HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/2001BOOK
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday March 5, 2001, 7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road B East
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
Approval of Minutes
a. February 20, 2001
o
Unfinished Business
a. Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment
New Business
a. Easement Vacation - Birch Run Station (Beam Avenue)
b. Maplewood Imports Conditional Use Permit Revision (2780 Maplewood Drive North)
c. University Auto Sales Conditional Use Permit (1145 Highway 36 East)
d. NURP Pond Ordinance Amendment
7. Visitor Presentations
o
Commission Presentations
a. February 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller
b. March 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina
c. March 26 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich
Staff presentations
10. Adjournment
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process.
The review of an item usually takes the following form:
o
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.
jw/pc\pcagd
Revised: 01/95
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2001
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 Dale Trippler
Commissioner Eric Ahlness
Commissioner Mary Dierich
Staff Present:
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Richard Fursman, City Manager
Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Asst. Community Development Director
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Chris Cavett, Assistant 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
February 5, 2001
Commission Trippler moved approval of the minutes of February 5, 2001.
Commissioner Rossbach seconded the motion. Ayes-5 (Fischer, Rossbach,
Mueller, Trippler, Dierich)
Abstention-3 (Frost, Ledvina, Pearson)
The motion passed.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 2-20-01
-2-
VI.
A.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
Beaver Lake Townhomes (Maryland Avenue, Lakewood Drive to Sterling Street).
Mr. Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Mr. Tony Emmerich, of the AJE Company, is
proposing to develop a 162 planned unit development called the Beaver Lake Town Homes. This is
proposed for a 27-acre site on the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling and Lakewood
Drive. To build this project, Mr. Emmerich made several requests of the city including:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 162-unit housing
development. The PUD is required because of the shoreland ordinance and its regulations.
The proposal is to have a mix of housing with 42 single family detached townhomes and 120
rental units in 15 8-unit buildings.
2. Street right-of-way and easement vacations. These would be for the unused street right-of-way
and easements on the site.
3. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development.
The applicant has not yet applied for design approval. If the city approves the above-listed
request, then the applicant will apply to the city for final PUD approval and design approval
(including architectural and landscape plans).
There are numerous concerns with this proposal. They include:
1. The Maplewood Open Space committee reviewed numerous sites in 1992 for possible purchase
as part of the bond referendum. Although this site was ranked 5th out of the 66 sites reviewed,
Maplewood has not included this site in its park or open space acquisition plans.
2. In 1999, the city received a $100,000 matching grant from the Minnesota DNR Greenways
Program. The purpose of the Metro Greenways is to project, connect, restore and manage a
network of significant natural areas, parks and other open spaces interconnected by habitat
corridors. The grant for this site is for the city to acquire part of this property as a natural
greenway between Beaver Lake and the city pond to the south and west of the site and the
wetland area north of Maryland Avenue. Mr. Al Singer, the Metro Greenways Coordinator,
stated that the "proposed site plan, with the apparently stated intention by the land owner of
not wanting to provide public access, would no longer meet our program criteria and
objectives. If the plan as submitted is not substantially altered, Metro Greenways
funding would no longer be available for this project."
3. Mr. Bruce Anderson, Maplewood Parks and Recreation Director, reviewed the proposed plans.
He expressed his concerns with the plan and its possible negative impacts on the stream and as
well as preserving the pine grove on the property. Jean Moulle, The Urban Best Management
Practices Coordinator of the DNR, also expressed several concerns about the proposed
development. He stated "the stand of pines near the stream provides significant ecological
benefits to the watershed district including the wildlife habitat corridor and water quality as well
as social benefits including recreational opportunities such as trail and open space benefits to
future residents. Preserving the pine stand as open space will add significant real estate values
to the subdivision".
Planning Commission
Minutes of 2-20-01
-3-
4. The city ordinance states there should be no intensive vegetation clearing on steep slopes.
This is defined as the complete removal of trees or shrubs in a specific patch, strip, row or block.
A slope is any land having a slope of more than 12% measured in a horizontal distance of at
least 50 feet. There are several areas that fall into this distinction along the stream corridor.
5. One site plan concern noted by Ramsey County was the area along Maryland Avenue that has
eight proposed driveways. Maryland is a county road, and the county prefers that there be only
one or two driveways coming out to Maryland Avenue.
6. There are existing easements and right-of-ways on the site. Mr. Emmerich has asked the city
to vacate all the unused street right-of-ways and easements within the project area. However,
for the city to vacate a right-of-way or easement, the council must find that there is no public
interest in keeping the right-of-way or easement.
7. Mr. Cliff Aichinger of the watershed district has done a preliminary review of the proposed
project and noted several major concerns. The proposed grading plan shows grading infringing
on the buffer areas to the creek and has areas of potential significant erosion that would affect
the creek. Also, he noted concerns with water quality and environmental issues.
Because of all the numerous concerns from the various agencies outlined in the report, staff is
recommending denial of the proposal.
Mr. Trippler asked staff what the meaning of the $100,000 grant was and if the developer has
expressed a willingness to work with the city on preserving a portion of the site. Mr. Roberts
responded in saying the $100,000 would have to be returned if the city is not able to purchase a
portion of the site. He also noted the applicant has not spoken to any of the staff about this, and
this would be a good question for the applicant. Mr. Frost clarified that at least 100 feet on each side
of the stream was needed for this Metro Greenways project.
Mr. Ledvina asked the staff when reviewing the site and grading plan if they felt the altering of the
steep slopes would require a variance to the shoreland ordinance. Mr. Roberts stated if the
proposal was approved as submitted, that would indeed be the case.
Mr. Roger Larson, Midwest Land Surveyors and Civil Engineers, Inc. from Anoka, Minnesota, was
present for the applicant. He stated they received the staff report on the 16th of February, and have
just been able to respond with a three page rebuttal (which he distributed).
Mr. Larson referred to the staff report that indicated there are four areas where there is proposed
grading within the stream buffer. The grading proposed were four narrow strips in different areas.
They have looked at the use of retaining walls to stay out of the buffer area, along with minimum
grading that could be covered with shrubs and trees rather than a man-made retaining wall.
There are also areas where a steep slope was discussed. When the applicant looked closely at the
shoreland zoning ordinance, the steep slope areas refer specifically to areas that are adjacent to
public waters. Public waters defined as Beaver Lake, but Beaver Creek is not defined as a public
water. The way the ordinance is written, those steep slopes are to be reviewed by the city engineer
and erosion control methods applied.
The definition to the intensive vegetation rule with regard to the steep slope areas, as interpreted by
Mr. Larson, was concerned mainly with tree and shrub removal. This removal would be in straight
line corridors that would open up an unobstructed view away from the lake. Some of these steep
slopes were man made and are green areas. He stated the stream corridor has been significantly
altered in the past already. He also stated the mowing along the gas pipeline has been quite wide
and felt it could be narrowed in the future.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 2-20-01
-4-
The developer has a concern with the pine trees in that they were never properly maintained after
they were planted. He noted that the exterior trees are very short of branches on the inside. The
interior trees are quite stunted with a high canopy and the tops of the trees are quite small. The
developers are afraid those interior trees will begin to die out, and they will be responsible for the
maintenance when problems begin in 10 to 20 years.
The applicant disagrees with the statement about the development changing the character of the
surrounding area. Mr. Larson stated the surrounding area is multifamily residences, a mobile home
park, single family residences and quad homes. They feel their development will not be a
substantial change in the character of the area and that it would fit right in.
Recommendation A.3, the applicant feels, would only apply during the short term construction
period and feel the comment is completely out of context.
The applicant agrees that the 162 units of residential housing could cause increased traffic.
They state there are currently eight curb cuts on Maryland Avenue and no additional driveways are
being proposed.
The developer feels the townhomes provide a buffer along the stream so you do not have large
apartment units next to the stream. They feel this is an esthetic buffer to the steam corridor.
Mr. Larson also stated the developers are willing to negotiate and work with the city in regard to the
stream corridor either as a park dedication plus purchasing additional land. If the city wishes it, the
whole corridor is about 4.8 acres.
The developers have major concerns with the trail situation. They feel the single family home
owners would not appreciate public access within 20 feet of their back door day or night.
Mr. Trippler asked the applicant what definition he was using for public waters. The applicant is
using the definition from the city ordinance, and Beaver Creek is not listed as a public water. It is
not listed as a DNR protected water or wetland either.
Mr. Rossbach felt some of the comments made by Mr. Larson were irrelevant to the issue and
without thought to the wildlife. He pointed out the city wants to find a compromise that is workable
for both wildlife and humans. He felt the proposal was going to come down to how many people
can live within the proposed development area and still protect the wildlife area.
There are not eight driveways, as stated by the applicant, but eight curbcuts as clarified by
Commissioner Pearson. Mr. Pearson also noted the numerous attempts that have been made by
the Maplewood Police Department to slow down traffic in that area. Less than two years ago a
child was hit by a car and killed crossing Maryland Avenue due to the sun being blinding at times
during the day. He feels it is a hazardous area currently without the addition of 162 more vehicles
using that road.
Mr. Mueller was concerned there is not a child play area included in the development plans. He
was also hoping this development would be part of the future trail system. If the concern is having
a trail outside the residents back door, the solution may be to move the back door farther away from
the trail.
Alan Singer, 49 O'day Street, Maplewood, was present. Mr. Singer is the coordinator of the Metro
Greenways project of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Metro Greenways is a
regional initiative to create a network of parks natural areas interconnected by habitat corridors
throughout the seven county metropolitan areas.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 2-20-01
-5-
Mr. Singer explained if the corridor is going to remain in private hands, that would not agree with the
intention of Metro Greenways, and they would have to withdraw the $100,000 they were going to
bring to the project.
Mr. Frost asked how wide the corridor needed to be on'each side of Beaver Creek and what type of
wildlife they expected to habitat that area. Mr. Singer stated the corridors, he felt, would need to be
250-300 feet wide, especially if there is going to be a trail included. The type of wildlife inhabiting
the corridor is the typical suburban wildlife. Potentially, white tail deer, opossum, squirrel and
migratory birds. Mr. Trippter asked how the wildlife cross Maryland Avenue to get to Beaver Lake.
Mr. Singer explained the mammals have to take their own chance as they cross the roadway but
that critters are amazingly adaptable. Commissioner Pearson noted deer and wildlife cross Century
Avenue near the priory and follow the emergency access road to Maryland Avenue to the group of
pines on the corner of Sterling. In twenty years, he has never seen a deer hit on Maryland Avenue.
