The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/01/2000BOOK MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 1, 2000, 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. April 3, 2000 b. April17,2000 o New Business a. Sprint PCS Telecommunications Monopole Conditional Use Permit (2500 Hudson Road) b. Carver Elementary School Conditional Use Permit Revision (2680 Upper Afton Road) 6. Unfinished Business 7. Visitor Presentations o 10. Commission Presentations a. April 24 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman b. May 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler c. May 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller Staff Presentations a. Set Summer Tour Date - July 31, 2000? 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, APRIL 3, 2000 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Jack Frost Matt Ledvina Paul Mueller Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Michael Seeber Commissioner Milo Thompson Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Absent Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 6, 2000 Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the minutes of March 6, 2000, amended to have the second to the last paragraph on page 6 read"...3M Building #1 on page 13. She also felt..." Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Thompson moved that Item 6. Unfinished Business be considered ahead of Item 5. New Business. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Historic Resources Management Plan Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Trippler referred to his request, at the previous meeting, to have some consistency provided when referring to "Maplewood shall" or "the city shall" in the discussion about the historic preservation policies, action plan and goals. He said that the chair had asked that it be one or the other and this does not seem to be reflected in this submittal. Mr. Roberts replied that his focus was more on what the policies and actions were saying and who was going to do the actions. Mr. Trippler recommended that this wording be changed. As an example, he referred to #2 on page 21. Mr. Trippler asked to whom the historical society would be making recommendations, advising, and assisting. Mr. Roberts said it could be the city, city council, planning commission, or the public. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-2000 -2- Commissioner Trippler also asked what the result of designating significant historic properties (#6 on page 21) would be. Mr. Roberts did not have the answer to this question. Then Mr. Trippler questioned how reviewing demolition, moving and remodeling applications and permits (#16 on page 22) would fit into the current process for review and approval. He felt it was necessary to have a specific time period given, if this needed to be a requirement. Mr. Roberts thought this would have to come in an ordinance adopted by the city council. He pointed out that these requirements were more general and the specifics would be covered by an ordinance. Chairperson Fischer said #16 on page 22 was a good example of a concern she expressed at the last meeting about not having the action plan incorporated in the same format as the rest of the comprehensive plan. Ken Roberts answered that he wanted to get the plan, especially the policies and action plan, to a point where the historical society representatives and the planning commission agreed. Then he would put the results in a table format. Commissioner Thompson asked if #8 on page 9 should read that the committee will review "all applications or permits..." or just historically significant applications. Mr. Roberts said this statement was in the first draft and was more for a comparison. Then Mr. Thompson referred to #7 on page 20. He was concerned, but thought it might be a little more acceptable, because this item stated that the historical society may comment on all development proposals on the historic list. Mr. Thompson mentioned page 21 where it states the city will periodically review and update the preservation action plan. He asked if it would be possible to be more specific or would the ordinance cover this. Commissioner Thompson was in favor of the sunset provision in the present ordinance. Mr. Roberts wasn't sure if a sunset provision could be put in a chapter of the comprehensive plan. He thought a definite time period for review could be specified. Commissioner Pearson asked who, in the event of a dispute, would reign--the body and powers as outlined in the ordinance (Sec. 2-89 and 2-94) or the standards and guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Roberts thought it might be the ordinance that would prevail. Mr. Pearson asked for the city attorney's opinion in this regard. Commissioner Rossbach questioned whether it would be the historical society or historical commission that would be formed by these actions. Because the historical commission will sunset at the end of this year, Mr. Roberts said the city council will have to decide whether the commission should be continued. If the council does not renew this commission, the only advisory body in the city would be the historical society. Chairperson Fischer thought the plan should include an appeals process. Mr. Roberts explained the Maplewood Historical Society and the Maplewood Historical Advisory Commission (referred to in the plan text as the Historical Commission). Robert Overby, of 1829 Furness Street in Maplewood, felt the draft presented at this meeting "cleans up" most of the issues or concerns. He suggested that it would be more appropriate to have the review of applications and permits done by the Historical Preservation (or Historical Advisory) Commission (#16 on page 22). The Historical Society could advise the commission. Mr. Overby felt that the statement prohibiting or regulating the demolition of property on the National Register (page 19) was misleading. Because a property is listed on the register, which takes action by the state historical society, it doesn't prevent someone from tearing down or modifying it. He recommended putting language in the ordinance that would connect back to how the city would want to protect those properties. Mr. Overby thought this sentence should be eliminated. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-2000 -3- Commissioner Trippler asked, if the commission was established and functioning in accordance with this plan, would it be possible for someone to acquire property without knowing it was on the register. Mr. Overby replied that this information would need to be recorded on the property deed. Pete Boulay, 1100 County Rbaci ~ ~§St, ~aid it is very difficult to get a building or property on the National Register. He felt it would be hard to buy a property and not know it was on the register since a plaque is affixed to it. He thought that legally a realtor needed to tell a buyer about this. Mr. Overby pointed out that the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines were meant to be advisory. Commissioner Thompson asked what would happen if a property at 1915 DeSoto North were to be demolished with this ordinance in effect. Mr. Overby assumed the property owner would apply for a demolition permit. If the city was aware that this was on the list in the historic plan or had some historic significance, staff would hopefully contact the historical commission. Mr. Overby did not know if it would be possible to stop the demolition, but the state historical society could be contacted to evaluate the site. Mr. Boulay said there would be a list with the condition of all the properties. He said the property on DeSoto was checked in 1982 by Ramsey County and was judged to be in poor condition. There would be a recommendation from the county on a course of action. Mr. Boulay felt ideally the commission would be informed of the permit request. They would contact the property owner and at least take a photographic record of the property. Mr. Overby commented that the historical advisory commission, in most city ordinances, is designated as the official review body. The historical society is advisory to this commission or a city group that works on research and community education. Mr. Overby suggested putting in a provision for resolving conflicts after #16 on page 22. Mr. Boulay gave some background information on the Maplewood Historical Commission and Historical Society. He said it was up to the city to decide whether they wished to relate to the commission or the society. Commissioner Thompson questioned if it would be unusual to have a nonprofit society, such as the historical society, as an advisory board. Mr. Overby said the society is more of a civic organization. He saw the commission as a body that reports to the planning commission and the city council. Mr. Overby said if Maplewood has a historical preservation commission, they can choose to become a certified local government. Having a historic commission, instead of just a society, gives the city an opportunity to apply for federal funding. Mr. Overby said they have asked the state about the type of funding available and how other cities have used it, but have not received a reply. Commissioner Rossbach said he had "changed his opinion to some degree" since the last meeting. After a recent drive in the Gladstone area, he felt that there might be some interest in retaining some of these buildings, i.e. the Gladstone fire station, Mike's LP, Richard's Market. He also suggested that new buildings might be encouraged to have a design that would "fit in." Mr. Rossbach personally thought" we are giving these people way too much of a hard time for wanting to help out the city." He advocated a historic preservation commission where the members would be appointed by the city council and function in the same manner as the other existing Maplewood commissions. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend the continuation of the Historic Preservation Commission. Commissioner Thompson seconded. Commissioner Pearson said he would like to support the motion but he questioned "which of these applications, if they come into conflict, is going to be superior--between the Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-2000 comprehensive plan and these other." He preferred an answer from the city attorney in this regard. Commissioner Rossbach replied that he was going to make another motion related to the historic resources management plan and request this information. Ayes--all The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach recommended adoption of city staff's proposal for the historic resources management plan. Before this is presented to the city council, the following changes shall be made: 1) all references to the city shall be consistent throughout the plan, 2) an item that will set out a mechanism to resolve conflicts shall be added in the guidelines, activities section or in the historic preservation action plan, 3) the action plan shall be put into the same format as other action plans in the current comprehensive plan, 3) the city attorney's opinion will be requested on whether the city's guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines (referred to in the historical preservation action plan) would take precedent in an area of conflict, 4) "As such, any change or demolition of a property on the National Register may be prohibited or strictly regulated" will be eliminated in the third paragraph under guidelines and activities and 5) staff will ensure that there is consistency in the plan when referring to the commission or the society. