Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/01/2000MAPLEWOOD 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. April 17, 2000 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 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? 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 1, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson Commissioner Dale Trippler III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Ayes--all Commissioner Thompson seconded. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Bo April 3, 2000 Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the minutes of April 3, 2000, as submitted. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. The motion passed. April 17, 2000 Ayes--Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Thompson, Trippler Abstain--Frost Commissioner Frost moved approval of the minutes of April 17, 2000, as submitted. Commissioner Thompson seconded. The motion passed. Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Rossbach, Thompson, Trippler Abstain--Pearson Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-00 -2- V. NEW BUSINESS A. Sprint PCS Telecommunications Monopole Conditional Use Permit (2500 Hudson Place) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts said the correct street is Hudson Place. Commissioner Trippler asked if it was staff's interpretation, based on the 1996 telecommunications act or a ruling that the city was involved in, that the applicant does not have to demonstrate a need for this tower. Mr. Roberts conceded that this was conceivable but not likely. He said other avenues were checked for antenna location, including 3M, the McKnight water tower and Holiday Inn, but these sites did not meet Sprint's needs. Commissioner Trippler asked if Sprint specifically required a pole and how they showed this requisite. Mr. Roberts said the applicant only stated that they needed an "antenna facility in this location." He said the copies of reports from Sprint's field engineers indicated that the other sites would not be adequate. Commissioner Trippler felt the applicant wanted a pole in this neighborhood and, after looking at various sites, chose this one. He didn't feel that this told him how they arrived at the decision that there was a need for the monopole at this location. Commissioner Frost asked what options the planning commission and the city council have, based on the 1996 law and Maplewood's ordinance. Mr. Roberts said there were "very few, if any" options. Commissioner Pearson asked about the failure rate of towers in the event of storms, etc. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said the only incident she heard of was during Hurricane Andrew one tower "crinkled" a small amount. Commissioner Ledvina asked about collocation. Mr. Roberts said Sprint determined that there was not a pole in this vicinity that would meet their needs. He pointed out that these installations were very expensive and didn't think a company would incur that expense if it wasn't necessary. Commissioner Trippler wondered about church property as a preferred candidate for these conditional use permits in relation to other sites. Mr. Roberts said the #1 preferred site is industrial/commercial. Commissioner Mueller questioned the possibility of these towers causing health problems for nearby residents or interfering with other wireless technology. Mr. Roberts answered that he has not seen any news publications that would indicate a health-related issue. He said that 3M and U.S. West did some testing, in relation to a request a few years ago for a tower by the 3M property, and found no interference. Mr. Roberts felt that 3M did not want the tower on their site because they did not need the revenue nor want the security issues. Brian Barrett was present representing Sprint PCS. He said their first choices for antenna location on existing structures in the area did not fill the requirements of their engineers. According to Mr. Barrett, they are building a 75-foot tower with a capability to reach 100 feet to allow for collocation. This is at the request of Mr. Roberts. The monopole will not be lit, will not emit any noise or vibrations, and will be covered by a mature growth of trees. Mr. Barrett said there will be additional plantings to screen the equipment. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Barrett for his opinion on the economic impact if such a tower was placed in his neighborhood. Commissioner Rossbach felt questions about whether a 30- foot tree would hide a 75-foot tower and economic impact were inappropriate. Commissioner Trippler responded that one of the criteria for conditional use permit approval was that the use would not deteriorate property values. Mr. Rossbach said no reports indicate that these towers diminish "property values anywhere across the country." Ms. Coleman referred to the previous tower proposal at another location, about which Maplewood was taken to court, and said testimony was given by a real estate appraiser who felt the property" would be impacted negatively by the tower." This statement was struck by the judge who determined that it was inappropriate for the city to make findings based on this. Mr. Trippler asked if it was Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-00 -3- inappropriate to question 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 of the conditional use permit criteria. He felt it was useless to have the hearings for a monopole if nothing could be done. Ms. Coleman believed that this was basically what the commission is required to do based on what the federal and district courts have indicated. Ms. Coleman said that some of these issues are very complex and many times county and state courts