Metro Greenways is working with projects in the City of Hastings along the Vermillion River, in
Dayton along the Mississippi River, and Browns Creek in Stillwater. Mr. Frost concurred with Mr.
Rossbach that there should be a workable solution between the developer and the city in that there
should be give and take. For that to occur he feels the commission should go along with the staffs
recommendation and deny the request for the conditional use permit. That would then force the city
and developer to sit down again to find a workable solution. He then felt a "win win" situation could
Occur,
Mr. Frost moved the board recommend the denial of the proposed conditional use permit for a
planned unit development for the Beaver Lake Town home development. This development would
be on the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and Lakewood Drive. The city is
denying this request because:
1. The proposed use would not be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be
in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. This is because:
(a) The proposed development plan is not consistent with the adopted Maplewood Parks
Plan since the developer is not proposing to build the part of a city-planned trail that would
be within his project site.
(b) The proposed grading plan shows grading in several parts of the required 50ofoot-wide no
disturb buffer areas. These areas are near the rear of proposed buildings 4-8, 22-25, 29-
33, 37 and 44. The city does not allow grading or ground disturbance in the required
buffer areas.
(c) Several existing areas on the site with steep s~opes. These are next to or in the areas
where the developer has proposed buildings 4-9, 11-14, 23-24, 28-36, 37-42 and 44.
These are all areas on the site that the shoreland code prohibits intensive vegetation
clearing. As such, the applicant would need to revise the project plans to ensure that they
will not be doing any intensive vegetation clearing on the steep slopes. This also means
that grading cannot occur in these areas as that would remove the vegetation.
(d) The proposed plans do not meet all the Maplewood Shoreland Ordinance requirements,
especially about the removal of vegetation from the site.
2. The proposed use would change the existing character of the surrounding area.
3. The proposed use would involve activities, processes, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to
any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or
air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or
other nuisances.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 2-20-01
-6-
4. The proposed use could create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing streets. The
proposed driveway design would have eight driveways going onto Maryland Avenue. Ramsey
County prefers to have only one or two driveways onto their road instead of the eight that the
developer has proposed. This design change would be to minimize the number of potential
conflict points with the traffic on the county road.
5. The proposed use would not maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and
scenic features into the development design. The proposed development does not take into
consideration the ecological sensitivity of the creek and the abutting vegetation. The pine grove
on the property (near the south side of the stream corridor that proposed buildings 26-36 would
encroach into) is a significant amenity to the landscape as they are critical for water quality but
also for their visual/aesthetic value. The pine stand near the stream provides significant
ecological benefits to the watershed district including the wildlife habitat corridor and water
quality as well as social benefits including recreational opportunities such as trail and open
space benefits to future residents. Preserving the pine stand as open space would add
significant real estate values to the subdivision. The proposed development would require the
removal of the existing conifers (pine trees) and other plant material on the site. This, along with
the damage due to construction equipment, soil compaction and slope alteration, would further
degrade the aesthetic and ecological value of the corridor.
6. The proposed use would cause adverse environmental effects. The proposed grading plan has
areas of potential significant erosion that would affect the creek and wetlands.
Deny the request to vacate parts of the unused Magnolia Avenue and Sterling Street lying west of
Lakewood Drive and south of Maryland Avenue in the proposed Beaver Lake Townhomes PUD.
The city is denying this request because:
1. The city is denying the proposed PUD and proposed project plans.
2. It is not in the public interest to vacate these right-of-ways since the city is not approving a
project for this site.
Deny the request to vacate unused drainage and utility easements lying east of Lakewood Drive,
west of Sterling Street and south of Maryland Avenue in the proposed Beaver Lake Townhomes
PUD. The city is denying this request because:
1. The city is denying the proposed PUD and proposed project plans.
2. It is not in the public interest to vacate these easements since the city is not approving a project
for this site.
Deny the proposed Beaver Lake Townhomes preliminary plat (received by the city on January 18,
2001). The city is denying this proposed preliminary plat because the city is denying the proposed
planned unit development and the proposed street and easement vacations.
Mr. Pearson seconded. Ms. Fischer asked for 2a to be stricken since the commission did not agree
that the development would change the character of the surrounding area. The commission voted
on the amended motion.
Ayes-All
Motion carries. This proposal will go before the city council on March 12.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 2-20o01
-7-
B. Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment.
Mr. Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Several proposed changes were made to the existing
tower and antenna ordinance that was adopted by the city in 1997. The revisions were brought to
the commission due to a request by the commission. The intention was to strengthen and clarify
the ordinance, especially in the area of co-location and added setback and design standards. Four
of the most recent applicants were notified of the proposed changes and the city has received
feedback from those companies. Staff also studied six other city antenna and tower ordinances.
This is a first draft attempt to address commission and city council concerns.
Mr. Trippler asked what the purpose was to limit the location of the tower from a residence and not
include a business? Staff agreed business should be added to this statement in the ordinance.
Item 9 allows the council and community design review board to approve three or more identical
antennas on a tower.
Staff clarified for Mr. Trippler that under variances, "undue hardship" is defined by legal practice,
not by the city code.
Mr. Rossbach was pleased the statement was added to the ordinance that the city may require the
applicant to hire or pay for a study or other research by a qualified radio frequency engineer to
determine the need for the proposed tower. At times it's difficult when the person representing the
applicant does not have the information needed to answer the commission's questions.
Mr. Ledvina asked if the city is making any progress in developing a comprehensive plan for
locating the towers and accommodating the carriers. Staff responded in saying they were
unsuccessful at getting the carriers together and this proposed ordinance is their alternative plan.
Mr. Mueller asked if there was a way to encourage a taller tower from the start. Staff stated if they
approve 100 feet from the start but they build for 75 feet, they can add on with only a building permit
needed.
Mr. Jim McGreevy, representing Voice Stream, was present to express a few concerns with the
proposed ordinance. He felt the ordinance should be changed slightly for the city council to review
case by case the site location for each tower. In some instances it may be advantageous to the city
and the applicant to place a second tower on a piece of property.
In a providers' view point, there is no difference esthetically from a 75-foot to a 100-foot tower.
Voice Stream has not yet had a tower fail or collapse. The towers installed in this area are made to
progressively fall onto themselves.
A practical problem for applicants is that providers feel coverage areas are proprietary information.
Mr. McGreevy's understanding of the ordinance was when a tower applicant comes forward they
would need to provide coverage maps for all existing towers within a mile, including towers that are
not owned by that applicant. Voice Stream does not feel that information would be available in
many instances,
Mr. Rossbach stated that it is virtually impossible to get coverage information from any of the
providers. Therefore, the city's only recourse is to come back and try to redefine the ordinance to
obtain the information the city needs. As a group, Mr. Rossbach does not feel as though the
providers communicate with each other. He feels if the companies would only talk to each other
they would save themselves a lot of money and make the cities life a whole lot easier.
Planning Commission -8-
Minutes of 2-20-01
Mr. McGreevy responded in saying whether it was in the ordinance or not, the city could require
each applicant to provide coverage information. But to require an applicant to provide coverage
information for another provider would be difficult.
Mr. Mueller did not understand why it would make any difference if one wireless provider knew the
coverage area of another. Mr. McGreevy stated there have been plenty of instances where
companies have claimed the information was proprietary and a trade secret. This information is
helpful to their business. Whether it would hold up in court, he did not know. Often times, the
cooperation between providers is not in evidence to city employees. The first thing Voice Stream
Minneapolis is going to do when they look around for another site is to try to locate another tower
they can put an antenna on. "It costs money to build towers" stated Mr. McGreevy.
Mr. Frost asked if the city requires conditional use permits for all towers, can they require all
applicants to provide a coverage map. Staff stated there are ways that the industry can give the
city their coverage information, while at the same time, protecting their proprietary interests.
Mr. Trippler noted that with the State of Minnesota, if someone claims proprietary information, he
cannot provide that because the minute they hand him the information, it becomes public
information.
Mr. Frost recommended that the commissioner table the ordinance until staff has time to look at the
response from the applicants, make changes and bring it back to the commission.
Mr. Ledvina asked why the commission has abandoned developing their own plan for locating these
towers. They talked about that as a commission several months ago, and at that time, thought that
was a good approach to the problem. If staff was unable to get carriers together in a room, he felt
they needed to take the next step and get some professional assistance in developing a plan. Mr.
Roberts responded in saying it was a matter of money and priorities. He did not feel the city council
has felt it was a high priority, or if they were in a position to fund consultants on behalf of the city.
Mr. Rossbach felt because of the continually changing industry, the city may be spending a lot of
money to hire outside guidance to create an ordinance that in the near future was useless. He
viewed it as the cost versus value equation.
Commissioner Rossbach seconded Mr. Frost's motion to table the ordinance.
Ayes-All
Motion carries.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors were present.
VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
February 12, 2001, City Council Meeting. Mr. Trippler attended and gave his report. The
lot split proposal for Mr. Callahan was approved. A number of citizens did attend
concerned with an individual who filled in the wetland, and got fined $2,000 but had made
$10,000 on it.
The used car lot on Rice and Roselawn was denied due to the applicant not showing up.
B. Mr. Mueller will be attending the February 26 City Council Meeting.
C. Mr. Ledvina will be attending the March 12 City Council Meeting.
Planning Commission -9-
Minutes of 2-20-01
IX.
Xo
D. Mr. Mueller noted the used car lot on the north side of Rice and Roselawn has cars
parked right up to the stoplight, the bench to sit on to catch the bus and right up on
Roselawn and Rice. It makes it very hard to see to make a turn. Staff would
check and see if the parking situation was a violation of their permit.
E. Ms. Fischer asked about pipeline maintenance in the no disturb zone. Mr. Roberts noted
that the city has no jurisdiction. Pipelines and their maintenance are governed by federal law.
Mr. Frost asked if staff was aware of what was going on with the Pep Boys property.
Staff noted that the property looks for sale. He highly doubts that they are going to
build.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:17p.m.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Antenna and Tower Ordinance
February 23, 2001
INTRODUCTION
The planning commission asked staff to review and possibly revise the antenna and tower
ordinance.
BACKGROUND
On January 13, 1997, the city council adopted the current antenna and tower ordinance.
