Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/2001MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday March 19, 2001, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes a. March 5, 2001 Unfinished Business a. Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment New Business a. AT & T Monopole Conditional Use Permit (1681 Cope Avenue) 7. Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. March 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina b. March 26 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich c. April 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment I1. III. IV. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Eric Ahlness Commissioner Mary Dierich Staff Present: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OFAGENDA Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lori Hansen Mr. Roberts suggested that the unfinished and new business be switched on the agenda. Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda, as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes -All The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 5, 2001 Chairperson Fischer noted Mr. Milo Thompson should be removed from the roll call and Mary Dierich should be added. She also noted on page 5, item 5, her notes indicated no parking should be taking place on the grass or landscaping whether it's the property owner or others. Mr. Roberts stated the intent was "vehicles" should be inserted after park. Therefore, it will read: "The property owner shall not park vehicles on the grass or landscaped areas." Ms. Fischer also noted Mr. Ledvina asked that painting of the light standards and meter boxes be added to item 3f, on page 7. Mr. Frost moved approval of the minutes as amended. Mr. Pearson seconded. Ayes-All Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 2001 -2- V. NEW BUSINESS AT & T Monopole Conditional Use Permit (1681 Cope Avenue). Mr. Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. This is a request by AT & T Wireless to install a 125-foot-tall monopole and equipment building for telecommunications equipment. They are proposing this installation on the southeast corner of the Sheet Metal Workers Union Building at 1681 Cope Avenue. The commission reviewed a proposal for a monopole on the Taste of India property in the fall. On November 13, 2000, the city council denied a request by AT & T to install a monopole on the Taste of India property at 1745 Cope Avenue. The applicant has now proposed this location to fill in the lapse in coverage area for this part of Maplewood. Staff is recommending approval of the proposal, subject to the seven conditions outlined in the staff report. Ms. Julie Townsend, representing AT & T Wireless Services, at 5201 East River Road, Fridley, was present for the applicant. The commission had no questions for staff or the applicant. Mr. Rossbach moved the commission to adopt the resolution on pages 16 and 17. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to allow up to a 125-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval is for the property at 1681 Cope Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans as approved by the city, including the location of the lease site. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the approved plan. The applicant shall verify the location of the property lines and existing site features around the lease area with a certificate of survey. The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility. 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. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The applicant or owner shall allow the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. Any antenna that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and the city may require that it be removed. The applicant or AT & T shall post a bond or other guarantee with the city to ensure proper removal of the antenna and monopole and the restoration of the site. The applicant/developer may provide a copy of the lease indicating a guarantee of the removal of the monopole and related equipment with the end of the lease as a substitute for the financial guarantee. Mr. Frost seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. This proposal goes before the city council on March 26. Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 2001 -3- VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Aptenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment Mr. Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Staff and the planning commission have been working on an amendment to the tower and antenna ordinance. This was the third time the proposal with the amended changes has been brought before the commission. The proposed changes include: In item 36-606.5, which is regarding the height of a tower and co-locating in a residential district, staff is proposing to raise the 100 feet to 125 feet. In allowing a taller height, hopefully it will minimize the number of towers in the same districts. Page 10, item 2C was added. The statement will now read: "If the proposed tower is to replace an existing tower and if the owner/user of the existing tower agrees to remove the existing tower within thirty (30) days of the completion of the new or replacement tower." Page eleven, item 5 will read: The height of a tower may be increased to a maximum of one hundred twenty five (125) feet if the tower and base area are designed and built for the co-location of at least one other personal wireless communication service provider's antennas and equipment. 4. On page 11, items 8 and 13, the second sentence was deleted. 