HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-04 PC Public Hearing Comment - Information ReceivedSteven De Mars
2307 Hidden Valley Lane
Stillwater, MN 55082
Telephone: (651) 43 9 -3 03 5
Ta kingo nts
4 March 1999
d () 41(4t
#1. I would like to explore the "Conditional Use Permit" process and the procedures for
any "Amendments to the Conditional Use Permit ". I am not an attorney nor well versed
in city administration so I come at this from a common sense approach. I would like to
focus on what I consider to be the ethical .oints that this Process is deli *ned to facilitate:
a. A primary reason for a "Conditional Use Permit" is to create an open hearing
process. This is designed to insure that all the interested parties have an opportunity to
become aware of the "Conditional Use" and have an opportunity to express their opinions
and concerns regarding the Conditional Use.
b. A primary reason for an "Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit" is to create
an open hearing process. This is designed to insure that all the interested parties have an
opportunity to become aware of the "Amendments" and have an opportunity to express
their opinions and concerns regarding the changes proposed to the "Conditional Use ".
c, The responsibility to notify the interested parties of a proposed hearing to
consider "Amendments to a Conditional Use Permit" rests with the City of Oak Park
Heights. The City Council approves the "Conditional Use Permit" and any
"Amendments". It is their res•onsibilit to insure that the .rocess is correct' followed .
to insure all interested • arti es are r ro ■ erl heard and that due . rocess is afforded throu ! h
the process.
d. The hearing process is designed to be done at the front end of the Conditional
Use process for a lot of logical reasons:
1) For obvious ethical reasons
2) To save money for all parties
e. A fundamental condition of the hearing process, which was critical to the
interested parties in this particular situation, is that all of the adjoining property owners
(as Interested Parties) were required to be notified. They were required to be notified
before the Ropes Course was built, not after it was built. That responsibility rests with
the City Council. I am interested in knowin * wh the Cit of Oak Park Hei hts did not
notify all of the adjoining property owners to the High School that this Ropes Course was
going to be built and why an open hearing on this matter was not conducted?
f. I contend that one of the reasons the City did not meet its legal obligations
regarding public hearings for Amendments to Conditional Use Permits is that it did not
know that the High School was building the Ropes Course. It appears to me that the
Senior High School has violated the conditions of its Conditional Use Permit by building
a structure which has not been authorized under its existing permit. I have to ask what is
the enalt for violating the conditions of a Conditional Use Permit?
g. I have to ask several more questions that beg for answers:
(1) How many other private and public organizations in the last 5 years
have asked for amendments to their conditional use permits?
(2) Of the requests for amendments to conditional use permits, how many
have been disapproved based on objections from interested parties?
(3) Have any amendments been approved after the fact, such as this
Ropes Course? If they have been approved, what was the criteria used by the City
Council for approving them after the fact?
2. There are several injured parties as a result of the High School Administration's
failure to properly follow the conditional use process. #1. The adjoining property
gP p Y
owners, who have to look at the structure and put up with its intrusive and unwelcome
presence in their backyards. #2. The City of Oak Park Heights which finds itself in a
legal and ethical conundrum because of its failure to police its building codes. You find
g
yourself in this situation because the High School administration operates under the
bureaucratic axiom -- "Its easier to ask forgiveness than get permission ". The High
School — g
ool has put you here the High School should be the one to fix this situation.
3. Myxcommendation as a solution to this redicament is,:
a. The City of Oak Park Heights immediately initiate legal action to force the
High School to take down the Ropes Course for failure to follow the conditions of its
conditional use permit.
b. After the ropes course is down, if the High School feels it needs the Rope
p
Course, it should follow the conditional use process. It should initiate appropriate ro riate action
as an amendment to its conditional use permit that follows all appropriate public hearing
processes.
4. I appreciate the opportunity to be have been heard.
a. As a private citizen it is often initimidating to step into the public arena and
take a stand on a public issue. There have been several ou times when I thought about
dropping my interest in this issue, mainly because I don't g
t live in Oak Park Heights and
maybe I don't have a dog in this fight.
b. When you take on the High School administration you feel like you are fighting
g g
Goliath and that your efforts will all be in vain.
c. I don't live next door to the Ropes Course, I do not have a personal interest in
the Blackwood Development, but I don't treat my neighbors the way the residence of
Blackwood have been treated and I don't like to see the neighborhood bully getting away
g y
with it. I am here because my personal values won't let me walk away. I believe in
treating my neighbors with respect, and 1 believe in having the integrity to do what is
right. I find it hard to believe our High School administration can consider its
performance on this issue righteous. 1 am ashamed of how the High School
administration has treated its neighbors and I feel a sense of outrage at that.
Therefore, we request: 1. The Ropes Challenge Course be
removed from it's current site; 2. A site selection
committee with students, parents, and neighboring
residents convene to select a site that meets the needs of
the intended users, can be monitored for safety and
security reasons , and does not impinge on the privacy and
safety of neighboring residents.