On February 20, 2001, the planning commission considered a proposed antenna and tower
ordinance amendment. The commission tabled action on the proposed ordinance amendment to
allow staff time to investigate their questions and concerns with the proposal.
DISCUSSION
I am proposing many revisions to the ordinance. These changes are based on comments from
the planning commission and city council and are intended to strengthen and clarify the
ordinance. Areas of attention in the proposed ordinance include language about the co-location
of antennas and additional language about setback and design standards for towers. I also have
deleted the word "monopole" throughout the ordinance and used "tower" instead.
On February 20, 2001, we received a letter from Peter Coyle of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and
Lindgren, the law firm that represents VoiceStream Minneapolis, a personal wireless
communication service provider. (See the letter starting on page 2.) His letter expressed several
concerns about the proposed ordinance and recommended several changes to the ordinance.
Staff has reviewed these concerns and made changes to Sections 36-606(2) and 36-610(B)(2) of
the proposed ordinance to address some of the concerns.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the ordinance starting on page 6. This ordinance revises and updates the regulations
about commercial use antennas and towers in Maplewood.
p:\ord\tower.5
Attachments:
1. Letter dated February 19, 2001 from Peter Coyle
2. Proposed ordinance
ROBERT L. HOFFMAN
GERALD H. FRIEDELL
EDWARD J. DRISCOLL
GENE N. FULLER
JOHN D FULLMER
FRANK L HARVEY
CHARLES $ L'K~DELL
CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN
LINDA H. FISHER
THOMAS p STOLTMAN
MICHAEL C. JACK.AN
JOHN E. DIEHL
JON S ~IE~EWSKI
THOMAS J. FLYNN
JAMES P. QUINN
TODD I. FREEMAN
GERALD L SECK
JOHN B LUNDQUtST
OAYLE NOLAN °
JOHN ~ COTTER *
PAUL B. PLUNKETT
ALAN L. KILDOW
KATHLEEN M. PICO~'TE NEWMAN
MICHAEL B LEBARON
GREGORY E. KORSTAD
GARY A VAN CLEVE *
TIMOTHY J. KEANE
ALAN M. ANDERSON
MICHAEL W. SCHLEY
RONN 8. KRERS
TERRENCE E. BISHOP
GARY A, RENNEKE
CHRISTOPHER J, HARRISTHAL
KENDEL J. OHLROGGE
BRUCE J. DOUGLAS
WILLIAM C, GRIFFITH. JR
JOHN R. HILL
PETER J. COYLE
LARRY O. MARTIN
JANE E. BREMER
JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN
MICHAEL J SMITH
February 19, 2001
Attachment
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY t~ LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194
TELEPHONE (952) 835-3800
FAX (952) 896-3333
ANDREW F PERRIN
FREDERICK W. NIEBUHR
RENEE L. JACKSON
WILLIAM G. THORNTON
CHRISTOPHER K* LARUS
DOUGLAS M* BAMLER
ANN M, MEYER
STEPHEN J. KAM~NSKI
THOMAS F. ALEXANDER
DANIEL T: KADLEC
SHARNA A. WAHLGREN
JOHN F. KLOS
ADAM B HUHTA*
NICHOLAS A.J. VLIETSTRA
C. ERIK RAWES
JAMES M. SUBAG
DANIEL J. BALLINTINE
JOHN A. MACK
JEFFREY D. CAHILL
BEAN D. KELLY
SONYA R. SRAUNSCHWEIG
JOSEPH J, FITTANTE, JR.
JONATHAN J FOGEL
CYNTHIA M. KLAUS
MARK D. CHR~STOPHERSON
NEAL J. BLANCHETT
TAMARA O'NEILL MORELAND
JAMES A. MCGREEVY, III
THOMAS A GUMP *
TODD A. TAYLOR
CHRISTOPHER J. DEIKE
MARLA M. ZACK
DIONNE M. BENSON
JEREMY C. STIER
OF COUNSEL
JAMES P. LARKIN
JACK F. DALY
O. KENNETH LINDGREN
ALLAN E, MULLIGAN
JOSEPH GITIS
· ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONBFN
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
Associate Planner
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Mr. Roberts:
This firm represents VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. ("VoiceStream") in connection with its development
of personal wireless communication facilities ("PCS") within the State of Minnesota. VoiceStream's
system requirements may, in the future, entail construction of PCS facilities within the City of
Maplewood, Minnesota ("the City").
We have reviewed the proposed revisions to Chapter 36, Article XI of the City Code, the Commercial Use
Antennas and Towers Ordinance ("the Tower Ordinance"). This letter represents VoiceStream's
comments on some of the revisions. We are pleased to have the opportunity to state our position on the
proposed changes to the Tower Ordinance. In addition, we welcome the chance to address this issue in
any public hearing held on the matter.
The City's current Tower Ordinance, and its proposed revisions, present a good framework for the
regulation of telecommunications towers and antennas and is generally compatible with VoiceStream's
plans. The Tower Ordinance gives wireless service providers the ability to site telecommunications
facilities within the City while giving the City control over the location, height and design of the
structures. This allows the City to fulfill its regulatory function and allows the creation of a PCS network
within the City in conformity with the requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §
332(c)(7) ("the Telecommunications Act").
The Telecommunications Act requires that cities accommodate new wireless facilities, to the extent
feasible. No city may enact an ordinance which has the effect of prohibiting the availability of wireless
services. Moreover, no city may enforce its ordinances in such manner as to discriminate against
2
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
February 19, 2001
Page 2
telecommunications service providers; the mere fact that land-line phone services or other wireless
services exist in the community is not a basis for rejecting the development of new wireless service
capacity. Cities are expressly prohibited from regulating the environmental effects of PCS facilities.
Finally, the actions of a city must be based on substantial evidence, supported by a record and written
findings.
The City's responsibility is to revise the Tower Ordinance so that it protects the City's inhabitants'
health, welfare and safety while, at the same time, allowing the development of a wireless communication
network. To be constitutionally valid, an ordinance must be "rationally related to the achievement of a
legitimate government purpose." Skeen v. State of Minnesota, 505 N.W. 2d 299, 312 (1993). It must
also be certain in its terms. City of St. Paul v. Morris 104 N.W. 2d 902 (1960), cert. denied 365 U.S. 815
(1961). Courts will analyze a zoning action to determine whether it is reasonable. Honn v. City of Coon
Rapids, 313 N.W. 2d 409 (1981). In making that determination, courts look into the circumstances of the
decision. Therefore, a city has an obligation to keep a record to demonstrate a factual basis for its zoning
decision. C.R. Investments, Inc. v. City of Shoreview, 304 N.W. 2d 320, 328 (1981).
VoiceStream cautions the City to carefully examine any revisions to the Tower Ordinance in light of the
requirements of the Telecommunications Act. Some of the proposed revisions contained in the February
13,2001 draft of the Tower Ordinance will make the continued development of a wireless
communications network more difficult. This could place the City in the position of effectively
preventing the provision of PCS service within its boundaries in violation of the Telecommunications Act.
Below are our comments on portions of the draft Tower Ordinance:
Section 36-600.
Purpose
Section 36-600(5)(a)(1) slightly expands the type of structure available for permitted telecommunications
tower siting. This provision allows antennas to be located on water tanks, as well as, water towers.
Section 36-600(b) also expands the primary land use areas where telecommunications towers can be sited
with a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"). The revision allows the siting of telecommunications towers in
the commercial areas of the City. It also potentially allows tower siting on City-owned property and
property owned by other governmental units.
VoiceStream appreciates the expansion of potential locations for telecommunications towers. It also
appreciates the City's effort to site antennas on structures more conducive to such equipment. However,
by creating a distinction between primary locations and structures for tower siting and other locations and
structures within the City, the Tower Ordinance limits the number of potential sites, including co-location
sites, available to providers.
The City may violate the Telecommunications Act if a tower applicant is denied a Building Permit or a
CLIP after clearly demonstrating the necessity to construct a tower or site antennas on a non-primary
location or structure. VoiceStream recommends the deletion of language creating primary locations and
structures. We recommend the City evaluate each telecommunications tower application on its own
merits regarding location, height, design and technical necessity.
3 ~
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
February 19, 2001
Page 3
Section 36-606
Communications Towers Proposed in Residential Zoning Districts
Section 36-606(1) allows the consideration of telecommunication tower siting within a residential zoning
district only when a proposed tower will be located on church property, parks (under certain
circumstances), City or other governmentally-owned property, schools, utilities or institutional sites or
facilities. This provision is consistent with the proposed language of Section 36-600 of the Tower
Ordinance.
VoiceStream appreciates the City's effort to site towers on land and/or structures in residential areas
where it is conducive to do so. However, the City may violate the Telecommunications Act if a tower
applicant is denied a CUP after clearly demonstrating the necessity to construct a tower in another
residentially-zoned location. VoiceStream recommends that the first sentence of subsection 1 be revised
to read "Towers supporting commercial antennas and contbrming to all applicable provisions of this
ordinance are preferred in the following residentially-zoned locations, unless the City Council determines
that an alternative location is technically necessary to achieve coverage requirements."
Section 36-606(2) prohibits the construction of more than one (1) telecommunications tower on a
residentially-zoned piece of property. While this restriction appears to be reasonable, there are instances
where siting more than one tower on a certain piece of property is advantageous to both the City and
wireless services providers. VoiceStream recommends the deletion of Section 36-606(2). VoiceStream
recommends the City evaluate applications on this point on a case-by-case basis.
Section 36-606(5) limits the height of telecommunications towers in residential zoning disthcts to
seventy-five (75) feet and creates a setback of at least one hundred (100) feet from the nearest residential
structure. The current Tower Ordinance allows an exemption from the setback requirement when a
qualified structural engineer specifies, in writing, that any collapse will occur within a lesser distance.
VoiceStream views the 75-foot height limitation as an unreasonable restriction which could lead to the
construction of additional telecommunications towers within residential zoning districts. Higher
telecommunications towers provide greater continuous coverage and will allow uninterrupted service
throughout the City. The tower height limitation also affects providers' ability to co-locate antennas.
VoiceStream recommends the City adopt the same height limitation in residential zoning districts as the
Tower Ordinance currently imposes in non-residential zoning districts. In addition, we recommend that
the language proposed for deletion in Section 36-606(5) be retained in the Tower Ordinance.
