Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/2001BOOK MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday May 7, 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. March 19, 2001 Public Hearings a. 2002 - 2007 Maplewood Capital improvements Plan (CIP) New Business a. Clark Street right-of-way vacation (south of Mount Vernon Avenue) b. Little School of Montessori Conditional Use Permit (1945 ProsperitY Road) 7. Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. March 26 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich b. April 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach c. April 23 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer d. May 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson e. May 29 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost Staff Presentations a. Possible Summer Tour Date - Monday, July 30, 2001 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 MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2001 II. III. IV. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Present Jack Frost Present Matt Ledvina Present Paul Mueller Present Gary Pearson Present William Rossbach Present Dale Trippler Present Eric Ahlness Present Mary Dierich Present Staff Present: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lori Hansen Mr. Roberts suggested that the unfinished and new business be switched on the agenda. Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda, as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 5, 2001 Ayes -All She also noted on page 5, item 5, her notes indicated no parking should be taking place on the grass or landscaping whether it's the property owner or others. Mr. Roberts stated the intent was "vehicles" should be inserted after park. Therefore, it will read: "The property owner shall not park vehicles on the grass or landscaped areas." Ms. Fischer also noted Mr. Ledvina asked that painting of the light standards and meter boxes be added to item 3f, on page 7. Mr. Frost moved approval of the minutes as amended. Mr. Pearson seconded. Ayes-All Chairperson Fischer noted Mr. Milo Thompson should be removed from the roll call and Mary Dierich should be added. Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 2001 -2- V. NEW BUSINESS AT & T Monopole Conditional Use Permit (1681 Cope Avenue). Mr. Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. This is a request by AT & T Wireless to install a 125-foot-tall monopole and equipment building for telecommunications equipment. They are proposing this installation on the southeast corner of the Sheet Metal Workers Union Building at 1681 Cope Avenue. The commission reviewed a proposal for a monopole on the Taste of India property in the fall. On November 13, 2000, the city council denied a request by AT & T to install a monopole on the Taste of India property at 1745 Cope Avenue. The applicant has now proposed this location to fill in the lapse in coverage area for this part of Maplewood. Staff is recommending approval of the proposal, subject to the seven conditions outlined in the staff report. Ms. Julie Townsend, representing AT & T Wireless Services, at 5201 East River Road, Fridley, was present for the applicant. The commission had no questions for staff or the applicant. Mr. Rossbach moved the commission to adopt the resolution on pages 16 and 17. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to allow up to a 125-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval is for the property at 1681 Cope Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans as approved by the city, including the location of the lease site. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the approved plan. The applicant shall verify the location of the property lines and existing site features around the lease area with a certificate of survey. 2. The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility. 3. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. o The city council shall review this permit in one year. The applicant or owner shall allow the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. Any antenna that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and the city may require that it be removed. The applicant or AT & T shall post a bond or other guarantee with the city to ensure proper removat of the antenna and monopole and the restoration of the site. The applicantJdeveloper may provide a copy of the lease indicating a guarantee of the removal of the monopole and related equipment with the end of the lease as a substitute for the financial guarantee. Mr. Frost seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. This proposal goes before the city council on March 26. Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 2001 -3- VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment Mr. Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Staff and the planning commission have been working on an amendment to the tower and antenna ordinance. This was the third time the proposal with the amended changes has been brought before the commission. The proposed changes include: In item 36-606.5, which is regarding the height of a tower and co-locating in a residential district, staff is proposing to raise the 100 feet to 125 feet. In allowing a taller height, hopefully it will minimize the number of towers in the same districts. Page 10, item 2C was added. The statement will now read: "If the proposed tower is to replace an existing tower and if the owner/user of the existing tower agrees to remove the existing tower within thirty (30) days of the completion of the new or replacement tower." Page eleven, item 5 will read: The height of a tower may be increased to a maximum of one hundred twenty five (125) feet if the tower and base area are designed and built for the co-location of at least one other personal wireless communication service provider's antennas and equipment. 