2
7
Therefore, we request: 1. The Ropes Challenge Course be
removed from it's current site; 2. A site selection
committee with students, parents, and neighboring
residents convene to select a site that meets the needs of
the intended users, can be monitored for safety and
security reasons, and does not impinge on the privacy and
safety of neighboring residents.
\\ ■
Therefore, we request: 1. The Ropes Challenge Course be
removed from it's current site; 2. A site selection
committee with students, parents, and neighboring
residents convene to select a site that meets the needs of
the intended users, can be monitored for safety and
security reasons, and does not impinge on the privacy and
safety of neighboring residents.
4
Therefore, we request: 1. The Ropes p s challenge Course be
removed from it's current site; 2. A site selection
o n
committee with students, parents, and neighboring
g zng
.; residents convene to select a site that meets the needs
of
the intended users, can be monitored for safety fety and
security reasons, and does not impinge on the rivac
safety of neighboring residents. p y and
Z n i cy Li/ ,iyIrt ,0 omqA
2
Therefore, we request: 1. The Ropes Challenge Course se be
removed from it's current site; 2. A site select
committee with students, won
, parents , and neighboring
residents convene to select a site that meets the needs
the intended users, can be monitored of
ed for safety and
security reasons, and does not impinge on the privacy P �' and
safety of neighboring °
l7 %0 doC a
2
C_Auo
Therefore, we request: 1. The Ropes Challenge Course be
removed from it's current site; 2. A site selection
committee with students, parents, and neighboring
residents convene to select a site that meets the needs of
the intended users, can be monitored for safety and
security reasons, and does not impinge on the privacy and
safety of neighboring residents.
4L _4
0 m
Off
'fJ ? -3/3
-1r G3
Therefore, we request: 1. The Ropes Challenge Course be
removed from its current site; 2. A site selection
committee with students, parents, and neighboring
residents convene to select a site that meets the needs of
the intended users, can be monitored for safety and
security reasons, and does not impinge on the privacy and
safety of neighboring residents.
.
2 ( , 7 7 7 /a,
, ) 1.20%.4. 0 - F/
2
f
L
r
1
Therefore, we request: 1. The Ropes from it's current pes
t sztef 2.
committee with students, parents,
residents convene to
select a site that
the intended users, can be monitore
security. reasons, and does not impinge
safety a neighboring p
�3 g residents .
/
L
Th
Challenge Course b
A site selection
and neighboring
meets the needs of
d for safety an d
on the privacy and
Therefore, we request: 1. The Ropes Challenge Course be
removed from it's current site; 2. A site selection
committee with students, parents, and neighboring convene to select a site that meets g
the needs o f
the intended users, can be monitored for safety and
security reasons , and does not impinge on the privacy and
safety of neighboring residents.
Therefore, we request: 1 The Ropes Challenge Course be
removed from it's current site; 2. A site selection
committee with students, parents, and neighboring
residents convene to select a site that meets the needs of
the intended users, can be monitored for safety and
security reasons, and does not impinge on the privacy and
neighboring residents.
safety of
Therefore, we request: 1. The Ropes Challenge Course be
removed from it's current site; 2. A site selection
committee with students, parents, and neighboring
residents convene to select a site that meets the needs of
the intended users, can be monitored for safety and
security reasons, and does not impinge on the privacy and
safety of neighboring residents
Therefore, we request: 1. The Ropes Challenge Course rse b
removed from it's current site; 2. A site selection
committee with students
parents, and neighboring
residents convene to select a site that meets the nee
the intended users can be needs of
e monitored for safety and
security reasons, and does not impinge on the riva
neighboring residents.
P cY and
safety o f nei
g g tse
2
4 1/4.5 Gn,-1 LI—
,..................„...._______
Therefore, we request : 1. The Ropes Challenge Course be
removed from it's current site; 2. A site selection
committee with students, parents, and neighboring
residents convene to select a site that . meets
the needs o f
the intended users, can be monitored for safet nd
Y Y a
security reasons, and does not impinge on the privao and
safety of neighboring residents
2
7 7>
1
Therefore, we request: 1. The Ropes Challenge Course be
removed from it's current site; 2. A site selection
committee with students, parents, and neighboring
residents convene to select a si. g
to that meets the needs of
the intended users, can be monitored for safety and
security reasons, and does not impinge on the rivac and
y nd
safet of neighboring residents. �,
Mail 1 9 1.1
Therefore, we request: 1. The Ropes p Challenge Course be
removed from it's current site; 2. A
committee with student site selection
s � parents parents, and neighboring
residents convene to select a site that meets the needs f
the intended users, can be monitored We ds of
reasons, ed for safety an d
security , and does not impinge on the ri
safety of neighboring residents. p cy and
T h e r e f o r e , we
stop construc
structure be
that meets th
impinging o n
residents.