5. On page 13, item 14, the same language (second sentence) was deleted. Page 15, items 2 and 3, language was added about accommodating system capacity needs. On top of page 16, a requirement was added that the applicant supply photo illustrations or similar styled artist rendering of the proposed tower or antenna. Mr. Roberts wanted feedback from the commission on if the city should start making some of the locations for towers a permitted use. For example, if the areas around the mall (a large commercial or industrial area) with no residential sites nearby, the city would have no reason to deny the proposal. Therefore, the city might be better off to identify particular areas as permitted use which would encourage the providers to look at those locations first. The applicant would still be required to meet design and performance standards but they would not be required to obtain a conditional use permit. Mr. Frost was in strong support of the permitted use option. He felt there are areas in the city that there really is no reason for the proposal to come before the commission. Technology is changing rapidly in this field. He feels if we are proactive we can start directing these facilities to a place where they are not going to cause problems. Mr. Rossbach confirmed with staff that if permitted use had been applied, in the Taste of India case, for example, the only way to ensure there was not neighborhood opposition to the tower was to execute neighborhood surveys. Mr. Ledvina was uneasy with the concept of permitted use as he felt towers are a different animal because of being so tall. They can affect land uses that are quite far away from the physical base of the tower. He felt possibly having one zone as permitted use, such as an industrial zone, may work. Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 2001 -4- Mr. Trippler felt all of these issues could be handled with the condition of allowing some specific land use areas to bypass the planning commission by simply stating that if there are any objections to the location of a site, which can't be resolved, it would come in front of the commission. If no one objects, and it is in an industrial or business class, he would rather not see it. He would like to see the planning commission become more proactive and select out specific zoning areas for permitted use. Although initially Mr. Ahlness felt the permitted use would be a good deal, he has changed his mind after seeing how quickly a proposal can be approved by the commission (just a few minutes for AT & T this evening). As a safeguard to the community he feels that it would be a good thing to have all proposals reviewed before the commission. Mr. Rossbach does not feel permitted use would provide a huge benefit to the providers. In their past comments, they have expressed to the commission the sites they choose are dictated by their cell layout and where they have to put the towers to make it work. On one hand he feels they are telling us "give us permitted areas and we will put up towers there", and on the other hand are saying "they have little control over where their towers go up". Mr. Rossbach does not feel the two mesh together very well. Jim McGreevy, from the Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren Law Firm, was present representing Voice Stream, Mpls. In response to a concern Mr. Trippler had regarding towers and property values, he stated that areas where there are lakes may not have as many cell phone towers. Other city ordinances may state no towers in residential areas. He does not feel the placement of towers is reflective of property values. He stated the number one criteria in looking for a location for a tower is coverage for the operators system. Mr. McGreevy felt a provider would choose the location of towers based on numerous issues, not specifically whether or not an area was permitted. He has dealt with a few other cities that had designated permitted areas for towers and those areas were generally zoned industrial. Mr. Pearson questioned what information the city receives to indicate a tower is abandoned. Staff was not certain since we have not been informed of one in the city. Staff noted that the intent of the revision was to have all applicants provide coverage maps of their facilities, and a map locating other sites (not the coverage of those sites) within one mile, inside or outside of Maplewood. Mr. Trippler felt the towers should be EQUAL TO or more than 100 feet in height. Under the same item in the ordinance, Mr. Mueller would like to have the statement reflect that providers design and install all new towers to allow for the MAXIMUM of antennas on the tower. Mr. Trippler wanted the commission to take into consideration that until the ordinance is actually passed, and on the books, any company making application for a tower is grandfathered in with the conditions in effect during the time they made application. Therefore, he would really like to see the commission move on the ordinance and start applying some control over the siting process. Step two in the process could be the permitted land use issue. Mr. Trippler moved the board to adopt the proposed antenna and tower ordinance amendment with the following additions: Section 36-605, part e: The applicant shall have a property acquisition specialist and a radio frequency engineer in attendance at all city meetings to answer all questions relevant to their application. Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 2001 -5- VII. VIII. IX. Section 36-610, part b6, modify the section to add the words "equal to or". It will then read: if the tower is equal to or more than one hundred feet in height, and if the tower is equal to or more than seventy-five feet in height. In the same section, "the maximum number" will replace "future rearrangement". Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. This proposal will go before the city council for the first reading on April 9. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors were present. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. March 12 city council meeting. Mr. Ledvina attended and gave his report. The Gladstone Street Improvement proposal took up the first few hours of the meeting. Beaver Lake Townhomes was tabled. Very little had been accomplished by the applicant between the time the planning commission met and the city council meeting. They had met once with staff in the interim. They did change their acreage, and wanted to sell to the city the easements for the gas lines. About 20-30 residents were in the audience and felt the whole area should be zoned R1 or should be turned into a park. This proposal will go back before the council on May 14. B. Mary Dierich will be attending the March 26 city council meeting. C. Mr. Rossbach will be attending the April 9 city council meeting. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Rossbach asked staff what the purpose of the letter was from the attorney regarding AT & T. Mr. Roberts stated the letter goes in the file, and felt they wanted to have their response to his comments go on record. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.