4. On page 11, items 8 and 13, the second sentence was deleted. On page 13, item 14, the same language (second sentence) was deleted. Page 15, items 2 and 3, language was added about accommodating system capacity needs. On top of page 16, a requirement was added that the applicant supply photo illustrations or similar styled artist rendering of the proposed tower or antenna. Mr. Roberts wanted feedback from the commission on if the city should start making some of the locations for towers a permitted use. For example, if the areas around the mall (a large commercial or industrial area) with no residential sites nearby, the city would have no reason to deny the proposal. Therefore, the city might be better off to identify particular areas as permitted use which would encourage the providers to look at those locations first. The applicant would still be required to meet design and performance standards but they would not be required to obtain a conditional use permit. Mr. Frost was in strong support of the permitted use option. He felt there are areas in the city that there really is no reason for the proposal to come before the commission. Technology is changing rapidly in this field. He feels if we are proactive we can start directing these facilities to a place where they are not going to cause problems. Mr. Rossbach confirmed with staff that if permitted use had been applied, in the Taste of India case, for example, the only way to ensure there was not neighborhood opposition to the tower was to execute neighborhood surveys. Mr. Ledvina was uneasy with the concept of permitted use as he felt towers are a different animal because of being so tall. They can affect land uses that are quite far away from the physical base of the tower. He felt possibly having one zone as permitted use, such as an industrial zone, may work. Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 2001 -4- Mr. Trippler felt all of these issues could be handled with the condition of allowing some specific land use areas to bypass the planning commission by simply stating that if there are any objections to the location of a site, which can't be resolved, it would come in front of the commission. If no one objects, and it is in an industrial or business class, he would rather not see it. He would like to see the planning commission become more proactive and select out specific zoning areas for permitted use. Although initially Mr. Ahlness felt the permitted use would be a good deal, he has changed his mind after seeing how quickly a proposal can be approved by the commission (just a few minutes for AT & T this evening). As a safeguard to the community he feels that it would be a good thing to have all proposals reviewed before the commission. Mr. Rossbach does not feel permitted use would provide a huge benefit to the providers. In their past comments, they have expressed to the commission the sites they choose are dictated by their cell layout and where they have to put the towers to make it work. On one hand he feels they are telling us "give us permitted areas and we will put up towers there", and on the other hand are saying "they have little control over where their towers go up". Mr. Rossbach does not feel the two mesh together very well. Jim McGreevy, from the Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren Law Firm, was present representing Voice Stream, Mpls. In response to a concern Mr. Trippler had regarding towers and property values, he stated that areas where there are lakes may not have as many cell phone towers. Other city ordinances may state no towers in residential areas. He does not feel the placement of towers is reflective of property values. He stated the number one criteria in looking for a location for a tower is coverage for the operators system. Mr. McGreevy felt a provider would choose the location of towers based on numerous issues, not specifically whether or not an area was permitted. He has dealt with a few other cities that had designated permitted areas for towers and those areas were generally zoned industrial. Mr. Pearson questioned what information the city receives to indicate a tower is abandoned. Staff was not certain since we have not been informed of one in the city. Staff noted that the intent of the revision was to have all applicants provide coverage maps of their facilities, and a map locating other sites (not the coverage of those sites) within one mile, inside or outside of Maplewood. Mr. Trippler felt the towers should be EQUAL TO or more than 100 feet in height. Under the same item in the ordinance, Mr. Mueller would like to have the statement reflect that providers design and install all new towers to allow for the MAXIMUM of antennas on the tower. Mr. Trippler wanted the commission to take into consideration that until the ordinance is actually passed, and on the books, any company making application for a tower is grandfathered in with the conditions in effect during the time they made application. Therefore, he would really like to see the commission move on the ordinance and start applying some control over the siting process. Step two in the process could be the permitted land use issue. Mr. Trippler moved the board to adopt the proposed antenna and tower ordinance amendment with the following additions: 1. Section 36-605, part e: The applicant shall have a property acquisition specialist and a radio frequency engineer in attendance at all city meetings to answer all questions relevant to their application. Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 2001 -5- Section 36-609, part b6, modify the section to add the words "equal to or". It will then read: if the tower is equal to more than one hundred feet in height, and if the tower is equal to or more than seventy-five feet in height. In the same section, "the maximum" will replace "future rearrangement of". Mr. Rossbach seconded. Motion carries. Ayes-All This proposal will go before the city council for the first reading on April 9. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors were present. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS IX. March 12 city council meeting. Mr. Ledvina attended and gave his report. The Gladstone Street Improvement proposal took up the first few hours of the meeting. Beaver Lake Townhomes was tabled. Very little had been accomplished by the applicant between the time the planning commission met and the city council meeting. They had met once with staff in the interim. They did change their acreage, and wanted to sell to the city the easements for the gas lines. About 20-30 residents were in the audience and felt the whole area should be zoned R1 or should be turned into a park. This proposal will go back before the council on May 14. B. Mary Dierich will be attending the March 26 city council meeting. C. Mr. Rossbach will be attending the April 9 city council meeting. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Rossbach asked staff what the purpose of the letter was from the attorney regarding AT & T. Mr. Roberts stated the letter goes in the file, and felt they wanted to have their response to his comments go on record. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p,m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Capital Improvement Plan April 24, 2001 INTRODUCTION I have enclosed the proposed 2002-2006 Capital Improvement Plan. The city updates this report each year. The Capital Improvement Plan is part of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. State law requires the planning commission to review all changes to the comprehensive plan. The purpose of this review is to decide if the proposed capital improvements are consistent with the comprehensive plan. RECOMMENDATION Approve the 2002-2006 Capital Improvement Plan. kr/p:miscell/cipmemo.mem Enclosure (PC only): Capital Improvement Program MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Right-of-Way Vacation Clark Street, south of Mount Vernon Avenue March 27, 2001 INTRODUCTION Mrs. Margaret Oscarson is asking the city council to vacate an unused street right-of-way. This vacation is for part of the Clark Street right-of-way that is south of Mount Vernon Avenue, just west of DeSoto Street. Please see the maps on pages 3 and 4 and the statement on page 5. City staff also is recommending that the city vacate an unused alley and the Arkwright Street right- of-way between Mount Vernon and Roselawn Avenues. DISCUSSION Mrs. Oscarson is requesting this vacation because her family owns property next to the right-of-way and because the city has not built a street on the Clark Street right-of-way. If the city vacates the right-of-way, it will give the adjacent property owners an additional 30 feet of property and it would eliminate the city setback requirement from the right-of-way. Maplewood does have a storm sewer pipe under the Clark Street right-of-way near Mount Vernon Avenue. Besides the storm water pipe, the city has no plans to develop this right-of-way. City staff also has proposed that the city vacate an unused alley and the Arkwright Street right-of- way between Mount Vernon and Roselawn Avenues. This alley and street will never be built as they would go through a city ponding area. Vacating these two right-of-ways will help to clean up the maps and the records as Maplewood is the property owner on both sides of the alley and the Arkwright Street right-of-way. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on page six. This resolution vacates the unused Clark Street right-of-way between Mount Vernon and Roselawn Avenues. The city should vacate this right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a drainage and utility easement over the right-of-way. Adopt the resolution on page seven. This resolution vacates the unused Arkwright Street right- of-way between Mount Vernon and Roselawn Avenues. The city should vacate this right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a drainage and utility easement over the right-of-way. Adopt the resolution on page eight. This resolution vacates the unused alley in Block Seven of Magoffin's North Side Addition between Mount Vernon and Roselawn Avenues. The city should vacate this alley because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build an alley in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street and alley access. REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Existing land use: Undeveloped and city ponding area SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: South: West: Residences across Mount Vernon Avenue Houses on DeSoto Street and Roselawn Avenue Roselawn Avenue City ponding area p:secl 7/clarkst.vac Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line Map 3. Applicant's Statement 4. Clark Street vacation resolution 5. Arkwright Street vacation resolution 6. Alley vacation resolution 2 ;[ C 2640N 2400N ~. Attachment 1 Gervais Loke PLAZA C/E N.V,~ADO DR BELLECRES'T DR DEALNILL£ DR W~ERIDg, U,I DR Z L,_I RD. B2 COUNTY LI'FI'LE CANADA RD. B SKILLMAN AVE. MT. VERNON J BELMONT LN, J OR, BELMONT CT FENTO i KINGSTON LWOOD ~MER AVE. LOCATION 3 AVE. RIPLEY: ST. PAUL MAP BELLWOOD ~VE. AVE. Attachment 2 $ 6 I4 & g PROPOSED STREET VACATION PONDING ~ MT. VERNON AVENUE 27 ~ -- --~O~Eb~g/N ROSELAWN AVENUE ~"~"- ,,m.,,- , ... ( ..-.