Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/2009 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 2, 2009 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. May 19, 2009 5. Public Hearings 6. New Business 7. Unfinished Business a. Conditional Use Permit-T-Mobile Cell Phone Tower, 1961 County Rd C 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. Commissioner Report on the May 28, 2009 City Council Meeting: Commissioner Fischer attended for the continuing discussion on the comprehensive plan update and the Waldorf School conditional use permit for their proposed building expansion. b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of June 8, 2009: At this time, the potential items of review will be the conditional use permit for the T-Mobile cell-phone tower proposed at 1961 County Road C. Commissioner Hess is scheduled to attend. c.Election of Chair and Vice Chair (no report) 10. Staff Presentations a. Review of Vacant Properties 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 19,2009 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Joseph Boeser Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Robert Martin Corn missioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Comrnissioner Joe Walton Comrnissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present City Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand. City Planner Shann Finwall. Environmental Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Trippler seconded The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. May 5, 2009 Ayes - all Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the amended minutes of May 5, 2009, removing Mr. Boeser's name from the voting in Item IV. and changing the phrase wet-cast to pre-cast in the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 2. Commissioner Hess seconded The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING Ayes - Fischer, Hess, Martin, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood Abstention - Boeser a. 7:05 p.m.: Conditional Use Permit-T-Mobile Cell Phone Tower, 1961 County Road C Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report for this request by T -Mobile to erect a 75-foot-tall wireless telecommunications tower for cellular telephone operations on land leased from Independent School District No. 622 at the Harmony Learning Center, located at 1961 County Road C East. The pole would be located where a 30-foot light pole currently exists within the school's parking lot. Mr. Ekstrand explained that this proposal meets all of the ordinance criteria for tower height and location. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-09 -2- Commissioner Trippler said the tower location is a safety issue in the area of the school bus loading area and asked why it was not located in the ball field outfield area. Commissioner Hess said he observed the site and the proposed tower location would be in the school's bus loading area. Mr. Hess said the tower would not be aesthetically pleasing in that area. Commissioner Boeser questioned why the site location on such a large parcel was not established away from the school or on another site in the area. Pat Conlin said she works for FMHC and as an agent representing T-Mobile. Ms. Conlin said their request for this tower is due to the expanding number of cell phone users. Ms. Conlin said the suggested water tower location will not work since it is too low and it will not penetrate the environment within this particular search ring. Ms. Conlin explained that T-Mobile considered several other possible tower location sites in this area, but none of them met the needed requirements. Ms. Conlin said Harmony School is now being used for adult education and there are no children attending the school. Ms. Conlin explained that the representatives of the school have signed the application and lease agreement with T -Mobile and are very familiar with the details of this project. Ms. Conlin explained that the tower location was determined because the city's ordinance prefers that an existing site be used and T-Mobile would be replacing an existing light and not be adding something else on the property. Ms. Conlin explained that monopoles are constructed in such a way that even in hurricane environments they do not fail. Thierry Colson, engineer for T-Mobile, said this proposal is for a very low power system with an output of the transmitter equipment on the base system of 25 watts. Commissioner Walton asked why the tower height was set for 75 feet. Ms. Conlin responded that in this zoning code area 75 feet is the maximum allowed height with one collocation. Commissioner Trippler asked if the commission's recommendation tonight included a change of location for the tower to the northeast or northwest corner of the site, and if the school district agreed with this change, if T-Mobile would be agreeable to change the location. Ms. Conlin responded that when T-Mobile designs a site they consider the landlord's needs, the existing utilities on the property, and what makes sense from a construction cost standpoint. Ms. Conlin explained that if all things considered are equal and with landlord approval and a reasonable location found, T-Mobile would not be adverse to it. Ms. Conlin said this request meets all of the city's code requirements. The public hearing was opened for comments from the public: Linda Olson, the resident adjacent to the proposed tower, said her property extends to the adjacent wetland and the lot next to her is owned by the Olson Property Trust, who is her brother. Ms. Olson mentioned this property has been owned by her family for many years. Ms. Olson said she will be able to see this tower out of every window in her house and she feels there is a better location for the tower. Ms. Olson said she is opposed to this proposal and with having this tower constructed in this location. Commissioner Hess moved the planning commission table this request