and federal laws impact and supersede the city's rights. Jean Ashley, 2466 Brookview Drive, described her neighborhood. She said they are requesting two things: 1) move the monopole as far north as possible on the site, and 2) keep the monopole at the 70 feet as originally stated in the letter to the residents. Ms. Ashley felt describing the pole as "diminutive" was a misnomer because "this will be the largest facility of poles on a church in Maplewood." She referred to an antenna located at another church that had "two hummers" and contended that they "do hum." She said this pole will have "three hummers." Commissioner Rossbach asked Ms. Ashley if she had considered the possibility of other poles being placed in this vicinity, even on this same site. Ms. Ashely said they have talked about this and decided there was no other site available and it was unlikely that the church would allow another pole. Mr. Rossbach pointed out that people have "complained vehemently" at every location. He thought Ms. Ashley's requests were "very reasonable." Ms. Ashley showed pictures of various monopoles. Mr. Barrett commented that Sprint's equipment does not hum. Robert Schlenz, a registered professional engineer and employee of 3M, said he came to speak about the impact that this facility could possibly have on their equipment. He was present as a representative of 3M. He said their interest had to do with the "size signal" that reaches 3M equipment from the telecommunication transmitters. Mr. Schlenz was concerned that, if this monopole is constructed as planned, 3M be notified of any changes so they can take necessary steps to protect their laboratories. He said they declined to have this tower located on their property because of its closeness-- signal strengths get smaller as the equipment is located further away. According to Mr. Schlenz, these towers emit approximately a 1900 megaherz signal. If this tower is moved further north on the site, 3M would like to know the amount of power that is going to be transmitted, the kind of antenna, and the modulation that is involved. Mr. Schlenz said the way the antennas were aimed was more crucial than the placement of the pole on the site. Mr. Barrett noted that 3M is actually one of the areas that is requesting this facility. Terry Degraw, chairman of the board of trustees at Christ United Methodist Church, said he has been working on the lease agreement. He said the humming sound comes from a fan unit or air conditioning unit that is used to cool the electrical load that runs the antenna. Mr. Degraw favored moving the antenna to the north. He said he was "kind of shocked" to find out that the tower could go 100-feet-high and the lease agreement was for 75 feet. Commissioner Frost asked Mr. Barrett's opinion about moving the pole further north on the site. Mr. Barrett said it made no difference to them. Mr. Roberts was concerned that moving the pole 30 feet from the northern property line would make it more visible from the houses to the northeast of the church. He said the location choice was picked in order to increase the distance from the homes on Brookview, as well as working with the trees in the area and using the church building as a screen for the Sterling Street homes. Commissioner Thompson thought the community design review board "would have an obligation to be as thoughtful" with shrubbery, etc. Various options for placement of the monopole on the church property were discussed. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-00 -4- Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend: Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit to allow up to a 75-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: All construction shall follow the site plans dated April 26, 2000, with the following changes to the location of the pole: the pole shall be located as far north on the property as possible, still being functional for Sprint's uses for communications and incorporating the existing trees and the church property by the northwest corner of their parking lot to help hide the pole. Sprint should still look at installing additional trees and shrubs, placed to block the view as much as possible of the pole from the houses on Sterling Avenue. 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. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Commissioner Ledvina asked if there was a concern about collocation because the motion is to reduce the height of the pole. Commissioner Rossbach had no objection to collocation as long as it could be done with a 75-foot monopole. Mr. Rossbach commended the area residents for their ability to "pull its thoughts together into something cohesive" instead of just appearing at the planning commission meeting to object to the monopole. Commissioner Frost assumed that 3M and Sprint would get together to work out the technical specifications of the installation. Mr. Barrett said that typically another carrier can collocate on a 75-foot pole. A pole has to be designed specifically to extend beyond 75 feet and the size of the foundation would need to be increased. There was discussion about the need for another tower in this area and whether the tower should be built with the capability of extending to 100 feet to allow for more collocation. Staff confirmed that, if the monopole was designed so that it could go up to 100 feet but only approved for 75 feet at this time, additional city approval would be needed to allow use of the 100-foot tower. Commissioner Ledvina made a friendly amendment to include: 4. The applicant or owner shall allow the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. Mr. Roberts pointed out that this item did not address height, only co-location. Chairperson Fischer said this would only be allowed within the 75-foot limit. Commissioner Rossbach accepted the amendment. Commissioner Frost clarified that the motion was that the facility be designed to be able to go to 100 feet, but only currently approve it for 75 feet. If it does go higher than 75 feet, another public hearing will be required. Commissioner Rossbach asked that the minutes of this meeting reflect that the intent was that the monopole would not be raised to 100 feet unless the neighborhood thought this was the best choice at the time. This was not a part of the motion but only thoughts of some commissioners. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-00 The motion passed. -5- Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossvach, Thompson Nays--Trippler Commissioner Trippler stated that he voted against this application because he saw no evidence to show that "this request would not violate Conditions 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 of this conditional use permit resolution." Commissioner Trippler made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the city of Maplewood that they not submit to the commission any further requests for siting any further monopoles since the commission apparently has no authority to approve or disapprove the request. He said this was a total waste of the commissioners' time. Commissioner Rossbach noted that conditional use permits allow uses with conditions but do not allow the commission to stop things from happening. The motion died because there was no second. Carver Elementary School Conditional Use Permit Revision (2680 Upper Afton Road) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Ledvina asked if the parks and recreation director for Maplewood had reviewed this proposal. Mr. Roberts confirmed that he had and was supportive of the new location. He said the director wanted to make sure that the fields were available for T-ball. According to Mr. Roberts, the police also commented on the proposal. Lt. John Bannick, the supervisor for this south district, said it would improve the safety of the users, increase visibility and improve emergency vehicle access. He was concerned about the loss of future parking area and potential noise from the outdoor basketball court. Commissioner Thompson felt that any additional parking would be a barrier between the school and the playground and would compromise the safety of the children during the school year. Commissioner Trippler asked if anyone had considered rotating the proposed relocated play area 90 degrees counterclockwise. Mark Hayes, of ATS&R Architects, was present. He thought the idea to relocate the play area came from the school principal. Relocation would allow better visibility from the school of what is happening in the play area. Mr. Hayes said that the future parking, referred to in the comments, has already occurred and is the parking provided on the east. He thought 20 parking spaces could be put on the south side of where the play area is currently being proposed. Then the parking would be between the play area and the school. Mr. Hayes suggested looking at additional parking at the time more classrooms or gym space were added. He said the existing soft play area with the pea gravel would be relocated but the existing hard- paved play area at the south side of the building would be kept. Mr. Hayes felt that moving the play equipment to the northwest corner eliminates the need for anyone to be back in the old play area. He thought the basketball backstops would remain in this area. Commissioner Pearson thought this was reason for the problems. Commissioner Mueller was concerned about the durability of the four-foot plastic, vinyl-coated, chainlink fence. He also questioned if there was a way to make the path from the playground to the school obvious. Mr. Roberts thought there might be several monitors on the school site to ensure that the path is used. Commissioner Rossbach commented that chainlink fence is "probably the most durable fence" that could be installed here. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-00 -6- Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolution which amends the conditional use permit for playground and play area changes at Carver Elementary School, 2680 Upper Afton 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~ sub.iect to the applicant providing cit.v 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 pla.v area relocation thr~e~,,po, ....... ,o,,.,,~ ........., P,,-,~,,-,oo,o'A 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. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Nays--Thompson The motion passed. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS April 24 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman reported on this meeting. May 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler will attend this meeting. May 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller will attend this meeting. Commissioner Rossbach reported on a seminar he attended where the speaker advocated using narrower streets and a mix of housing to increase density. The speaker also discussed whether cities were helping or hindering themselves with regulations. Chairperson Fischer mentioned a planning workshop on May 17 in Brooklyn Center on advanced zoning applications. IX. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-00 STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. -7- Set Summer Tour Date--July 31, 2000 Ken Roberts, associate planner, said this date was selected because it was a fifth Monday. There were no objections from any of the commissioners so Mr. Roberts said he would begin planning the tour. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.