11'•nr .,. - _
• A 4•4
r•
�►,�, -; s .rte. - •-:
..�. .:ter ,..�.�.. or'
rTh
rirmmimmmmis7.....mmmmmmo,
1‘
0,
(7 \r,cAA 1
r\� _ c)
an t -
List 1) immediate action be taken to
on the Ropes Course and 2) this
:3ted from this site to another area
:eds of the intended users without
a privacy and safety of local
`
?//
Cc�
January 8, 1991
Dear Nei4hbor:
You are probably well aware that the local school bond referendum has
passed and that construction of a hick school housing 2,400 is will
begin soon immediately north of Blackwood. Many of us who live in
Blackwood are extremely concerned about the impact this high school will
have upon our property values and upon the peace and quiet which we were
seeking when buying our land. To discuss those concerns and possible
resolutions , we have arranged for a meeting with school district
officials including K Peterson, Assistant Superintendent of Independent
School District #834, who will oversee this project. The meeting will
take place an Wednesday evening, January 23, 19 91 at 7:00 p . m. in the A,
School District offices located in the Central Sez vi ces 75 South Greeley Street, Stillwater. Mr. farson Y has expressed his
intention to work with Blackwood residents so that our interests can be
addressed as much as poss ib le .
Among the topics to be discussed will be the increased traffic problems
presented by the new high school. As those of you presently living in
Blackwood knew, it is extremely difficult at tunes to turn on to
Stillwater Road. Any suggestions or proposals anyone has for dealing
with this difficult problem would be appreciated. Other proposals made
by residents have been the construction of an earth berm on the north
perimeter of Blackwood, planting of trees on the berm and parallel to the
border, construction of a fence along the border and location of noise
producing activities such as playing fields and parking lots as far away
from the Blackwood border as is possible.
The school district is asking for volunteers to sit on a committee which
will oversee construction of the high school . They are particularly
looking for individuals with construction, architactural or engineering
backgrounds. It is important that at least one resident of Blackwood sit
on the committee so that our interests can be represented. Anyone who is
interested should write to Ken at the Central Services Building address
listed above.
The topics mentioned above will be discussed at the meeting. We are
planning to put together an agenda so that the time spent will be
productive. If there are other topics or concerns you would like
addressed, please call Diane at 430-0421 in the evening so that we can
add them to the list. We look forward to seeing you there.
Sincerely yours,
Diane and James McCann Beth. and David Reeves Michael and Sandi Schmiesing
12635 53rd Street North 12 717 53rd Street North 12595 53rd Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082 Stillwater, MN 55082 Stillwater, MN 55082
I. INFORMATION SHARING
A. Current status of plans for high school
B. Possibility of other land purchase
C. Status of annexations and extension of services
D. EXpansion possibilities
- Stadium
E. Preservation of present zoning
II. PROBLEMS S AND RESOLUTIONS
A. Traffic
B. Noise
C. Other
AGENDA
JANUARY 23, 1991
1
1. Time schedule
2. Traffic studies
3. EXit to Highway 36
4. Traffic lights --
5. Widening of Highway 5
6. Fence on border
.1. Bens and trees
2. Location of playing fields
3. Location of parking areas
iz
7. Mcdif ication.ss of Highway 5 and Highway 36 intersection
Facilities plannin
Timeline
SHS StreergedigEtee - 7:00 a.m. - SHS
Board of Education 8:30 a.m. - SHS
abriars 26 Open Public Foim - 7:30 pm. - SHS
March 12-1f, SHS staff/departments meet with the architects to
complete discussions (space, layouts
and relationships).
F
SHS Steering Committee - 7:00 a.m. - SHS
Board of Education - 8:30 a.m. - SHS Board acts on
approval of schematic/preliminary design (March 21
reserved if another meeting needed to approve
preliminary designs.)
d::
Construction Review Committee - 4:30 p.m. - CSB
ril 10-11 All SHS staff/departments meet with architects to review
final de,sigri.
ApriUl
•
475
DRAFT #2
2/20/91
SHS Steering Committee and Board of Education joint
meeting - 7:00 a.m. - SHS (review final desigm
prior to board sign off)
Construction Review Committee - 4:30 p.m. - CSB
Board action on final design
Comments
February 25, 1991
Meeting With Blackwood Residents
District 834 Central Services Building
The architect had developed two new site layouts based on questions and input from the
previous meeting. The strengths and limitations of each layout considered traffic, safety,
access, lighting, most and least heavily used facilities, noise, etc.
After a good deal of discussion, it was generally agreed that the placement of the
building at the northeast portion of the site was the best. Parking lot should be north as
well.
*NOTE: OTHER.MEETING PARTICIPANTS DISAGREE WITH THIS CONCLUSION. NO CONCENSUS
Minnesotne;artEffrtleEnDt I IIT'IriliftLts, and school
district representatives have met to discuss traffic and the placement of a collector road
from Oakgreen to Highway 5. Several preliminary sketches were shared. No decisions
have been reached at this time. *Note: Residents asked that the district strongly oppose
a collector road at the southern border of the school site.
