Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/2008 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. . Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. September 23, 2008 5. Design Review: a. T-Mobile Telecommunications Monopole, 2220 Edgerton Street North 6. Unfinished Business: 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Cancellation of November 11 Meeting. 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Boardmernber John Demko Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Boardmember Ananth Shankar Boardmember Matt Wise Present Present Present Present Present at 6:02 p.m. Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Citv Planner Ginnv Gavnor, Naturalist III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Ledvina rnoved to approve the amended agenda adding item 6.b.-U. of M. Capstone Project. Boardmember Shankar seconded Ayes - Demko, Olson, Shankar Abstention - Wise The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. July 22, 2008 Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the minutes of July 22, 2008, as presented. Boardmember Demko seconded Ayes - Demko, Olson, Shankar, Wise Abstention - Ledvina The motion passed. V. DESIGN REVIEW a. Legacy Shops at Legacy Village, County Road D City Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report explaining the request for approval of plan revisions for the Legacy Shops at Maplewood, a 14,616 square-foot retail center at Legacy Village. Mr. Ekstrand reviewed design plans of the building. Mr. Ekstrand said he feels the assortment of materials selected is attractive, good-quality products and should be compatible with the other developments in the neighborhood. Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant has not submitted the lighting fixture designs and these should be provided for review. Mr. Ekstrand said they are requiring that there not be any lighting facing south as a consideration to the residents at Wyngate. Mr. Ekstrand introduced Patrick Sarver of the Hartford Group, who is the master developer of this development. Mr. Ekstrand said Todd Geller of Hartford Group, who will be the owner and operator of this center, will also be attending this meeting. Community Design Review Board Minutes 09-23-2008 2 Boardmember Olson asked staff if the townhomes to the south have screening. Mr. Ekstrand responded the townhomes are landscaped for site beautification, but are not screened. Boardmember Wise asked staff about the previous site elevations and asked for clarifications on the staff's suggestion regarding brick to the roof on the decorative columns. Mr. Ekstrand showed the original plan elevations and said the applicant did not feel it was a functional design, even though the building looked nice. Mr. Ekstrand said the suggestion for installing brick upward toward the roof on the columns was inspired by the caps on the adjacent Ashley Furniture and other buildings in the area. Boardmember Demko asked staff if a photometric or lighting plan was submitted with this request. Mr. Ekstrand responded that a photometric plan showing the foot candles of light intensity around the property was received and that their plan met city code. Mr. Ekstrand ~aid they have not submitted a lighting fixture design plan. Boardmember Ledvina suggested the board limit its consideration to the design issues under its purview which are gerrnane to the board's discussion. Patrick Sarver, director of development with Hartford Group, presented samples of the proposed building materials for the board's review. Todd Geller introduced himself saying he is with Victory Capital and working with the Hartford Group on this development and the redesign of this project. Mr. Geller said the applicant is willing to work with staff in designing the column caps with designs similar to buildings adjacent to this site. Boardmember Olson asked Mr. Geller to address the brick and split face masonry proposed around the building. Mr. Geller responded that they took the previous design of the building and then created similar design applications. Mr. Geller said the difference is they have taken the glass off the back of the building and upgraded it with stucco materials to make it as complementary as possible to the back side of the building on the south and to add as much landscaping as possible. Boardmember Shankar mentioned the awning colors were listed as blue, but the sample on the materials board is not blue. Mr. Sarver responded that the awnings will be complementary but a specific tenant might want to make a modification to an awning to complement their signage. Mr. Shankar asked if the three samples on the materials board could be any color. Mr. Sarver responded affirmatively and noted it would be tastefully done to match the design architecture and adjacent properties. Boardmember Shankar asked if there are two different colors of stucco shown on the board. Mr. Sarver responded affirrnatively noting they will be used to create variety and interest along the building. Mr. Shankar said it appears from the elevations that there will be one color of stucco used on three sides of the building and a second color used on the south side. Mr. Sarver explained the lighter color one stucco will be used on the field areas and the darker color two will be used on the cornices. Boardmember Olson asked Mr. Sarver to comment on the lighting plan since the board has not received a copy of the plan. Mr. Sarver explained the final lighting fixtures have not been selected yet, but similar fixtures represented on the samples board show they will be an up or down light fixture. Mr. Sarver said since they are the master developer for the entire area, the final fixtures selected will be consistent with those already in place in the area. Boardmember Olson asked Mr. Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 09-23-2008 Geller if the lighting on the south side of the building could be down lights only. Mr. Geller responded affirmatively. Boardmember Olson asked if the channel signage will be backlit. Mr. Geller responded the signage will be backlit. Boardmember Shankar asked if the roof top units would be screened or if they will be visible. Mr. Sarver responded the number of rooftop units has not yet been determined, but the perimeter wall of the building is designed with a central parapet that extends to screen any rooftop units. Mr. Sarver explained they are in agreement with staff's landscaping request to screen with over story trees 30-40 feet on center along the south side of the building between the town homes would be appropriate to create the street scape along Village Trail East. Boardmember Shankar asked what parking use is planned for the south parking lot area. Mr. Sarver explained the south parking lot area will be used primarily by employees. Boardmember Shankar asked where the gas and electric meters would be mounted. Mr. Sarver said they will be located in the back near the center of the building by the mechanical room. Boardmember Olson asked for comments on the staff request for increasing the landscaping at the front of the building. Mr. Sarver said they have concerns with upgrading the landscaping on the north side of the building and planting too much so that it becomes a future visibility problem at the front of the building. Mr. Ekstrand responded staff had requested additional landscaping at the front of this building, but this has been a past issue when developments plant mature trees that then grow too large for the area. Mr. Ekstrand explained Ashley Furniture is concerned the Legacy Shops not obscure their store's visibility and they actually prefer the new location proposed for the Legacy Shops. Mr. Ekstrand said he would be happy to work with the applicant to devise a landscape plan that is attractive and lower profile. Mr. Sarver noted the corners of the building architecturally have been intended to have signs that frame the corners and would have two sides. Mr. Sarver said as a matter of clarification they would like to have the two signs on the taller piece on both sides of the corner. Mr. Ekstrand said the condition on signage in the report was drafted off of the original report and will need to be revised. Mr. Ekstrand said they did not receive a sign plan from the applicant and asked whether they might have signage criteria to present at this meeting. The applicant responded they did not have signage criteria at this time, but will be created as they finalize the design of the building. Boardmember Ledvina moved approval of the revised site and building design plans date-stamped September 9, 2008 for proposed Legacy Shops at Maplewood retail center at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall do the following: . Review the plans for staff approval for all elevations adding decorative caps or crown on top of the brick columns. . Revise the landscaping plan for staff approval to increase the plantings along the north and east frontages and to provide the over story trees at 30 to 40 feet on center along the south frontage. Community Design Review Board Minutes 09-23-2008 4 . Provide a roof-equipment screening plan showing how roof-mounted equipment will be screened from the residential views to the south. If the proposed building parapet isn't tall enough, screening must be provided. The applicant shall comply with the city code in this respect. . Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters for staff approval. . Provide a lighting plan details showing the proposed light fixtures for staff's review and approval. There shall not be any lights on the back of the building. Site lights south of the building shall be pole-mount lights that aim toward the building. . Freestanding light fixtures shall be consistent with existing light fixtures for Legacy Village development, subject to staff approval. . Lighting on the south elevation shall be only down lighting. 3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: . Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any required revisions. . Provide roof-equipment screening as required by code. . Provide in-ground lawn irrigation as shown on the plans. . Comply with all requirements of the fire marshal, building official and police departments as noted in the staff report. 