for a conditional use permit for the proposed 75-foot-tall wireless telecommunications tower and ground equipment until a more suitable location is found. Commissioner Pearson seconded Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-09 -3- The commission discussed whether this request could be approved for another location on this proposed school district site or whether tabling this request until the next meeting to allow more time to look at various locations would be more appropriate. The commission voted on the motion to table: Ayes-Fischer, Hess, Martin, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood Nays-Boeser The motion passed. Patricia Conlin asked for clarification on what locations the commission would be agreeable to. The commission responded they would like the applicant to look at other locations and also investigate the northeast and northwest corners of this site. Ms. Conlin reiterated that T -Mobile's request for the proposed school district location meets all of the city's code requirements. b. 8:41 p.m.: Conditional Use Permit Amendment-Bruentrup Heritage Farm, 2170 County Road D Planner Shann Finwall presented the staff report for this request for a conditional use permit amendment. Planner Finwall said the Maplewood Area Historical Society (MAHS) was originally granted approval of the conditional use permit to operate the Bruentrup Farm. Planner Finwall explained that the Society now is requesting approval for the Bruentrup Heritage Farm facility to be rented out for large events, in addition to hosting their own small and large events. Commissioner Hess asked for clarification on what the noise ordinance and required hours of compliance would be for this facility. Planner Finwall responded that the noise ordinance requires that no disturbing noises be generated after 7 p.m., but that staff is recommending that all large-scale music be held inside the barn only. Commissioner Boeser said he is concerned with possible noise complaints with people coming and going from the facility during wedding events. Mr. Boeser said he has concerns with the applicant not being able to provide transportation from the Salvation Army parking site for large events. Commissioner Trippler said he has concerns with the discrepancy between the city and applicant regarding the maximum allowable occupancy, the requirement that renters obtain additional liability insurance, and the problems with transporting people in rainy weather in an open wagon. Commissioner Martin commented that the improvements to widen White Bear Avenue recently considered by the commission are already reducing parking spaces for businesses along White Bear Avenue. Robert Overby was present representing the applicant, Maplewood Area Historical Society. Mr. Overby said the MAHS envisions hosting three to six non-historical events annually. Mr. Overby said the MAHS has worked with staff to complete the necessary requirements to hold large events and by controlling the type of activities that would be held at the farm. Mr. Overby said the MAHS agrees with the need for a shuttle to transport people from the parking areas to the farm and that the tractor and wagon would not be used for large groups or after dark. Mr. Overby said they have a written agreement with Salvation Army for 78 parking spaces and expect to get a written agreement with Harbor Pointe for another 250 parking spaces. Commissioner Boeser commented that if the MAHS eliminated holding weddings and not allowing alcohol at the farm most of the issues would go away. Mr. Overby said weddings were seen as a target group where there might be limited rental interest and would create larger revenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-09 -4- Carolyn Peterson, 1801 Gervais Avenue and a member of MAHS, said the purpose of MAHS is as an historical farm. Ms. Peterson said they have school groups coming to the farm, but they need to have fundraising to support the farm expenses. Commissioner Hess commented that if the situations could be controlled and liability issues are taken care of, he did not see any problem with having an occasional wedding at the farm and he understands that they would probably generate more cash flow than some of the other events. Commissioner Pearson said he would not be upset if a rental of a smaller group wedding were held that celebrates the heritage. Mr. Pearson said he does not like use of the wagon or cutting another trail through what is supposed to be prairie land and maintained as such. Mr. Pearson said he also has a problem with the current conditional use permit that requires "the use would generate minimal vehicular traffic local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on an existing street" and Mr. Pearson said he feels this proposal would. Mr. Pearson said the existing conditional use permit calls for additional parking with an amendment of the permit. Mr. Overby responded that staff has determined that the grade off of County Road D is too steep to allow the westerly parking area to be enlarged. Mr. Overby said that even for medium-sized events, MAHS would need to rely on additional off-site parking with a shuttle bus provided. Commissioner Pearson said he is concerned that this proposal could be precedent setting. Mr. Overby responded that if the commission finds it is not appropriate to use off-site parking, an expansion of the existing parking lot will need to be investigated or the weddings will need to be held during daytime hours with no alcohol served. Mr. Overby said the MAHS is open to trying various rental events in trying to make this fund raising successful. Richard Currie, a member of the Maplewood Preservation Commission, said at their last meeting a motion was made to have this request for a CUP amendment come before their commission before it went before the planning commission, but staff moved it to the planning commission first. Mr. Currie said many issues were added by