The district is working on a means to access the high school site from the north in
addition to using Highway 5.
Privacy, security, noise levels, landscaping, and screening are areas the Blackwood
residents expect the school district to address.
Ouestions/Answers
Q Can loading areas and dumpsters be screened visually with berming or 9
Shouldn't 53rd Street be shown on layouts the district is preparing?
site development will be affected.
Q
Q
Where playing fields require spectator seating, can the seating/fields
Blackwood?
What is the plan for berrning, fencing, plantings at the south border
and the school site - also, the total landscaping of the area?
A The architects will provide a possible plan and estimates of
the final design. This should be ready in April and will
Blackwood residents.
- 1 -
Future Blackwood
be faced away from
between Blackwood
the cost as a part of
be shared with the
C If the southeast corner of the site is not needed for facilities in the future, would the
district sell this?
Q Would the Board enter into a 20 year covenant not to place lights on the lay in � fields?
p
A The Board probably cannot commit future boards to this, but the question will be
asked. *Note: Lighting for baseball, softball, tennis, etc. has not been P art of
the high school program to date.
Could the stadium be placed where the two north playing fields are presently shown?
A
This could work but is not the preferred location due to the visual impact to the
campus and the low level of that area.
C During construction, will run-off be contained? Will there be a stud y by engineers
en ineers
regarding drainage?
Q Does the environmenta.i impact study (environmental assessment worksheet) include the
impact south of the property?
KDP/ame
A Board member Buchman explained the Board's interest and commitment to the
environmental plan and maintaining that area as a buffer as well as an extension
of the Oak Park Heights park plan.
A Yes - contractor will be required to put up screening.
A Yes.
A Yes. ATS &R is working with Environscience, the firm doing the study. This
y
has been submitted to the appropriate state agencies.
cc: Dr. David L. Wetter gren , Superintendent of Schools
Board of Education
Dr. Jon Swenson, Senior High School Principal.
Dan Parker, Business Manager
Diane M. McGann, Blackwood Resident
ATS&R Architects
Brian Nichols
-2
When:
AGENDA:
1. Meeting with school officials
- What is our focus?
- How can we be most effective?
2. Architectural Control Committee
Who are the
What is their agenda?
3. Liaison with Wild Apple Ridge
4. FUture Plans/ Blackwood
5. Social Activities
"men: Tuesday, April 16, 1991 at 7 :00 p.m.
iftare: Central Services Building
1875 South Greeley Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
AGENDA:
1. Update on school district plans
2. Stadium placement
4. Traffic plan
5. Other
liarlaNG NCITICES
NEIGFUSCRHOOD METING
Wednesday, April 10, 1991 at 7 :00 p.m.
12 685 53rd St. No.. Blackwood
SQL DISTRICT MEEIrING
• • • 1 9. • • 9 • • I
pf April 1OL I991
Greg Dittrich reviewed the timeline for the development
of the plans for the new high school. The purpose of this
neighborhood meeting was to discuss the issues relating to the
present layout design of both the school and the future stadium.
The objective of the meeting was to reach a consensus of the
priorities for the neighborhood and to develop acceptable
solutions to the issues identified by the residents for
presentation to the school district at the Tuesday, April 16,
1991 meeting.
ISSUES/SUMMARY
The most obvious impact that the current plan has upon
the Blackwood Neighborhood is that related to the placement of
the stadium. The multiple use design of the school facility and
surrounding athletic fields also will have some effect upon the
Blackwood neighborhood property as we know it today. The focus
of the neighborhood's concern, is the minimization of the amount
of impact that the noise, light, traffic, air pollution and water
pollution will have on our individual homeowner's right to the
quiet use and enjoyment of our property. To effectively address
these concerns, the Blackwood neighborhood group believes that it
is important that the school design includes the development of a
comprehensive landscape and site plan to address the following:
1. Increased levels of noise emanating from the
general public traffic in the proposed parking areas, buses using
the drop-off area and delivery vehicles and faculty parking in
other areas on the property;
2. To limit the lighting requirements for the parking
lot and safety lighting of the building in a manner which
minimizes the dispersion of the light into the sky and general
surrounding areas;
3. To maximize the distance between the site of the
future stadium (including spectator stands and light standards)
and the Blackwood Development through the utilization of earthen
berms, fences and natural vegetation screening.
4. To reduce the possible effects on residents of air
and water pollution as a direct result of changing the primary
use of the property from agricultural to a quasi-commercial use.
DEVELOPER'S VIEWPQINT
Paul Bischoff, the developer of the Blackwood area,
shared the following viewpoints:
A. Mr. Bischoff believes that extra earthen material
will be available on the job site for a variety of uses. Given
that availability, this material should be utilized to create an
earthen berm between the school district property and the
Blackwood Neighborhood on the southern border. The berm would
shield presently undeveloped property, and would provide a buffer
between neighborhood residents and the proposed softball/soccer
practice fields, the varsity baseball field and the future site
of the track and varsity football field/stadium.