4. A comprehensive sign plan must be submitted subject to approval by the community design review board. . 5. Before obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing landscaping and other site improvements. This irrevocable letter of credit shall include the following provisions: . The letter of credit must clearly indicate that it is an irrevocable letter of credit in the name of the City of Maplewood, payable on demand, to assure compliance with the terms of the developer's agreement. . The letter of credit must allow for partial withdrawals as needed to guarantee partial project payments covered under the terms of the letter of credit. . The letter of credit shall be for a one-year duration and must have a condition indicating automatic renewal, with notification to the city a minimum of 60 days prior to its expiration. 6. The community design review board shall review any major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 7. The color of awnings shall be consistent/compatible with the color scheme of the building (no garish colors) and subject to staff approval. Community Design Review Board Minutes 09-23-2008 5 8. The applicant shall modify the area above the columns on the back of the building to provide a contrast to the main wall color to break up the expansive large back wall. Seconded by Boardmember Wise Boardmember Shankar questioned whether condition d. of Item A relating to the PUD conflicts with the board's motion. Boardmember Olson said she is okay with the board's motion since it is quite a general statement and is under the purview of the board. Boardmember Shankar suggested a friendly amendment might be added to the motion requiring brick be extended to the bottom of stucco color two on the six columns. The board discussed with Mr. Sarver the amendment to require the brick extension on the six central columns. Mr: Sarver asked whether an alternative of doing something different with the stucco such as changing the color or adding reveals might be used instead of the brick. Mr. Sarver said they previously explored extending the brick, but it did not look right and thought it might be because it then isn't consistent with the front of the building. It was suggested that using a EIFS color change might provide the alternative desired. It was decided t the applicant would work with staff to come up with an alternative design for the six columns. Boardmember Ledvina accepted the friendly amendment to his motion to modify the color of six of the interior columns on the south elevation of the building to change the EIFS color to provide more prominence in breaking up the expanse of the lighter tan EIFS. As the second to the motion, Boardmember Wise accepted the friendly amendment to the motion. The board then voted: Ayes - all The motion passed. b. U. of M.Capstone Project City naturalist Ginny Gaynor explained the University of Minnesota's Capstone project, which is an environmental sciences project class that involves problem solving for monumental change. Ms. Gaynor said the city is working with 49 seniors at the University of Minnesota. Ms. Gaynor said the theme chosen is Sustainable Maplewood and includes student groups studying impervious surface areas in the Mall area, vegetation planning, sustainable park issues, and a group working with the city regarding a green workplace model. The board discussed with the students areas for future study and methods to proceed with their study. The board asked students to report back to the board with questions and their findings. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None Community Design Review Board Minutes 09-23-2008 6 IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. CDRB representative for the October 27 city council meeting: Mr. Ledvina b. Mr. Ekstrand introduced the newly hired city planner, Mike Martin. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:27 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager Michael Martin, AICP, Planner T -Mobile Monopole - Conditional Use Permit Request T-Mobile 2220 Edgerton Street North October 20, 2008 INTRODUCTION Project Description Paul Harrington, representing T-Mobile, is proposing to erect a 75-foot-tall monopole for cellular telephone operations on land leased from Trinity Baptist Church located at 2220 Edgerton Street North. This monopole would have the availability for co-location in the future. T-Mobile would lease a 20- by 35-foot monopole site from Trinity Baptist Church. The applicant would place ground equipment inside an 8-foot-tall fence. The fence would also include a 6-foot-wide gate for access. The tower would be placed on the lawn on the Highway 36 side of the church, outside of the fence to the east of the ground equipment. The applicant is proposing to use the existing landscaping for screening purposes. The monopole would be constructed on the site of a previously existing monopole that was owned and operated by US West. That monopole has since been removed. Requests In order to proceed with the project the applicant is requesting the following city approvals: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a monopole and related equipment in an F (Farm) district. Section 44-1327 of the city code requires a conditional use permit for communication towers in a residential district. Refer to the applicant's letter of request and letter regarding co-location. 