- *"-""t ~"" I'" 1934 471 k Attachment 3  Margaret O~car~on 147~ Eldridge Ave E Maplewood, MN 55109-3519 5 Attachment 4 VACATION RESOLUTION (Clark Street right-of-way) WHEREAS, Mrs. Margaret Oscarson applied for the vacation of the following-described right-of-way: The Clark Street right-of-way between the south right-of-way line of Mount Vernon Avenue and the north right-of-way line of Roselawn Avenue in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On April vacation. ,2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the On ,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: The vacated alley accruing and the following, except the north 19.42 feet of Lot 3 and all of Lot 4 and Lots 27 thru Lot 30, Block 8, Magoffin's North Side Addition in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County. (PIN 17-29-22-23-0094.) The vacated alley accruing and the following, the North 20 feet of Lot 5 and the North 20 feet of lot 26, Block 8, Magoffin's North Side Addition in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County. (PIN 17-29-22-23-0095.) The vacated alley accruing, part of Lot 22 lying North of line par. to and 292.96 feet North of said line of the NW 1/4 of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22 and Except North 20 feet of Lot 5 and except North 20 feet of Lot 26; North % Lot 9 and all of Lots 6 thru 8 and all of Lots 23 thru Lot 25, Block 8, Magoffin's North Side Addition in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County. (PIN 17-29-22-23-0067). The East % of Vacated alley adjacent S % of Lot 9 and adjacent lots 10 thru 15 also West % of vacated alley adjacent and following part of Lot 22 in South 292.96 feet of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22 and all of Lots 16, thru 21, Block 8, Magoffin's North Side Addition in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County. (PIN 17-29-22-23-0060). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described right-of- way vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the applicant have no plans to build a street in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a drainage and utility easement over all the vacated right- of-way. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001. 6 Attachment 5 VACATION RESOLUTION (Arkwright Street right-of-way) WHEREAS, the Maplewood Community Development Director initiated the vacation of the following-described right-of-way: The Arkwright Street right-of-way between the south right-of-way line of Mount Vernon Avenue and the north right-of-way line of Roselawn Avenue in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On April ,2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. On ,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: Lots 8 thru Lot 15, Block 6, Magoffin's North Side Addition in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County. (PIN 17-29-22-23-0058.) The vacated street accruing and the following, Lots 1 thru 7 and 24 thru 30, Block 6, and all of Block 7, Magoffin's North Side Addition in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County. (PIN 17-29-22-23-0072.) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described right- of-way vacation for the following reasons: It is in the public interest. The city and the applicant have no plans to build a street in this location. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a drainage and utility easement over all the vacated right- of-way. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001. Attachment 6 VACATION RESOLUTION (Alley) WHEREAS, the Maplewood Community Development Director initiated the vacation of the following-described right-of-way: The undeveloped 20-foot-wide alley between the south right-of-way line of Mount Vernon Avenue and the north right-of-way line of Roselawn Avenue in Block 7 of Magoffin's North Side Addition in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On April ., 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. 2. On ,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 property: The vacated street accruing and the following, Lots 1 thru 7 and 24 thru 30, Block 6, and all of Block 7, Magoffin's North Side Addition in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County. (PIN 17-29-22-23-0072.) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described alley vacation for the following reasons: It is in the public interest. The city and the applicant have no plans to build an alley in this location. The adjacent properties have street access. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001. 8 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit Little School of Montessori Cross Lutheran Church (1945 Prosperity Road) April 30, 2001 INTRODUCTION Ms. Noemi Palmer, the Director of the Little School of Montessori, is asking the city for a conditional use permit (CUP). She wants this approval to operate a preschool and child care center in Cross Lutheran Church at 1945 Prosperity Road. (See the maps on pages four and five and the applicant's statement on page six.) Since the church existed before the city adopted the code, the church does not need a CUP. Any expansion of the church would need a CUP. The code, however, requires a CUP for a preschool and day care center in any residential zoning district. DISCUSSION The proposed preschool and child care center should not cause any negative effect for the neighbors. In fact, the church had in previous years run an elementary school (grades K through 8) from this location. The church and Montessori school will need to work with the fire marshal on the installation of new alarm systems in the building. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on pages seven and eight. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a preschool and child care facility in Cross Lutheran Church at 1945 Prosperity Road. This permit is based on the standards required by the city code and shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The city council may approve major changes to the site, after a public hearing. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the site. 2. The church and the Montessori school shall install smoke and alarm systems as required by the fire marshal. 