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Mr. Overby referred to Commissioner's Rossbach's comments about Frost Avenue in the Gladstone area. He said the history of Maplewood that was compiled for the city's 40th anniversary "opened his eyes to what use to be" and he thought it was a good insight into why a historic landmark program should be considered. V. NEW BUSINESS White Bear Avenue Corridor Study: Review Draft of Land Use Issues and Identify Remaining Land Use Issues Melinda Coleman, director of community development, asked for commission comments on the draft of White Bear Avenue: A Walk Through Time (the White Bear Avenue corridor study). She saw this as a beginning point and asked for direction on where the city should go. Ms. Coleman noted that there were many typographic, spelling, map, etc. errors in the document. Ms. Coleman said the city and the property owner have agreed, after much discussion on the land use study for the 80 acre Maplewood Mall area property, that the next step would be a request for proposal "to test the development waters to see what the development community would recommend" for this site. She offered questions for the commission to consider. How should the city implement this in with the comprehensive plan-- is there anything that the city needs to be doing with the comprehensive plan itself or should it be kept in its current holding pattern until this proceeds a step or two further? Ms. Coleman mentioned that Woodland Hills Church has reached an agreement with K-Mart and will be occupying the Builders Square building. She suggested working with the church to ensure that the future tenants of the south part of the building "make sense for the neighborhood." Commissioner Rossbach saw traffic as the biggest problem in the Hajicek/Maplewood Mall area. He thought, even if County Road D was extended to Highway 61, the result would not be a good Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-2000 -5- interchange situation because it is too close to the freeway and there are too many stop signs. Mr. Rossbach could foresee more traffic using County Road C and Hazelwood Avenue. He suggested that it was important to plan development, such as additional senior housing or medical businesses, that would not generate a lot of traffic. The eastern end of the development area could be transitioned with office/warehouse and then some commercial to complement the Maplewood Mall area. In regard to the Hillcrest area, Commissioner Rossbach recommended shifting North St. Paul Road to Ripley Avenue. Ripley Avenue has stop lights at White Bear Avenue and is a better traffic situation. Commissioner Thompson thought the corridor study used a "soft sell," especially on the traffic area. He said no provision was made for alleviating the congestion caused by bus traffic. Mr. Thompson pointed out that the study called for putting bicycles on the sidewalks and yet bicycles must abide by the same rules as automobiles. He also mentioned the hazard of crossing White Bear Avenue from the west to the east, particularly in the vicinity of Hazel Park Academy. Initially, Commissioner Trippler thought the study was trying to make White Bear Avenue more productive for area businesses. After looking at the goals and principles, he felt they were not being consistent--it seemed they were trying to improve the aesthetics and have better traffic flow. Mr. Trippler agreed with Commissioner Rossbach in regard to the 80 acres by the Maplewood Mall. He questioned how much authority the city had to plan this parcel. Ms. Coleman offered "some perspective" to this. She felt the Planning Commission had been at a "distinct disadvantage" because this has not been your planning process." Ms. Coleman said this planning process originated from the White Bear Avenue Business Association. She felt they were very happy with the plan but, for Maplewood, there were some good things in it that the city could start from. It did get the various cities and groups participating in a positive way. Ms. Coleman said the Hajicek property is zoned farm and guided for business commercial. She thought it was realistic to have a mixed-use development for the site. The city does have the authority to plan and zone the parcel but typically does not do so without input from the owner of the property. Ms. Coleman concluded by saying she saw the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study as a document that starts the process for Maplewood. She suggested using ideas from this study, such as Gateway signage, neighborhood identification, streetscapes, etc., when looking at development proposals along White Bear Avenue. Chairperson Fischer asked if the map on page 21, which includes the Builders Square site, should be corrected to reflect that this site is now a church, not planned single-family housing. Commissioner Thompson said he appreciated Melinda Coleman's frank appraisal of the traffic situation. It seemed to him that the investment in a traffic plan would be appropriate because it would "dictate the density of the development." Ms. Coleman advocated proceeding with an RFP for the Maplewood Mall area to see what happens. Then she suggested a community meeting when these proposals are returned. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Pete Boulay, 1100 County Road C East, commented that the bridge that is buried near the intersection of County Road D and Highway 61 is "probably the most studied bridge in Maplewood and the oldest." He claimed it was a real "death-trap" when it was in existence. He offered a copy of a study that was Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-2000 done on this bridge in the 1960s. -6- VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS Co March 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Fisher reported on this meeting. March 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson reported on this meeting. Commissioner Pearson asked if there was an update on the Route 12, Beaver Lake, bus route. A large area of this route is scheduled to be abandoned. Melinda Coleman said she met with Metro Transit a few months ago and didn't think any final decisions had been made yet. April 10 Council Meeting: A commissioner will not be needed for this meeting. April 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Seeber is scheduled to attend this meeting. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. I1. 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 Absent William Rossbach Present Michael Seeber Absent Milo Thompson Present Dale Trippler Present III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Ledvina moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. IV. PUBLIC HEARING 7 p.m. Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue): Comprehensive Plan Change-- M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (Single and Double Dwellings); Zoning Map Change--M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (Single and Double Dwellings); Lot-Area and Lot-Width Variances and Preliminary Plat Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. He then answered questions from the commissioners. Commission Trippler asked why the city thought it was a good idea "to approve a variance that is less than half of what was supposed to be recommended." Mr. Roberts said the Ro2 code was intended primarily for a typical subdivision on a public street. This is set up as a townhouse development where, if these were three-unit buildings connected together, there is no minimum lot size. He said these are actually double-unit townhomes but the code does not allow for this flexibility. Commissioner Thompson spoke about the difficulty in removing snow from a street with this width. Ken Haider, director of public works, said it was difficult to evaluate a privately built street as a potential public street because it would not meet most of the requirements of the code. He agreed with Mr. Thompson that the city has not been in favor of assuming responsibility for private streets. Chairperson Fischer clarified that Items A and B (the land use and zoning) refer to three separate properties, while C and D (lot area, width variances, and preliminary plat) involve only the development proposal property. Mike Ackerman, the developer, was pleased with the development proposal at this point. There were no questions for Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Roberts showed colored photographs, Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 04-17-2000 provided by Mr. Ackerman, of similar units that he has previously built in the Twin Cities. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Jack Swenson, 1930 Castle Avenue East, commented on the increase in foot and vehicular traffic along the street. He asked where the children that would reside in these homes would play. Mr. Swenson desired single-family homes for this site. Jim Oswald, 1948 Cope Avenue East, spoke about the water problems in this area. Richard Oie, 1937 Cope Avenue East, also told about water problems he has experienced on his lot since two new houses were built in the vicinity. He asked whether trees will be removed and replaced when the utilities are run to this site from Cope Avenue. Ken Haider conceded that the drainage from the two new houses along Cope Avenue does come to this Iow area. He said the city of Oakdale has a format they have used to allow a resident to utilize a city-owned piece of property for a particular use for the advantage of everyone involved. Mr. Haider is hoping to use this model to help alleviate some of Mr. Oie's drainage problems. He also noted that the additional drainage calculations requested from the applicant's engineer have not been received. Mr. Haider wanted to ensure that the runoff was collected on-site and directed to a storm sewer connection that is being made to an existing pipe to the south. Mr. Oie felt certain that the water from the two walk-out units would run toward his property. Mr. Haider said this would require a change in the applicant's stormwater plan. Commissioner Thompson observed a piece of property on Cope Avenue that had a "noticeable, substantial" swale. It appeared to him that drainage was intended to run across this property. Mr. Roberts felt it was difficult to address this situation because he did not know which lot Mr. Thompson was specifically referring to. Mr. Thompson said it was on Cope Avenue west of German Street. Mr. Roberts said the long, narrow piece of property, between 1937 and 1949 Cope Avenue, is a tax-forfeited piece of property. The city can ask the state to get a use deed for the property and keep control of it. Mr. Haider confirmed that it was on this parcel that he intended to use the Oakdale model. Mr. Oswald said this lot is spring-fed. He mentioned that a substantial amount of soil was brought in for the two new houses and a big drop into the empty lot has resulted. There were no further comments, so Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Mueller had a concern about the drainage issue and was hesitant to approve this type of application until that problem was addressed. Commissioner Ledvina asked if the wetland had an outlet. Mr. Roberts said it would have an emergency overflow but not a pipe or stormsewer outlet. Chairperson Fischer asked if permits were obtained when the additional soil was brought into these lots. Mr. Haider thought they were. Commissioner Thompson wanted "concrete answers" before he approved this application. Commissioner Ledvina agreed and felt the entire west half of the proposed development could increase the drainage problems. Commissioner Rossbach felt the density was too high and the buildings would be too close to the property lines. He noted that the "basic look" of the neighborhood was single-family residential. He had concerns about the drainage. Commissioner Ledvina also thought the density was too large. In addition, he was concerned about the proximity of the two facing buildings on the southern part of the development. He suggested that the rear of these two buildings should face the rear of the buildings on Cope Avenue. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 04-17-2000 Commissioner Mueller asked about a provision for a playground area. Mr. Rossbach thought single-floor units with an association quite typically are senior residents. He didn't think it was fair to require a developer in this instance to provide a play area. There were comments by various commissioners about the density, consistency with the comprehensive plan and maximum use of the land. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said she recently received notification from the Metropolitan Council that Maplewood was not providing enough density and needed to find more places for medium and high density development. The council felt that Maplewood was not doing what they needed to meet population growth goals for the next twenty years. Commissioner Rossbach pointed out that the density on this parcel would be increased because it is currently not residential and has no density. Commissioner Thompson asked it there was a way to approve the project and yet get assurance on the drainage. Mr. Haider indicated that a drainage condition was required in the recommendations but said he wasn't "100 percent sure I like that responsibility all the time either" of making a decision after the fact. Commissioner Mueller moved the Planning Commission recommend tabling all four items of the Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue) proposal until additional information regarding drainage that is involved with the preliminary plat is received. Commissioner Thompson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Ms. Coleman informed those present in the audience that no further notification would be sent regarding reconsideration of this proposal at the May 1 meeting. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Fresh Paint Office/Warehouse Conditional Use Permit (1055 Gervais Avenue) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Before the meeting, Mr. Roberts distributed copies of an additional letter from the applicant's attorney, received after the agenda pack was distributed, asking for changes in Conditions 6 and 7. He said staff did not see any problems with the changes requested but did not have an opportunity to change the report before the meeting. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commissioners. He said a caretaker's apartment within a building has been allowed, but the question is when it is a whole separate structure. Mr. Roberts felt the issue was in interpreting the words "in combination with" from Section 36-151 (a)(1) of the code. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said staff was concerned because the house, as it sits, is a nonconforming use since the property is zoned M-1. She asked for policy direction, from the commission and the city council, because there are potentially other opportunities for similar requests. Mr. Roberts said that a conditional use permit is required if a building in an M-1 district is within 350 feet of a residence. If the house on this property was required to be removed, the new warehouse could be located further forward. Commissioner Frost liked the idea of having someone on site to take care of the property. He had no problem with the proposal as long as the building was maintained. Commissioner Thompson agreed with Mr. Frost. Commissioner Trippler did not like mixing M-1 with residential, but thought it was okay in this case. He thought the historical commission should be contacted to see if this house had any historic value. Mr. Trippler also suggested a connecting Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 -4- walkway or canopy if the commission thought the house and warehouse should be combined. He thought it was a good idea to have a caretaker at the site. Commissioner Ledvina "supported the staff's position on this." He surmised that a family could possibly live in the house because it is quite large, and this would create a substantial disparity in uses. Mr. Ledvina also did not like the building located that far back on the lot. Commissioner Rossbach felt that the house should not remain, particularly in this neighborhood. He preferred that a living unit be built into the structure if it was desirable to have an on-site person. Another option would be a separate building that matched the main building architecturally. Mr. Rossbach also felt the proposed screening was very inadequate. He summarized by saying the house should be removed, the warehouse should be moved forward without putting the parking lot behind the building, and evergreen-type trees should be planted within the existing growth so that eventually there would be year round screening from the residential area. Commissioner Mueller questioned the feasibility of moving the house on the site and adding a piece on the building. He also suggested the house be remodeled to look "like it belongs" with the proposed structure. Mr. Mueller felt the same as Commissioner Ledvina in regard to a family living in the house with close proximity to trucks. Jim Dierking, with the law firm of Winthrop & Weinstine, and Tom Schaffhausen, of Sanas Capital Investments (the owner of the property), were present at the meeting. Mr. Dierking gave some background on the proposal. He addressed the mixed use of residential and commercial on the property. He felt this would be allowed as long as their was some connection between the commercial and residential use. Mr. Dierking was of the opinion that the code could easily have stated the buildings would have to be within one structure if that was the intention. He said it would not work well to move the existing house to the front of the property. Mr. Dierking confirmed that Sanas Capital Investments would own and maintain the house. Mr. Schaffhausen stated that, at the time they signed the purchase agreement for the property, city staff had not indicated that keeping the house on the site would be a problem. Mr. Dierking pointed out that the house could possibly be used as office space sometime in the future. The applicant also stated that there will not be a flammable waste trap in the building. Commissioner Rossbach said it was his understanding that a drain in a commercial garage situation had to have a flammable trap. Mr. Schaffhausen said he stood corrected on the matter. Commissioner Ledvina moved the Planning Commission recommend: Ao Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for Thomas Schaffhausen of Sanas Capital Investments to construct an office/warehouse building on the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. This request needs this permit because the new building would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. The city bases the approval on the findings required by code and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped January 20, 2000, except that the owner shall remove the existing house and garage from the site. 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. L I Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 -5- 4. The city council may require additional parking in the future if the council determines that there is a need for additional parking on the site. 5. There shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, except the personal vehicles of the employees, permitted on the site. 6. Except in the event of a bona fide emergency, the applicant's commercial traffic and vehicles shall use Gervais Avenue and the Highway 61 frontage road for access to this site. The applicant or owner shall use all reasonable efforts to insure that commercial vehicles under its control do not use Cypress Street for access to or from this site. 7. The normal hours of operation shall be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday, although the foregoing shall not prohibit employees or representatives of the applicant, owner, or its tenants from being on the site outside the foregoing hours. Such activities and site visits shall be conducted in a manner to avoid unnecessary noise and shall not cause a nuisance to the nearby residential properties. 8. The lighting on the site shall be wall or post-mounted and shall shine toward the site. 9. Clean the site by removing all vehicles, unused and inoperable equipment, debris and all other unused/unusable items. 10. If the city council allows the house to stay on the property, then the occupants of the house shall have a direct business connection with the business on the site. In addition, the house shall not be rented to or sold to any person or party that does not have a direct business relationship with the business on the property. 11. The office/warehouse building shall be relocated to the southern portion of the site to the extent feasible to maximize the distance between the existing residential to the north and the proposed building. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Commissioner Ledvina did not want to go into details as to how to position the building. He just wanted whatever was feasible in regard to parking, setbacks, etc. Commissioner Frost questioned if Conditions 1 and 11 together were contradictory. Ms. Coleman said the motion and minutes would reflect the action of the planning commission. Chairperson Fischer decided to divide the question and call for a separate vote because of the differing opinions on whether the house should remain. Staff had no recommendation to substitute the verbiage contained in the letter of April 7, 2000, from Winthrop & Weinstine. It was agreeable and seconded, as a friendly amendment, to substitute the wording from the Winthrop 8, Weinstine letter on Conditions 6 and 7 of the Recommendations. Chairperson Fischer called for a vote on Item 1 of the Recommendations: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city, date-stamped January 20, 2000, except that the owner shall remove the existing house and garage from the site. The motion failed. Ayes--Ledvina, Rossbach Nays--Fischer, Frost, Thompson, Trippler, Abstain--Mueller Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 04-17-2000 Chairperson Fischer called for a vote on the motion which adopts the resolution to approve a conditional use permit for the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue but Condition 1 would read: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city, date-stamped January 20, 2000, except that the owner shall remove the existing garage from the site. Conditions 6 and 7 shall have the wording from the April 7, 2000, letter from Winthrop & Weinstine, substituted for the wording that is currently in these conditions. Condition 11 from the above motion was contingent on removal of the existing house and is now struck from the motion. Commissioner Rossbach felt the commission did not vote on Commissioner Ledvina's motion. He concluded that they voted on the chair's move to separate it into two separate votes. Chairperson Fischer agreed that Conditions 2 through 10 were not voted on. Commissioner Ledvina said he was not withdrawing his motion, only eliminating Condition 11. Chairperson Fischer said that Condition 1 was voted on and Condition 11 was withdrawn by Mr. Ledvina. Commissioner Rossbach asserted that the vote did not change Condition 1; he maintained that it was necessary to vote on the remainder or the motion should be withdrawn and a new motion made. Commissioner Mueller was of the opinion that they had voted to let the house remain so it didn't matter what they voted on--he even felt Condition 10 was irrelevant. Ms. Coleman said that Condition 10 should remain. Chairperson Fischer then called for a vote on the motion that the Planning Commission recommend'. A. Adopt of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for Thomas Schaffhausen of Sanas Capital Investments to construct an office/warehouse building on the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. This request needs this permit because the new building would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. The city bases the approval on the findings required by code and is subject to the following conditions: 2. 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The city council may require additional parking in the future if the council determines that there is a need for additional parking on the site. 5. There shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, except the personal vehicles of the employees, permitted on the site. 6. Except in the event of a bona fide emergency, the applicant's commercial traffic and vehicles shall use Gervais Avenue and the Highway 61 frontage road for access to this site. The applicant or owner shall Use all reasonable efforts to insure that commercial vehicles under its control do not use Cypress Street for access to or from this site. 7. The normal hours of operation shall be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday, although the foregoing shall not prohibit employees or representa!ives of the applicant, owner, or its tenants from being on the site outside the foregoing hours. Such activities and site visits shall be conducted in a manner to avoid unnecessary noise and shall not cause a nuisance to the nearby residential properties. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 8. 9. 10. -7- The lighting on the site shall be wall or post-mounted and shall shine toward the site. Clean the site by removing all vehicles, unused and inoperable equipment, debris and all other unused/unusable items. If the city council allows the house to stay on the property, then the occupants of the house shall have a direct business connection with the business on the site. In addition, the house shall not be rented to or sold to any person or party that does not have a direct business relationship with the business on the property. Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Thompson, Trippler Nays--Rossbach Abstain--Mueller Co The motion passed. Commissioner Mueller said he abstained because he would have preferred that the applicant return with a reason why they couldn't move the house. He felt that if he voted in favor "it would mean that it didn't matter" to him. If he voted to remove the house, it says "maybe they know something I don't." Commissioner Thompson voted for approval because he felt staff indicated to the applicant, at some time within the process, "some degree of acceptance" for the structure to remain. Club FTS Conditional Use Permit (1351 Frost Avenue) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. There were no questions from the commissioners. Ron Michaletz, the applicant, had no comments other than he wanted to get the project going. Mr. Michaletz said interior building improvements will be made. He said the exterior repairs are the responsibility of the landlord. Commissioner Mueller asked what would happen if the property owner did not make the required repairs. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, was concerned that the deadline for the repairs was two months after the scheduled council action. Mr. Roberts thought Item B in the Recommendations was added as a surety measure to make certain repairs are made to the property in the event that this conditional use permit was not approved. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend: ^. Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for a coffee lounge at 1351 Frost Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: 1. All construction, renovations and improvements shall comply with the building code. 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, unless the use is in operation and there have been no complaints or problems. In this event, the conditional use permit shall be reviewed again only if a problem arises. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 -8- The hours of operation shall be: 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 4 p.m. to 1 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The city council may review these hours and make adjustments as warranted if there are complaints. Before the city issues an occupancy certificate for this use, the property owner shall clean up the property behind the building, repair the canopy on the front of the building, replace the broken window pane on "Permanent Skin Art," install a 100 percent solid gate on the front of the trash enclosure and restripe the parking lot. The property owner shall clean up the property behind the building, repair the canopy on the front of the building, replace the broken window pane on "Permanent Skin Art," install a 100 percent solid gate on the front of the trash enclosure and restripe the parking lot. These items shall be performed even if the applicant drops his request or if the city council denies the conditional use permit. The deadline for this work shall be two months from the date of this council action. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. C. Forest Products: Setback Variances and Conditional Use Permit Ken Roberts, associate planner, summarized the staff report. He then answered questions from the commission. Mike Miller was present representing the applicant. He said the noise from the dust collection system was no louder than the traffic on the highway. Commissioner Rossbach thought this was not good and the collection system should be on the same side of the building as the freeway if it was that loud. He suggested repositioning the unit to the other side of the building at this time rather than adding dampers later if the noise level is too loud. Mr. Rossbach said the neighbors should not be imposed upon by this noise. He also pointed out that the proposed lighting did not meet the code. Mr. Roberts said the lighting was reviewed by the community design review board. Mr. Miller said the business makes cabinets, furniture, etc. and sells lumber. There will be a small showroom for customers. Commissioner Rossbach felt this was "100 percent better than the last proposal for this site" and he supported approval. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend: Adoption of the resolution which approves a 22-foot building setback variance from the Highway 61 right-of-way and a seven-foot parking lot setback variance from the frontage road right-of-way. The code requires 30 feet and 15 feet. These variances are based on the following findings: Compliance with the code would cause the developer undue hardship because of the unusual triangular-shaped lot. The lot shape makes it difficult to meet setback requirements because of its tapered shape. 2. Approval of the building setback variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because of the wide highway boulevard. Approval of the parking lot setback variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because only a point of the parking lot would encroach into the setback area. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 -9- Adopt the resolution on pages 16-17 approving a conditional use permit to build a cabinet shop that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and County Road C. Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and 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 substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The city shall not allow a lot division to occur that would separate the 40-foot-wide portion of this site from the main part unless the shoreland ordinance would continue to be met. 5. Work should not be done with the doors open. If the dust collector system by the dock causes excessive noise, the property owner should take steps to provide sound dampening. 6. There shall not be any outdoor storage unless the city council approves a conditional use permit for outdoor storage. Commissioner Frost seconded. The motion passed. Ayes--all VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS VIII. There were no visitor presentations. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. April 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman reported on this meeting. B. April 24 Council Meeting: There are no planning commission items on this agenda. C. May 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler will attend this meeting. Chairperson Fischer suggested that commissioners look at the Holloway Pond development on Beebe Road and Holloway Street. She thought it might help them to visualize a development such as Dearborn Meadow. Commissioner Rossbach asked about the ownership and width of the parcel to the east of the Dearborn Meadow plat. He speculated as to whether the owner of this parcel might also want a development that goes to the back of that site. Chairperson Fischer pointed out some history of the area and commented that it was "not the easiest site in the city to try to make a decision on." Commissioner Frost concurred and thought an R-1 zone facing Highway 36 was "not a very wise decision." Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 -10- Chairperson Fischer mentioned planning workshops on May 4 and May 17, IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said the Builders Square site property closed on April 14, 2000 and the church is now the owner. She also mentioned that staff was unable to gain complaince with the conditional use permit on the problem of Kline Volvo parking cars "all over the place." This matter has been turned over to the city prosecuting attorney. Commissioner Thompson spoke about a neighboring suburb that is attempting to address the residential parking issue. He suggested staff keep an eye on this. Ms. Coleman said the new city council is interested in an ordinance. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Sprint PCS Monopole 2500 Hudson Place April 26, 2000 INTRODUCTION ProJect Description Wendy Metchnek, representing Sprint PCS, is proposing to install a 75-foot-tall monopole for telecommunications equipment. They want to install this monopole west of the existing parking lot of Christ United Methodist Church at 2500 Hudson Place. (Refer to the maps and plans on pages 8-11 and the statements starting on page 12.) There also would be equipment boxes on a pad near the base of the monopole and they would enclose the base area with an eight-foot-tall chain-link fence topped with barbwire. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a monopole and related equipment in an R-1 (single- dwelling residential) zoning district. 2. The design and site plans. BACKGROUND On December 13, 1993, the city council approved a CUP for the church to expand and for an existing pre-school day care center. This approval was subject to two conditions. On January 13, 1997, the city council adopted the commercial use antenna and tower ordinance. DISCUSSION The 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act does not allow cities to prohibit the installation of telecommunications facilities and equipment. Because of this law, local governments may only regulate, but may not prevent, the installation of monopoles or other telecommunications facilities. As such, the city may only base their decision about this request on land use and on health, safety and welfare concerns. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses all telecommunications systems. This licensing requires that the proposed or new telecommunications equipment not interfere with existing communications or electronics equipment. If there is interference, then the FCC requires the telecommunications company to adjust or shut down the new equipment to correct the situation. Maplewood must be careful to not limit or prohibit this tower (or any other tower) because of electronic interference. That is up to the FCC to regulate and monitor. The city council should approve this request. This project meets the requirements of the Maplewood tower ordinance and the criteria for a CUP. As proposed, the tower would be about 200 feet from the south property line of the site (the city code requires at least a 100-foot setback) and much of the base area would be screened by existing trees. The applicant is proposing to add trees in three areas on the property to help screen the base area from view from nearby homes. These planting areas include an area west of the garage, on the east side of the proposed lease area and northeast of the existing church building. (See the site plans on pages 9 and 10.) The site design, with the additional tree planting, would be compatible with the adjacent church and parking lot. In addition, the city has approved similar monopole facilities at two other churches in Maplewood that are near residential neighborhoods. These include Presentation Church on Kennard Street and Trinity Baptist Church at 2220 Edgerton Street, just south of Highway 36. I am not aware of any complaints about these monopoles since their owners installed them. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 20 and 21. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to allow up to a 100-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval is for the property at 2500 Hudson Place. 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 site plans dated April 26, 2000, as approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant or owner shall allow the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. Approve the site and design plans date-stamped April 26, 2000, for up to a 100-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and equipment to the property at 2500 Hudson Place. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. Before the city issues a building permit, city staff must approve a landscaping plan for the property. This plan shall show the planting of a mix of Austrian Pine and Norway Pine trees to the west of the existing garage, on the east side of the proposed lease area and northeast of the existing church building. (These are the areas noted for additional tree planting on the plans date-stamped April 26, 2000.) These trees are to help screen the base area. These trees shall be at least 8 feet tall, balled and burlapped and shall be planted in staggered rows as shown on the proposed plans. 2 If the landscaping or trees are not installed by the completion of the tower, the city shall require the applicant to provide a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed within six weeks of occupancy. 4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 3 CITIZENS' COMMENTS City staff surveyed the owners of the 43 properties within 350 feet of the proposed site. We received 15 replies. 13 were against the proposal and two had no objections. (These responses were to the applicant's original proposal. Since then, the applicant has revised the plans by moving the monopole about 100 feet north and adding landscaping in three areas on the church property to help screen the base area of the facility.) Against I do not want this built in what is my backyard - I pay too much in taxes and we are constantly getting stuff shoved down our throats. Put it somewhere else. (Rowe - 179 Sterling Street) Why not place this monopole west of Carver School. This would be away from houses and far enough from the school. No one wants these towers close to their homes. (Gilbertson - 222 Sterling Street) We would not be in favor of the installation of this facility - it will alter the appearance of what is otherwise an attractive suburban setting. (Recchio - 2439 Brookview Drive) We do not wish to have this monopole placed near our home. We think the Sprint Company could find a commercial area for this telecommunication monopole. Placing this pole as far away from homes as possible. I would like to receive information on the studies done, confirming the safety of this monopole. To guarantee the health and welfare of our family, down to our grandchildren. The children have a play area not far from the proposed monopole structure. (Elizondo - 2447 Brookview Drive) 5. We oppose the building of this telecommunications monopole because: 1. It will reduce our home value 2. It is too close to our home 3. It will interfere with our phone, TV, radio 4. The impact to the environment 5. The impact to our health Anything happens due to building of this telecommunications monopole, especially our home value and our health should be the responsibility of the city. Please consider this decision very carefully. (Nguyen - 2455 Brookview Drive) Do not think it is appropriate to put this in a residential area. This is being shoved down the neighborhood's throat without a vote from the neighborhood. By the time we get this notice you have already made up your mind to approve it as evidenced by the stakes already marking its position. Why can't the pole be put in a commercial area like the one on the Cartiva lot (in Landfall)? Why does it have to be in a neighborhood? It is ugly and it does lower property values. Who wants to look out their window and see a monopole? (Edblom - 2458 Brookview Drive) We are strongly opposed to the monopole being built in our area. It will have an impact on our home values, the environment and possibly our health. Certainly no one wants one in their backyard. They are unsightly. What a disappointment that the church cares so little for this neighborhood that it sells us out for pieces of silver. (Ashley - 2466 Brookview Drive) o o 10. We do not want a monopole near our neighborhood as we did not want the water park. It seems that these proposals always go through no matter the opposition. (Brosky - 2474 Brookview Drive) If 2500 Hudson Place was your first choice, what were your second and third? Why is this in a residential area and not out on the high side of 694-494 and 94? What are we to expect in the future when the 75-foot pole is not high enough? It seems to me there are plenty of other high locations that are not in someone's backyard! We already have a civil defense siren which we accept. We get a water slide stuffed down our throats - which is noisy before it has been used and the thought of the area on getting rid of the deer that devastate our yards was ignored, we have bow and arrow hunting instead of sharp shooting as was deemed the best at a council meeting by the residents. Our voices are not heard, but our taxes go up. rm not looking forward to looking at a 75' tower from my kitchen window, where I spend a lot of time. (Kuhn - 2481 Brookview Drive) I for one would not like to see a telecommunications monopole put up on the church property. I know the church could use the income it would generate, but 20 some years ago when we bought this house, the church asked us to agree to stop the sound barrier in front of the church. Reason being to keep the church visible from the freeway. For that we have to listen to the freeway noise. This time I will not support them in this effort. I can't believe with all the wide-open space around the 94 and 694 intersection there is not a better site. Did they try Evergreen in Woodbury? (Utgaard - 2496 Brookview Drive) Also see the three letters on pages 16, 17 and 18 for additional comments. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 5.2 acres Existing land use: Church and child care center SURROUNDING LANDUSES North: South: West: East: 3M campus across Hudson Place and Interstate 94 Single dwellings on Brookview Court Single dwellings on Crestview Court Single dwellings across Sterling Street PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: C (church) and S (school) Zoning: R-1 (Single dwelling residential) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-606 requires a CUP for a communications tower in a residential zoning district. The ordinance requires a maximum height of 75 feet, however, the height may be increased to 100 feet if the tower is designed for the co-location of another provider's antenna. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards for approval. Refer to findings one through nine in the resolution on pages 20 and 21. p:sec1-28/2500huds.