B. Mr. Bischoff believes that it is important that the
school district development not affect in any manner the direct
and natural flow of groundwater to properly maintain the present
level of nearby lakes and underground aquafiers. The Blackwood
residents rely upon these aquafiers as a source of safe water for
personal consumption each day. Modifications to the terrain and
the ground water drainage patterns may adversely impact this
water source. Previous studies indicate the sensitive nature of
this important water supply to modifications in the natural order
of drainage patterns.
The levels of the surrounding lakes must be maintained
to permit the use and enjoyment experienced prior to the
development of the school site. This will ensure that wildlife
will be provided the opportunity to continue to flourish and
maintain a presence for the enjoyment of Blackwood residents and
the students utilizing the environmental/nature study area.
C. Mr. Bischoff seeks to maintain the previously
planted seedlings and three-year transplants acquired from the
Department of Natural Resources and planted in a number of
varieties along the southern border. He is willing to designate
half of the land area necessary to create a substantial berm
along this southern border to provide a measure of protection and
source of sound absorption for the neighborhood residents. This
is in recognition of the limited space available to the school
district for the placement of the fields while still permitting
the maintenance and protection for these young trees. The berm
would be planted in a low-maintenance grass seed mixture for easy
maintenance and a minimum of upkeep.
D. Consistent with other high school complexes, Mr.
Bischoff concurs with the Blackwood Neighborhood request that a
permanent fence, approximately ten feet in height, should be
installed to maintain the security and the privacy between
present and future residents. It should be acknowledged that the
proposed uses of the fields creates opportunities for the
intrusion of stray baseballs, softballs, soccer balls, and litter
or trash from spectators who may attend games or from
participants who utilize these facilities.
1. The neighborhood requests that a landscape
yawn by the architect prior to final � plan be
p the f �.naZ approval of the site
plan at the May 1991 School Board meeting in which
expected to � hich the Board is
ex
p o take final action on final design. Without
presentation of a landscape plan, the
p p the Blackwood Neighborhood
feels that it is not capable of supporting the
as it does not adequately g present site plan
q e ly address the crucial issues identified
in previous meetings with the School District.
2. The neighborhood requests that the required
Environmental Impact statement (EIS) de
� � terrnining whether or not
the proposed development will have an adverse a
im ct,
surrounding environments including impact the
g the Blackwood Neighborhood be
presented for their review and comment. Based upon rev •
the architects, p previous
representations b
Y ts, a water study addressing the
issues of water quality, water levels, ponding and subterranean
waterflow is to be completed before the construction
begins. The Blackwood ne i hborhood requests process
g q is the opportunity to
review it and comment upon it prior to final approval o f the
plan. A failure to present pp site
p nt either a conforming EIS or water
study could prove to be a major obstacle to the continued
progress of the construction of this facility. The Blackwood
neighborhood believes that it would not be in their best interest
to support further development in this area until these are
completed and reviewed by the residents of Blackwood.
3. The Blackwood Neighborhood has proposed and urges
having the architects to reconsider the option of hay g
p the stadium
located closer to the parking lot in the most northerly location.
n
This acts to minimize the impact upon Blackwood, the proposed
p d
environmental/nature/arboretum areas, and provides better p tter access
to parking for handicapped individuals, event participants, and
other spectators. The residents of p
f Blackwood believe that an
east -west orientation of the football field /track, coupled around
the stadium with either sub -grade construction p
g truc t.ion ar extensive earth
berming provides the best opportunity to minimize the amount of
noise and visual impact experienced when the stadium complex
becomes a reality in the future. The p
� e BZackC�ood Neighborhood
would request that the majority of the bleachers containing he
greatest number of spectators would direction p face a northerly direction to
provide a greater open area in which to disburse the crowd noise.
4. Future stadium complex. The primary issue related
to the future stadium complex is the minimization of the visual
impact caused by the direct lighting of the field, the lighting
g g
standards themselves and the physical structure of the spectator
stands. The Blackwood Neighborhood renews p
g s its request that the
feasibility o f earth sheltering the stadium complex be explored
and its findings be reported back to the construction Review
Committee and the Blackwood Neighborhood group prior to the
School Board's action approving final design. The neighborhood
also re quests the cooperation architect
q �. o f the architect in reviewing
grading options to minimize the height of the lights and
necessary speakers associated with the future stadium complex.
In conjunction with the proposed lowering of the
elevation of the stadium complex, the neighborhood believes that
there are also substantial benefits to earth berming around the
immediate edge of the future stadium site. The berm would
consist of earth taken from the construction site and shaped into
a berm approximately 15 feet in height and 45 feet in width (a 3
to 1 ratio is generally recognized as acceptable). Trees should
be transplanted of a coniferous type approximately 15 feet in
height which are presently available on site. Additional
landscaping of appropriate bushes and other vegetation should be
considered as a part of the overall landscape plan.