3. The city council shall not review this permit again unless there is a problem or if the owner or operator proposes a major change. CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the 44 surrounding property owners within 350 feet of this property for their comment about this proposal. Of the five replies, one had no comment and four were in favor or expressed miscellaneous comments. In Favor/Miscellaneous Comments 1. Good use of church property - no problem. (Drohman - 1961 Hazelwood) 2. Twenty-five plus years ago, 100 students attended Cross Lutheran School. Never a problem. The school-church and AA have been very good neighbors. We prefer the happy children to the sharp rap of an aluminum bat hitting a ball and the dust and dirt of Wakefield ball park. (Svendsen - 1597 Frost Avenue) Don't think it will make much difference in traffic. The Little School of Montessori is a good school. Being a church, they have a parking lot so they won't be turning around in a driveway like day care in a private home. (Kowalczyk - 1900 Dieter Street) 4. As a trustee of Cross, it is my job to be a good steward of our facilities and I feel this is good use of an otherwise empty facility. This use will add much less traffic to the local area than the current usage caused by the local traffic and the AA house. (Cross Lutheran Church - 1945 Prosperity Road) 2 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.18 acres Existing land use: Cross Lutheran Church SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings East: Single dwellings South: Wakefield Park across Frost Avenue West: Single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: C (church) Zoning: F (farm residential) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-437(3) requires a CUP for churches and for state licensed day care facilities in any zoning district. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages seven and eight. Application Date The city received this application on April 10, 2001. As such, city council action is required by June 9, 2001 to comply with the state 60-day rule. kr/Sec15/1945pros.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Applicant's Statement 4. Conditional Use Permit Resolution Attachment 1 ~ KOHLMAN ~ ,,9 AVE. DEMONT EHILL RD. '.'RVNS AVE. SHERREN AVE. AVE. AVE'. Loke ~AVE. COPE RD. SKILL AVE. AVE. ROSEWOOD AVE.. RAMSEY COUNTY NURSING HOME AND FAJR GROUNDS I~GOODRICH GOLF' COURSE, ; port AVE. PRICE AVE. j AVE*. HO I II ST. PAUL LOCATION 4 MAP Attachment 2 (5o) ~t I., 1980 12 .~ 1977 ~, ? 197~,/ °0 -,~-~' ~ 1965 ~ 1955 CHURCH ~>~ 1945 .L. i SITE 1954 1946 IO 3 0?? WAKEFIELD PARK 1910 1'/$.~ 1898 1899, PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP ~ N Little School of Montessod 1945 Prosperity Rd. Mplwd, MN..55109 Attachment 3 A written statement from Little School of Hontessori Little School of Montessori is a non-profit preschool and child care center licensed by the state of Minnesota and the city of St. Paul. We offer a year-round program. Little School is licensed to accommodate 20 children. Little School began in 1972 as a member school of the North Suburban Montessori Association. In 1978 Little School became independent and reorganized as Little School of Montessori Inc. During this time it was parent operated. From 1972 to 1978 the school rented space at the Gladstone Community Center from the North Saint Paul/Maplewood School district. Reason for leaving Gladstone was because the City of Mplwd ~6~/~ the space for expansion and renovation to upgrade their program. From 1979 until~A~cH29,2001 Little School rented space from Our Redeemer Church, in St. Paul. Reason for leaving Our Redeemer Church was because they chose to adopt their own church program. Little School ha~3 been in the Mplwd community since 1972 except for the 6 years at Our Redeemer Church.Little School always wanted to return to the City of Mplwd. Little School of Montessori will be occupying an exiSting space in Cross Lutheran Church with no structural changes to the building. The school will simply be making use of the spac~total square feet 1,277.00 that the Sunday school uses. This will be making better use of the existing space during the week. Hours of operation 7:00 a.m. thru 5:30p.m. Monday thru Friday. Little School ha~- 3 employees and 20 children enrolled with various schedules. Because of this there will be minimal impact on traffic in the area. Our small school population will also cause very little change to the enviroment of the area. The positive con%ibution of having Little School of Montessori at Cross Lutheran Church at 1945 Prosperity Road is to provide a safe learning environment for children in the community. We provide both working parents and stay at home parents who want an enriched learning environment for their children. Thank you to the City of Maplewood for considering this application. Attachment 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ms. Noemi Palmer applied for a conditional use permit to operate a preschool and child care center in Cross Lutheran Church. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1945 Prosperity Road. The legal description is: The South 433 feet of part of the NE 1/4 except North 117 Feet of the West 188 feet and except North 125 feet of that part East of West 188 feet, subject to Frost and Hazelwood Avenues and Prosperity Road and Westerly of centerline of said road in Section 15, Township 29, Range 22 (PID # 15-29-22-13-0049) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On May 7, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On May 29, 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 council approves 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. 7 o 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. The city council may approve major changes to the site, after a public hearing. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the site. 2. The church and the Montessori school shall install smoke and alarm systems as required by the fire marshal. 3. The city council shall not review this permit again unless there is a problem or if the owner or operator proposes a major change. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on May ,2001.