staff that the preservation commission is not in favor of. Char Wasiluk, 1740 Frank Street and a member of MAHS, said she wanted to comment on the negative attitude on the weddings. Ms. Wasiluk said there was a large wedding held at the farm last fall and there was only one small complaint regarding driving a vehicle on the trail and the driver was told to stop immediately. Ms. Wasiluk said farm weddings are very popular and are a good way for MAHS to raise funds. George Rossbach, 1406 County Road C East and a member of MAHS, said that many volunteer hours and dollars have gone into the farm in the last ten years. Mr. Rossbach said the stumbling block at this point seems to be a historic event as opposed to a non-historic event. Mr. Rossbach said he hates to see the weddings eliminated as a source of income. Mr. Rossbach said the use of the building for fundraising is quite limited, since there is no heat or air conditioning in the building. Nicholas and Chris Glendenning, 2226 County Road D East, said he considers a large wedding with alcohol much different than a youth sock hop in the barn. Mr. Glendenning is concerned with living next to a wedding reception hall, loud music after 10-11 p.m., traffic and littering. Chris Glendenning clarified that they live two houses from the farm with all of the bedrooms facing the farm. Ms. Glendenning said they are concerned with loud noise since they have young children. Commissioner Trippler said he is concerned that this proposal would set a precedent; he is concerned with damages to the buildings and property with alcohol being used, and excessive noise in the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-09 -5- Commissioner Fischer said she was concerned with considering this proposal without the recommendation from the historical commission. Robert Overby suggested that if the commission is going to table this proposal, that direction be given to MAHS by the commission of their consensus of what should be eliminated. There were no further comments from the public; the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Trippler commented that members of MAHS have heard the comments and concerns tonight and should be able to make some changes based on their wants or what they think is appropriate, rather than having the commission tell them their wants. Commissioner Hess said he has some of the same concerns with safety, security, and noise, but he feels if there is security on site, shuttle service to the site, limited hours and noise constraints, the weddings could be successful and provide the needed revenue. Commissioner Hess moved to table this request until the historical commission considers it and gives its recommendation. Commissioner Martin seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. May 11, 2009 City Council Meeting: Commissioner Yarwood reported on this meeting. b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of May 28, 2009: Commissioner Fischer will attend. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. 2009 Summer Planning Commission Tour Date Suggestions Planner Ekstrand asked for suggested dates to hold the commission tour. The commission provided suggestions and chose July 1 as their first choice. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. MEMORANDUM APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Michael Martin, AICP, Planner T-Mobile Tower - Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Request FMHC Corporation, as agent for T-Mobile Central LLC 1961 County Road C East May 27, 2009 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION Kelly Swenseth, of FMHC and representing T-Mobile, is proposing to erect a 75-foot-tall wireless telecommunications tower for cellular telephone operations on land leased from Independent School District No. 622 at the Harmony Learning Center located at 1961 County Road C East. The pole would be located where a 30-foot light pole currently exists within the school's parking lot. This tower would have the availability for collocation in the future. T -Mobile would lease a 15- by 25-foot site from Independent School District No. 622. The applicant would place ground equipment inside an 8-foot-tall fence. The fence would include a 12-foot- wide gate for access. The tower would be placed on the grassy area within the parking lot at Harmony Learning Center. The applicant has not proposed any additional landscaping for screening purposes. City code would require the applicant to screen the ground equipment. Requests In order to proceed with the project the applicant is requesting the following city approvals: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a tower and related equipment at a school. Section 44-1321 (b)(2)b of the city code requires a conditional use permit for communications towers located at a school. Refer to the applicant's letter of request. 2. The tower design and site plans. BACKGROUND September 14, 1987: The city council approved a land use plan change and a conditional use permit to use the facility for non-profit, education-related and child-care uses. The land use change was from RM (residential medium density) and RH (residential high density) to S (school). 