5. Varsity baseball/softball/soccer fields. These
fields are the southern-most developed area on the site as
proposed by the ATS&R architects. The area immediately south and
west of the varsity baseball field should include an earth berm
which is approximately 15 feet in height and 45 feet in width. A
fence of approximately ten feet in height should be maintained on
top of this berm with a shielding of a variety of trees and other
vegetation that can be transplanted from the present site. This
berm and fence should be maintained along the southern-most
boundary for the entire length of the boundary from the
southwestern corner, following the proposed softball/soccer
fields, the senior high baseball field and the right field fence
line, diverting alongside the depression immediately to the south
of the proposed stadium site and ending in the southeast corner
of the property, near the proposed environmental study area.
The design and construction of a fence and inclusion of
gates within the fence was discussed by the residents. The
general consensus was that gates would provide residents with the
benefit of having access to the school property and its
ballfields without driving to the school property or walking
along State Highway 5 (Stillwater Road). However, this option
encourages others not living in the neighborhood to utilize the
gates in such a manner that would not be consistent with the
maintenance of privacy and security for those living in
Blackwood. The primary concern being the use of the residential
streets as secondary parking areas for spectators or participants
seeking easier access to the varsity baseball fields and/or the
softball/soccer fields.
6. The Blackwood Neighborhood also sees a need to
create an earth berm of a height and size consistent with those
described earlier to screen and to absorb the extensive noise
emanating from the refuse dumping areas, loading dock and bus
traffic lanes closer to the building to further minimize the
impact on the environmental study/nature/arboretum areas shown on
the proposed site plan. The benefits of absorption of noise,
fumes and provision of a natural screen between the school and
the areas will hopefully encourage the maintenance of wildlife
-4-
closer to the building. This site has exceptionally unique areas
for wildlife and to ignore these negative influences will in
effect diminish the value and destroy the natural habitat for
wildlife, an asset that had been highly sought after by the
school district.
7. The Blackwood Neighborhood is in full support of
the development of a nature study and arboretum area. The
Blackwood community believes that the arboretum and
environmental/nature study area is consistent with the
neighborhood's overall goal to preserve an environment conducive
to the continued development of wildlife and the maintenance of
the quiet and peace of the surrounding area to which they
originally subscribed when they purchased their individual
properties.
GDD:jms:1326
oTHsk_mualamaa
A. Architectural Review Committee.
Formation of an architecture review committee is called
for in the declaration of protective covenants and easements.
The purpose of this committee would be to ensure that no
building, fence or wall structure shall be erected, placed or
altered on any lot until the plans and specifications showing the
location of the structure, fence or wall had been approved by the
architecture review committee. This would allow the
neighborhood, through this committee, to maintain the quality of
workmanship and materials, to preserve the harmony of the
proposed external design and colors with the existing structures
and surrounding areas and to take into account the location of
said modifications with respect to the topography and finished
grade elevations upon which they would be placed. The first
meeting of this committee will be on Wednesday, April 24, 1991 at
7:00 p.m.
The declaration of protective covenants and easements
calls for a committee consisting of three owners in the Blackwood
Development. Mr. Bischoff has agreed to expand the committee to
consist of five members. The action necessary to change the
covenants and easements to reflect this agreement is expected to
be undertaken in 90 days. The expanded committee initially
consists of the following members: Paul Bischoff, Mike Fleming,
Vic Thallaker, Bill Parenteau and Roger Nadahorski.
Additional issues of the neighborhood were not addressed
due to the extensive amount of time necessary to discuss the
issues relating and site design of the new school and future
stadium complex. The other agenda items will be tabled until a
future date and time yet to be agreed upon by the neighborhood.
To Whom It May Concern:
The following is a brief summary of the controversy surrounding the ropes
course issue dating back to last summer. This history has been compiled by
residents of the Blackwood Development, located just south of the Stillwater
Area Senior High School. Should any reader of this summary require more
detail on any of the points raised, please feel free to call any of the names
listed at the end of the summary.
STILLWATER ROPES COURSE
It all began on 8- 16 -98, when neighbors residing on the south side of the
high school began to filter home from work to find that a large structure of
undetermined usage was being assembled just behind their back yards.
Upon quizzing one of the workers assembling this structure it was explained
to us that it was a "jungle gym for delinquents ". Alarmed by the size of the
structure (45 feet high) and the comments made by the worker, the neighbors
called as many school officials as were available to express their objections
to the placement of this structure. During discussions with school officials,
it was explained to the neighbors that the structure was a ropes course
designed to instill confidence in "at risk" children of the 834 School District.
