I have completed course work to meet the educational requirements in the following specialty areas: critical care nursing, gastrointestinal nursing, urological nursing, urodynamic testing and biofeedback therapy. PRESENT EMPLOYMENT University of Minnesota Physicians Urologic Surgery Department Box 394, 420 Delaware Street SE Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 7 7~97-present Gerontological Nurse Practitioner/Clinical Nurse Specialist In addition to managing the Urology Department's caseload of interstitial cystitis, multiple sclerosis, pelvic pain and benign prostatatitis patients, I manage and provide services for the Center for Continence and Pelvic Dysfunction. I also am the research coordinator for several large studies. RELATED EXPERIENCE Clinical Networks, Inc./Urofitness Center Southdale Medical Center 6545 France Avenue South Suite 478 Edina, MN 55435 9/95 to 7/97 Gerontological Nurse Practitioner/Clinical Nurse Specialist/Clinic Manager In September, 1995, Clinical Networks, Inc. bought the Urofitness Center from Empi, Inc. At that time, I became Director of Clinical Services at the Urofitness Center. In addition to my usual clinical practice, I was accountable for asset management, record keeping, billing and collections, marketing and clinic promotion, business development plans. I also developed curricula and taught classes for both professionals and the public, as well as, designed protocols for treatment of clients. EMPI, Inc. 5255 East River Road Minneapolis, MN 55421 4/94 to 9/95 Gerontological Nurse Practitioner Until July 1994, my duties included planning and setting up the Urofitness Center, selling this concept to the medical community, devising the treatment protocols for the alpha site and outcome measures for these protocols. I obtained coverage for procedures previously not covered by insurance and worked with the three HMO plans in the Twin Cities community to obtain contracts for coverage of both the services and the equipment used in the conservative treatment of incontinence. I also did direct patient care, conservatively treating and managing incontinence at the clinic and remote sites. I was responsible for setting up the teaching programs for the public, served as an national expert resource for managing incontinence for Empi and served as a clinical preceptor for both physicians and nurses. I was responsible for the daily management of the clinic. HealthEast Corporation 1700 University Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 9/93 to 4/94 Gerontological Nurse Practitioner Clinical Nurse Specialist in Gl/GU My duties included initial development and supervision of the urodynamics laboratory, monitoring of the quality of care given by my colleagues, implementing and monitoring of the cost containment measures, direct patient care of study patients, urodynamics patients and biofeedback patients, development of outreach programs internally and to the community, coordination of the Medtronic Pelvic Pain Study and the MDT-103 Study, coordination of the Empi Innova Study and training of staff in the above procedures. 6/92-9/93 Project Specialist My duties included development of teaching tools, charting tools, and brochures for the Continence Center, establishment of the Urodynamics Laboratory, training of the urodynamics staff, designing a feasibility study for use of disposable forceps, writing procedures for infection control, analyzing literature for colon cancer testing, wound care, and post-op care for gastroscopy tubes, and doing a retrospective chart review on skin care. 11/90-9/93 Staff Nurse-Gl Laboratory Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC) Minneapolis Medical Reseamh Foundation 801 Park Avenue Minneapolis, MN 8/90-9/93 Research Coordinator My duties included establishment of the study at this site, monitoring care, direct patient care, and coordination of information flow between the sponsoring site, HCMC, and departments within HCMC for the multi- center study of ORG 10172 used for treatment of acute stroke. Golden Oaks Nursing Home 1025 9th Ave South South St. Paul, MN 55075 5~89-7~90 Director of Nursing 5~86-5~89 Patient Care Coordinator 9 St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 640 Jackson Street St. Paul, MN 55101 4/84-5/89 Charge Nurse for Evening Shift/Staff Nurse, Coronary Care Unit 8/81-4/84 Charge Nurse for Evening Shift/Staff Nurse, General Medicine Unit 2/81-8/81 Staff Nurse, General Medicine/Oncology PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE AND CERTIFICATION Minnesota License Number: R 094653 3 Expiration Date: 3/31/01 Public Health Nurse Registration Certificate Number 10308 ANA Certification Number: 212721-23 for Gerontological Nurse Practitioner American Board of Urologic Allied Health Professionals certified Expiration Date: 6/30/01 PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT Active member of the following professional groups: Society of Urological Nurses and Associates (SUNA) Upper Midwest Chapter of the Society of Urologic Nurses & Associates Served on the following committees or had membership in: SUNA Long Range Planning Committee SUNA Patient and Community Education Committee Sigma Theta Tau, Zeta Chapter Past President of the Upper Midwest Chapter of SUNA-1999-2000 I Will Manage" Local Program Director Third District Nurse Practitioner Association Ambulatory Care Council, University of Minnesota Clinics, 1998-present Long Range Planning Committee SUNA, 1998 Chairperson for the Patient/Community Education Committee for SUNA-1997-1999 President of the Upper Midwest Chapter SUNA-1997-1998 President-elect of the Upper Midwest Chapter SUNA-1996-1997 MNA's Creativity in Nursing Group Skin Care Committee, HealthEast PEG Feeding Task Force, HealthEast Visioning Task Force, HealthEast Gl Subcommittee, HealthEast Infection Control, Golden Oaks Pharmacy Review, Golden Oaks Incident Review, Golden Oaks Utilization Review, Golden Oaks Quality Assurance Committee, CCU, Ramsey Quality Circle, 7 West, Ramsey Documentation Group, 7 West, Ramsey Nursing College Board, University of MN, School of Nursing Grievance Committee Board Member, University of Minnesota Course Planning Committee, University of Minnesota l0 ACADEMIC AWARDS 4/97 5/92 4/92 12/91 2/92 9/76 9/75 5/73 Arthur T. Evans Lectureship Award Installed in Sigma Theta Tau Named to National Dean's List Awarded Florence Julian Scholarship Awarded School of Nursing Grant Awarded Standard Oil Company Scholarship Awarded 4 year renewable scholarship to attend College of St. Catherine Named as National Honor Society Member COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 3/00 Delegate to the State and 4th District Democratic Convention 3~00 Clinical preceptor for med students in gynecology rotation 3/00 Interviewed for Bottom Line Health for article titled "Easy Treatments for Incontinence" 3~00 Appeared on "Health Talk and You", a % hour panel format on urology-aired on channels 2 and 17 and local cable programming 2~00 Presented lecture to Family Practice NP students on Management of Bladder Dysfunction in the Community Setting 11/99 to present -Consultant to Mentor, Inc. 11/99 Presented "Pelvic Dysfunction Through The Lifespan" to the Mentor, Inc. Marketing Department 10/99 Presented "An Update on the Treatment of Urinary Continence Pelvic Prolapse" to the St. Anthony Block Nurses 10/99 Exhibited at the Como Block Nursing Senior Health Fair 6/99 Habitat for Humanity volunteer-North St. Paul house 6/99 Presented "Urinary Continence Training" to the 27~ Annual Conference for Nurse Practitioner's in Women's Health, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin 5~99-9/99 Assisted with the development of treatment protocols for the Fairview System Physical Therapy Department for urinary incontinence and pelvic pain 4/99 Presented "Treating Urinary Incontinence in the Primary Care Setting" to family practice nurse practitioner students, U of MN 4/99 Presented "Fitting and Using Pessaries" to the medical staff of the Minneapolis VA Hospital 3/99 Presented "The Use of Pessaries in the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Prolapse" to the Upper Midwest Chapter of SUNA 2/99 Presented "Options for the Overactive Bladder" to the Oxboro Clinic Nurses 2/99 Presented "Options for the Overactive Bladder" to Fairview Ridges Clinic Nurses 1/99 Presented "Urodynamics" to Medimicus, Inc. Marketing Department, Minneapolis 1/99 Presented "Urinary Continence Training" to the Western Wisconsin Advanced Practice Nurses Association, Eau Claire Wisconsin area nurse practitioners 11/98 "The Treatment and Diagnosis of Chronic Pelvic Pain", presented to the Fairview system physical therapists Community Involvement (continued): 10/98 to present-Basketball coach, Transfiguration School 7~h and 8r~ grade girls "A" squad 10198 Lecture on chronic incontinence management, Prairie Adult Care 10/98 to present Consulting editorial