Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/2001BOOK MAPLEWOOD 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 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 o The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2001 II. 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 Milo Thompson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Eric Ahlness Staff Present: Present Present Present (Arrived at 7:03) Present (Arrived at 7:04) Present Present Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Recording Secretary: Lori Hansen III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes -All The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 20, 2001 Chairperson Fischer had added a friendly amendment to a motion on page 5. The item that was stricken should be deleted from the minutes. Commission Frost moved approval of the revised minutes of February 20, 2001 as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes -8 (Fischer, Mueller, Frost, Pearson, Dierich, Rossbach, Thompson, Trippler) The motion passed. Abstentions -1 (Ahlness) Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2001 -2- UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment. Mr. Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. The commission considered the update to the antenna and tower ordinance at their last meeting during which there were questions raised about the proposed language. The commission tabled the proposal and asked staff to work on the verbiage and bring it back to the commission. The changes staff made included: Page 9, paragraph 2 stated no more than one free standing tower on a property. One of the attorney's who commented on the report suggested that it may be too restrictive. To alleviate that, a new paragraph "b" was added stating "if the property was at least five acres in size, a second tower could be considered." Page 13, B2 discussed the coverage and coverage map responsibility. It now requires that the applicant provide coverage maps of all the applicants and antenna sites within one mile of the proposed facility. Also, they would need to submit a map to the city showing all of the existing antenna sites within one mile of the proposed facility. 3. Page ten (paragraph 8) and twelve (paragraph 13) each contain language about the replication of a structure. The last sentence in each of those paragraphs should be deleted. Commissioner Trippler was concerned with the language stating there should not be more than one freestanding tower on a property at any one time. "What if a tower is built with the intention of removing the previous tower at completion?" Staff felt a phrase (item C) could be added stating when two towers would be allowable. Mr. Trippler also felt "and or business structure" should be added to the residential guideline of a 25-foot setback plus the height of the tower. In the case of a tower collapsing, the safety aspect should be applied to businesses as well as residences. Staff felt the ordinance intent was to limit the residential tower sites (zoned residential) for safety and esthetic reasons. It also ensured some separation between the towers and residents homes. Commissioner Ahlness asked if trails are included in Section 36-606 (1). Staff stated they potentially could be. He also asked where the one-mile radius was derived from when considering a significant gap in coverage. Mr. Roberts stated that was the typical standard found in other ordinances and requirements given by providers. He also clarified that the current density of towers per square mile varies within the City of Maplewood. Mr. Jim McGreevey, attorney with Larkin Hoffman Law Firm, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Bloomington, was present to represent Voice Stream Minneapolis, Inc. Mr. McGreevey wanted to thank the staff and the commission for listening to Voice Stream's concerns in the previous commission meeting, and adjusting the tower ordinance accordingly. Mr. McGreevey stated most providers are attempting to co-locate before building a tower. Through the normal course of the co-location investigation, they would identify where the towers were located within a particular city. In section 36-606, item 5, regarding the setback issue, Voice Stream had suggested adding language from an applicant's engineer stating that if a tower fails, it will collapse progressively onto itself. This, he felt, would be a benefit to the city and to the providers. Mr. Rossbach stated one of the radio towers on Highway 61 and Beam did fail and fall over. He assumed an engineer signed off on that tower. When the ordinance was originally granted there were safety issues addressed. "What they are designed to do, doesn't always happen". Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2001 -3- Mr. Mueller added 100 feet seems like a long way, but when it is your back yard, it doesn't appear to be that far at all. Even if a resident can be guaranteed that this tower is not going to fall down, they can still see the tower. Esthetics should be a concern in addition to the safety issue. Mr. Mueller would much rather see a tower go 175 feet up with numerous antennas, rather than to view two towers in his backyard. Mr. Ahlness asked Mr. McGreevey what "environmental effects" is addressing in the letter their law firm submitted to the city. Mr. McGreevey stated the federal government left radio frequency up to municipalities. The letter also stated the cities actions must be based on substantial evidence. Mr. Ahlness asked if significant resident complaint letters reach the level of substantial evidence. Mr. McGreevey stated neighborhood opposition to a tower could be one factor in a local government's decision making about whether to place a tower at a certain site. He did not feel opposition, in and of itself, would rise to the level of substantial evidence without other concerns from the government. Staff noted the proposal at the MnDOT site on McMenemy and Highway 351:: went to court over neighborhood opposition. The city lost the case, and there is now a tower at that site. Peter Beck was present on behalf of AT & T Wireless Services. If a user cannot get on an existing tower due to insufficient height, he wondered if there was more impact having a separate pole next to that one, or to have a separate pole somewhere else. He personally felt two poles next to each other may not be ideat, but in many instances felt it could be better than having a second or third pole somewhere else in a residential area. Maplewood does have large residential areas. Mr. Beck reiterated that monopole technology does not experience tower failures of a flop over nature. The vendors that AT & T use have never had failure experience. Although he felt an engineer would not accept responsibility for damage caused by a failure, the owner of the tower should. Mr. Trippler asked as more and more people start utilizing cell phones, does that mean there will have to be more and more towers. Mr. Beck stated "for better or worse, it does". That decision was made at a federal level. This service must be available to every inch of the landscape and will be pro'~ided through a competitive model with multiple companies. Mr. Beck clarified with Mr. Trippler that satellites are not the answer for mobile phones. Numerous companies have gone bankrupt trying to deliver telephone by satellite. Mr. Frost suggested that the city look at making antennas in commercial areas available with just a permit. (If an applicant chose to locate a tower on one of the designated areas, they would not have to go through the planning commission or city council, but simply apply for a building permit). Staff stated they have not as of yet, but it is certainly something they could consider. Ms. Deirich confirmed with Mr. Beck that the taller the tower, the larger the base building would need to be. Mr. Frost moved the commission table the tower and antenna ordinance until the next planning commission meeting. Staff will bring back the comments and suggestions in a revised ordinance. Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes-All Motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2001 -4- VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Easement Vacation-Birch Run Station (Beam Avenue). Mr. Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Ms. Claudia Ryan, representing Oppidan Investment Company, is proposing to vacate part of an unused utility easement. This easement is north of Beam Avenue in the Birch Run Shopping Center property. The city does not have any use for the easement, therefore, staff is recommending approval of the request. Ms. Claudia Ryan, 5125 County Road 101, Minnetonka, was present for the Oppidan Investment Company. She expressed that she fully supported the staff report and recommendation. Commissioner Frost moved the city council adopt the resolution that vacates the unused public utility easement north of the Beam Avenue right-of-way in the Birch Run Shopping Center. The city should vacate this easement because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build utilities in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have access to public streets and utilities. Mr. Pearson seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. B. Maplewood Imports Conditional Use Permit Revision (2780 Maplewood Drive North). Mr. Roberts gave the staff report for the city. The applicant is requesting to build a 2,600 square foot addition to the east side of their existing service center and showroom. The request before the commission is for a conditional use permit revision. In staffs' review, they feel the revisions are minor and the effects on the site plan minimal. Mr. Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director, noted in the report there are conditions from the 1996 conditional use permit that need to be monitored. By code, there should be enough parking on the site (there should be about 200 parking spaces when the addition is complete). Staff is recommending approval of the recommendation that revises the conditional use permit for Maplewood Imports. Mr. Trippler asked if a neighborhood survey was completed for this project. Mr. Roberts noted they had not since staff felt the addition was minor. Mr. Rossbach felt it unfortunate a survey was not completed. He felt that may have allowed neighbors to voice any current problems they may be experiencing with the business. Mr. Rossbach was concerned with parking on grassy areas. Staff did not see a problem with condition nine being added to the recommendation about parking. Doug Moulder, General Manager, was present for Maplewood Imports. Mr. Moulder explained he has met with other dealers in the area, and talked to Mr. Ekstrand about the grass parking issue. He feels it is something all dealerships need to simply "stop doing". Mr. Moulder stated he was confused about the grass parking situation and if it was only unacceptable on the boulevard or wetland situation. That has since been clarified to him and he now fully understands that any type of grass parking is unacceptable. Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2001 -5- Mr. Frost moved the planning commission recommend to the city council to adopt the resolution allowing a conditional use permit revision for Maplewood Imports to enlarge their motor-vehicle repair garages at 2780 North Highway 61. This permit is based on the standards required by ordinance and is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The propert.v owner ~ppli¢~nt shall is to submit an annual a report to staff ~ on an ........ b .... on the sump catch basin effectiveness and maintenance activitieso,--'~ 5. The propert.v owner shall not park on the grass or landscaped areas. The sppl:,c~nt ........................... ' ........................... to ........... Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. This proposal will go before the city council on March 26, 2001. C. University Auto Sales Conditional Use Permit (1145 Highway 36 East). Mr. Roberts gave the staff report for the city. University Auto Sales is proposing to take over the United Tile Store at 1145 Highway 36 to open a used car sales lot. This site was originally a Perkins Restaurant and has been a tile store for the last four to five years. They will take over the existing building and lay out the parking lot to meet the current city code standards with about 76 spaces for parking. There will be no garage bay or car wash on the site. They may spot wash cars on the site, but all repair work will be off the site. As with other used car lots and new lots, the maintenance and operation of the business has been a critical element in the business. The owner and operators must maintain them and keep the building and the site in a decent condition. Staff is recommending approval of this proposal subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Since there are no design elements involved in the proposal, for simplicity reasons, the commission is asked to take action on both items A and B. Commissioner Ledvina asked if it would be appropriate to require the applicant to paint the light standards. The condition of the light standards is poor. He also felt the gas meters and the other utility equipment on the outside of the building are in need of paint as well. Staff did not see that as a problem and suggested it be added as 3e. Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2001 -6- Mr. Trippler noticed on part A7 in the conditions that the car lot shall be closed on Sunday. He is under the impression that there is pending legislation that may allow car sales in Minnesota on Sunday. If that happens, will that have any effect on this dealership since their CUP will not allow them to be open on Sunday. Staff is aware of that proposal, but not real confident that it will pass based on the information he has read. Mr. Rossbach noted that the city may not choose to allow car sales on Sunday. Steve Thorson, attorney, 2300 Central Avenue NE, was present for the applicant. Mr. Thorson explained that he did not know who owned the fence either, but the applicant planned to make it satisfactory to staff approval prior to opening the business. The owner of the site is planning on filling and re-sealing the asphalt parking lot. If there is more required by city staff, they would be willing to do that to the satisfaction of the commission and the city council. Regarding the possibility of the lot being open on Sunday, he does not feel it will be an issue for quite a period of time. He also agrees with staff that it probably will not be adopted by the legislature, and if it was, University Auto would remain closed until permission was granted by the city council. The owners of University Auto have been running a car dealership in St. Paul for a number of years. Mr. Ekstrand has expressed his concerns with Mr. Thorson regarding the overflowing of cars in the parking lot. His clients have not done that at the current location, therefore he felt it would not happen in Maplewood. Also, any overflow of cars would be transferred to the St. Paul location. Staff noted that Mr. Ekstrand did visit the University Avenue site and stated that it did look well run and kept. Mr. Mueller stated that the parking lot is pretty torn up. He felt it certainly will require work. He also felt from the comments Second Harvest made to the city, that they feel the applicant owns the fence. Mr. Rossbach noted that about six feet of snow is now holding this fence up, which will probably fall over when it melts. Mr. Pearson moved the board to adopt the resolution that approves a conditional use permit for used car sales at 1145 E. Highway 36. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 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. The site shall be kept in neat and orderly condition. The applicant shall observe the striping pattern and not crowd the site by placing additional vehicles on the site beyond what can be parked in the striped parking spaces. The drive aisles shall be kept clear of vehicles. There shall be no parking on the grass or landscaped areas. There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along the street. This activity shall be kept on site. Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited unless such materials can be fully concealed within a screening enclosure. The design and placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval. The hours of operation of this used car lot shall be 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The car lot shall be closed on Sunday. Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2001 -7- There shall not be any car servicing or maintenance on the site except for minor work such as battery replacement, minor clean up and spot washing. Mechanical repairs and vehicle servicing such as oil changes are not allowed. Approval of the site plan date-stamped January 31,2001 for a used-car sales operation at 1145 E. Highway 36. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Provide the following for staff approval: ao Revise the site plan to show parking spaces to be 9 ½-foot-wide as code requires. There shall also be two handicap-accessible parking spaces that are striped according to ADA specifications. The ADA requires eight-foot-wide spaces with an eight-foot-wide cross-hatched loading space between them. A plan for a trash dumpster enclosure for outside trash containers if used (code requirement). This plan must show the placement and design of the enclosure. Trash enclosures must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. Enclosures must be of a material that matches or is compatible with the building. A plan for parking lot repair. The applicant shall work with staff who shall determine the extent of repairs needed after the snow melts. The repairs could range from patching if needed to full overlay. 3. Complete or provide the following: a. Install handicap-parking signs for the handicap-parking spaces. b. A trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers if used. Stripe the parking lot at 9¼-foot-wide spaces with two eight-foot-wide handicap- accessible parking spaces with an adjacent eight-foot-wide loading space. d. Parking lot repair as determined by staff. e. Repair or remove the fence. Scrape and repaint the building fascia. o The applicant shall obtain building permits from the city for any interior work on the building. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Mr. Ledvina seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. The proposal will go before the city council on March 26, 2001. D. NURP Pond Ordinance Amendment The Metropolitan Council, as part of their review of Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan update is requiring the city to adopt a city code amendment about the use of the nationwide urban runoff program design criteria for storm water ponds. Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2001 -8- VII. Mr. Trippler stated the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program makes reference to the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program Design Criteria, Walker Pond Net Model, and the Pit Pond Model. The ordinance is requiring an applicant to conform to these examples, yet does note where they could be referenced. Mr. Frost noted it is found in the MPCA's Urban's Best Management Practices Manual, latest addition. The commission chose to leave the reference in the ordinance as a model that they "may" use. Mr. Frost moved the commission adopt the ordinance that adds amended language to the city code about the use of the nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) design criteria for ponds. Mr. Rossbach seconded. Motion carries. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Ayes-All No visitors were present. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS IX. Xo A. Mr. Mueller attended the February 26th council meeting and gave the report. The right-of-way vacation on Highway 61 was approved with very little discussion. B. Mr. Ledvina will attend the March 12 council meeting. C. Ms. Dierich will attend the March 26 council meeting. Ms. Fischer asked if there could be some type of printed handout on the tower ordinance for residents. She felt some type of tangible handout that stated what the conditions were when you could or couldn't deny setbacks, alternative, etc. Perhaps neighbors may be better prepared or have more realistic expectations of their situation if they abutted proposed towers. E. Chuck Ahl is the new city engineer. He was formerly the city engineer of Burnsville. F. A public meeting will be held in late April or May for the Hillcrest Shopping Center site. Mr. Ahlness was talking to a landscape architect regarding detention ponds, and he noted Rochester changed their standard to 1:4. He wondered if there was any interest on behalf of the commission to look at that standard. Mr. Rossbach had interest, but noted it would take significantly more room on the sites. Mr. Ledvina would like more statistics about drowning and safety issues with sedimentation ponds before he could form his opinion. Staff will speak to the city engineer regarding this issue for his opinion and feedback. STAFF PRESENTATIONS The Beaver Lake project goes to the city council on March 12th. Staff is having a meeting with the developer and his engineer tomorrow morning (March 6). ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:05p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Antenna and Tower Ordinance March 13, 2001 INTRODUCTION The planning commission asked city staff to review and revise the antenna and tower ordinance. BACKGROUND On January 13, 1997, the city council adopted the current antenna and tower ordinance. On February 20, 2001, the planning commission considered a proposed antenna and tower ordinance amendment. The commission tabled action on the proposed ordinance amendment to allow staff time to investigate their questions and concerns with the proposal. On March 5, 2001, the planning commission again considered a revised tower and antenna ordinance. After much discussion and questions, the commission tabled action on the proposed ordinance to allow staff to make further changes to the proposed code language. DISCUSSION I am proposing many revisions to the ordinance. These changes are based on comments from the planning commission and city council and are intended to strengthen and clarify the ordinance. Areas of attention in the proposed ordinance include language about the co-location of antennas and additional language about setback and design standards for towers. On February 20, 2001, we received a letter from Peter Coyle of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren, the law firm that represents VoiceStream Minneapolis, a personal wireless communication service provider. (See the letter starting on page 3.) His letter expressed several concerns about the proposed ordinance and recommended several changes to the ordinance. Staff has reviewed these concerns and made changes to Sections 36-606(2) and 36-610(B)(2) of the proposed ordinance to address some of the concerns. An important change to note in the proposed ordinance is Section 36-606 (5) about tower height and co-locating in residential zoning districts. I am proposing to increase the maximum height of towers in residential areas from 100 feet to 125 feet. This change should allow for easier co- location of antennas and will hopefully lessen the number of towers in the city. Another matter to consider with this ordinance amendment is whether the city wants to allow towers as a permitted use (rather than as a conditional use) in some locations. For example, the city might allow a tower in the BC (business commercial) or M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning districts as a permitted use if the tower would be 350 or 500 feet from a residential property line. The city could still require the tower and base equipment to meet certain design and performance standards and to be approved by the Community Design Review Board (CDRB). RECOMMENDATION Adopt the ordinance starting on page 7. This ordinance revises and updates the regulations about commercial use antennas and towers in Maplewood. p:\ord\tower.5 Attachments: 1. Letter dated February 19, 2001 from Peter Coyle 2. Proposed ordinance ROBBRT L. HOFFMAN GERALD H. FRIEDELL EDWARD J. DRISCOLL GENE N. FULLER JOHN D. FULLMER FRANK I. HARVEY CHARLES S, MODELL CHRISTOPHER J. DiETZEN LINDA H. FISHER THOMAS P. STOLTMAN MICHAEL C. JACKM~Jq JOHN E. DIEHL JON S. ~NiERZEWSKI THOMAS J. FLYNN JAMES P. QUINN TODD L FREEMAN GERALD L. SECK JOHN B LUNDOUlST OAYLB NOLAN * JOHN ~ COTTER ' PAUL B. PLUNKE~T ALAN L. KILDOW KATHLEEN M, PICOTqrE NEVVMAN M~CHAEL B LEBARON GREGORY E. KORSTAD GARY A VAN CLEVE ' TIMOTHY J. KEANE ALAN M. ANDERSON MICHAEL W, SCHLEY RONN S KREPS TERRENCB E, BISHOP GARY A. RBNNEKE CHRISTOPHER J, HARRISTHAL KENDEL J. OHLROGGE BRUCE J. DOUGLAS WILLIAM C GRIFFITH, JR. JOHN R. HILL PETER J, COYLE LARRY D. MARTIN JANE B. BREMER JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN M~CHAEL J SMITH February 19, 2001 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY (~ LINDGREN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194 TELEPHONE (952) 835-3800 FAX (952) 896-3333 Attachment.1 LTD. Mr. Kenneth Roberts Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Roberts: This firm represents VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. ("VoiceStream") in connection with its development of personal wireless communication facilities ("PCS") within the State of Minnesota. VoiceStream's system requirements may, in the future, entail construction of PCS facilities within the City of Maplewood, Minnesota ("the City"). We have reviewed the proposed revisions to Chapter 36, Article XI of the City Code, the Commercial Use Antennas and Towers Ordinance ("the Tower Ordinance"). This letter represents VoiceStream's comments on some of the revisions. We are pleased to have the opportunity to state our position on the proposed changes to the Tower Ordinance. In addition, we welcome the chance to address this issue in any public hearing held on the matter. The City's current Tower Ordinance, and its proposed revisions, present a good framework for the regulation of telecommunications towers and antennas and is generally compatible with VoiceStream's plans. The Tower Ordinance gives wireless service providers the ability to site telecommunications facilities within the City while giving the City control over the location, height and design of the structures. This allows the City to fulfill its regulatory function and allows the creation of a PCS network within the City in conformity with the requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) ("the Telecommunications Act"). The Telecommunications Act requires that cities accommodate new wireless facilities, to the extent feasible. No city may enact an ordinance which has the effect of prohibiting the availability of wireless services. Moreover, no city may enforce its ordinances in such manner as to discriminate against LARK1N, HOFFMAN, DALY & L1NDGREN, LTD. Mr. Kenneth Roberts February 19, 2001 Page 2 telecommunications service providers; the mere fact that land-line phone services or other wireless services exist in the community is not a basis for rejecting the development of new wireless service capacity. Cities are expressly prohibited from regulating the environmental effects of PCS facilities. Finally, the actions of a city must be based on substantial evidence, supported by a record and written findings. The City's responsibility is to revise the Tower Ordinance so that it protects the City's inhabitants' health, welfare and safety while, at the same time, allowing the development of a wireless communication network. To be constitutionally valid, an ordinance must be "rationally related to the achievement of a legitimate government purpose." Skeen v. State of Minnesota, 505 N.W. 2d 299, 312 (1993). It must also be certain in its terms. City of St. Paul v. Morris 104 N.W. 2d 902 (1960), cert. denied 365 U.S. 815 (1961). Courts will analyze a zoning action to determine whether it is reasonable. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W. 2d 409 (1981). In making that determination, courts look into the circumstances of the decision. Therefore, a city has an obligation to keep a record to demonstrate a factual basis for its zoning decision. C.R. Investments, Inc. v. City of Shoreview, 304 N.W. 2d 320, 328 (1981). VoiceStream cautions the City to carefully examine any revisions to the Tower Ordinance in light of the requirements of the Telecommunications Act. Some of the proposed revisions contained in the February 13, 2001 draft of the Tower Ordinance will make the continued development of a wireless communications network more difficult. This could place the City in the position of effectively preventing the provision of PCS service within its boundaries in violation of the Telecommunications Act. Below are our comments on portions of the draft Tower Ordinance: Section 36-600. Purpose Section 36-600(5)(a)(1) slightly expands the type of structure available for permitted telecommunications tower siting. This provision allows antennas to be located on water tanks, as well as, water towers. Section 36-600(b) also expands the primary land use areas where telecommunications towers can be sited with a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"). The revision allows the siting of telecommunications towers in the commercial areas of the City. It also potentially allows tower siting on City-owned property and property owned by other governmental units. VoiceStream appreciates the expansion of potential locations for telecommunications towers. It also appreciates the City's effort to site antennas on structures more conducive to such equipment. However, by creating a distinction between primary locations and structures for tower siting and other locations and structures within the City, the Tower Ordinance limits the number of potential sites, including co-location sites, available to providers. The City may violate the Telecommunications Act if a tower applicant is denied a Building Permit or a CUP after clearly demonstrating the necessity to construct a tower or site antennas on a non-primary location or structure. VoiceStream recommends the deletion of language creating primary locations and structures. We recommend the City evaluate each telecommunications tower application on its own merits regarding location, height, design and technical necessity. 4 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Kenneth Roberts February 19, 2001 Page 3 Section 36-606 Communications Towers Proposed in Residential Zoning Districts Section 36-606(1) allows the consideration of telecommunication tower siting within a residential zoning district only when a proposed tower will be located on church property, parks (under certain circumstances), City or other governmentally-owned property, schools, utilities or institutional sites or facilities. This provision is consistent with the proposed language of Section 36-600 of the Tower Ordinance. VoiceStream appreciates the City's effort to site towers on land and/or structures in residential areas where it is conducive to do so. However, the City may violate the Telecommunications Act if a tower applicant is denied a CUP after clearly demonstrating the necessity to construct a tower in another residentially-zoned location. VoiceStream recommends that the first sentence of subsection 1 be revised to read "Towers supporting commercial antennas and confbrming to all applicable provisions of this ordinance are preferred in the following residentially-zoned locations, unless the City Council determines that an alternative location is technically necessary to achieve coverage requirements." Section 36-606(2) prohibits the construction of more than one (1) telecommunications tower on a residentially-zoned piece of property. While this restriction appears to be reasonable, there are instances where siting more than one tower on a certain piece of property is advantageous to both the City and wireless services providers. VoiceStream recommends the deletion of Section 36-606(2). VoiceStream recommends the City evaluate applications on this point on a case-by-case basis. Section 36-606(5) limits the height of telecommunications towers in residential zoning districts to seventy-five (75) feet and creates a setback of at least one hundred (100) feet from the nearest residential structure. The current Tower Ordinance allows an exemption from the setback requirement when a qualified structural engineer specifies, in writing, that any collapse will occur within a lesser distance. VoiceStream views the 75-foot height limitation as an unreasonable restriction which could lead to the construction of additional telecommunications towers within residential zoning districts. Higher telecommunications towers provide greater continuous coverage and will allow uninterrupted service throughout the City. The tower height limitation also affects providers' ability to co-locate antennas. VoiceStream recommends the City adopt the same height limitation in residential zoning districts as the Tower Ordinance currently imposes in non-residential zoning districts. In addition, we recommend that the language proposed for deletion in Section 36-606(5) be retained in the Tower Ordinance. Section 36-610 Co-Location of Personal Wireless Communication Service Equipment Section 36-610(B)(2) requires a telecommunications tower applicant to provide coverage maps of all existing antenna sites within one (1) mile of a proposed facility in order to demonstrate existing coverage gaps. The language seems to require an applicant to provide information on towers not owned by it. Wireless service providers are unlikely to provide proprietary technical information regarding the range and coverage of telecommunications towers to competitors. The City is in possession of portions of this information through the zoning process. Requiring an applicant to duplicate it is unreasonable. VoiceStream recommends the deletion of this provision of Section 36-610. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Kenneth Roberts February 19, 2001 Page 4 VoiceStream looks forward to working with the City to develop its Tower Ordinance. contact me at (952) 896-3214 if you have any questions regarding this issue. Peter J. Coyle, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. CC: Mr. Steve Katkov Mr. Mike O'Rourke Scott Slattery, Esq. ::ODMA~PCDOCS\LIB 1 \653868\1 Please feel free to 6 Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO., AN ORDINANCE OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE CITY CODE ABOUT ANTENNAS AND TOWERS. The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This section changes the following parts of the Maplewood City Code: (Additions have been underlined and deletions are crossed out.) CHAPTER 36 ARTICLE Xl COMMERCIAL USE ANTENNAS AND TOWERS Section 36-600. Purpose. To accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of the community, the Maplewood City Council finds that these regulations are necessary to: 1. Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city. Require tower equipment to be screened from the view of persons located on properties contiguous to the site and/or to be camouflaged in a manner to complement existing structures and to minimize the visibility and the adverse visual effects of antennas and towers through careful design and siting standards. Ensure the operators and owners of antennas and towers design, locate and construct antennas and towers that meet all applicable code requirements to avoid ~ potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements. 4. Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings for new wireless telecommunication antennas to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. 5. The following preferences shall be followed when selecting sites: a. Primary structural location preference for wireless communication equipment as permitted uses. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Water towers or tanks. Co-location on existing towers. Church steeples or the church structure, when camouflaged as steeples, bell towers, or other architectural features. Sides and roofs of buildings or structures over two (2) stories. Existing power or telephone pole corridors. Light poles or towers at outdoor recreational facilities. (7) Parking lots may be used to locate towers monopoles where the structure replicates, incorporates or substantially blends with the overall lighting standards and fixtures of the parking lot. b. Primary land use areas for towers requiring conditional use permits. (2) (3) (4) Industrial and commercial. City-owned property (except water towered), other government-owned property, schools, churches ,Oover,'~,,%e,'~t,o,,,- .... ,~,,,,,',,,-'-,,~, .... ,,,'-, or places of worship, utility, and institutional sites. Public parks/golf courses, when compatible with the nature of the park or course. Open space areas when compatible with the nature of the area and site. Section 36-601. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this section or ordinance shall have the following meaning unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Accessory structure. A use or structure subordinate to the principal use of the land or building with a tower or antenna. Antenna. Any structure, eauipment or device used for ~ collecting or radiating electromagnetic waves, telecommunication, microwave, television or radio signals including but not limited to directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes and satellite dishes, and omni-directional antennas, such as whips. Personal Wireless Communication Services. Licensed commercial wireless communication services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services. Public Utility. Persons, corporation, or governments supplying gas, electric, transportation, water, sewer, or land line telephone service to the public. For this ordinance, commercial wireless telecommunication sources shall not be considered public utility uses. Tower. Any pole, monopole, spire, or structure, or combination thereof, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna, meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade. UBC. Uniform Building Code. Published by the International Conference of Building Officials and adopted by the State of Minnesota to provide jurisdictions with building-related standards and regulations. Section 36-602. Existing antennas and towers. Antennas, towers and accessory structures in existence as of January 13, 1997, that do not meet or comply with this section are subject to the following provisions: 1. Towers may continue in use for the existing purpose now used and as now existing but may not be replaced or structurally altered without meeting all standards in this section. 8 If such towers are damaged or destroyed due to any reason or cause at all, (unless the user or owner voluntarily removes the tower), the owner or operator may repair and restore the tower to its former size, height and use within one (1) year after first getting a building permit from the city. The location and physical dimensions shall remain as they were before the damage or destruction. Section 36-603. Interpretation and Applicability. It is not the intention of this ordinance to interfere with, abrogate or annul any covenant or other agreement between parties. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions upon the use or premises for antennas or towers than are imposed or required by other ordinances, rules, regulations or permits, or by covenants or agreements, the provisions of this ordinance shall govern. b. This ordinance does not apply to the use or location of private, residential citizen band radio towers, amateur radio towers or television antennas. Section 36-604. Inspections and Violations. ao All towers, antennas and supporting structures must obtain a building permit and are subject to inspection by the city building official to determine compliance with UBC construction standards. Deviations from the original construction that a permit is obtained, other than antenna adjustments, is a misdemeanor. Notice of violations will be sent by registered mail to the owner and the owner will have thirty (30) days from the date the notification is issued to make repairs. The owner will notify the building official that the repairs have been made, and as soon as possible after that, the building official will make another inspection and the owner notified of the results. c. Adjustments or modifications to existing antennas do not require a conditional use permit or a building permit. Section 36-605. Conditional Use Permit. a. In reviewing an application for a conditional use permit for the construction of commercial antennas, towers, and accessory structures, the city council shall consider the: (1) Standards in the city code. (2) Recommendations of the planning commission and community design review board. (3) Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of residents of surrounding areas. (4) Effect on property values. (5) Effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. bo The applicant shall provide at the time of application, sufficient information to show that construction and installation of the antenna or tower will meet or exceed the standards and requirements of the UBC (Uniform Building Code). c. Conditional use permits will not be required for: 9 (1) Repair or replacement or adjustment of the elements of an antenna array affixed to a tower or antenna, if the repair or replacement does not reduce the safety factor. (2) Antennas mounted on water towers, sides or roof of existing structures and on existing towers, power, light, or telephone poles. d. The fee to be paid for the conditional use permit shall be set by city council resolution. Section 36-606. Communication Towers Proposed in Residential Zoning Districts. No person, firm or corporation shall build or install a tower in a residential zoning district ~ without obtaining a conditional use permit from the city council. Such a tower shall be subject to, but not limited to, the following conditions: 1. The city will only consider such a tower in the following residentially-zoned locations or properties: a. Churches or places of worship. b. Parks, when the city determines the facility would be compatible with the nature of the park. c. City-owned property, government, school, utility and institutional sites or facilities. There shall be no more than one freestanding tower at one time on a property that the city has planned for a residential use or that the city has zoned residentially, unless one of the following applies: The additional towers or antennas are incorporated into existing structures such as a church steeple, light pole, power line support device or similar structure. b_. The residential property is at least five (5) acres in size. 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. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that location of the tower as proposed 'is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the cellular or personal wireless communication services systems system, and to provide adequate personal wireless communication or portable cellular telephone coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure. If no existing structure that meets the height requirements for the antennas is available for mounting the antennas, such antennas may be mounted on a tower not to exceed seventy- five (75) feet in height. The tower shall be located a distance of at least the height of the tower plvs twenty-five (25~ feet from the nearest residential structure, u,'~l~ .... : '- 10 The height of a tower may be increased to a maximum of one hundred twenty five (125) one ht~ feet if the tower and base area are-is designed and built for the co-location of at least one other personal wireless communication service provider antennas and equipment. ~;i11~.~1,11~;~1 ~.~1~.~¥1~1~1 ~ ~;~llt~;~llll~'"~ Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching, the owner or operator shall locate it at least ten (10) feet from the side or rear lot line and shall landscape and screen it. The community design review board shall review such a building, and the landscaping and screening. The owners and operators of all new equipment or utility buildings and accessory structures for towers shall design and construct such structures to blend in with the surrounding environment. Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, unless the city_ determines that such a location would lessen the visibility of the tower or would lessen the negative impacts of such a facility on nearby properties. The city may reduce or vary the required setback for a tower from a public street to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as a church steeple, light pole, power line support device or similar structure. Towers shall be built at least five (5) feet from side and rear property lines, unless the site is next to a residential property line or next to a property that the city is planning for a residential use. If the tower would be next to a residential property line or next to a property that the city is planning for a residential use, then the tower must be located at least the height of the tower plus twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest residential structure. The owner or operator shall locate ground equipment and accessory structures at least five (5) feet from side and rear property, lines. 10. The owner or operator of any tower shall screen ground-mounted eouipment from view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of nonvegetative screening better reflects and complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 11. Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening possible for off-site views of the facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower. 12. The existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent. 13. The community design review board (CDRB) shall make recommendations on the plans for towers, utility, equipment or accessory buildings, site plans and proposed screening and landscaping. 14. Towers with antennas shall be designed and constructed to withstand a uniform wind Ioadina as prescribed by the UBC (Uniform Building Code). Section 36-607. Construction Requirements, Setback and Height Restrictions in Zoning Districts or Locations Other Than Residential. No person, firm or corporation shall erect a tower in a location other than residential without first obtaining a conditional use permit from the city council. Such a tower shall be subject to, but not limited to, the following conditions: 11 No part of any tower or antenna shall be constructed, located or maintained at any time, permanently or temporarily, in or upon any required setback area for the district in which the antenna or tower is to be located. All antennas, towers and accessory structures shall meet all applicable provisions of this code and this section. c. Antennas and towers shall meet the following requirements: The antennas may be mounted on a single pole or tower rno~ not to exceed one hundred seventy-five (175) feet in height. The pole or tower shall be setback at least the height of the pole or tower pole plus twenty-five (25) feet from any residential lot line. (2) Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material. (3) The use of guyed towers is prohibited. (4) Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening possible for off-site views of the facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower. (5) Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent. (6) The installation shall be designed to be compatible with the underlying site plan. The owner or operator shall landscape the base of the tower and any accessory structures. Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with any principal structures on the site. All new equipment or utility buildings and accessory_ structures for towers shall be designed and constructed to blend in with the surrounding environment. The community design review board shall review the design plans for towers, utility, equipment or of any accessory structures, site blans and proposed screening and landsca ~qu m~t ~-":'-':--- o,,do,,~-:'- ' " ,~. k~Ull~,ill I~O I01 lUO~OF,/II (7) Towers shall be a light blue or gray or other color shown to reduce visibility. No advertising or identification visible off-site shall be placed on the tower or buildings. (8) Antennas placed upon the tower shall comply with all state and federal regulations about nonionizing radiation and other health hazards related to such facilities. (9) Wireless telephone or personal wireless communication service antennas, where located on an existing structure shall not extend more than twenty-five (25) feet above the structure to which they are attached. Such antennas are a permitted use in all zoning districts of the city. The city_ council, after a recommendation from the C<;)mmunity design review board, must approve the plans for all sets of antennas on a building after the second personal wireless communication service provider has installed their antennas on the building. 12 (10) Towers with antennas shall be designed and constructed to withstand a uniform wind loading as prescribed by the UBC (Uniform Building Code). (11) Telecommunications equipment located on the side of an existing structure or on a roof of a structure shall not be screened. (12) Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, unless the city determines that such a location would lessen the visibility of the tower or would lessen the negative impacts of such a facility on nearby properties. (13) The city may reduce or vary the required setback for a tower from a public street to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such a church steeple, light Dole. power line support device or similar structure. (14) Towers shall be setback at least five (5) feet from side and rear property lines, unless the site is next to a residential lot line. If the tower would be next to a residential property_ line or next to a property that the city is planning for a residential use, then the tower must be located at least the height of the tower plus twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest residential structure. The owner or operator shall locate ground equipment and accessory structures at least five (5) feet from side and rear property lines. (15) The owner or operator of a tower shall screen ground-mounted equipment from view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of nonvegetative screening better reflects and complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood. (16) Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening possible for off-site views of the facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower. (17) The existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent. (18) The community design review board (CDRB) shall make recommendations on tho plans for towers, utility_, eo_uipment or accessory buildings, site plans and proposed screening and landscaping. Section 36-608. Lights, Signs and Other Attachments. No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any way any lights, reflectors, flashers, daytime strobes or steady nighttime light or other illuminating devices except: 1. Those needed during time of repair or installation, 2. Those required by the Federal Aviation Agency, the Federal Communications Commission or the city. 3. For towers in parking lots, lights associated with the parking lot lighting. In addition, no tower shall have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any way, any platform, catwalk, crows nest, or like structure, except during pedods of construction or repair. 13 No antenna or tower shall have signage, advertising or identification of any kind visible from the ground or from other structures, except necessary warning and eguipment information signa~je required by the manufacturer or by Federal, State or local authorities. Section 36-609. Removal of Abandoned or Damaged Towers. Any tower and/or antenna that is not used for one (1) year shall be deemed abandoned and may be required to be removed in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures as for dangerous or unsafe structures established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.15 through 463.26. Section 36-610. Co-location of Personal Wireless Communication Service Equipment. A..~. The city shall not approve a request A-propose{ for a new personal wireless service tower o,,o,, ,,,,, ,,~ ~pproved unless it can be documented by the applicant to the satisfaction of the city council that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or commercial building within one-half mile radius, transcending municipal borders, of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following: 1. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or commercial building. 2. The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building. 3. Existing or approved structures and commercial buildings within one-half mile radius cannot or will not reasonably accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function. .... : -- '~- ppli by ity 4. For,~o,,~,---:-' .... ,,,°,, ' ,~,o,,,,., o,,~o, ,,,~ The a cant must demonstrate, providing a c -wide coverage/interference and capacity analysis, that the location of the antennas as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication service system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district or on existing structure. tower: -- : ..... :: ........ ~' ' .... " B.~. Additional Submittal Requirements. Besides the information re(~uired elsewhere in this code. all conditional use permit applications for towers also .~hall im;lude the following information: 1_. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and their Successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees to meet reasonable terms and condition~ for shared use. 14 The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed facility is necessary to fill a significant existing gad in users coverage or to accommodate system capacity needs. This documentation shall include: Coverage maps of all the applicant's or the providers' existing antenna sites within one (1) mile of the proposed facility. A map showing all existing personal wireless communication service antenrm sites within one (1) mile of the proposed facility. 3. That the proposal is the least intrusive method of achieving the necessary coverage or additional system capacity in the area and that other alternatives will not work. That the ec~uipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated at any existing tower or antenna facility. The city may find that a co-location site cannot accommodate the planned equipment for the following reasons: The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the preferred co- location site. and the preferred co-location site cannot be reinforced, modified or replaced to accommodate the planned equipment or its equivalent at a reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified radio frequency engineer; The planned equipment would significantly interfere with the usability of existing or approved equipment at the preferred co-location site and the interference. cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified radio freauency engineer: A preferred co-location site cannot accommodate the planned e~_uipment at a height necessary to function reasonably, as certified by a gualified radio freauency engineer; or The applicant, after a good-faith effort, is unable to lease, purchase or otherwise- secure space for the planned equipment at an existing antenna location. The city may reguire the applicant to hire or pay for a study or other research by ,? aualified radio frequency engineer to determine the need for the proposed tower. Materials or documentation demonstrating to the city_ that the applicant has made a good faith effort to co-locate on existing towers but they could not reach an agreement to (;:o- locate on an existing tower. Design information and documentation showing how the applicant, owner or operator of the tower has designed structurally, electrically and in all respects the tower to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and the antennas for at least two (2) additional users if the tower is more than one hundred ~100) feet in height in all locations or for at least one (1_) additional user if the tower is more than seventy-five (75) feet in height. The applicant and owner must design and install a new tower to allow for futurc rearrangement of antennas on the tower, to accept antennas mounted at varying height~ and to accommodate the equipment and other needs of future usem. 15 7. Photo-illustrations or similar-styled artist's renderings of the proposed tower and base site that show the appearance of the proposed tower and the proposed ground equipment or buildings after the contractor completes them. Section 36-611. Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications. All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with public safety telecommunications. Section 36-612. Additional Submittal Requirements. Besides the information required elsewhere in this Code, building permit applications for towers shall include the following supplemental information: (1) A report and plans from a qualified and registered engineer or others that: a. Describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation. b. Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co- located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas. c. Describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it can hold. d. Includes an engineer's stamp and registration number, if applicable. e. Includes all other information necessary for the city to evaluate the request. Section 36-613. Variances. The City Council may grant variances to the requirements of this section. All variances must follow the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. For variances regarding antennas and towers, the a?olicant must show the city_ the following: 1_. There are unique circumstances or characteristics peculiar to the property and that the provisions of this code would inflict undue hardshi_o on the Dro_oerty_ owner or a_o_olicant. The pro_oerty cannot be develo_oed or put to a reasonable use by strictly conforming with the city_ code. 3_. The apDlicant or property owner did not create or cause the hardshiD. 4_. The pro_Dosed variance will not alter the essential character of the area or the zonin(~ district. 5. The pro_Dosed variance is the minimum variance that will afford relief from the city_ code standards. 6_. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 16 The applicant for a variance for an antenna or tower related matter shall submit with their variance application a statement showing how the proposal would meet these findings. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city council approves it and the official newspaper publishes it. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on P:ord\tower. 5 2001. 17 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review AT&T Wireless Monopole 1681 Cope Avenue March 14, 2001 INTRODUCTION Project Description Julie Townsend, representing AT&T Wireless, is proposing to install a 125-foot-tall monopole and an equipment building for telecommunications equipment. They want to install the monopole and building in the southeast corner of the existing green space and north of the parking lot at the Sheet Metal Workers building at 1681 Cope Avenue. (Refer to the maps and plans on pages 5-10 and the statement on page 11 .) Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a monopole and related equipment in an M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning district. 2. The design and site plans. BACKGROUND On January 13, 1997, the city council adopted the commercial use antenna and tower ordinance. On November 13, 2000, the city council denied a conditional permit and the design approval for AT&T to install a 125-foot-tall monopole on the Taste of India property at 1745 Cope Avenue. DISCUSSION Federal Law 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 (or any other similar 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 monitor and regulate. Co-location As part of their site selection process, AT&T noted that they could not find an existing structure within one-half mile of this site that would meet their needs. In fact, they claim they need this site to fill-in a gap in their coverage area. (See the statement on page 11 .) Ms. Townsend told me that she has contacted Qwest about co-locating on their property on Gervais Court. However, Qwest has indicated that they do not have room for another monopole on their property and that their existing tower cannot be raised above the existing 90 feet to the 122 feet needed by AT&T. (See the letter from Qwest on page 14). It is important to note that the city cannot force the owner of an existing wireless facility (such as Qwest) to change their equipment or to accommodate another monopole on their property. As Ms. Townsend said, AT&T would prefer to co-locate on an existing monopole if the necessary height and location are available to them. Site Screening and Landscaping The applicant is not proposing to add any trees to help to screen the base area. (See the site plans on pages 7 and 8.) The existing buildings and vegetation will help screen much of the base area of the site, especially from the west, north and east sides. However, the city may want to require the applicant to plant trees on the south side of the site to help screen the base area from view from the south. The city should require the applicant to prepare a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility. Summary The applicant chose this site as an alternative to the earlier proposal for a tower facility on the Taste of India property. It is important for the city council, when reviewing this or similar applications, to balance the interests of the applicant, the property owner, the neighbors and the city as a whole. The proposed location uses the existing buildings and trees to help screen the proposed tower from near by properties. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao 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. 2. The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility. 3. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The applicant or owner shall allow the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. Bo 6. Any antenna that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and the city may require that it be removed. 7. 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. Approve the site and design plans for up to a 125-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and equipment building on the property at 1681 Cope Avenue. 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. 2. Before the city issues a building permit, city staff must approve the following: (a) A certificate of survey for the project area that shows the proposed new construction, the location of the property lines and existing site features around the proposed lease area. The proposed monopole and equipment building shall be at least five feet from the property lines. The site plan shall be subject to city staff approval. (b) The applicant shall prepare a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility. (c) A grading and drainage plan for the project site. (d) The plans for the equipment building. AT&T may use their standard aggregate finish building but the color shall closely match the color of the Sheet Metal Workers building. 3. The color of the proposed equipment building shall be submitted to city staff for approval. 4. The monopole shall be light gray. 5. Before final inspection of and use of this facility, the applicant shall install the required landscaping following the approved plan. If the required 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. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.62 acres Existing land use: Sheet Metal Workers building and parking lot SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Highway 36 Sheet Metal Workers Credit Union Building and Cope Avenue City and County Credit Union Maplewood Office Park PLANNING Zoning and Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-607 requires a CUP for a communications tower in any zoning district other than residential. The ordinance allows a maximum height of 175 feet. 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 16 and 17. Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on February 28, 2001. State law requires the city to take action on this request by April 27, 2001, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:secl 0/1681 cope. mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan dated February 28, 2001 4. Site Plan (Enlarged) 5. Proposed Elevations 6. Proposed Elevations 7. Applicant's statement dated February 28, 2001 8. Applicant's Co-location Statement 9. Letter from Joe Beck of AT & T 10. Letter from Qwest Wireless dated 9-18-00 11. Applicant's statement for criteria of approval 12. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 13. Project Plans and Color Photo of Site (Separate Attachments) AVE. RD. Attachment 1 R, UaSEY COUNTY COURT KOHLMAN NT. ON av~. FRISBI£ AVE. D lNG HOME AND FAIR GROUNDS (I(I~GOODRICH GOLF COURSE, RIPLEY AV~. HOLL LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 - t ',,% __._ 3~. 86' lo~'',~ IX -i. ~1 ,~ , ~ ~ ~ t"I ~i, I v s ~ oyHIGHWAY 36~ ~l~ o,t''''''~' 1661 ~ ~ ~ 1691 ~") N D ikmummmmmmmmkmmmm Go;' 8'7' M (3.) IG? ( :o .... _~ .......... j.j ~, ...... ~ ........ 1~ .... ~ ' '."~. ~,~m m PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION ~ ] -- ~ COPE AVENUE IBll~~ ~ ~89'53'49'E Attachment 3 NO~TH UN£ OF' THE: SE: I/4 OF' SE:CTK)N 10. T 29 N. R. 22 STATE HIGHWAY 36 i 30 00' J SSg"S~'O2'W .. -- ._2666.~5' - .... SITE PLAN ~L /5OUTHCAST CO( ~dJ~ SECTION 10, T Attachment 4 N89'56'17'E 30.50' P.0.B. POINT A ACCESS N8g'56' 17'E 20.50~ .. EASEbI£NT I "~ [,o.oo - 1 J ~o I I _ EXISTING PARKING LOT I ~ ^cc~ss I ' S89'36'17'~ 25.00' SITE LAYOUT FP.O.B. OF LEASE TRACT N89'56' 17'E 25.00' / pROPosED.