School board members that were contacted, indicated that a presentation
about the ropes course was given to them in May of 1998, but it was for
information only. School board members also indicated there was never a
vote to accept or reject the ropes course and furthermore, the school board
never voted on the location of the ropes course.
As luck would have it, a school board meeting was scheduled two days after
the initial installation of ropes course. The neighbors quickly banded
together and prepared a statement that was read at the school board meeting
in an effort to stop construction of the ropes course. This statement
indicated the safety issues, non - notification of residents, residents loss of
privacy, expected noise level increase, security of residents, security of their
children and their property, and the effect on wildlife of the ropes course
site. Safety was the primary issue expressed because of the location of the
ropes course. The ropes course is located around the north half of a drainage
pond. The school property cuts the pond approximately in half. The school
owns the northern half and the neighbors own the southern half. The pond
water level is approximately 30 vertical feet below the schools athletic
grounds and the neighbor's yards. The lower portion of the 45 -foot structure
and most of the other added structures are not visible by police that routinely
patrol the south side of the high school.
At the school board meeting a handout was distributed entitled "Board of
Education Report on Adventure Programming and Ropes Coarse ", dated
May, 1998. This handout is apparently what had been presented to the
school board at the original presentation in May, 1998. In this handout, it
explains that there will be "No school District #834 Funds Used" in
financing the ropes course training and program development. To date the
school district has spent over $1 6,000 fencing, surveying, and "stoppage and
restart charges" from the ropes course building contractor. This $16,000
will rise significantly when the school districts plan to transplant 10 to 20
foot trees from the environmental learning center located east of the high
school onto the ropes course site is implemented.
This handout also included a section entitled "Program Components:" under
which a two phase step by step program was outlined explaining how the
ropes course program will be implemented. Phase one included 10 steps,
and phase two included four steps. The last step of phase one states
"Communication with Stillwater homeowners adjacent to the site location of
ropes course ".
When the school district was questioned as to why the residents were not
notified as to the assembly of the ropes course, the assistant superintendent,
who also happened to be on the ropes course site selection committee,
explained that she "dropped the ball ". One of the school board members
later explained to the neighbors that 66 1egally we don't have to tell you
anything". This would be proven later to be a false statement, as the school
district had never obtained a permit to build a ropes course.
The school board meeting ended with the school board resolving to look into
the matter. A meeting was set with the principal of the high school, the day
following the first school board meeting. At the meeting with the principle,
the issues brought before the school board were shared with the principle.
The conclusion was that the principal would meet with school district
personnel and we would meet again to attempt to resolve this issue. Instead
of meeting again with the neighbors, the principal called one of the residents
and explained he had heard all he needed to hear from his staff and was
recommending to the superintendent that the project be continued at the
same site. The principal then called off the meeting with the residents. The
neighbors feeling unfairly treated called the superintendent requesting a
meeting, which she granted. The neighbors wishing to indicate to the
superintendent the seriousness of the ropes course issue, hired an attorney to
represent them at this meeting. The attorney presented the same information
that had been expressed at the initial school board meeting. A new issue
raised was the fact that during the initial building of the high school, the
residents had meetings with the past school administration and an agreement
was reached. This agreement included building a berm between the south
side of the high school property and the residents of "Blackwood
Development ". The agreement also included installing a fence on top of the
berm then planting spruce trees on both sides of the berm on both sides of
the fence. The berm, trees and fencing would serve as a sight and sound
barrier between the school grounds and the resident's properties. The trees
planted on the north side of the fence were purchased and maintained by the
school district; while the tree(s) planted on the south side of the fence were
purchased and maintained by the residents. The owner of the property just
south of the fence, at that time, was Mr. Paul Bischoff. Paul bought, planted
and maintained the trees on the south side of the berm. All of the tree
maintenance was done at his own expense. Hundreds of trees, planted and
maintained by Paul Bishof were destroyed during construction of the ropes
course. Paul has indicated that the school districts actions have sickened
him. They did all this without warning him. One of the school board
members who was also on the ropes course site committee for this ropes
course was a long time friend of Paul. The two of them had worked together
during the spring and summer prior to the ropes course installation at the
environmental learning center to the east of the school. This school board
member never mentioned construction of the ropes course to Paul.
During that same meeting with the superintendent, she raised the question to
the residents that an outdoor athletic stadium may someday be built on the
high school grounds. This appeared to be an effort to equate the ropes
course construction to that of the construction of an outdoor stadium. It was
obvious to anyone who built a home on the south side of the fence that a
stadium someday may be built around the present track and field track.
Most high schools in the area have athletic stadiums. No other high schools
in the area have a ropes course like the one constructed by Stillwater School
District 834. School officials indicated that Eden Prairie and Wreck High
Schools were the only other twin cities area schools, which have ropes
courses. When residents visited these sites, both courses were considerably
smaller and not located anywhere near resident's homes. This meeting again
ended with the superintendent indicating that she would take our issues
under advisement. She did indicate however, in no uncertain terms that she
and not the school board would make the final decision.