2. The monopole design and site plan. BACKGROUND In 1982 a sign variance for Trinity Baptist Church was approved by the city council. In 1998 a CUP was approved for an 85' monopole operated by U.S. West. The monopole has since been removed. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit Two neighbors have expressed concern about the appearance of the proposed monopole and the view from their homes. The two concerned parties live on Viking Drive East in Little Canada, to the north, and across Highway 36 from Trinity Baptist Church. The city code states that, to approve the CUP, the city must determine that it is not detrimental to any neighbor because of general unsightliness. It is difficult to argue that a monopole is attractive. However, staff does not feel that the actual impact on the neighbor's views is substantial; especially considering the Highway 36 corridor is already within their viewsheds. 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 a proposed tower because of electronic interference. That is up to the FCC to monitor and regulate. The city may only base their decision on land use and on health, safety and welfare concerns. Design and Site Issues The tower meets the setback requirements specified in the code. Staff does not find placement problems with the proposed tower facility. Staff went to Viking Drive North in Little Canada to observe the view that the homes on the north side of the highway have. While the actual tower cannot be screened, staff does feel that additional screening should be implemented in order to shield the residences to the north from the ground equipment and the base of the tower. Staff also feels that it would be appropriate to screen the base of the tower on the east side from the playground that is located on the church grounds. Staff recommends using arborvitae shrubs in order to be consistent with existing screening. The applicant's landscape plan shows six existing arborvitae shrubs on both sides of the proposed fenced-in area for ground equipment. When staff visited the site there were four shrubs on the west side and five shrubs on the east side. However, even with the reduced amount of shrubs staff finds that the existing screening the shrubs provide is sufficient. Other Comments BuildinQ Official . If there is a prefabricated building it is required to be IBC listed. The information provided by the applicant does not include the IBC listing. This is a Minnesota State Building Code requirement and the city will not issue a building permit for the new structure without the IBC listing. . The city requires a building permit for the installation of the cell phone tower. . The cell phone tower must comply with all the requirements of the 2006 International Building Code. 2 . A Minnesota registered structural engineer is required to review and sign off on the plans submitted. . Special inspection is required for bolting and welding. Enaineerina Department No comments. Fire Marshall No comments. Police Department Lieutenant Kevin Rabbet! of the Maplewood Police Department stated that he "found no significant public safety related concerns" with this proposal. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the proposed 75-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and ground equipment. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Community Development staff may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. This conditional use permit is conditioned upon T-Mobile allowing the co-location of other provider's telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. B. Approval of the site, landscaping and design plans dated March 31, 2008, for a 75-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and ground equipment on the north side of Trinity Baptist Church at 2220 Edgerton Street. Recommendation is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Applicant shall provide additional screening to the north and east of the monopole and ground equipment subject to staff approval. 2. Repeating the review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. 3. All work shall follow the approved plans. Community Development staff may approve minor changes. 