1992: Independent School District No. 622 demolished part of the old school; made structural additions and expanded the parking lot. DISCUSSION May 19, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting The planning commission tabled this application at its last meeting requesting that the applicant consider other tower-placement options on the Harmony Learning Center property and also other parcels in this coverage area. The applicant told staff that the school district is not open to placing the tower at other locations within the Harmony site and that the school district only wants to see the tower placed where it is currently proposed. The applicant has stated that the currently proposed location is preferable because it would be accessible through the parking lot without the need to build a driveway to a more remote location. The applicant has indicated they are continuing to evaluate other potential sites but request that the planning commission take action on their current proposal. In the mean time, if the applicant finds an alternative location that would suit their coverage needs, they would have to apply for a new application for consideration. Staff's review, therefore, is based on the current proposal. Conditional Use Permit Surrounding neighbors have expressed concern about the location of the proposed tower at the Harmony Learning Center. Staff did echo those concerns to the applicant and encouraged the applicant to consider alternative locations. Sec. 44-1321 lists preferences for selecting sites to build a telecommunications tower. Sec. 44-1321 (b)( 1 )g states that "parking lots may be used to locate towers where the structure replicates, incorporates or substantially blends with the overall lighting standards and fixtures of the parking lot." Sec. 44-1321 (b)(2)b states that schools are one of the primary land use areas for towers requiring a conditional use permit. The applicant stated that the proposed location for the tower within the Harmony Learning Center parking lot was chosen because of its proximity to parking in order to service the tower and because it will be located where a light pole currently exists. Staff had encouraged the applicant to consider locating on the water tower located at Cope Avenue and Castle Place, south of Highway 36. The Saint Paul Water Authority, who owns and operates the water tower, said the highest position available to mount additional telecommunications equipment is 90.1 feet. The applicant stated that it is always T-Mobiles first option to always collocate because of the efficiencies achieved. However, the applicant feels that the coverage achieved at the height available at the water tower is not sufficient and needs to locate at Harmony Learning Center. Coverage maps and a letter from the applicant's engineer have been attached to this report and detail the coverage achieved at both the water tower and Harmony Learning Center locations. Sec. 44-1331 (a) requires that new telecommunications equipment be collocated on existing structures unless it can be documented to the satisfaction of the city council that the equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or commercial building within one-half mile radius. The water tower on Cope Avenue is approximately three-quarters of a mile away from the Harmony Leaning Center site, thus the city cannot require the applicant to collocate on the water tower. Sec 44-1328(3)1 states that towers should not be located between a principle 2 structure and a public street. The proposed tower's location within the parking lot, with access from County Road C East, would satisfy this requirement. City code requires that a new tower be set back from the nearest residential lot line by a distance of at least the height of the proposed tower plus 25 feet. So for this application the proposed tower would need to be setback at least 100 feet from the nearest residential lot line. The proposed tower is at least 170 feet away from the nearest residential lot line satisfying this requirement. 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. As stated above, staff finds that the proposed tower location meets city code requirements. The applicant intends to replace a 30 foot light pole with a 75-foot wireless telecommunications tower. Lights servicing the parking light will also be included on the light pole at the 28 foot level of the tower. Staff would recommend requiring that the new lights not illuminate the parking lot any more than the current light pole does. A chain link fence does exist between the Harmony Learning Center site and the residential home to the east. An existing tree is located directly to the east of the proposed tower and would no be impacted by this proposal. However,the existing conditions do not amount to sufficient screening. Sec. 44-1328(3)f requires the applicants to landscape the base of the tower and any accessory structures. Staff is recommending that the applicant be required to submit a landscape plan for staff approval that details the use of arborvitae plantings and fencing that would sufficiently screen the ground equipment and tower base from the surrounding land uses. Sec. 44-1328(3)g requires that towers be light blue, gray or another color shown to reduce visibility. This proposed tower would need to meet this requirement. 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 telecommunication monopole tower. 3 . The 75' telecommunications tower must comply with all the requirements of the 2006 International Building Code. . A Minnesota registered structural engineer is required to review and sign off on the plans submitted. . Special inspection is required for concrete, rebar, bolting and welding. Enqineerinq Department. Fire Marshall and Police No comment. SUMMARY Tower Placement The applicant has stated that the school district is not willing to have the tower placed elsewhere on their property. The applicant, therefore, would like to stick with their original proposal and are requesting the planning commission's action. The planning commission should forward a recommendation on this current proposal to the city council. As stated above, if the applicant finds an alternative location, they would have to submit a new application for consideration. Screening Since the applicant has not yet proposed a screening plan, it should be understood that they must prepare and present a screening plan to the community design review board for the board's approval before a building permit is issued. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the proposed 75-foot- tall wireless telecommunications tower 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. The 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 4. This conditional use permit is conditioned upon T-Mobile allowing the co- location of other provider's telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower. 5. The applicant shall provide a screening plan to the community design review board for approval to screen the base of the tower site. The applicant shall provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of the landscaping before getting a building permit. B. Approval of the site and design plans stamped April 23, 2009, for a 75-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and ground equipment within the parking lot of Harmony Learning Center at 1961 County Road C East. Recommendation is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. The applicant shall provide a screening plan to the community design review board for approval to screen the base of the tower site. The applicant shall provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of the landscaping before getting a building permit. 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. The community development staff may approve minor changes. 5 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 32 property owners within 500 feet of Harmony Learning Center for their opinions about this proposal. Of the eight replies, one had no comments, four were in favor and three objected. In Favor 1. As a T-Mob.ile customer, we look forward to better coverage in our home. (Flor, 2032 1 ih Avenue East) 2. I am all for this. As a T-Mobile customer it would improve signal in my area which is weak. (Grieman, 2621 Ariel Street North) 3. No problem with me. (Trepanier, 439 Birchwood Courts) 4. Since the family has T-Mobile phone service and since we have been experiencing very poor service from our home, we support the installation 100%. (AI-Ghalith, 1895 County Road C East) Opposed 1. Two email's attached to this report. (Olson, 2005 County Road C East) 2. Email attached to this report. (Olson, 2045 1ih Avenue East) 3. Email attached to this report. (Olson, 2027 17th Avenue East) No Comment 1. No comment. (Vaughn, 2725 White Bear Avenue North) 6 REFERENCE INFORMATION Site Description Existing Use: School Surrounding Land Uses North: East: South: West: Kohlman Creek County Open Space Single Family Home Single Family Homes, vacant lots and commercial buildings White Bear Avenue, commercial buildings and a church PLANNING Land Use: Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance Requirements Section 44-1321 (b)(2) requires a CUP for a communications tower at a school. 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. 7 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 a wireless telecommunications tower on April 23, 2009. The initial 60-day review deadline is June 22, 2009. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary to complete the review of the application. PI SEC2S\1961 Co Rd C\Monopole CUP\PC_060209 MM TE Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Applicant's letter of request 5. Applicant's Engineer's letter 6. Proposed Coverage Maps 7. Site Plan, dated April 23, 2009 8. Email from Linda Olson, dated May 4, 2009 9. Email from Linda Olson, dated May 5, 2009 10. Email from Glen Olson, dated May 4, 2009 11. Email from Dale Olson, dated May 4, 2009 12. CUP Resolution 8 Attachment 1 T-Mobile - Request for Conditional Use Permit and CORB Review t Figure One - Location Map City of Maplewood April 8, 2009 NORTH Attachment 2 T-Mobile - Request for Conditional Use Permit and CORB Review 2121 t Figure Two - Zoning Map City of Maplewood April 8, 2009 NORTH Attachment 3 T-Mobile - Request for Conditional Use Permit and CORB Review t Figure Three - Land Use Map City of Maplewood April 8, 2009 NORTH Attachment 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION STATEMENT OF PROPOSED USE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION :NEED FOR INCREASED COVERAGE IN MAPLEWOOD T-Mobile USA is the United States operating entity ofT-Mobile International AG, the mobile communications subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG (NYSE: DT). Deutsche Telekom is one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world, with nearly 120 million customers worldwide. T-Mobile USA's headquarters are located in Bel\evue, Washington with a Minnesota office located at 8000 W 78th St in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In 2006, the usage of cel\ phones met and then exceeded landline phone usage and is now the primary way Americans communicate by phone. One out of every eight American homes (13.6%) had only wireless telephones during the fITst half of2007; that number jumped to nearly one out of every six (15.8) during the second half of2007. To keep pace with the dramatic increase in consumer demand on wireless networks in more residential areas, T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile") is making a committed effort to remedy and fill in areas experiencing spotty coverage, poor call clarity and dropped calls. The expanding wireless infrastructure is vital in providing quick assistance when emergency situations arise. T-Mobile typically handles more than 60,000 emergency 911 cal\s everyday across the country and the caller location system called Enhanced 911 ("E9l1") is providing better connection between the emergency responders and distressed wireless callers. E911 ensures that each emergency wireless call is routed to the most appropriate dispatch call center while also providing a call-back number to the dispatcher as well as information about the approximate location of the distressed caller. To fully support the E911 system capabilities and to enhance public safety in the residential neighborhoods and shopping area surrounding Harmony Learning Center, T-Mobile's engineers have selected Harmony Learning Center as the best location option within T-Mobile's desired coverage radius. T-Mobile and its affiliates have acquired licenses from the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to provide personal wireless service throughout the United States. These licenses include the City of Maple wood and the remainder of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, as part of an integrated nationwide network of coverage. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The subject property of the Conditional Use Permit application is the location of the Harmony Learning Center parking lot, the address of the site is 1961 County Road C, Maplewood, Minnesota 55109. The legal description of the subject parcel is included with this application as Exhibit C: Harmony Learning Center Legal Description. The Harmony Learning Center property is used as an adult education center and is designated as an institutional/school use in the Land Use map. The property is owned by Independent School District No. 622 and is located at the intersection of County Road C and White Bear Avenue. Harmony Learning Center 1961 County Road C Maplewood,:M:N 55109 1 Attachment 4 PROPOSED TOWER T-Mobile Central LLC is proposing to erect a seventy-five (75) foot wireless communications tower to enhance T-Mobile's digital network within the nearby residential neighborhoods and also better in-car coverage along White Bear Avenue and County Road C. The proposed tower will replace the existing light pole in the parking lot of Harmony Learning Center. T-Mobile's antennas are to be mounted above the light fixture with a centerline of . seventy two feet and six inches (72' - 6"). The monopole is designed to structurally support the collocation of an additional carrier's antennas, and also support the mounting of parking lot light fixtures to illuminate the parking lot. Additionally, a four (4) foot tall lightning rod will be attached at the top of the monopole. The monopole will be designed in accordance with the Electronic Industries Association Standard EIA-222-F, "Structural Standard for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures." This standard is modeled after the ANSI A58.1 standard, which is now known as ASCE-7. A monopole is theoretically designed to collapse upon itself in the event of an unlikely tower failure. T -MOBILE'S ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT T-Mobile's accessory equipment will be located at the base ofthe monopole on the grass berm. T -Mobile is proposing, for security reasons, to enc\osethe accessory ground equipment within an eight foot (8') tall chain link fence and to line three strands of barbed wire along the top of the fence. Since there is no existing vegetation on the land berm where the equipment will be located, T -Mobile is not proposing to add landscaping to the site. TYPICAL PROCESS FOR SITE LOCATION When T -Mobile becomes aware of a need to increase coverage in a specific area, Radio Frequency (RF) engineers generate propagation studies 10 determine the location needs specific to the area such as the required height and desired latitude and longitude. In determining site requirements, T-Mobile's RF engineers consider the area topography, the location of existing antenna towers, surrounding obstructions and coverage and capacity needs. RF engineers then identify a Search Ring which is a geographic area which potential sites may be located to effectuate the maximum amount of coverage to the desired area. Once the Search Ring is identified, T-Mobile employs a site acquisition specialist to locate the possible sites within the Search Ring. The site acquisition specialist frrst looks for existing towers within the search ring where T -Mobile can col\ocate its antennas. Collocation on an existing tower is preferred because it cuts the cost of new construction and minimizes the number of towers in a local zoning jurisdiction. Ifno existing towers are available for collocation within the Search Ring, the site acquisition specialist then looks for the best option for locating a new tower that will satisfy the local zoning requirements and that can be easily camouflaged in the surrounding area. In planning for the construction of the new tower, T-Mobile's construction architects and engineers, have designed a tower that will allow for future collocation of an additional wireless carrier's antennas. Harmony Learning Center 1961 CoWlty Road C Maplewood, MN 55109 2 Attachment 4 SELECTION CRITERIA FOR HARMONY LEARNING CENTER SITE After generating a propagation study, T-Mobile's RF engineers identified the need for in- building coverage to the neighboring residential and commercial areas and also better in-car coverage along County Road C and White Bear Avenue. A map of the desired coverage area for this Maplewood Site can be viewed at Exhibit E: Letter from T-Mobile's RF Engineer. There are not any existing towers available for collocation within one-half mile of the Harmony Learning Center. Harmony Learning Center was selected for its location near the center of the issued desired coverage area and also to meet the zoning regulations of the City of Maple wood. T-Mobile and the site acquisition specialist met with representatives from the School District to come up with a tower designed to meet the zoning requirements and T-Mobile's needs, but also a structure that would minimally impact the use of Harmony Learning Center. The proposed monopole and ground equipment have been designed to blend in with the parking lot light fixtures. The Harmony Learning Center location is a good site for the future collocation of an additional carrier, thereby reducing the need for a tower in the future while also meeting T- Mobile's needs to provide better service to residents and visitors to the community. TYPICAL ACTIVITY AT A T-MOBILE SITE LOCATION The proposed antenna and equipment will not be staffed on a daily basis. Upon completion of construction, the site will require only infrequent site visits (approximately one to four times a month). Access to the property from County Road will be over the existing parking lot via a fifteen (15) foot wide access easement. The site and operations wil\ be self-monitored by the network operations center with a remote connection that will alert personnel to equipment malfunction or a breach of security. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS The proposed facilities will be designed and constructed to meet applicable govermnental and industry safety standards. Specifically, T -Mobile will comply with all FCC and FAA rules regarding construction requirements, technical standards, interference protection, power and height limitations, and radio frequency standards. Any and aU RF emissions are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC which sets and enforces very conservative, science-based RF emission guidelines to protect public health. T -Mobile operates all its wireless facilities well below FCC requirements. CONCLUSION T-Mobile looks forward to working with the City of Maple wood to bring the benefits of seamless wireless coverage and enhanced E9l1 capabilities to its residential neighborhoods. The addition of this site will ensure uninterrupted superior wireless service to the residential neighborhoods around Harmony Learning Center and therefore provide greater competition in the marketplace. Harmony Learning Center "1961 County Road C Maplewood,:MN 55109 3 Attachment 5 Memorandum To: Kelly Swenseth Real Estate and Zoning From: Thierry Colson, Senior RF Engineer, T-Mobile USA Date: 3/18/2009 Re: Harmony Learning Center, Maplewood, MN (AIN0609C) I am the Senior Engineer responsible for the design and location of this proposed site. I have been doing wireless network design for 13 years, and have planned and built hundreds of sites. It is my intention to describe the goals and objectives of this particular location and to examine the other possible locations we've considered in this area. I have attached a map of T-Mobile's current site locations in the Maplewood and surrounding area. Also indicated on this map is the proposed site at the Harmony Learning Center (AIN0609C). Our primary objective with this site is to provide new in-building and in-car coverage in the City of Maplewood. It's important that this new coverage will link and complement the existing coverage. It's also important that we minimize the potential overlap in areas where the existing coverage is already an acceptable quality. Our target area is roughly bounded by Hazelwood Street on the West, Beam Avenue on the North, McKnight road on the East, and Hwy 36 on the South. Currently in this area there is very poor, or none in-building coverage. I have attached a map that is a computer generated depiction of our current coverage in our target area. The color scheme represents the general strength of the signals generated by our network. The green areas are the strongest, and represent a signal strong enough to penetrate most residential buildings. The yellow is typically strong enough to provide in-car service. The last signal level displayed is the grey, and indicates areas where the signal is strong enough for outdoor coverage. I have also attached a map using the same color scheme that depicts the coverage of our proposed site on the Harmony Learning Center Property. Comparing these two maps and the improvement in both the amount of our coverage and the strength of that coverage is very apparent. For reference, I've also attached a map depicting the coverage as it would be if we were to abandon the Harmony Learning Center Property site, and collocate on the proposed Water Tower, located south ofHwy 36 on Cope Avenue E. This plan to locate on the Water Tower has two drawbacks. First, this location is overlapping the existing coverage from our existing sites to the east (AINOII0 and AIN0057). Secondly, it does not provide as much new coverage in the Northeastern portion of our target area as our proposed site does. The frequencies used by our equipment will be restricted to the bands as follows: Transmit: PCS B block (1950 to 1964), PCS C4 Block (1980 to 1985), A WS R3-E (2140 to 2145) Receive: PCS B block (1870 to 1885), PCS C4 Block (1900 to 1905), AWS R3-E (1740 to 1745) May 13, 2009 These bands apportioned to T-Mobile by the FCC are well isolated from other bands used by public .safety communication systems. There have been no incidences of interference with public safety systems on our existing sites, or any interference with consumer radio, television, or similar services. The license from the FCC states that T-Mobile cannot transmit outside of the above noted assigned frequency blocks. One of the penalties listed is loss of our license. We take interference very seriously, and in the rare event that any interference occurred, we would work to correct it as quickly as possible. 2 cv C) ns ... cv > o o "'C cv f/) o Q. ~ D.. 0') o CD Z c z w C) W ..J W ~ 0:: W > o u 0) 0::: .5 0 "0 '- 0 ::l <<l 0 (QUI- zz=> o 11011 =~ ,- ,..... --- i) .___ J _______----- ' I -.,...-- ' - --...,.-.,......:..~~~---- r II !I,11, -}J1J -, , , I I '.,: , , I I , , I :il 'I' :l , " , :4 It::l, I~ '''' 1"- ,~ lz Ii:) 10 1(4 , :1 , I , I I . I 1 , I , I , , , , , I I II II ti , : , I I I , , , , , : , , I I I , , , , __I -..., " " ... ..' '~._;,.~' ~iI.::.: {:., -_!i'_ -,,"'; \. ' ! . "I \'L I ~ )1 : " 'I: , a 1 I .' t' , ~I I L ~ ~ II 1~ , '~ I I . _"-', "III --' " ___+~ 1,1 : ______ I II" I 1 -------_ 111 I: \1' , ___",,__'~________________ ~-._..--------il-U~ ili Iii \ ____ 3nN3AV~~- -- --1 J ________ l:I','ja iiiii'M----- ---->:'.l:'~~~ ------:--.: ..,.~ Attachment 7 ,~ -- , I I , , I , 1 I , I , , , , , I , , I I , , , , I , , , , , I , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , I , , , , , , , , g I' il I! I , , I , I 1 , I I , , 0" . II id,illl ~~5~ ,II~ I ~~ I.: o " ' .-j . r r I , .1, . J : I'll,! hi 1\' '1,1 tal ~I!: nlj II I rui I '! .111 I .1 I ,,\Ioi I ~J "i-'I ~ ...0'" o~ ~~ . ' '. t;-4 . I ; ; ; , I , i , I I I ! I II . i I 1- i I I , , I ! I i i ~ T I 'r /'~1 'j 1 .', i' ,I_I,' ,1M' '. f' 'f .. I Ildlf-'1 ." I~ '1 ~. I II J.I; ~liITI~-iTHi.