--J LEASE TRACT PROPOSED 125' ~ONOPOLE ~-PROPOSED METER STAND SITE PLAN (ENLARGED) 8 Attachment 5 QI QI 6' CURB W/ 6' CRUSHED UNDERGROUNO. COAX. CABLE = I NORTH ELEVATION 6' CURB W/ 6' CRUSHED PROPOSEO STAN O COAX. CABLE SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED ELEVATIONS QI Attachment 6 ~ 10'_0° 11'-5' x 28'-0" HELTER COAX. CABLE I'--:~..1 WEST ELEVATION PROPOSEO METER 6' CURB W/ CRUSHED ROCK-~ PROPOSED -MEt'eR STAND 11'-5' x SHELTER 10'-0' UNDERGROUND COAX. CABLE ........... L...'::::~ HWY. 36 & HAZELWOOD AVENUE SHEEr MErAL WORKERS SITE NO. MI-97A 1681 COPe AVENUE EAST I s I ~ AT&T AT&T WI~ SERVtCES OF MINNESOTA, INC. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 10 CONSULTING ENGINEERS SINCE 1944 ULTEIG ENGINEERS,iNC. 5201 E. RIVER ROAD, SUITE 308 PHONE: 763-571-2500 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55421-1027 FAX: 763-571-1168 Attachment 7 OTHER OFFICES: FARGO, ND BISMARCK, ND SIOUX FALLS, SE) February 28, 2001 City of Maplewood Melinda Coleman, Planning Director 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Application for Condition Use Peardt, UEI # 01-5805 Dear Ms. Coleman, This letter accompanies an application for Conditional Use Perrnit by AT&T Wireless (AWS) that will allow a 125-foot monopole at 1681 Cope Ave E. Currently AWS is lacking wireless coverage on a large portion of Highway 36 and this particular area of Maplewood. By installing the monopole at the above reference propexty, the issue of inadequate coverage will be resolved. PROPOSED USE AWS is proposing to install a 125-foot monopole, painted of a color acceptable by the city. Please reference the enclosed drawings for additional details. The property in question is located in an area zoned M-l, which allows for monopoles and accessory buildings as a conditional use (Section 36.600). An unmanned prefabricated equipment shelter measuring approximately 12 feet by 28 feet will be located at the base of the monopole. The site will require single-phase 400-amp electrical service and telephone line for utilities. These will be brought in fi.om the nearest source. The shelter will be designed in color and material to match surrounding area. This monopole will be accommodating to other carriers if they so desire. Please see the attached letter of intent. I will be representing AWS during the application process and will be attending all meetings regarding the application. Please contact me for any additional information you may need. I can be contacted at 763-277-6229 Sincerely, ;'"J~lie Townsend (._J2~ontractor, AT&T Wireless Services Eric . ll EQUAl. OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Attachment 8 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Letter of Intent To Whom It May Concern: Please let this letter show the intent of AT&T Wireless and its successors to allow for collocation on the proposed monopole site at 1681 Cope Ave E. The monopole will be constructed to adequately allow for at least one additional carder and in many instances even more. AT&T Wireless and its successors will allow the shared use of the proposed tower if thc additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use. Any questions regarding this intent may be directed to any of the following: Ted Broich, AT&T Wireless Services Systems Development Manager - 952-844-6744 Bechtel Telecommunications, Site Acquisition and Zoning Manager - 612-858-7270 Julie Townsend, Contractor - 612-819-9569 Sincerely, (~' Contractor, AT&T Wireless Services 12 Attachment 9 ATmT Cellular Division AT&T Wireless Services 2515 24th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55406 612 721-1660 FAX 612 721-4770 I have been asked to examine two potential existing sites for the AT&T 36* & Hazlewood site. The two locations in question are an existing water tower and an existing US West monopole. Neither location will allow us to meet the objectives of this site. The reasons are as follows... US West Site: Existing antennas for US West on this site are at 75, 67, and 87 feet. This is only a 90-foot monopole. This means that AT&T would only be able to locate antennas at the 57-foot elevation and below. This will not allow us to provide the amount of coverage that we need in order to justify building a site at this location. Water Tower: The water tower is outside of the search area. Simply put, this means that this location will not fit in well with the rest of the network. The bigger problem however is the potential interference and re-use concerns that would be created by locating our antennas on the water tower. The water tower has an additional 60 feet of ground elevation which makes the site simply too high for us to be able to manage the re-use from this location. AT&T now has too many customers for us to be building sites on this high of ground above local terrain with in the 494-694 metropolitan loop. Sincerely, 'I~. Beck RF Engineer AT&T Wireless Services ?]~.,; Recvcled Paoer 13 10/03f2000 09:41 5129587377 WSS J TOWNSEND PAGE 02 ATTACHHENT 1D sc'-"r-* Qwest Wireless, L.L.C. 426 North Fairview Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 WSS Wireless Site Specialists PO Box 6896 Minneapolis, MN 55406 Attn: J. Townsend 2000 Co.Lo~atton on Qwcst Wireless Monopole Installation at 1890 O~rvais Court, Mapl~ood Monday, September i 8, 2000 Dear Ms. Townsend AT&T Wireless Services has Iktq:ax)aoh~xi Qr,'st Wireless, LI..C, f/k/a US WtgST Wireless, to eo- iooat~ on our monopole instsllod at 1890 G~rvais Court in Maplewood at a height of 125 f~t. As you alrea~ ere aware, that polo is currently a 90 foot monopoic structure with Qwest's installation at the 60'0", 75'0" end 87'3" foot level. Tho only available Bpaoe for ce. location would bo at approxinu~ly 50 fi~t ~nd less. Since tho foundation of that structure wss d~signed for a 90 foot monopole, extension of that pole is not possible using the curr~nt fouadation. The only al~m~ative to a~commodate AT&T Wireless' request would be to build a miler monopole structure, including a new foundation. In addition, while Qw~t Wireless does control the monopole structure, we have a leasing relationship with thc und~rlyiag landlord, Qwcst Inc., end ss such, does not control the land space. It is my understanding that thc available lend sp~c~ is also at a minimum. We would bo moro that happy to work with AT&T Wireless Services at this location. How~wr, due to the limited l~nd slmge ss well as the insbility to rain the tower to your r~luestod height, the currmt situation would not b~ a viable solution. Please call me if you have any questions. I look forwsrd to working with you in the future. Sincerely, PAt Conlia Real Estate Market Manas~r Qwest Wireless, L.L.C. 651.6~2.6060 14 Attachment ll Criteria for approval of Conditional Use Permit 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. Comment: True, this application meets the requirements as listed in section 36.600 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. Comment: True 3. The use would not depreciate property values. Comment: True, it is not proven telecommunications equipment depreciates property values. 4. 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, runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. Comment: True, telecommunications carriers are under strict guidelines to have and maintain the safest equipment. All equipment is regulated. 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. Comment: True, a technician will visit the site only about one time every 4 to 6 weeks. 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. Comment: True, there are adequate facilities currently in existence. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. Comment: True 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. Comment: True. The shelter will be designed to match the existing area structures. The area to the east has many trees, which should not be disturbed by our installation. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Comment: True, telecommunication carriers are under strict guidelines they must follow to avoid any potential negative environmental effects. 15 Attachment 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ms. Julie Townsend, representing AT & T Wireless, applied for a conditional use permit to install up to a 125-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and equipment building. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1681 Cope Avenue. The legal description is: Subject to avenue, highway and easements and vacated street accruing, the following: except the east 150 feet of Lot 1 and except the east 150 feet of South 73.3 feet of Lot 2; Lots 1 thru Lot 4, Bronsons Subdivision. (PIN 10-29-22-41-0016) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On March 19, 2001, the planning commission considered this request and recommended that the city approve the request, subject to the staff recommendation. The city council held a public hearing on ,2001. 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. 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. 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. 16 Approval 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. 2. The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility. 3. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The applicant or owner shall allow the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. 6. 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. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2001.