Section 36-610
Co-Location of Personal Wireless Communication Service Equipment
Section 36-610(B)(2) requires a telecommunications tower applicant to provide coverage maps of all
existing antenna sites within one (1) mile of a proposed facility in order to demonstrate existing coverage
gaps. The language seems to require an applicant to provide information on towers not owned by it.
Wireless service providers are unlikely to provide proprietary technical information regarding the range
and coverage of telecommunications towers to competitors. The City is in possession of portions of this
information through the zoning process. Requiring an applicant to duplicate it is unreasonable.
VoiceStream recommends the deletion of this provision of Section 36-610.
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
February 19, 2001
Pal~e 4
VoiceStream looks forward to working with the City to develop its Tower Ordinance.
contact me at (952) 896-3214 if you have any questions regarding this issue.
Peter J. Coyle, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
CC'.
Mr. Steve Katkov
Mr. Mike O'Rourke
Scott Slat'tew, Esq.
::ODMA~PCDOCS\LIB 1 \653868\1
Please feel free to
Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
THE CITY CODE ABOUT ANTENNAS AND TOWERS.
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances:
Section 1. This section changes the following parts of the Maplewood City Code: (Additions
have been underlined and deletions are crossed out.)
CHAPTER 36 ARTICLE Xl
COMMERCIAL USE ANTENNAS AND TOWERS
Section 36-600. Purpose.
To accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the
public health, safety and general welfare of the community, the Maplewood City Council finds
that these regulations are necessary to:
1. Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and
businesses of the city.
Require tower equipment to be screened from the view of persons located on properties
contiguous to the site and/or to be camouflaged in a manner to complement existing
structures and to minimize the visibilit and the adverse visual effects of antennas and
_towers through careful design and siting standards,,
Ensure the operators and owners of antennas and towers design, locate and construct
antennas and towers that meet all applicable code requirements to avoid Avoid potential
dam.age to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback
requirements.
Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings for new wireless
telecommunication antennas to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the
community.
The following preferences shall be followed when selecting sites:
a. Primary structural location preference for wireless communication equipment as
permitted uses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Water towers or tanks.
Co-location on existing towers.
Church steeples or the church structure, when camouflaged as steeples, bell
towers, or other architectural features.
6
(4)
(s)
Sides and roofs of buildings or structures over two (2) stories.
Existing power or telephone pole corridors.
Light poles or towers at outdoor recreational facilities.
Parking lots may be used to locate towers ~ where the structure
replicates, incorporates or substantially blends with the overall lighting standards
and fixtures of the parking lot.
b. Primary land use areas for towers requiring conditional use permits.
(2)
(3)
(4)
Industrial and comm_ ercial.
City-owned property (except water towers}, other government-owned property,
schools, churches Go'~'~rn~;~,o,,,- ....,,,,,,,' ,,,,,~ .... or places of worship, utility, a~d
institutional sites.
Public parks/golf courses, when compatible with the nature of the park or
course.
Open space areas when compatible with the nature of the area and site.
Section 36-601. Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this section or ordinance shall have the following
meaning unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Accessory structure. A use or structure subordinate to the principal use of the land or building
with a tower or antenna.
Antenna. Any structure, eaui.Dment or device used for fl~r~a~pose~f collecting or radiating
electromagnetic waves, telecommunication, microwave, television or radio signals including but
not limited to directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes and satellite dishes, and
omni-directional antennas, such as whips.
Personal Wireless Communication Services. Licensed commercial wireless communication
services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), enhanced specialized
mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services.
Public Utility. Persons, corporation, or governments supplying gas, electric, transportation,
water, sewer, or land line telephone service to the public. For this ordinance, commercial wireless
telecommunication sources shall not be considered public utility uses.
Tower. Any pole, mono_Dole, spire, or structure, or combination thereof, including supporting
lines, cables, wires, braces and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna,
meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade.
UBC. Uniform Building Code. Published by the International Conference of Building Officials
and adopted by the State of Minnesota to provide jurisdictions with building-related standards and
regulations.
Section 36-602. Existing antennas and towers.
Antennas, towers and accessory structures in existence as of January 13, 1997, that do not meet
or comply with this section are subject to the following provisions:
1. Towers may continue in use for the existing purpose now used and as now existing but may
not be replaced or structurally altered without meeting all standards in this section.
If such towers are damaged or destroyed due to any reason or cause at all, (unless the user
or owner voluntarily removes the tower), the owner or operator may repair and restore the
tower to its former size, height and use within one (1) year after first getting a building permit
from the city. The location and physical dimensions shall remain as they were before the
damage or destruction.
Section 36-603. Interpretation and Applicability.
It is not the intention of this ordinance to interfere with, abrogate or annul any covenant or
other agreement between parties. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions
upon the use or premises for antennas or towers than are imposed or required by other
ordinances, rules, regulations or permits, or by covenants or agreements, the provisions of
this ordinance shall govern.
b. This ordinance does not apply to the use or location of private, residential citizen band radio
towers, amateur radio towers or television antennas.
Section 36-604. Inspections and Violations.
All towers, antennas and supporting structures must obtain a building permit and are subject
to inspection by the city building official to determine compliance with UBC construction
standards. Deviations from the original construction that a permit is obtained, other than
antenna adjustments, is a misdemeanor.
Notice of violations will be sent by registered mail to the owner and the owner will have thirty
(30) days from the date the notification is issued to make repairs. The owner will notify the
building official that the repairs have been made, and as soon as possible after that, the
building official will make another inspection and the owner notified of the results.
c. Adjustments or modifications to existing antennas do not require a conditional use permit or a
building permit.
Section 36-605. Conditional Use Permit.
a. In reviewing an application for a conditional use permit for the construction of commercial
antennas, towers, and accessory structures, the city council shall consider the:
bo
(1) Standards in the city code.
(2) Recommendations of the planning commission and community design review board.
(3) Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of
residents of surrounding areas.
(4) Effect on property values.
(5) Effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan.
The applicant shall provide at the time of application, sufficient information to show that
construction and installation of the antenna or tower will meet or exceed the standards and
requirements of the UBC (Uniform Building Code).
8
Conditional use permits will not be required for:
Repair or replacement or adjustment of the elements of an antenna array affixed to a
tower or antenna, if the repair or replacement does not reduce the safety factor.
(2) Antennas mounted on water towers, sides or roof of existing structures and on existing
towers, power, light, or telephone poles.
d. The fee to be paid for the conditional use permit shall be set by city council resolution.
Section 36-606. Communication Towers Proposed in Residential Zon_QQjQg_Districts.
No person, firm or corporation shall build or install a tower in a residential zoning district L,'orte
without obtaining a conditional use permit from the city council. Such a tower shall be subject to,
but not limited to, the following conditions:
1._,. The city will only consider such a tower in the following residentially-zoned locations or
a._~. Churches or places of worship..
b..~. Parks, when the city determines the facility would be compatible with the nature of the_
park.
c. Cit -owned ro err overnment school utili and institutional sites or faciliti s.
2. There shall be no more than one freestanding tower at one time on a prooerty that the city
-- has planned for a residential use or that the city has zoned residentially, unless one of tho
following aD_plies:
a~ The additional towers or antennas are incorporated into existing structures such as a
churchstee le Ii h ole owerlin u - devi eor imilarstru tur
b._,. The residential property is at least five (5) acres in size.
3.._~. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity
analysis, that location of the tower as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and
spacing needs of the cellular or personal wireless communication services systems system,
and to provide adequate personal wireless communication or portable cellular telephone
coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas
in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure.
4._~. If no existing structure that meets the height requirements for the antennas is available for
mounting the antennas, such antennas may be mounted on a tower not to exceed seventy-
five (75) feet in height. The tower shall be located a distance of at least the height of the
.... I :~,~ ,,,I
tower ~ from the nearest residential structure.,
53. The height of a tower may be increased to a maximum of one hundred (100) feet if the tower
and base area are-i~ designed ~ for the co-location of at least one other personal
(1)
_wireless communication service provider antennas and equipment. ---"- ....... .'-,--,
_64-:. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure
whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and
switching, the owner or operator shall locate it at least ten (10) feet from the side or rear lot
line and shall landscape and screen it. The community design review board shall review such
a building, and the landscaping and screening.. The owners and operators of all ne;:,
equipment or utility buildings and accessory structures for towers shall design and construct
such structures to blend in with the surroundinq environment. -
7~ Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, unless the city
determines that such a location would lessen the visibility of the tower or would lessen th~';
negative impacts of such a facility on nearby properties.
8_~. The city may reduce or vary the required setback for a tower from a public street to allow tho
integration of a tower into an existinq or proposed structure such a church steeple, light pole,
power line support device or similar ~tructure. The term integration may include tht:
replacement of an existing structure to include a personal wireless service provider, but doe;;
.not include the replication of a structure.
9_. Towers shall be setback at least five (5) feet from side and rear property lines, unless the site;
is next to a residential property line or next to a property that the city is planning for ~,
residential use. If the tower would be next to a res dential property line or next to a property
that the city is planning for a residential use, then the tower must be located at least th~,
_height of the tower plus twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest residential structure.
.10 The owner or operator of any tower shall screen ground-mounted ea.uipment from view by
suitable vegetation, except where a design of nonvegetative screening better reflects anti
compliments the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
11. _Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screenina PoSsible for off-site view,-;
of the facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower. - -
12.__.~. Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent.
13. _The community design review board (CDRB) shall review the plans for towers, utility,
ea_umment or accessory buildinqs, site plans and proposed screening and landscaping.
Section 36-607. Construction Requirements, Setback and Height Restrictions in Zoning
Districts or Locations Other Than Residential.
No erson firm r cor or ti n shall erect a tower in a loc ion other than resi ntial withou first
obtainin ac nditi naluse rmit from the i ouncil. Such ow r hall esu ' c o u n t
limited o the followin condition:
No part of any tower or antenna shall be constructed, located or maintained at any time,
permanently or temporarily, in or upon any required setback area for the district in which
the antenna or tower is to be located.
10
All antennas, towers and accessory structures shall meet all applicable provisions of this
code and this section.
c. Antennas and towers shall meet the following requirements:
(1)
The antennas may be mounted on a single pole or tower ~ not to exceed
one hundred seventy-five (175) feet in height. The pole or tower shall be setback
at least the height of the pole or tower ~ plus twenty-five (25) feet from any
residential lot line.
(2) Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material.
(3) The use of guyed towers is prohibited.
(4)
Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening possible for
off-site views of the facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower.