review for Micromedix 6~98 to present Clinical consultant on biofeedback and electrical stimulation for Empi, Inc. 6~98 "Urinary Incontinence-A Challenge for Many Women", presented at Women to Women: Coping With Women's Health Issues sponsored by Minnesota West Community and Technical College 5/98 ~Treating the Special Needs of the Patient with Multiple Sclerosis" presented at the SUNA National Seminar 4/98 "Managing Continence in the MS Patient" present at the 25th Anniversary Celebration of the MS Achievement Center 3198 ~/Vorking with Complex Patients: Continence Management and Cure" present to the home health nurses of northern Wisconsin 3~98 "Continence for the MS Patient: Myth or Magic" present at the MS Achievement Center 3~98 ~Biofeedback" workshop present at the Complementary Care: From Principles to Practice Conference (University of Minnesota) 4~98 to present Consultant for product development for MedAmicus 2~98 %/Vorking with Complicated Patients" present to the Fairview Home Health Nurses 1/98 presented "Working With Complicated Patients" to the For Women Only physical therapists of the Fairview University Medical Center 9/97 Presented Community Education and Support Groups at the Upper Midwest Chapter/SUNA Fall Conference 9~97 Presented the ~Bowel and Bladder Workshop" for the annual national meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers 7~97 Guest lecturer on ~Continence for the MS Patient: Myth or Magic" for patients at the MS Achievement Center 6~97 Guest lecturer on incontinence for the MS Center staff at Fairview Riverside Hospital 5~97 Will by featured speaker on "Maintaining Continence Through the Middle Years and Beyond" sponsored by Abbott Northwestern Hospital's Women's Group 5~97 Featured lecturer at day long seminar for nursing directors on "Urinary Incontinence: New Practice Guidelines" sponsored by the SW Community Colleges 4~97 Presented ~Developing Community Education and Support Groups" at the National SUNA Annual Seminar 2~97 Featured lecturer for two day long seminars on "A Quality Toileting Program" geared directors of long term care facilities sponsored by the National of Institute of Health and Human Services Community Involvement (continued): 12/96 Was featured co-speaker at 5 two hour seminars presenting incontinence and treatment for the public sponsored by the Urofitness Center 11/96 Featured guest on cable television program produced locally topic: conservative treatment of incontinence 9/96 Guest presenter at the Bowel and Bladder work shop for the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers annual national meeting 8/96 Presented 2 two hour inservices for home health aides on urinary incontinence and treatment for the St. Anthony Block Nurse Program 5/96 Ran and presented at a four week "1 Will Manage" class sedes 5/96 Presented "A Retrospective Review of Outcomes in Treatment of Udnary Incontinence" at National SUNA Seminar, manuscript solicited for Urologic Nursing Journal 4/96 Guest speaker for the Fairview Healthy Seniors program 4/96 Guest speaker and clinical preceptor for the Abbott Northwestern Hospital ET nursing program 3/96 Guest speaker for senior group at Becketwood Cooperative on incontinence and treatment 2/96 Speaker at the national convention of SUNA on case studies of incontinent individuals 11/95 Regular speaker for the Living at Home Block Nursing Program at local high rises for community education regarding incontinence care and management 10/95 Helped scdpt and was in Empi training video for their Innova product 10/95 Organized in conjunction with Fairview Southdale Hospital and Hillcrest Nursing Home and was a featured speaker for the "1 Will Manage Program" offered to incontinent persons in the community 9/95 Provided two hour CEU program for the Living at Home Block Nursing Program about incontinence management and etiology 6/95 Served as clinical preceptor for family practice residents at the University of Minnesota through the Camden Clinic (1995-1997) 4/95 Information booth at the HealthEast Pelvic Floor Disorders Program 4/g5 Speaker at the "1 Will Manage Program" for community education at FaJrview Southdale Hospital 3/95 Guest speaker in 8 hour didactic portion of Abbott-Northwestern Hospital's ET Nurse Training Program on physiology, incontinence and treatments 2/95 Clinical preceptor for the ET program at Abbott-Northwestern Hospital 2/95 Featured speaker at two half day seminars given by Ramsey Clinics