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Site Plan (Enlarged) 5. Tower Elevation - Looking North 6. Applicant's statement 7. Applicant's criteria approval statement 8. Statement from Nelsons (2431 Brookview Drive) 9. Statement from Helminick (190 Sterling Street North) 10. Letter from Timothy Miller (2488 Brookview Drive) 11. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 12. Project Plans date-stamped April 26, 2000 6 t N AVF.. LOCATION MAP 7 4 Attachment 2 " 'CHURCH Cz ~-) / / I0 II zl PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 8 Attachment 3 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL TREES ~ z?:~'~':'~:'~'~t:'~':::: ~// .~:~.-.::.~:...~ PROPOSED MONOPOLE CHURCH ,ROPOSED ADDITIONAL Ti SITE PLAN SCALE: l" = 50'-0" SITE PLAN 9 U R ~kttac ~ment ~. & Utility E~m~nt I I .': :. :,,~'~.,?y~'..',."..~ _- .......................................... PROPOSED ADDITIONAL TREES PROPOSED ~ONOPOLE ':..:'"' LOT.'i" CHURCH Existing Elulding SITE PLAN' ,,/- ~--~ ) r Attachment 5 TOWER ELEVATION ~n~) GqOU'4D ST~LI~'ATIGN ~'~lmC; TOWER ELEVATION 11 Attachment 6 AP?, OPENING STATEMENT In its pursuit of providing the highest quality digital wireless service, Sprint PC;5 ("Sprint") proposes to construct a wireless communication facility located at 2500 Hudson Place, Maplewood, MN, within a Residential Zoning District. Sprint will be leasing a 30' x 30' parcel of land on the subject parcel. The entire wireless facility will be located within the leased parcel. The facility will include a 75-foot monopole structure and equipment cabinets. Sprint is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 100-foot structure to allow for another provider to co-locate at a future date without requiring another CUP application and public hearing. Sprint's monopole will therefore be built with the structural support necessary to support a 25-foot addition to the monopole and antennas. The facility will be entirely enclosed by a 8' chain link fence topped with a one foot high barb wire. As part of Sprint's ongoing development and improvement of its wireless network, system engineers have identified the need for a new facility to serve the area surrounding the intersection of highways 94 and 694. The required location for the new facility was determined by computer modeling that evaluates population density, topography and current antenna system capacity. The potential location area is known as the "Search Ring". This Search Ring represents the area in which a facility must be located to allow it to function as an integral unit in the antenna grid system. After a thorough search of the ting the site located at 2500 Hudson Place was found to be the most appropriate based on technological, practical and aesthetic concerns. While locating on the rooftop of the nearby 3M building would have been an ideal site, unfortunately, due to 3M's concern about interference with their technical research and development, we were unable to secure a lease at that location. In addition to the technical requirements of the facilities' location, Sprint selects the location which meets the requirements of the local zoning code. Pursuant to section 36-600 (5)(b)) of the Maplewood Zoning Ordinance, the location of this facility on church property is a preferred primary land use. These two factors make the church candidate the most appropriate choice, based on the constraints of locating within the Search Ring. The proposed facility will not cause harm to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. As a condition of its license firom the FCC, Sprint's technology does not cause interference with any other form of communication, whether public or private. To the contrary, Sprint's technology provides vital communications in emergency situations and will be commonly used by local residents and emergency personnel to protect the general public's health, safety and welfare. Wireless telephone technology provides many benefits to the communities it serves. These services include, but are not limited to, the following: program allowing motorists to summon aid and report dangerous situations. 12 · Support for emergency services by providing wireless communications to paramedics, firefighters, and law enforcement agencies. A backup system to the land-line system in the event of a natural or man-made disaster. · Communication capabilities in remote areas, enhancing the safety of travelers by allowing immediate access to emergency assistance. Support for the busy lives of people in the area reducing stress and increasing productivity. Site Analysis During Sprint's site selection process it first determines what the requirements are from the governing municipality. Once informed, the acquisition specialists search the area designated by the engineers at Sprint. In the City of Maplewood church property is a preferred candidate for Conditional Use Permits. To utiliTe church property Sprint is proposing to utilize the grounds of Christ United Methodist Church located at 2500 Hudson Place. In Sprint's search for an acceptable location in the area surrounding the intersection Highways 94 and 694, only a few potential sites were discovered. An existing AT&T tower is located near the proposed site. This tower, however is outside the Search Ring and did not provide the coverage needed by the Sprint engineers for the new facility. The coverage is essemial to the operation of the new facility within the antenna grid system There is a Holiday Inn located at 2201 Burns Avenue, in St. Paul which was also evaluated but again, was outside the Search Ring and did not provide adequate coverage. Therefore, to meet the coverage and capacity needs of the surrounding area, the best feasible location for the facility is on the church property at 2500 Hudson Place. 13 Attachment 7 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD The use would be located, designed, maintained, eoustructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. The Conditional Use will conform to the applicable regulations of Residential Districts. Pursuant to the Maplewood Zoning Ordinanee, Sections 36-66 (b)(3) and 36-606, the proposed use requires a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed monopole will be built to conform to all Maplewood Zoning Ordinance provisions, including the regulations concerning height, setbacks, and landscaping. The Conditional Use will be in harmony · with the spirit and intent of the Mnplewood Zoning Ordinance. Wireless telephones provide an alternate communication system which has repeatedly proven its effectiveness in emergency situations and is commonly being utilized by police and fire departments to protect the general public's health, safety and welfare. Therefore, the granting of the Conditional Use will be in conformance with the general and specific purposes imposed by the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. Due to the minimal size of the leased parcel and the nature of the surrounding uses, there will be little impact on the character of the locality, with no adverse effect on existing or future development in the area. This is also supported by section 36-600 (5)(b) of the Ordinance which designates this location as a preferred land use. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The proposed facility consists of a monopole strncture that has very little aesthetic impact on the surrounding area. This strncture is similar to a light standard. The proposed facility will consist of a monopole antenna structure not to exceed 75 feet and accompanying unstaffed equipment cabinets. The entire facility will be located within a 30x30 parcel of land. With such a small footprint and its location on church property, a preferred primary land use area (see section 36-600 (5)(b)), this facility will have little impact on the use and enjoyment of property in the immediate vicinity, nor wili there be an adverse effect on property values within the neighborhood. To the contrary, enhanced wireless communications will have a positive influence on the development of this area. e The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, &trimental, 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-ofl~ va~ation, general, unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. Due to the diminutive size of the facility, it will not interfere with an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, increase the danger of fire, nor will it substantially diminish or impair the enjoyment or aesthetics of the neighborhood. The proposed facility 14 will not injure the pubfic health, safety, morals or general welfare. Wireless technology does not interfere with any other form of communication, whether public or private. To the contrary, wireless technology provides vital communications in emergency situations and will commonly be used by local residents and emergency personnel to protect the general public's health, safety and welfare. 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. Sprint's PCS facilities are unstaffed and entirely self-monitored. Therefore, there will be no impact on the existing traffic nor will there be any traffic hazards generated. Maintenance personnel will visit the facility at most once a month. Access will be provided via existing entrances. Thus the safety and efficiency of public streets and highways will be maintained. 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. The only utilities necessary for this facility are telephone and electricity, both of which are readily available. Because the facility is unstaffed, there will be no impact to the existing traffic patterns nor will there be any need for additional access roads. No drainage, sanitation, refuse removal, parks, library, or school services will be necessary for this facility. Existing police and fire protection are more than adequate to provide security for the facility. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for publi~ facilities or services. As stated above, existing police and fire protection are more than adequate to provide security for the facility. Therefore, there will be to additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. Due to the fact that Sprint PCS has been sensitive in selecting a site that will minimize the impact on the surrounding property, their facility will be compatible with the existing environment and will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of any natural, scenic, or historic feature of significant importance. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmentm effects. Again, because of the facilities small size, it will not injure the pubfic health or safety and will pose little, if any, adverse environmental concerns. 