3 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 45 property owners within 500 feet of Trinity Baptist Church for their opinions about this proposal. Of the nine replies, three had no comments, four were in favor and two objected. In Favor 1. It's fine with us. (Seibel, 2205 Sunrise Drive) 2. I have no objections - please proceed as appropriate. (DeVore, 2242 Hendry Place) 3. It's fine with me. (Kreyer, 2228 Hendry Place) 4. Ok with us as long as it is not by my door. Where is it in the plans you sent? Is it by the little pond or near the church parking lot? Opposed 1. What fee will be disbursed to those of us affected? Put up an ugly tower; take down an ugly tower; put up an ugly tower? (Burns, 601 Viking Drive, Little Canada) 2. Just because it's zoned for farm a monopole is not a horse, chicken, or cow. It's a large ugly pole sticking out in a beautiful neighborhood - not farms. We face south from our main windows of our home; the beauty of the cross lit at night is alii want to look at. The last pole they had was ugly from the view of our living room window. It took away from the beauty of our view. The lighting from the pole shined into our bedroom windows (we have too many lights from freeway) and we also had a lot of problems with our phones from the last pole. I do not want to look at another monopole. We are voting no to any monopoles being put up at 2220 Edgerton Street N. We face south from our living room and we saw the last pole it took away from our view all we could see was that old pole it was not a beautiful sight. The lighting for safety of the last pole and church shined into our bedrooms and living room, we already have way too many lights from the freeway and church shining over across the freeway into our home. The last pole caused a lot of problems with our phones beeping all the time. I, Mrs. Stauff, had many headaches when last pole was up when they took it down my headaches stopped. I have not had any for over a year now. We would like someday to sell our home without pole. I would rather look at the cross lit at night then a telephone. Chickens, cows, a horse, a barn would be a better sight than a monopole. We say no to monopole. (Stauff, 627 Viking Drive, Little Canada) No Comment 1. No comment. (Phoenix Residence, 645 Viking Drive, Little Canada) 2. No comment. (Brekke, 2204 Payne Avenue) 3. No comment. (Downs, 628 Viking Drive, Little Canada) 4 REFERENCE INFORMATION Site Description Existing Use: Church Surrounding Land Uses North: East: South: West: Highway 36 and Single Family Homes in Little Canada Single Family Homes Single Family Homes Single Family Homes PLANNING Land Use: Zoning: Church (C) Farm (F) Ordinance Requirements Section 44-1327 requires a CUP for a communications tower in a residential zoning district. The ordinance requires a maximum height of 75 feet; however, the height may be increased to 125 feet if the tower is designed for the co-location of another provider's antenna. Section 44-1327(13) requires the community design review board (CDRB) to make recommendations on the plans for towers, utility, equipment or accessory buildings, site plans and proposed screening and landscaping. 5 Findings for CUP approval Section 44-1 097(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards for approval. Refer to the findings in the attached resolution. Section 44-1326(a) states that the city council shall consider the following when reviewing a CUP for a monopole: 1. The standards in the city code. 2. The recommendations of the planning commission and community design and review board. 3. Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of residents of the surrounding areas. 4. The effect on property values. 5. The effect on the proposed use in the comprehensive plan. Application Date The city received the complete application for lot division request on September 17, 2008. The initial60-day review deadline is November 23,2008. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary in order to complete the review of your application. Based on the meeting schedule to review this application, the revised, extended deadline for the City of Maplewood to complete the review and take action on the request will be January 15, 2009. P/sec8/2220 Edgerton N - CUP Monopole Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Applicant's letter of request dated September 16. 2008 5. Applicant's letter of monopole height and co-location provision dated August 20,2008 6. CUP Resolution 7. Site Plans dated March 31,2008 6 Attachment 1 T -Mobile Request for Conditional Use Permit - 75' Telecommunications Monopole 2220 Edgerton Street North " 2 W\!ii<li:R.E ijfi:{\';y,m'.'1To~qrOl<$fN - ll'G'lWAV,:;a;:; iiiGfi\\j!iY,'.1h efjctamooS'fflmffitflli'V'"-ollW "--,--- ---- -\(>0<,,0<1 ~ " ~ ~;~~4;;~~ " ~ ;! " e-'Cd'jlriY'ltOO"5!! j 11$ tIel> " ,# t Figure One - Location Map City of Maplewood September 23,2008 NORTH Attachment 2 T -Mobile Request for Conditional Use Permit - 75' Telecommunications Monopole 2220 Edgerton Street North; Zoned - Farm -_______LL________~=:~~ ~===-~-~:=-~::=~~:==~~=::::=~~:~ I I :=-:~:::..-:=:'::f;-.+:---:::..-::::..-=:-;...~-.-"~..------=- =---::::--:-=-:--"--=--=--.--:::-- -. -_...::",.--- -." :::.- -" "':""'-:;;<-:: .- - ----. - - -- - - - _:...~_._ .. 0::' -------~----- =--- ---- .::.~---,--..--- -:~~~~ -~~:-- -..-...-------- -;::_c'''- ~~_~--.'""-.-- /' i-'-~~- ~--~ II \;\ !~ ! \ I 'L: .:1,., S ! ! D i ! 2220 u.' mu ,..<;I. ~,o" Trinity 8aptist Church '\ f \ \ ~------ --, ~-_._-~- !