Shortly after the residents meeting with the superintendent, she issued a
statement indicating the ropes course would be completed at its present site.
Again, the residents met and decided to give it one more chance to persuade
the school board to reconsider. At the next school board meeting
(September 10, 1998). The residents packed the room. At this meeting,
residents presented school board members with copies of Oak Park Heights
city ordinances. One copy for each board member, each was highlighted to
indicate where the school district had violated the City of Oak Park Heights
ordinances. Residents that were involved in the berming/buffer agreement,
at the time the school was built, testified to that agreement. Although, with
only a few days to prepare, over 250 signatures from area residents were
compiled and a petition requesting the removal of the ropes course from its
present location was filed with the school board.
The next correspondence residents received from the school district came
from the chair of the school board, in the form of a one -page letter. In this
letter she stated "the board believes that the site committee made a mistake
in not communicating its decision to the neighborhood ". The letter also
indicated that the board analyzed each of the residents concerns including
the building permit requirements. Even though residents pointed out
violations of the Oak Park Heights ordinances, she indicated that the ropes
course was properly placed and would not be removed.
In October 1998, the school district contracted to fence in the ropes course.
Some of the fencing is on the common property line between the school and
residents properties. This fence was erected for safety reasons, as explained
by the school districts attorney. The residents never requested a fence and
quite conversely explained to the school district prior to the fence
installation that a fence would do little to deter young people from entering
the ropes course site. The residents have seen children, some as young as
six years old, climb over the 6 -foot fence in a matter of seconds. This fence,
like the ropes course, was erected in violation of the conditional use permit
granted to build the high school. This fence, like the ropes course, is in
violation of Oak Park Heights ordinances which state "fences or walls on or
within three (3) feet or less from a common property line between two
adjoining lots or parcels not owned by the same person, firm or corporation
shall not exceed four (4) feet in height, unless agreed in writing by the
owners of said adjoining lots or parcels ". The district never approached any
residents for permission to install the fence on their common boundary. The
fence is also in violation of the conditional use permit granted to the school
district to build the high school. This permit states
"Cyclone fencing to be constructed along the west, south and east property
borders per fencing and screening plan attached hereto as exhibit B."
Exhibit B is the original fence layout plan agreed upon by the prior school
board and residents of Blackwood Development. Any additional fencing
would require amending the conditional use permit. The school district did
not apply for an amendment to its conditional use permit before proceeding
with fencing around the ropes coarse.
The residents at this time notified the officials of Oak Park Heights that the
school had not obtained a permit to construct the ropes course. The attorney
representing the residents sent a letter to the Oak Park Heights City Counsel
and Oak Park Heights city attorney explaining where violations had
occurred. The city responded by instructing the school district that they
must apply for an amended conditional use permit as is required by the
ordinances of the City of Oak Heights. When asked by a newspaper reporter
why no permit was applied for the superintendent indicated that the
construction company (located in Michigan) contracted to build this ropes
course told her that 99 percent of the time no permit is required. A meeting
has been tentatively scheduled for the 4`'' of March by the city of Oak Park
Heights to decide whether to consider a request by the school district to
amend the conditional use permit that is presently in place.
The following points of conclusion should be considered:
1. The residents directly adversely affected by the construction of this
ropes course were never contacted despite the fact that the coordinators
of this project indicated they would contact adjacent residents, and that
Oak Park Heights city ordinances indicate they must contact adjacent
residents.
2. The ropes course represents a danger to those who may visit the site
when course officials are not present. This danger will only increase
when foliage near the site matures and new trees are transplanted onto
the site, making the ropes course even more hidden and less accessible
to police patrol.
3. The residents had an agreement with the previous school administration
regarding the buffer zone between the school and residents properties.
This agreement should be adhered to regardless of whether it meets the
conveniences of the present school administration.
4. Oak Park Heights city ordinances and the conditional use permit
granted to build the high school have been violated. These ordinances
and permits must be adhered to by the school district, just as the rest of
the community must adhere to the laws and regulations that apply to
them.
The residents of Blackwood Development are not asking for any special
treatment. Residents have exhausted all possible avenues to resolve the ropes
course issue without the use of the court system. Up to this point, this
endeavor has cost residents thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of
work. All that has been asked for is for the school district to follow the
rules, regulations and laws that apply to them. Many residents have raised
concerns about any backlash that may occur if justice is served and the ropes
course is removed. Many feel that blame will be directed towards them. This
is very sad, as most of these residents involved have children in the district
834 school system, and many are volunteers in the school district. This
whole situation could have been avoided had the school district notified
residents and /or Oak Park Heights city officials before commencing
construction.
David and Beth Reeves
Greg and Cathy Kunz
Paul and Kelly Ruoho
Tom and Lisa Edison
Rick and Lisa Printon
The above are residents of the Blackwood Development located adjacent to
the ropes course site.