15 Attachment 8 We oppose the above conditional use permit for S~nt's PCS Telecommunication Monopele. We feel it does impact the character of the residential neighborhood surrounding tho Chdst United Methodist Church property site. There is nothing higher than a two-sto~/dwelling anywhere in this area. Consequently, a 75 foot tower or "monopele" would be out of place and unpleasant aesthetically, as well as ha~ing a deiinite effect on property values in tho area. We are sure that Sprint would like to believe this structure would have no threat to public health, but we do not believe thoy really know at this point. Wireless technology is still relatively new enough that long ten~ effects on health and emimnment cannot really bo proven one way or the other. This neighborhood was intended to be residential use and the taxpayers of the surrounding properties bought into this community in good faith that that is what it would remain. We believe the church may have seen this offer as an answer to financial concerns they are experiencing as a congregation. However, they must remember that as our neighbor, if it is not good for tho entire area as a whole, it should be a consideration for them to rethink their position and motives for agreeing to the proposal. Their building not only houses a congregation pert- time but also houses a 4 day per week Nursery School for pre-school children on the property. We do not believe tho site is necessa~ly compatible. If the area to be served reaches from our area to 1-94 and 1-694, thore must be better commercial or public grounds that could be chosen for this use. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this issue. Jacque A. & Diane K. Nelson JACQUE & DIANE NELSON 431 BROOKVIEW PAUl., MINNESOTA 65119 16 · Attachment 9 Sprint PCS Telecommunication Monopole Request: We do not approve of a conditionally use permit for Sprint PCS. We do not agree with Sprints statement that this so called small footprint, which is 30'x 30' with a enclosed 8' chain link fence topped with one foot high barb wire, plus a 75' pole with antennas will not in anyway have little impact on the enjoyment of a wildlife type property. Nor adversely effect property values within the neighborhood. What proof or guarantee do we have that this statement is true. Especially referring to property values. In Sprints opening statement, one of the benefits we would receive is, and I quote. Support for the busy lives of people in the area reducing stress and increasing productivity. Sprint must be talking about the 3M people, and 3M said they don't want the facility on their property, nor do we want it near ours. Give us a break, I'am 66 years old, and lived in this area for 24 years. I don't went or need to look at a 75 FT tower as the sun sets in the west.. In Sprints site analysis they state that ^T&T has an existing tower but outside the search area. What is the size of this search area? There is a lot of open land near 94 & 694. My other question would be, does each wireless company put up tower for service coverage, rather then share facilities. Sprint also states the facility will not injure the public health. Is there any radiated energy coming off these towers, if so ,what is the peak power energy output and range? ~T~HANK YOU ~ , DON & JUDY HELMINICK 190 Sterling ST N. MAPLEWOOD 651-738 -0110 17 F ECE ¥ED Attachment 10 Timothy E Miller 2488 Brookview Drive 4~ Maplewood, MN 55119 Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner Office of Community Development, City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood MN 55109-2797 April 8, 2000 Re: Sprint PCS Telecommunications Monopole - 2500 Hudson Place This letter represents our objection to the proposed installation near our home of a PCS Cellular Communications Tower by Sprint. Please find herein our comments and concerns. In reviewing the Opening Statement and other materials included with the Neighborhood Survey sent to us by your office, we find that we have a couple of sincere reservations about the proposed installation which remain unaddressed. Most notably, we are concerned that this communications transmission facility might indeed interfere with other communications which we use or depend upon. The Opening Statement attempts to address this issue with the sentence: 'As a condition of its license from the FCC, Sprint's technology does not cause interference with any other form of communication, whether public or private.' Frankly, this seems a weak and ineffective statement. Rather that a simple declarative, to whit: "Sprint guarantees that this facility will in no way interefere with any of your communications.", the sentence in the Opening Statments quoted above seems to more circle the issue than to address it head on. That fact, coupled with the fact that 3M apparently does not regard that sentence as sufficient assurance for themselves, leaves us with a suspicion that this facility might in fact cause communications problems for us. One specific communication form we are concerned about is computer wireless networking. We have and depend upon a computer network in our home for both personal and business use. While not yet deployed, we have been planning to expand this network through the use of wireless networking technology. We are concerned that the Sprint PCS monopole could interfere with that. 18 If it were possible to get a direct statement from Sprint to us stating that they will interefere with NONE of our communications - telephone, television, radio, computer, etc - and that Sprint would guarantee remedy in the event of such interference, we would withdraw our objection. Thanks for taking the time to both inform us and listen to our feedback. Sincerely, Donna & Tim Miller CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION Attachment 11 WHEREAS, Ms. Wendy Metchnek, representing Sprint PCS, applied for a conditional use permit to install up to a 100-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2500 Hudson Place. The legal description is: All that part of the East % of the NW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 28, Range 22, described as follows: Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of Section 1, Township 28, Range 22, thence Westerly along the North line of said Section 1, a distance of 474.9 feet to a point, thence Southwesterly by deflection angle of 60 48' to the left, a distance of 460.39 feet to a point; thence Southeasterly by a deflection angle of 110 54' to the left, a distance of 711.55 feet to a point on the North-South Quarter line of said Section 1; thence Northerly along said North- South Quarter line by a deflection angle of 98 50' to the left, a distance of 505.13 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to Highway 12 right-of-way and Great Lakes Pipeline easement. In Section 1, Township 28, Range 22 in Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 01-28-22-21-0001) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On May 1,2000, the planning commission recommended approval of this request. The city council held a public hearing on ,2000. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. o 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. 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. 20 o 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. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plans dated April 26, 2000, as approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant or owner shall allow the collocation of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2000. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Plan Revisions - Carver Elementary School 2680 Upper Afton Road April 26, 2000 INTRODUCTION Proposal Mark Hayes, of Armstrong, Torseth, Skold & Rydeen, Inc., is requesting approval of a site plan change for Carver Elementary School, 2680 Upper Afton Road. Refer to the maps on pages 7-9. Mr. Hayes is proposing to relocate the hard-surfaced outdoor basketball court area and the pea-graveled play area that are behind the building to the front, just west of the existing parking lot. (Refer to their statement of intended use on page 10.) Request Mr. Hayes is requesting that the city council amend the conditional use permit (CUP) and site plan for Carver Elementary School to allow the proposed changes. BACKGROUND December 19, 1994: The city council approved a cooperative agreement with the school district to share in the costs of building a gymnasium addition at Carver Elementary School. March 27, 1995: The city council approved: 1. A conditional use permit to expand the school. 2. The design plans for the addition. 3. A waiver of the rooftop-equipment screening requirement. 4. An underground lawn sprinkler variance. March 25, 1996: The city council reviewed the CUP and decided not to review it again unless a problem develops. May 11, 1998: The city council approved a sign size variance allowing the Maplewood Parks Department to install a "community gymnasium" wall sign on the gym. October 12, 1998: The city council approved a revision for the Carver Elementary School conditional use permit. This change was for the addition of a parking lot on the east side of the school building. March 9, 1999: The community design review board approved plans for the school to build two small building additions and one concrete dock platform at the school. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit An advantage of the proposal is that it moves the play areas to a more visible area near Upper Afton Road. This should be safer for the users of the play areas, especially when school is not in session. However, parking at the school can be a problem when there is a large event such as a tournament in the gym, school conferences or the annual school carnival. During the CUP review for the proposed building addition in 1995, the city council also approved a parking lot expansion on the west side of the existing parking lot. Refer to the map on page nine. However, the applicant felt in 1998 that this location for additional parking was no longer feasible. They wanted to keep this area for recreational purposes. The proposed relocated play areas would be in the area of this future parking lot. If the city approves the requested site plan change, then there would not be room to expand the parking lot to the west. The city should require the applicant to provide proof of parking for at least 20 additional parking spaces on the site with the move of the playground. The applicant felt in 1998 that the easterly side of the school was more suitable for the additional parking because it is unused and would provide convenient staff parking. In 1998, the city council approved a CUP revision and the site plan change for the school district to add the parking lot on the east side of the school. The school has finished the parking lot on the east side of the school. This parking area added 38 spaces to the site. There are presently 94 parking spaces on the site at Carver Elementary. The city code does not specify minimum parking requirements for schools, but the number of spaces should be adequate for most days for this facility. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on pages 14 and 15. This resolution amends the conditional use permit for playground and play area changes at Carver Elementary School, 2680 Upper Alton Road. Approval of this permit amendment is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): All construction shall follow the plans for building the 1995 building expansion stamped January 18, 1995 and the utility, grading and erosion control plans stamped March 9, 1995. The parking lot expansion shall follow the plans stamped August 14, 1998. The proposed storage room addition, folding-door enclosure addition and loading dock platform expansion shall follow the plans stamped February 19, 1999. The proposed play area relocation shall follow the plans date-stamped April 14, 2000, subject to the applicant providing city staff with a proof of parking plan for the site that shows at least 20 additional parking spaces. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The play area relocation three expsnsJon proposals must be started within one year after council approval or the permit amendment shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 43 properties within 350 feet of this site. Of the 11 replies, five were for the proposal, five objected and one had no comment. For 1. This is an important move for the safety of Carver School students and the children in the community. (Carver School - 2680 Upper Afton Road) This is a good idea. This was the original site of the playground equipment. The present site is isolated, not visible from the road. Parents are reluctant to let their children play back there. (Brenner - 2673 Upper Afton Road) We think this is a good idea. Neighborhood children play there when school is not in session, but are hidden by the building and are at risk of being injured. No one knowing or worse being abducted and no one seeing anything. (Meyer - 2689 Upper Afton Road) 4. We are in favor of this proposal and think it's a good idea - as long as our taxes are not increased as a result and thanks for asking! (Loss - 15 Mayhill Road) 5. Looks fine to us. (Lutheran Church of Peace - 47 Century Avenue South) Against Your proposal is utterly ridiculous and wasteful. Bringing the playground out front will create a gawker slow down from all the pedophiles out shopping. What about creativity? With all that grass and ball fields, why don't you plant more trees or a garden. With all that concrete, the school will have to spend $1,000,000 for knee pads and helmets and the kids will be too close to traffic. Have the kids plant the garden. (Brady - 2647 Upper Afton Road) I am voting this down. I don't think it's fair for the people to have to keep paying for something they really don't need. I am on a fixed income and cannot afford for my taxes to go any higher than they are. First they needed a new gym and we paid for it. They needed a new parking lot and we are still paying for it. I think that there should be a limit and I think that we are at the limit. If they need anything more then have them raise the money. I do not see them paying for my taxes going up. I think enough is enough and I am not the only one that has had enough. (Schroepfer- 22 Mayhill Road) We strongly disagree with a move of the child playground. Why would anyone want to risk the safety of children? We feel by moving the playground to Upper Afton Road you all are asking for injury of innocent children. The playground might as well be in the middle of the street and hope no child is hurt by a car that does not abide by the speed limits. (Perkins - 27 Farrell St.) It does not make sense to me that the kids would be safer by the road and it looks like they would have to walk through the parking lot to get there, but it really does not matter to us. (Owner - 21 Century Avenue) Also see the letter starting on page 11. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 9.4 acres Existing land use: Carver Elementary School SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: A single dwelling across Upper Afton Road School property and Ramsey County Open Space Carver Elementary School playground Afton Road Dental Clinic and Super America PAST ACTIONS December 19, 1994: The city council approved a cooperative agreement with the school district to share in the costs of building a gymnasium addition at Carver Elementary School. March 27, 1995: The city council approved: 1. A conditional use permit to expand the school. 2. The design plans for the addition. 3. ^ waiver of the rooftop-equipment screening requirement. 4. An underground lawn sprinkler variance. March 25, 1996: The city council reviewed the CUP and decided not to review it again unless a problem develops. May 11, 1998: The city council approved a sign size variance allowing the Maplewood Parks Department to install a "community gymnasium" wall sign on the gym. October 12, 1998: The city council approved a revision the CUP to allow a new parking lot. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: S (school) Zoning: F (farm residence district) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 36-437(3) requires a CUP for schools. Section 36-448(b) requires a CUP amendment for any enlargement, structural alteration or intensification of use when a CUP has been issued. CRITERIA FOR CUP APPROVAL Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on ten standards. Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 14-15. 4 Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on April 14, 2000. State law requires the city to take action on this request by June 13, 2000, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec1-28/carver.00 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. 1995 Site Plan 5. Applicant's Statement of Intended Use 6. 4-24-00 letter from Joseph Grill 7. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 8. 11- by 17-inch plans date-stamped April 14, 2000 (separate attachments) 9. Full-size plans date-stamped April 14, 2000 (separate attachments) m z JAMES c~ ~"-- UPPER AFrON RD. Z I LONDIN CT. 2 PO~O CT. 3 DORLAND L.N. DORLAND DR. LOWER 6 DORLAND PL '- ~ RA~IS~ COUNTY ! tO.mN U~. Attachment 1 LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 FUEL STATION UPPERAFTON RO.A_Dj.~ ~ C s.s,~. ,v F CLINI ;~ .S~:I ..1 / SCHO 22 CARVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF PEACE ( I 5.49a~. ) ~ ~) I~,AM~E~' C. OUNT¥' OPEN 5PACI= ~14.~' PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 7 Attachment 3 1 PROPOSED RELOCATED' PLAY AREA UPPER AFTON PARKING LOT It CARVER SCHOOL -/~! ~'°"o7 ~' - ;~ .... - · .}--~ ~ '" ~ ~ l'.4&~ '- ~ ./ -' ~ "~.- "' ~e, ~ ~; ~ . ~ - ,~ ...... ::~'~--- ~',. ~' , i / --"-.': .... ' " -'- ~:~ r::. : . .~ ~ ~ / ~ ..... ~.._. .~ ..~::.. ;.. ~.:... "? ,~:' ;~ '/- · ".a;-'~:..'::E=-'E:-- .... t~ O ._'xK ~- / *' ~ ii' b~',:m* -':--"-~:.. ':==:. PLAY AREA PROPOSED -' / < '/ /,'~ .' -' _ · '"' - "/ ./ , .//:'5'/.:-m- .... -'"',. % './/;', ..'-'.-. ~-. .::,- :~"~=s~.~.:z~55=:<~C~::~;~-~: -'~ .-c.. SITE PLAN PROPOSED PLAY AREA RELOCATION PLAN 8 Attachment 4 UPPER Al:TON ROAD FUTURE PA~KING LOT APPROVED IN 1995 (NOT BUILT) I I !1° !I° lo'- ! PARKING LOT APPROVED .~ IADDITI¢ 040 0 · el · 'I CARVER SCHOOL · I APPROVED PLAY AREA -'-- I I I SITE PLAN CARVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1995 SITE PLAN APPROVAL Attachment 5 ARMSTRONG, TORSETH, SKOLD AND RYDEEN, INC. ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS Project Number 99074.t DATE PROJECT SUBJECT FOR BY MEMORANDUM NO 3 March 28, 2000 Carver Elementary School 2680 Upper Afton Road Maplewood, Minnesota Statement of Intended Use Revision of Conditional Use Permit, City of Maplewood, MN Mark Hayes, Owners Representative On behalf of our client we respectfully request that a revision to the existing Conditional Use Permit applying to the above site be granted. As our plans show we are moving the existing playground from the south of the building, to the north of the existing ball fields and west of the existing parking lot. The existing playground equipment will be reinstalled in a new play area. Additional pavement will be provided for hardscape games such as hopscotch, 4 square, and basketball. This rearrangement of use areas is necessary to improve the safety of the playground. Moving this activity to the front o. the building will not only improve supervisor oversight during school hours, but will expose the play area more easily to law enforcement scrutiny from the street and parking lot during non-school hours. Additionally, emergency vehicle access will be greatly improved, saving valuable time during an emergency. As our plan shows, the existing vegetation between the playground and the street will be adequate to partially screen the area, yet leave views into and out of the site for safety. We have also provided partial fencing panels to control site pedestrian traffic, catch loose balls, etc. and generally delineate the playground area to the users. These panels will still be open enough to allow easy emergency access. We feel that school and neighborhood supervision of the play area will be greatly improved with the new location, and that the playground will become a more effective and inviting school and community asset. Thank you for considering our revision, and please feel free to contact our office with any questions or concems you may have. rb/RB l0 Attachment 6 ' ' '1,'I '" '- £ - - 11 12 13 Attachment 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Independent School District No. 622 is requesting that Maplewood approve an amendment to their conditional use permit to allow the following change: To relocate the hard-surfaced outdoor basketball court area and the pea-graveled play area that are behind the building to the front, just west of the existing parking lot. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2680 Upper Afton Road. The legal description is: Beginning at a point twenty (20) rods west of the Northeast corner of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter (N ½ of the SE 1/4) of Section One (1), Township twenty eight (28), Range Twenty two (22); thence South forty (40) rods; thence West forty (40) rods; thence North forty (40) rods; thence East forty (40) rods to the point of beginning. (PIN 1-28-22-41-0005) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit amendment is as follows: 1. On May 1, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. On , the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit amendment based on the building and site plans. The city 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 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. ]4 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. The city council may waive any of the above requirements provided the council determines that the balancing of public interest between governmental units would be best served by such a waiver. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans for building the 1995 building expansion stamped January 18, 1995 and the utility, grading and erosion control plans stamped March 9, 1995. The parking lot expansion shall follow the plans stamped August 14, 1998. The proposed storage room addition, folding-door enclosure addition and loading dock platform expansion shall follow the plans stamped February 19, 1999. The proposed play area relocation shall follow the plans date-stamped April 14, 2000, subiect to the applicant providin,q city staff with a proof of parkin,q plan for the site that shows at least 20 additional parkin,q spaces. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The play area relocation must be started within one year after council approval or the permit amendment shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 2000.