(O 6 1m ' ~ q~D ! ! ,,,;, , I I [J it, t Figure Two - Zoning Map City of Maplewood September 23,2008 NORTH Attachment 3 T -Mobile Request for Conditional Use Permit - 75' Telecommunications Monopole 2220 Edgerton Street North; Land Use Guide - Church '"'---- .--:~ ..' -' ,~-=--- - - -~. :. -~ ~-~=:::~=~=-~===::::.~:~ - -- - --- ".~-- - - -~- -- -- -- -- - -- ...----.-.- - -~-- .--- ._.".-""'''-'"-~-'--' - - - - - - - __ - - __ n"._'.' ...,____.__~_. _____... H__ '. ;~:;:--;.~-:- _.':.~~::- e--- ~~~-:~-,,-.-..... --- "" crtJll I~ S5 '<0 . <0 ~D ' .:t.... ,7'i. , o i ! 22~ m, rl., [J t Figure Three - Land Use Map City of Maplewood September 23, 2008 NORTH Attachment 4 . HARRI\GTO\ COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES September 16,2008 Maplewood Planning Commission clo Maplewood Community Development Department 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Request for Conditional Use Permit - 2220 Edgerton Street - Trinity Baptist Church Dear Sirs and Madams: On behalf of T-Mobile USA (''I-Mobile''), please accept this letter and the accompanying application as a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow T- Mobile to install a 75' telecommunications monopole at the above-referenced address. BACKGROUND T-Mobile is a leading provider of digital communications in the United States with over 12 million subscribers in 46 of the top 50 wireless markets. T-Mobile uses and operates the Global System for Mobile (GSM) communications technology platform, which is the established standard in most countries outside of the United States. T- Mobile is the only U.S. wireless telecommunications provider with a national GSM network, which gives customers the choice of using their T-Mobile number while traveling internationally and supports roaming capabilities for other GSM customers traveling to the United States. T-Mobile currently has a developed wireless network covering the 11-county MinneapolislSt. Paul metropolitan area. Current plans for expansion in the metropolitan area include deployment of facilities in areas of residential character to address known coverage gaps. Specifically, T-Mobile has identified the Basswood Elementary and surrounding Fish Lake area as a demand area lacking in signal coverage. CURRENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION T-Mobile has come to agreement with the owner of the property - Trinity Baptist Church - on a Lease agreement for the development of a 75' monopole structure on . Page 2 September 16, 2008 the subject property. The proposed monopole would be located on the north end of the property adjacent to the Highway 36 eastbound on-ramp. The location was selected based on its proximity to the main drive areas of the church grounds and, its ground elevation in relation to the rest of the property. Additionally, the location is the same as one previously used by Owest for a similar 75' monopole. The proposed monopole and associated ground processing equipment will be located in a 20' x 35' leased area as depicted on the attached Plan Set. The proposal is for the ground processing equipment necessary for the operation of the equipment to be enclosed in a fenced area. This will allow the utilization of the existing landscaping that was part of the previous Qwest installation. The interior of the fenced area will consist of a 12' x 18' on-grade concrete slab. The use ofthe slab will eliminate the possibility of weeds and other growth within the fenced area, Michael Thompson, Assistant City Engineer, has been made aware of the proposed placement of the $Iab and has determined that its size will have no impact on the drainage amounts or pattems currently on the property. The fence surrounding the ground equipment will be chain link - eight (8) feet in height. The facility will be locked in order to deter unauthorized access to the equipment. The monopole has been designed both structurally and in terms of size to accommodate one (1) additional wireless carrier on-site. Service Technicians will visit the site approximately one (1) time per month on a scheduled basis for routine maintenance. Additional visits to the site will only be made under emergency circumstances (equipment failure, power outage, lightening strike, etc.). No special access to the site will be necessary. The GSM system operates on a specific set of channels licensed exclusively to T- Mobile to provide high quality digital communication service for the benefit of the public good. As required by their FCC license, T-Mobile will ensure that no interference to existing, properly licensed users of FCC spectrum takes place. Any and all future carriers who may locate on the site will be subject 0 the same standards. C.U.P. REQUIREMENTS A summary of the C.U.P. requirements as they relate to the current proposal are as follows: For a new personal wireless communication tower or monopole, the applicant shall document to the city that the proposed telecommunications equipment cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or commercial building within one-half mile radius because of one or more of the following: a. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or commercial building. . Page 3 September 16, 2008 No buildings or structures of necessary height are located within Y:! mile of the proposed location. The attached radius map illustrates the area searched. b. The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building. As mentioned in (a) above, there are no structures located within Y:! mile of the proposed location that were suitable form a height standpoint to support a telecommunications installation. c. 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. Similar to (a) and (b) above, no structures were found to be suitable from either a structural or engineering standpoint. d. For residential district sites, the applicant must demonstrate, by providing a city-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. The attached coverage maps illustrate the existing and proposed coverage that will result from the location of the proposed facility. With the increase of mobile phone use as a primary phone line, capacity and coverage needs have evolved from covering primary roadways to being in locations that service customers that may use their mobile phones as a primary home phone line. Because of this, the standard for coverage in the industry has become what is termed "in-building" coverage. The maps show the relationship of the proposed facility to the surrounding sites which are in the network and how they are interrelated. The proposed location is necessary to meet the in-building needs of Maplewood residents in the Edgerton/Highway 36 area. In addition to those maps, included for reference is a street map which shows the location of the sites which surround the proposed location (A1N0617B). The site locations are as follows: A 1 N0061 A - 1779 McMenemy Street - Monopole (T -Mobile owned) A 1 N0980A - 5 County Road BEast - Monopole (American Tower owned) A1N0128A- 515 Little Canada Rd - Little Canada Water Tower A 1 N0050A - 1300 Gervais Street - Monopole (T -Mobile owned) A1N0129A - 1221 Frost Avenue - Monopole (Global Signal owned) . Page 4 September 16, 2008 e. For all commercial wireless telecommunications service towers, a letter of intent committing the tower, the owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use. A letter from Mark Holm, Real Estate and Zoning Manager for T -Mobile, is attached as satisfaction this requirement. All other standards and requirements of the Maplewood Municipal Code appear to have been met or exceeded. Your support of the project is appreciated. On behalf of T-Mobile, I thank you for your consideration of this request. If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 612- 810-8174. I \ Sincerely, ' / "~hL Paul A. Harrington Carlson & Harrington, Inc. Authorized Representative for T -Mobile /ce: Trinity Baptist Church - Ross Rud /attachments: Completed C.U.P. Application Completed Design Review Board Application Application Fees - $1,891 (CUP - $1645, Notification Sign - $200, Recording Fee - $46); $1530 (Design Review Board) Mailing List Letter of Commibnent to allow Collocation Coverage Maps - Existing, Proposed, Adjoining Sites and, Radius Search Area Plan Set - Sixteen (16) Copies 11" x 17" PDF of Plan Set - emailed separately g R m - ~ · -Mobile-@ Attachment 5 August 20, 2008 Planning Department City of Map1ewood 1830 County Road BEast Map1ewood, MN 55109 RE: CUP application - Telecommunications Facility - 2220 Edgerton Street To Whom it May Concern: Please accept this letter as satisfaction of the shared use requirements contained in the City of Map1ewood CUP application. Specifically, T-Mobi1e, USA commits to the shared use of the above-referenced antenna facility if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for the shared use thereof. Sincerely, ~W Mark Holm Real Estate & Zoning Manager - Central Region T-Mobile, USA I-Mobile USA, Inc. 8000 West 78th Street, Suite 400 Edina, MN 55439 Attachment 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Paul Harrington of T-Mobile applied for a conditional use permit to install a 75-foot- tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2220 Edgerton Street. The legal description is: EX S 604 13/100 FT THE W 429 FT OF SW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 (SUBJ TO HWY AND ST) IN SEC 8 TN 29 RN 22 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On , 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit revision. 2. On , 2008, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council conditional use permit, because: the above-described 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. 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, 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. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Community Development staff may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit on one year. 4. This conditional use permit is conditioned upon T-Mobile allowing the co-location of other provider's telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on ,2008.