re: physiology, incontinence, frail elderly and catheter management 13 Community Involvement (continued): 1/95 Inservice for the Abbott-Northwestern home health care nurses (Case Management Systems) on management of the frail elderly and incontinence 1/95 Guest speaker in 8 hour didactic portion of Abbott-Northwestern Hospital's ET Nurse Training program on physiology, incontinence and treatments 1195 Registrar for the Beaver Lake Girl Scout Council (1995-1997) 12/94 Guest speaker for Abbott-Northwestern Hospital's Post- Prostatectomy Group re: PPI and Conservative Treatments 12/94 Guest speaker at Roseville Mid-Life Women's Group re: Menopause and Incontinence Therapies 8194 Continue to act as consultant for staff at the MS Center at Fairview Riverside to assist in incontinence management for their patients 5/94 Guest speaker for graduate class for nurse practitioners at the University of Minnesota 5/94 Speaker for Incontinence Education class at Greeley Nursing Home 3/94 Guest speaker at the Prostate Support Group for HealthEast/United Hospitals 2/94 Speaker at "1 Will Manage" Program for HealthEast 11/93 Guest on local talk show regarding incontinence (15 minute slot) 5193 Moderator for "Collegial Relationships" at national convention for SGNA 2/93 Speaker at Regional Neurological Nurses Convention 1998-present Basketball Coach "A" Squad, Transfiguration Grade School 1991 Classroom Assistant, Dayton's Bluff ECFE 1989 to present-Active choir member of Transfiguration Parish 1989 Continuously active in Girl Scouts-cookie mom, drop site, and troop leader (1989-1997) 1984 Three years as a Ramsey County Community Gardening Board Member 1981 Membership in the University of Minnesota Alumni Association 1974 Maintain active membership in American Field Service-as an exchange student to Iran, chapter secretary, regional and local screener Publications 7/00 2100 "Bladder Dysfunction in MS Patient" Chapter proposal accepted for medical textbook titled Multiple Sclerosis: Diagnosis, Medical Management, and Rehabilitation "Overcoming Incontinence, A Straightforward to All of Your Options for Treating This Common Problem" book published co-author Felecia Froe, MD 14 Publications (con't) : 7~99 12/98 10~98 1/97 11/96 8/94 7/94 7/94 Main Author for Incontinence, Pelvic Pain and Bladder Dysfunction in the Elderly" fact sheets for SUNA "A Retrospective Review of Outcomes in One Clinic's Treatment of Urinary Incontinence" published by the Urologic Nursing Journal Wrote clinical guidelines for treatment of bladder dysfunction for Pharmacia Upjohn, to be distributed to primary care providers 7/97 to present Editor of Mainstream-newsletter for the Upper Midwest Chapter/SUNA 2/97 Article published on "Changing with the Times" in the Upper Midwest Chapter SUNA newsletter Article published on "Help for MS Bladder Problems" in the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers newsletter Article published on the "Fall Institute" published in the Upper Midwest SUNA Chapter newsletter Wrote four teaching brochures regarding incontinence management and for the public and physicians Developed charting forms, questionnaires and patient guidelines for care and follow up for Urofitness Center Wrote continuing education course work for incontinence for Rochester Community College for udnary incontinence and wound/skin care management 12/93 Wrote script for "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Colonoscopy" for HealthEast Media Services; video won second place in health topics division in national trade show for teaching videos 7/93 Wrote chapter on impotence and contributed on chapter for urology in Textbook of Basic Nursing published by J.B Lippencott 5~93 Wrote script for pediatric video about surgery for HealthEast Media Services; video won first place overall for teaching videos and first place in health topics division in national trade show 4~93 Developed chart forms and patient flow for HealthEast Continence Center Professional and personal references available upon request. 15 CITY oF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM ADDRESS I'~F~ ~)'~ ,~{) ,.~~ PHONE NO. Work: ~[?_ - "~p J - [S~I Home: RECEIVE~ 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? I 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Comments: Yes No ~ 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? ADDITIONAL GOMMENTS: '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC. FORMS~BRD&COMM.~APL 1 6 10/96