(5) Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent.
(6)
The installation shall be designed to be compatible with the underlying site plan·
The owner or operator shall landscape the base of the tower and any accessory
structures. Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be
architecturally compatible with any principal structures on the site. All new
equipment or utility buildings and accessory structures for towers shall be
designed and constructed to blend in with the surrounding environment· The
community design review board shall review the design plans for towers, utility_,
eo_uioment or o~ any accessory structures, site plans and proposed screening and
landscaDin~ --
· Cll I~.4 ~1%~ IGII IU~VCli~II I~:~.
(7)
Towers shall be a light blue or gray or other color shown to reduce visibility. No
advertising or identification visible off-site shall be placed on the tower or
buildings.
(8)
Antennas placed upon the tower shall comply with all state and federal
regulations about nonionizing radiation and other health hazards related to such
facilities.
(9)
Wireless telephone or person¢l wireless communication service antennas, where
located on an existing structure shall not extend more than twenty-five (25) feet
above the structure to which they are attached. Such antennas are a permitted
use in all zoning districts of the city. The city council, after a recommendation
from the community design review board, must approve the plans for all sets of
antennas on a building after the second personal wireless communication service
provider has installed their antennas on the building.
(10)
Towers with antennas shall be designed to withstand a uniform wind loading as
prescribed by the UBC (Uniform Building Code).
(11)
Telecommunications equipment located on the side of an existing structure or on
a roof of a structure shall not be screened.
11
(12)
(13)
(14)
Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street,
unless the city determines that such a location would lessen the visibility of the
tower or would lessen the negative impacts of such a facility on nearby
properties.
The city may reduce or vary the required setback for a tower from a public street
to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such n
church steeple, light pole, power line support device or similar structure. The term
integration may include the replacement of an existing structure to include n
personal wireless service provider, but does not include the replication of a
structure.
Towers shall be setback at least five (5) feet from side and rear property lines,
unless the site is next to a residential lot line. If the tower would be next tn a
(15)
residential property line or next to a property that the city is planning for a
residential use, then the tower must be located at least the height of the tower
Dlus twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest residential structure. Ground
e(~ui!3ment and accessory structures shall be setback at least five (5) feet from
side and rear property lines.
The owner or operator of a tower shall screen ground-mounted equipment from
view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of nonvegetative screening
better reflects and compliments the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Section 36-608. Lights, Signs and Other Attachments.
No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any way any lights, reflectors,
flashers, daytime strobes or steady nighttime light or other illuminating devices except:
1. Those needed during time of repair or installation,
2. Those required by the Federal Aviation Agency, the Federal Communications
Commission or the city.
3. For towers in parking lots, lights associated with the parking lot lighting.
In addition, no tower shall have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any way, any platform,
catwalk, crows nest, or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair.
No antenna or tower shall have signage, advertising or identification of any kind visible from
the ground or from other structures, except necessary, warning and eaui_Dment information signage
reauired by the manufacturer or by Federal, State or local authorities.
Section 36-609. Removal of Abandoned or Damaged Towers.
Any tower and/or antenna that is not used for one (1) year shall be deemed abandoned and
may be required to be removed in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures as for
dangerous or unsafe structures established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.15 through
463.26.
12
Section 36-610. Co-location of Personal Wireless Communication Service Equipment.
The city shall not approve a request A-pmpos~ for a new personal wireless service tower
........ -' unless it can be dOcumented by the applicant to the satisfaction of the
sh~,',', nc~t b~ o~,~,,
city council that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be
accommodated on an existing or approved tower or commercial building within one-half mile
radius, transcending municipal borders, of the proposed tower due to one or more of the
following:
1. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved
tower or commercial building.
2. The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned
equipment at the tower or building.
3. Existing or approved structures and commercial buildings within one-half mil~ radius
cannot or will not reasonably accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary
to function.
For r~$;d~r,t;~',.,,o,,:- -:-,.., o,,~o,' ,, ,.. The applicant must demonstrate, by providing a city-wide
coverage/interference and capacity analysis, that the location of the antennas as
proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the
communication service system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas
that cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district or
on existing structure.
B. Additional Submittal Requirements. Beside the information required elsewhere in this code. all
conditional use permit applications for towers also shall include the following information:
A letter of intent committing the tower owner and their successors to allow the shared
use of the tower if en additional user agrees to meet reasonable terms and conditions for
shared use.
2. The applicant shall demonstrate that the pro_Dosed facility is necessary_ to fill a significant
existing gap in users coverage. This documentation shall include:
Coverage maps of all of the applicant's or the providers existing antenna sites
within one (1) mile of the proposed facility_.
A map showing all existing personal wireless communication service antenna
sites within one (1) mile of the Dro_oosed facility_.
3. That the proposal is the least intrusive method of achieving coverage in the area and that
other alternatives will not work.
13
That the equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated at any
existing tower or antenna facility. The city may find that a co-location site cannot
accommodate the planned equipment for the following reasons:
The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the preferred co-
location site. and the preferred co-location site cannot be reinforced, modified or
replaced to accommodate the planned equipment or its equivalent at a
reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified radio frequency engineer;
The planned equipment would significantly interfere with the usability of existing
or approved equipment at the preferred co-location site and the interference
cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified radio
freQuency engineer;
A preferred co-location site cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a
height necessary to function reasonably, as certified by a qualified radio
fre(3uency engineer: or
The applicant, after a good-faith effort, is unable to lease, purchase or otherwise
secure space for the planned equipment at an existing antenna location.
The city may require the applicant to hire or pay for a study or other research by a
Qualified radio frequency engineer to determine the need for the proposed tower.
Materials or documentation demonstrating to the city that the applicant has made a good
faith effort to co-locate on existing towers but they could not reach an agreement to co-
locate on an existing tower.
Design information and documentation showing how the applicant, owner or operator of
the tower has designed structurally, electrically and in all respects the tower to
accommodate both the applicant's antennas and the antennas for at least two (2)
additional users if the tower is over one hundred (100) feet in height in all locations
except residential or for at least one (1) additional user if the tower is over seventy-five
{~75) feet in height. The applicant must design and install e new tower to allow for future
rearrangement of antennas on the tower, to accept antennas mounted at varying heights
and to accommodate the equipment and other needs of future users.
Section 36-611. Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications.
All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all
Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with
public safety telecommunications.
SectiOn 36-612. Additional Submittal Requirements.
Besides the information required elsewhere in this Code, building permit applications for
towers shall include the following supplemental information:
(1) A report and plans from a qualified and registered engineer or others that:
14
a. Describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation.
b. Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-
located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas.
c. Describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it
can hold.
d. Includes an engineer's stamp and registration number, if applicable.
e. Includes all other information necessary for the city to evaluate the request.
Section 36-613. Variances.
The City Council may grant variances to the requirements of this section. All variances must
follow the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. For variances regarding antennas and
towers, the applicant must show the city_ the following:
1_. There are unique circumstances or characteristics peculiar to the property and that the
provisions of this code would inflict undue hardship on the property owner or applicant.
2_. The property cannot be developed or put to a reasonable use by strictly conforming with
the city code.
3_. The applicant or property owner did not create or cause the hardship.
4_. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the area or the zoning
district.
5_. The proposed variance is the minimum variance that will afford relief from the city_ code
standards.
6_. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
The applicant for a variance for an antenna or tower related matter shall submit with their
variance application a statement showing how the proposal would meet these findings.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city council approves it and the official
newspaper publishes it.
The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on
P:ord\tower. 5
15
2001.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2001
B. Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment.
Mr. Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Several proposed changes were made to the existing tower
and antenna ordinance that was adopted by the city in 1997. The revisions were brought to the
commission due to a request by the commission. The intention was to strengthen and clarify the
ordinance, especially in the area of co-location and added setback and design standards. Four of the
most recent applicants were notified of the proposed changes and the city has received feedback from
those companies. Staff also studied six other city antenna and tower ordinances. This is a first draft
attempt to address commission and city council concerns.
Mr. Trippler asked what the purpose was to limit the location of the tower from a residence and not include
a business? Staff agreed business should be added to this statement in the ordinance.
Item 9 allows the council and community design review board to approve three or more identical antennas
on a tower.
Staff clarified for Mr. Trippler that under variances, "undue hardship" is defined by legal practice, not by
the city code.
Mr. Rossbach was pleased the statement was added to the ordinance that the city may require the
applicant to hire or pay for a study or other research by a qualified radio frequency engineer to determine
the need for the proposed tower. At times it's difficult when the person representing the applicant does not
have the information needed to answer the commission's questions.
Mr. Ledvina asked if the city is making any progress in developing a comprehensive plan for locating the
towers and accommodating the carriers. Staff responded in saying they were unsuccessful at getting the
carriers together and this proposed ordinance is their alternative plan.
Mr. Mueller asked if there was a way to encourage a taller tower from the start. Staff stated if they
approve 100 feet from the start but they build for 75 feet, they can add on with only a building permit
needed.
Mr. Jim McGreevy, representing Voice Stream, was present to express a few concerns with the proposed
ordinance. He felt the ordinance should be changed slightly for the city council to review case by case the
site location for each tower. In some instances it may be advantageous to the city and the applicant to
place a second tower on a piece of property.
In a providers' view point, there is no difference esthetically from a 75-foot to a 100-foot tower. Voice
Stream has not yet had a tower fail or collapse. The towers installed in this area are made to
progressively fall onto themselves.
A practical problem for applicants is that providers feel coverage areas are proprietary information.
Mr. McGreevy's understanding of the ordinance was when a tower applicant comes forward they would
need to provide coverage maps for all existing towers within a mile, including towers that are not owned by
that applicant. Voice Stream does not feel that information would be available in many instances.
Mr. Rossbach stated that it is virtually impossible to get coverage information from any of the providers.
Therefore, the city's only recourse is to come back and try to redefine the ordinance to obtain the
information the city needs. As a group, Mr. Rossbach does not feel as though the providers communicate
with each other. He feels if the companies would only talk to each other they would save themselves a lot
of money and make the cities life a whole lot easier.
Mr. McGreevy responded in saying whether it was in the ordinance or not, the city could require each
applicant to provide coverage information. But to require an applicant to provide coverage information for
another provider would be difficult.
Mr. Mueller did not understand why it would make any difference if one wireless provider knew the
coverage area of another. Mr. McGreevy stated there have been plenty of instances where companies
have claimed the information was proprietary and a trade secret. This information is helpful to their
business. Whether it would hold up in court, he did not know. Often times, the cooperation between
providers is not in evidence to city employees. The first thing Voice Stream Minneapolis is going to do
when they look around for another site is to try to locate another tower they can put an antenna on. "It
costs money to build towers" stated Mr. McGreevy.
Mr. Frost asked if the city requires conditional use permits for all towers, can they require all applicants to
provide a coverage map. Staff stated there are ways that the industry can give the city their coverage
information, while at the same time, protecting their proprietary interests.
Mr. Trippler noted that with the State of Minnesota, if someone claims proprietary information, he cannot
provide that because the minute they hand him the information, it becomes public information.
Mr. Frost recommended that the commissioner table the ordinance until staff has time to look at the
response from the applicants, make changes and bring it back to the commission.
Mr. Ledvina asked why the commission has abandoned developing their own plan for locating these
towers. They talked about that as a commission several months ago, and at that time, thought that was a
good approach to the problem. If staff was unable to get carriers together in a room, he felt they needed
to take the next step and get some professional assistance in developing a plan. Mr. Roberts responded
in saying it was a matter of money and priorities. He did not feel the city council has felt it was a high
priority, or if they were in a position to fund consultants on behalf of the city. Mr. Rossbach felt because of
the continually changing industry, the city may be spending a lot of money to hire outside guidance to
create an ordinance that in the near future was useless. He viewed it as the cost versus value equation.
Commissioner Rossbach seconded Mr. Frost's motion to table the ordinance.
Ayes-All
Motion carries.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Easement Vacation
Birch Run Station Shopping Center, north of Beam Avenue
February 23, 2001
iNTRODUCTION
Ms. Claudia Ryan, representing Oppidan investment Company, is proposing to vacate part of an
unused utility easement. This easement is north of Beam Avenue in the Birch Run Center
Shopping Center property. (,See the maps on pages 4 and 5.)
DISCUSSION
This easement was originally dedicated in 1974 as part of the Maplewood Mall Addition. The city
has no plans to install utilities in this easement. Ms. P, yan is requesting this vacation so that the
easement would no longer cross through the middle of the vacant building site north of the new
Bennigan's Restaurant. She wants to buy this building pad to build a new Gander Mountain
Store. (See the survey on page 5 and the statement on page 6.) This vacation would run from
the Beam Avenue right-of-way on the south to the north property line of Birch Run Station.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution on page 7. This resolution vacates the unused public utility easement north
of the Beam Avenue right-of-way in the Birch Run Shopping Center. The city should vacate this
easement because:
1. it is in the public interest.
2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build utilities in this location.
3. The adjacent properties have access to public streets and utilities.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Existing land use: Undeveloped
REFERENCE
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
East:
South:
West:
Birch Run Station Shopping Center
McDonald's Restaurant
Bennigans's Restaurant
Birch Run Station Shopping Center
p:sec3-29/brchease.vac
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line Map
3. Site Survey
4. Applicant's Statement
5. Vacation Resolution
2
Attachment 1
,S HEIGHTS
COUN~P( ROAD
)GE CT.
D
1, SUMMIT CT.
2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR.
3. DULUTH CT.
COPE
AVE.
GERVAIS
VIKING
SHERREN AVE.
AVE.
{~ WHITE BEAR LAKE
COUNTY
JOHN'S m
LVD.
,.-.,
iv'
North
Hozelwood
DEMONT
E.
M£SABI
RA~SEY
COUNTY
COURT
KOHLMAN
Loke ~. AVE.
LARK
RD.
COPE AVE.
ROA/) O
WOODLYNN
13r..'
1:3
LOCATION MAP
RD.
PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION
BEAM AVENUE
PROPERTY LINE MAP
Attachment 2
7
Attachment 3
PROPOSED EASEMENT
PTtON
,.,., %% i
SITE PLAN
Attachment 4
OPPIDAN INVESTMENT COMPANY
5125 County Road 101, Suite 100
Minnetonka, MN 55345
February 2 I, 2001
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE: Public Vacation Application Concerning the Vacation of an Unused Utility
Easement upon the Birch Run Station Property
Dear Sir/Madam:
We are the prospective purchaser of an undeveloped outlot in the Birch Run Station retail
development.
Attached please find a Public Vacation Application submitted by us, and approved by the current
fee owner, Keystone Holding Company, with respect to the vacation of an unused utility easement on the
Birch Run Station property. This easement was dedicated in the original plat of the Maplewood Mall
Addition. No utilities exist in the easement area and the property has since been replatted and utilities
serving the entirety of the site have been installed in alternative easement locations. There is no reasonable
likelihood that the subject easement will ever be used in the manner originally intended, and the easement
interferes with additional development at the site.
For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that the City approve the requested vacation.
rs,
LB/cj
Enclosure
N:~PL\GCE~55934.wpd
Attachment 5
EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Ms. Claudia Ryan, representing Oppidan Investment Company, applied for the
vacation of the following-described easement:
The drainage easement along the west line of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Maplewood Mall
Addition, lying north of the Beam Avenue right-of-way in Section 3, Township 29, Range 22,
Maplewood, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows:
On March 5, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council
approve this vacation.
On March 26, 2001, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a
notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners.
The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city
staff and planning commission.
WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the
following abutting properties:
EXCEPT PART IN MAPLEWOOD MALL ADD & EXCEPT PART OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4
DESCRIBED AS: COM AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 THEN S 00 DEG 26
MIN 21 SEC E 921.54 FEET ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 THE S 89
DEG 16 MIN 25 SEC E 75.37 FT TO PT OF BEGINNING; THEN CONT S 89 DEG 16 MIN 25
SEC E 214.00 FT; THE S 00 DEG 43 MIN 35 SEC W 7.00 FT; THEN S 89 DEG 16 MIN 25 SEC
E 350.00 FT; THEN N 00 DEG 43 MIN 35 SEC E 116.00 FT; THEN N 89 DEG 16 MIN 25 SEC W
533.00 FT; THEN N 00 DEG 43 MIN 35 SEC E 82.00 FT; THEN N 89 DEG 16 MIN 25 SEC W
31.00 FT; THEN S 00 43 MIN 35 SEC W 191.00 FT TO POINT OF BEGINNING; THE SE 1/4 OF
THE NE 1/4 (SUBJ. TO RD & ESMTS) IN SEC 3 TN 29 RN 22 (PIN 03-29-22-14-0007) and
SUBJECT TO ROAD EXMT; LOT 7 & LOT 8 BLK 1 LYING W OF WIDENED SOUTHLAWN RD
EXCEPT PART LYING ELY & SLY OF FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE BEG AT & A POINT ON
S L OF LOT 8 243.4 FT W OF SE CORNER SAID LOT, THE NLY 361.01 FT THE ELY TO PT
204.87 FT WEST OF EAST LINE OF LOT 8 THEN N 231.69 FT THE EASTERLY 201.15 TO
WEST LINE OF SAID WIDENED ROAD & THERE TERMINATING (PIN: 03-29-22-14-0010)
all in Section 3, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
vacation for the following reasons:
1. It is in the public interest.
2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build utilities in this location.
3. The adjacent properties have access to public streets and utilities.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
?
,2001.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director
Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Review- Maplewood Imports
Addition
2780 North Highway 61
February 26, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Brian Teeters, of Ryan Companies, is proposing to build a 2,600-square-foot addition onto the
east (rear elevation) side of Maplewood Imports, 2780 North Highway 61. Refer to pages 7-9.
The applicant would add four repair bays and a tool room. The exterior of the proposed addition
would be flat concrete block with an upper fascia of rough-textured, break-off block. The
proposed addition would be painted beige. The materials and color would match the existing
building.
Requests
The applicant is requesting that the city council approve:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision to add onto the building. The code requires a CUP
for motor-vehicle repair garages. The code also requires a CUP since the proposed addition
would be closer than 350 feet to the residential district to the south. The proposed addition
would be 335 feet from the residential zoning line. Refer to the site plan on page 9 and the
letter on page 10.
2. The building design and site plans.
BACKGROUND
December 9, 1996: The city council approved a CUP for vehicle showroom and repair-garage
additions for Maplewood Imports. The council also approved a wetland-buffer width variance.
The city code required an average of a 100-foot-wide wetland buffer in the back of this site. The
applicant received approval to provide a narrower buffer which varied in width. The council also
approved the design plans.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
The proposed expansion meets the cdteria for a CUP. This site is within the Kohlman Lake
Shoreland Boundary Area, but it would not violate shoreland requirements. The proposed
addition would be built on existing pavement so it would not add impervious surface to the site.
I checked with Cliff Aichinger of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District about wetland
issues. Mr. Aichinger said the applicant does not need a permit from his office since the
proposed construction does not affect the wetland to the east since the applicant would not
extend beyond any existing paved areas.
Compliance with Previous CUP Condition,-,
In 1996, the city council required that the applicant comply with the following conditions which
relate to watershed district concerns:
· The applicant is to submit a report to the council on an annual basis on the sump catch basin
effectiveness and maintenance activities and schedules.
· The applicant shall submit a landscape plan which indicates a seed plan mixture for buffer
areas as suggested by the Ramsey/VVashington Metro Watershed District.
· The applicant shall submit a tree buffer plan for the southern area of the site to include the
use of native species as approved by the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District.
The applicant has complied with the seeding and landscaping requirements, but they have not
submitted annual reports on the effectiveness and maintenance of their sump catch basin. Doug
Molder, of Maplewood Imports, stated that he was unaware of this requirement but he would
gladly comply. As a condition of this CUP, the applicant should verify with staff that the system is
clean and working. Staff suggests that these annual reviews be handled administratively rather
than taking up city council time. Staff will coordinate with Mr. Molder to verify that Maplewood
Imports performs the annual inspections and maintenance of his sump catch basin.
Building Design
The design and extedor of the proposed addition is acceptable since it would match the existing
building. The existing building has an extedor of flat concrete block with an upper fascia of
rough-textured break-off block.
Parking
There is enough parking available on the site to meet code requirements. With the proposed
addition, Maplewood Imports would need 175 spaces according to the code. After the
expansion, the applicant would have 204 spaces. The required parking takes into account
parking for employees, customers and vehicles in for servicing.
Site Lights
The code requires that new site lights be designed or aimed so that they do not shine into any
residential neighbors' windows or onto a public street. The applicant should submit a
photometric plan if the would install any new site lights that would shine toward the residential
neighbors.
Site Clean Up
There are several cardboard boxes on the north side of the building.
properly store and dispose of all boxes and debris.
The applicant should
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt the resolution on pages 11-13 approving a conditional use permit revision for
Maplewood Imports to enlarge their motor-vehicle repair garages at 2780 North Highway 61.
This permit is based on the standards required by ordinance and is subject to the following
conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out):
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be started within one year of council approval or the
permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The applicant shall :$tc, submit an annual a report to steff {he-eouf~ on ~
off the sump catch basin effectiveness and maintenance activities-a~d-sehedt~les.
Approval of the plans date-stamped Februanj 20, 2001 for the building expansion at
Maplewood Imports, 2780 North Highway 61. Approval is subject to the property owner doing
the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. The applicant shall submit the following to staff for approval before obtaining a building
permit:
a. Grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plans.
b. A photometric-lighting plan if there would be any new site lights installed. This plan
shall comply with city lighting code.
c. A screening plan for any new roof-top equipment that would be installed that would be
visible to residential neighbors.
3
3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
Paint any new roof-top mechanical equipment that may be placed on the proposed
addition. Paint must match the color of the building. Any new roof-mounted
equipment visible to adjacent residential property shall be screened.
b. Aim or shield any new site lights so they are not a nuisance to neighbors.
c. The exterior materials and color of the addition shall match the existing building.
Keep the trash storage and dumpster areas clean and picked up. If a problem develops,
the city may require additional dumpster space and/or an enclosure at the time of future
conditional use permit reviews.
5. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if ·
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work.
The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work.
All werk shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 8.31 acres
Existing land use: Maplewood Imports
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: KSTP Radio Station
South: Don's Auto Body and single dwellings which front on Kohlman Avenue
West: Highway 61 (Maplewood Drive)
East: Undeveloped property
PAST ACTIONS
Maplewood Imports
November 6, 1969: The city council approved plans for the original building.
July 19, 1979: The council approved a CUP for a 3,900-square-foot shop addition.
June 8, 1987: The council approved a CUP for a 1,740-square-foot car wash addition.
May 23, 1988: The council reviewed the CUP and approved it for an indefinite term.
December 9, 1996: The council approved a CUP and a wetland-setback variance.
PLANNING
Land use plan designation and zoning:
Ordinance requirements: M-1
M-1 (light manufacturing)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 36-187(b) requires a CUP for any building or exterior use, except parking, in a M-1
district that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district.
Section 36-151(b)(9) requires a CUP for motor-vehicle repair garages.
Criteria for CUP Approval
Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based 0P nine standarCls.
Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 11-13.
Application Date
The city received the complete application for this proposal on February 20, 2001. State law
requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal.
City council action is required on this proposal by April 20, 2001.
p:sec4\mapimpor. 301
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's letter dated February 19, 2001
5 Conditional Use Permit Resolution
6. Plans date-stamped February 20, 2001 (separate attachment)
2 ALVARA,~ DR
3 E£LL~CREST DW
VIKING DR.
RIE CT.
BURKE
AV,
5 '~,'~ AVE
VADNAIS HEIGHTS
KOHLMAN
COUNTY
PALM
AVE..
/ SEXTANT AVE.
ROAD
NO~
",VE
GEI~,'A!S
!u~ C
1. SUMM~ CT,
2. CO~N%R%~EW C~R. ~
3. DULUTH CT,
4. LYD~ ST. /
JUNCTION
(1) CHAMBERS ST
KF.L.t,E.R oOk. F cOURSE' SKILL
LOCATION MAP
Attachment 1
BEAU
i~ B~OOKJ AVE.
ROOKS AVE.
z
SHERREN AVE. ;nuc~ecd Lake
/~t AvE. q
Attachment 2
N~.~. Co.
,~, DON'S AUTO BCD'
SERVICE ENGINEERING
,'r
125~' 126;
I
MAPLEWOOD
IMPORTS
I
I
DIE]
I
-KOHL AN
!
? ~0. /-477
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP
8
PROPOSED ADDITION
Attachment 3
MAPLEWOOD IMPORTS
SITE PLAN
Rvan Con;panics US, Inc. Attachment 4
Buildin~ La.s'tin~ l{rluliml.dlip.~
February 19, 2001
Tom Ekstrand
City Planner
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
FEB 2 200I
RE: MAPLEWOOD IMPORTS ADDITION CUP WRITTEN STATEMENT
Dear Tom:
This letter is in response to the City of Maplewood's requirement of a xvritten statement for the
Conditional Use Permit application for the Maplewood Imports Addition.
The intended use for the addition is primarily for service work to automobiles. Three new
automobile hoists are being added to the new space along with a frame machine.
We feel that this project is in accordance with the City of Maplewood's CUP guidelines and
causes no adverse effects to any nearby residences and businesses.
Please contact me with any questions you may have ~ (612) 340-9674.
Sincerely,
Brian Teeters
Project Manager
G DEP'P,PRO$-NEWX1100\1138-000 WAYZATAAUTOCENTERBODYSHOPLLETTERS'~CUPCRITERIALETTERDOC/JL
10
l)esign Buihl · ]{eal Es.tale I)evelol)ment · l'rol)erty Management
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company applied for a conditional use permit revision to add
vehicle-repair space onto an auto dealership building. The addition would be within 350 feet of a
residential lot line.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to Maplewood Imports at 2780 North Highway 61.
The legal description is:
Lots 97, 98 and 99 of GARDENA ADDITIONAL OF RAMSEY COUNTY, Minnesota together
with the west % of vacated English Street lying between the Easterly extension of the North
line of said Lot 97 and Eastedy extension of the South line of said Lot 99.
The North 114 feet of Lots 16 and 17, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County,
Minnesota.
The Northerly 300 feet of Lot 14 and all of Lot 15, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION,
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
All that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the South east 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4,
Township 29, Range 22, which lies East of the Easterly right of way of Trunk Highway No.
61, and North of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point distant 531.75 feet West
and 122 feet South of the Northeast corner of the above-described fraction of Section 4,
thence running Northwesterly at a range of approximately 66 degrees, 28 minutes, from said
point 107 feet, more or less to a point on the Easterly right of way line of said Highway No.
61, which said point is 90 feet Southwesterly from the point of intersection of said Eastedy
dght of way line with the North line of said quarter-quarter-quarter section line except that
part platted as KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION.
The North one-half of Lot Twelve (12) of KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey
County, Minnesota together with that part of vacated English Street lying within the SE 1/4 of
Section 4, Township 29, Range 22 and lying between the Easterly extension of the North line
of Lot 12, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, and the Easterly extension of the South line
of the North % of Lot 12, KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION.
The North 300 feet of Lot Thirteen (13) of KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey
County, Minnesota.
The North Half (N %) of Lot Eighteen (18), KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey
County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, together with an easement for
ingress and egress over the West 10 feet of the South Half of Lot Eighteen (18),
KOHLMAN'S LAKEVIEW ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
The North 335.00 feet of Lots 73 and 74, GARDENA ADDITION to Ramsey County,
Minnesota; and the East 40 feet of English Street, vacated, lying between the Westerly
extensions across said street of the North line of Lot 74 and the South line of the North
335.00 feet of Lot 74, all in GARDENA ADDITION to Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On March 5, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this
permit.
On , the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a
notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave
everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also
considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to
any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water
or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference
or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create
traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
10.There would not be a significant affect on the development of the parcel as zoned.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be started within one year of council approval or the permit
shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The applicant shall submit an annual report to staff on the sump catch basin effectiveness
and maintenance activities.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director
Conditional Use Permit - Used Auto Sales
1145 E. Highway 36
February 28, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Hossein Aghamirzai, of University Auto Sales and Leasing, is requesting approval of a conditional
use permit (CUP) to open a used-car sales lot at 1145 E. Highway 36 (presently the United Tile
store). Refer to the maps on pages 7-9 and the statement of intended use on page 10.
Mr. Aghamirzai is not proposing to alter the building (which was originally a Perkins Restaurant).
He proposes to restdpe the parking lot to have 76 parking spaces as shown on the site plan.
According to the applicant's attorney, the hours of operation would be 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday
through Saturday. There is no garage bay or car wash on the site. The applicant proposes to
spot-wash vehicles on site but would take the vehicles off site for repair work with the exception of
occasional minor work.
DISCUSSION
CUP and Parking
Staff does not see a problem with used car sales on this site as long as it is well maintained and
well operated. Being well maintained means that the owner/operator must keep the site in
presentable and neat condition--building and site alike. Being well operated means that the
applicants must not allow cars on the site beyond the limits of the stdped parking spaces. A
common problem with used car lots is that vehicles sometimes overflow into the ddve aisles and
the street. If approved, the council should require that the applicant control the parking on the
site so that it does not become congested, disorderly and unsightly. Vehicle delivery and
transport unloading should also take place on the site and not on the frontage road.
This permit should not allow any vehicle repairs on site since the site has no accommodations for
such work. The council should also require a proper trash enclosure that is large enough to
contain all refuse as well as recyclable materials. There should not be any outdoor storage of
materials, scrap parts or refuse permitted.
Site Design
Due to snow cover on the site, I could not see the condition of the parking lot. Staff's
recollection, though, is that the parking lot is in need of overlay or in the least patching. The
council should require that the applicant patch or overlay the parking lot prior to striping. Staff
should determine the extent of needed parking lot repairs after the snow melts.
The parking lot should be striped to have two handicap-accessible parking spaces which comply
with ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) standards. The handicap spaces shown on the plan
would not meet ADA specifications. The ADA requires that each handicap space be eight feet
wide with an adjacent eight-foot-wide loading space between them.
Site Cleanup
The applicant should either repair or remove the fence on the north and east lot line. This fence
is tipping over and needs repair. All old pallets and debris from the current store should be
removed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution on pages 11-12 approving a conditional use permit for used car sales at
1145 E. Highway 36. 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.
The site shall be kept in neat and orderly condition. The applicant shall observe the
striping pattern and not crowd the site by placing additional vehicles on the site beyond
what can be parked in the striped parking spaces. The drive aisles shall be kept clear of
vehicles.
5. There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along the street. This
activity shall be kept on site.
Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited
unless such materials can be fully concealed within a screening enclosure. The design
and placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval.
7. The hours of operation of this used car lot shall be 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through
Saturday. The car lot shall be closed on Sunday.
o
There shall not be any car servicing or maintenance on the site except for minor work
such as battery replacement, minor clean up and spot washing. Mechanical repairs and
vehicle servicing such as oil changes are not allowed.
Bo
Approval of the site plan date-stamped January 31, 2001 for a used-car sales operation at
1145 E. Highway 36. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to
the applicant complying with the following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
Provide the following for staff approval:
a. Revise the site plan to show parking spaces to be 9 ~-foot-wide as code requires.
There shall also be two handicap-accessible parking spaces that are striped
according to ADA specifications. The ADA requires eight-foot-wide spaces with an
eight-foot-wide cross-hatched loading space between them.
b. A plan for a trash dumpster enclosure for outside trash containers if used (code
requirement). This plan must show the placement and design of the enclosure.
Trash enclosures must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. Enclosures must
be of a matedal that matches or is compatible with the building.
c. A plan for parking lot repair. The applicant shall work with staff who shall determine
the extent of repairs needed after the snow melts. The repairs could range from
patching to full oveday.
3. Complete or provide the following:
a. Install handicap-parking signs for the handicap-parking spaces.
b. A trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers if used,
c. Stripe the parking lot at 9~-foot-wide spaces with two eight-foot-wide handicap-
accessible parking spaces with an adjacent eight-foot-wide loading space.
d. Parking lot repair as determined by staff.
4. The applicant shall obtain building permits from the city for any intedor work on the
building.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
I surveyed the seven property owners within 350 feet of this site for their comments. I received
the following four replies:
1. We are very much opposed to having a used car lot at the site on Highway 36. (Sauer, 2463
Cypress Street)
Our only concerns would be the maintaining of the fence between our properties and not
driving on our property. We have a little of this at times now from the dealers up the frontage
road. Please notify us regarding public hearings. Thanks! (Second Harvest of St. Paul Food
Bank, 1140 Gervais Avenue)
Would there be any service facility proposed on the site for the applicant's cars? The city
should not allow any outdoor servicing of vehicles. (CountrySide VW/Saab,
1180 E. Highway 36)
Where would the applicant service vehicles? Would they take them off site? Do they intend
to wash vehicles and do any repairs? (Lexus, 3000 Maplewood Drive)
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 41,055 square feet (.94 acres)
Existing land use: United Tile Store
SURROUNDING LANDUSES
North: Second Harvest warehouse
South: Highway 36. Across Highway 36 is Menard's and CountrySide VW and Saab
West: Highways 36 and 61 interchange
East: Commercial Pools
PAST ACTION
Existing Used-Car Sales Lots
There are presently two used-car sales businesses in Maplewood similar to this proposal. These are
Sparkle Auto Sales on the west side of Highway 61 south of County Road D. Sparkle Auto has been at
that location for many years. The other is Minnesota Motors at 135 N. Century Avenue by Merit
Chevrolet. The city council approved Minnesota Motors in 1995.
On December 11, 2000, the city council approved a CUP for Affordable Auto Sales at 1930 Rice
Street. Affordable Auto Sales has not opened for business yet. On February 12, 2001 the city council
denied a request for the expansion of a used car sales business for Rose-Rice Auto Sales at 1908
Rice Street. The council directed the owner of Rose-Rice Auto to revise their plans before further
consideration by the city.
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: M1 (light manufacturing)
Zoning: M1
Ordinance Requirements
Section 36-151(b)(5)(a) requires a CUP for the sale or leasing of used motor vehicles.
Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval
Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards.
the findings in the resolution on pages 11-12.
Refer to
- 5
Application Date
The city received the complete applications for this proposal on January 31, 2001. State law requires
that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council
action is required on this proposal by March 31, 2001.
p:sec9\univauto.cup
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's Letter date-stamped January 31, 2001
5. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
Attachment 1
Lake KOHLMAN z ~1~
~o~ ~ '"i ® ~
.&
PALM
EHIU.
<C
Z
AVF_.
AVE.
SH~R~N~
AVE.
Lake ~ AV~.
HARRIS A'VE..
ROSL'~ A~..,-
NTON
LOCATION MAP
Attachment 2
PROPOSED
USED-CAR
SALES
SECOND HARVEST
22
VACAT ~ O ~
VAC~
&Eo'
COMMERCIAL
POOLS ) ~
MENARD'S
III
COUNTRYSIDE
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP
8
Attachment 3
2~o'
24.0
24.0
24,0
PROPOSED USED-CAR SALES
JAN
3 1 2001
Attachment 4
.I, NTENDED USE OF PROPERTY
Applicants are in retail pre-owned auto business. The subject property will be used for
this business as an addition to its other sites where it has operated for many years.
The subject site is currently being used as a retail tile shop. Currently the site consists of
the building containing the tile shop and parking for tile shop customers. The parking lot
as it currently is situated extends the length and width of the subject site save the existing
building.
It is anticipated that the use for which applicants are seeking permission will have
minimal impact on the site as it currently exists. No additional constrUction will be added
to the site and no natural characteristics will be removed. The building and parking lot
will be used as they are currently being used. The only change to the site observable
from outside will be the increased storage of late model previously owned automobiles at
the subject site.
Based on the site plan approximately 100 cars will be in the parking lot at any given time.
Of these cars it is anticipated that approximately 85 will be cars available for purchase
and approximately 15 spaces will be reserved for customer and employee parking. The
applicants have been in the late model pre-owned car business for a number of years and
have developed quality working relationships with surrounding business owners because
they have run their business in a manner that does not interfere with surrounding
properties. Their lots are clean and they carefully plan to assure that the lots do not
overflow with vehicles.
The building and site as currently situated will not be altered with any new construction.
It is anticipated that dependency upon public facilities and services will not increase and
that the services currently required by the tile store will be sufficient for the proposed use.
It is further anticipated that traffic generated by the site, as a late model pre-owned
automobile dealership, will not increase the amount of traffic. In fact it is anticipated that
the amount of traffic following the initial inventory delivery may decrease based on the
volume of product sold in the retail tile business versus the pre-owed automobile
business.
The parking lot will be occupied by a greater number of cars over a longer period of time
but will not occupy any greater area than is permitted by the boundaries of the parking lot
as it currently exists.
RECU ¥ED
JAN 3 1 200!
APPENDIX A
l0
Attachment 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Hossein Aghamirzai, of University Auto Sales and Leasing, applied for a
conditional use permit to be allowed to operate a used car sales business.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1145 E. Highway 36. The legal
description is:
THE WEST 210 FEET OF THE EAST 480 FEET OF BLOCK 21, CLIFTON ADDITION,
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 36/118, AND
STATE HIGHWAY NO. 61/1.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On March 5, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this
permit.
On ,2001, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a
notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave
everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also
considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit
because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to
any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water
or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference
or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create
traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
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 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.
The site shall be kept in neat and orderly condition. The applicant shall observe the striping
pattern and not crowd the site by placing additional vehicles on the site beyond what can be
parked in the striped parking spaces. The drive aisles shall be kept clear of vehicles.
There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along the street. This activity
shall be kept on site.
Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited unless
such materials can be fully concealed within a screening enclosure. The design and
placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval.
The hours of operation of this used car lot shall be 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through
Saturday. The car lot shall be closed on Sunday.
There shall not be any car servicing or maintenance on the site except for minor work such
as battery replacement, minor clean up and spot washing. Mechanical repairs and vehicle
servicing such as oil changes are not allowed.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,2001.
12
TO:
FROM:
SUBJEGT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
NURP Pond Ordinance
February 26, 2001
INTRODUCTION
The Metropolitan Council, as part of their review of Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan update, is
requiring the city to adopt a city code amendment about the use of the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) design criteria for storm water ponds.
DISCUSSION
The proposed code amendment adds language to the Maplewood Environmental Protection
Ordinance about using the NURP design criteria for storm water ponds. Staff at the Metropolitan
Council suggested the proposed code amendment language. I had the Assistant City Engineer
review the proposed code amendment. He did not see any problems with the code as I have
written it.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the ordinance on page 3. This ordinance amendment adds language to the city code
about the use of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) design criteria for ponds.
p:\ord\nurp.ord
Attachments:
1. Existing City Code
2. Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Attachment 1
BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 9-194
DMSION 3. APPROVAL STANDARDS
Sec. 9-193. Generally.
(a) All plans and the conduct of all grading, landscaping,
structure placement, and street routing shall be consistent with
the city's comprehensive plan, and for development in the Mis-
sissippi River Corridor Critical Area, the Maplewood Critical
Area Plan.
(b) The proposed development shall not lessen existing public
access to and along a protected water.
(c) The proposed development shall be designed, constructed
a~d maintained to avoid causing:
(1) Erosion.
(2) Pollution, contamination or siltation of water bodies or
storm sewers.
(3) Flooding.
(4) Ground water contamination.
(5) Alteration of significant natural features.
(d) Development shall not substantially diminish the scien-
tific, historical, educational, recreational or aesthetic value of
unique natural areas, plants and animals, which are registered
with the state as such, and shall not substantially alter their
reproductive cycles.
(e) Views of protected waters from buildings or public streets
shall not be impaired by the placement of advertising signs.
(Ord. No. 734A, § 1, 4-25-95; Ord. No. 753, § 1, 5-13-96)
Sec. 9-194. Slopes.
(a) No development shall be permitted on existing slopes of
eighteen (18) percent or greater which are in direct drainage to a
protected water.
(b) In areas not in direct drainage to a protected water, no
development shall be allowed on existing slopes greater than
forty (40) percent.
Supp. No. 12
543
2
Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
THE CITY CODE BY ADDING THE NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
(NURP) DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PONDS
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances:
Section 1. This section changes the following parts of the Maplewood City Code: (Additions
have been underlined and deletions are crossed out.)
Section 9-193. Generally.
he~~.si~n~e~far~dn
~ W ............ o .... ~ or~teria of removin t
constructed to meet the Na[ionwIo U[[Jan r~u,,v,, --
least sixt 60 ercent of the hos horous. The n ineer or desi ner can us the Walker
ondnet model or the Pitt ond model when desi nin storm water onds. The a licant or
a licant's en ineer sh II rovi he cit en ineer with the necessa calculati ns t veri the
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city council approves it and the official
newspaper publishes it.
The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on
2001.
P:ord~nurp.ord