-..~ -' -.' ...._.... 1I111IUl'lilti,'-'" - . ._ ,_,' ."....I~I-nl"-Il.... ~~;... 'ii [(t) I , ~ , , f I , I , i , , I , i , . , t , , ! , i . , I , . i , i , i j 1 j , , f' 1 f ! i ~ , , I 'I I ~1IWt~""'<!ll:r.:lfl..J. "l ! i 1 "'.1 I ' , f i : , , I , j , f , I , . I , . _L~.~_..~",,","",",............; ,..--.............. ..J:........._. .... ~ ==. .,- f 15 It , , ( , i , , I : A I . , I A i ~ , i , . i ~ , , f , , I II : f. I , , JI ;:. , I II '"It(, lti tl.~ II ~, ,.... """!J-- A ~ ~ A ~ I i A I> I , ~ p~ iI 1I11( I JM~H!)I i ! . ful!iifili II I J f 11 L ~ ifl, ~f Ji,!e dg; j!;~; ull Ifil!II'li A, ~ 11~I,~;IH'ltl l'lli""I dll!!lo.l!~ ~ ~ - -- I. . , ! i Iii;! ~Ia II,~ n;'I : ~, a!j , ,ir , I , - .1 ~ . I '; I 1'1 I I ! m il"l! iUI ~I 'tl UJjIl t , ::!~ I i fill i !nl, J tl I~illi~ :~ii!fi lIilJ'tl 'Ii'lil!lll mnlll ~I ....... . '1""'1 '" ,.os .~I . Ii H-t . . I I 'I I I , '" '" .,'" ,', ,"','" ',,' - l " or,.,,.'.,,',,,,,- r' "',t, '",',.t, '1,'( I ';ii>,. 'offilll;;.,;", di-rrTI,riillifiil-'ill.i:il,/_t~ ~~~ -t i .t j f ',j !ll tt.r. :.'". - I II _ t . " '._::, '." _ _,. . _ '. __ ,_:: '-:._ ;'__..-H_, _ . 'l> .. ~ AI> . ~. ~ I I I ~ A ~ A "I , 'I J'I Iflu. II' I iit m! II A I> ~ ~. ~ A ~ A n; , . , ~I ~ ' JI,1 -I ~ i.iii: T..a..c:I~4_rilocU_ "0i0li&l~'4'_UJi;l;,;u; Page 1 of3 Attachment 8 Michael Martin From: i.JNDA OLSON [lindamae5185@msn.com] Monday, May 04, 2009 3:32 PM Michael Martin Cherryl Kurkoski; Ann Flor; Ananth Shankar; Dale Trippler; Diana Longrie; Matthew Ledvina; Matt Wise; Tom Ekstrand; Will Rossbach; mlapitz@hotmail.com; mepretzel@hotmail.com; trlapitz@gmail.com; ruth,kranick@lacek.com; ekstedtfamily@hotmaii.com; stevekranick@msn.com; littlelady@pressenter.com; dale.olson@thomson.com; ekstedt@minnehahaacademy.net; glen029@hotmail.com Subject: FW: T-Mobiie Tower at Harmony Learning Center Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Sent: To: Cc: Monday, May 4th, 2009 Michael Martin Planner City of Maplewood This is in response to your request for feedback on the proposed 75 foot T-mobile tower to be located in the middle of the Harmony Learning Center Parking lot - and about 75 feet away from my home. As owner of all of the property located immediately adjacent and to the east of this site, T-Mobile has chosen the most obnoxiously possibie placement on the entire Harmony site for this tower. The only iocation that could more negatively impact my property, land and home would to be to locate thiS tower further east on this parking island, or further northeast between the corner of the Parking Lot and 1st base in the Baseball field. Then this tower wouid be in full view of the biggest window in my kitchen. As a homeowner, I cannot strongly enough object to this placement of this tower, The proposed 75 foot tall tower will be visible from every window in my house on the north and west sides, and it will clearly overstory any vegetation growing along the fence between my yard and the Harmony school parking lot, That tower will dominate every corner of my entire back yard. It will also overstory and dominate all of the trees and other residential lots to the east and south of this site. As a resident, I am not at all comfortable with placing this tall utility SmaCk in the middle of such a large open space. putting this cell-phone tower in the middle of a large parking lot located between two wetland areas does not seem to be very practical. With the large Ramsey County Wetland to the north,the Casey Lake storm drainage area and Casey Lake Park (the largest park in the City of North St, Paul) to the east, and the Wetlands behind Bachmans to the south, this makes very little sense. This is a wildlife corridor to deer and other creatures that pass between the wetlands and cross County Road C . mostly through my front yard. In addition, this parking lot is located virtually at the bottom of a natural depression created between Bittersweet on the west and McKnight on the east. This placement makes little sense when the immediately surrounding areaS are considered. As a taxpayer to ISD 622, I can understand why a lease with I-Mobile woUld be financially agreeable to the School District, espeCially if T-Mobile is also going to pay for all of the electricity and maintenance to the new parking lot lights, in addition to what I hope is a generous Lease 5/12/2009 Page 2 00 amount. However, I wonder if the School Board has given any other considerations to the ramifications of this placement on this site. As a parent, I cannot think of a placement more obnoxious and obvious to all of the ALC students and others who use this facility, including the T-ball, softball and baseball players from the North St. Paul Athletic League who use the ballfield. Open exposure of this tower base is also NOT advisable to all of the surrounding residents and their children who use this parking lot and the adjoining recreational space. I am a T-mobile customer. I have NEVER had drop-out problems with my cell phone from anywhere in my house or my yard. Cell phone coverage from both the nearby North St. Paul Water tower and the tower by the Sheet metal Workers union seems to be more than adequate for this site. From the maps supplied in my mailing, i,t seems to me that this tower is NOT going to completely cover all of the areas which are projected to need better service. One better and less obtrusive location is behind Les's Superette, near the dumpsters and in the Maplewood Covenant Church Parking lot. Other locations to fill the proported customer residential needs means perhaps this tower shouid be located further north on White Bear Avenue - perhaps behind the Premier bank. Another area to site this tower that might better serve the neighborhoods in need might be on one of the higher elevations on the north side of Casey Lake - perhaps even in Casey Lake Park. Have options on the West side of White Bear Avenue, at the top of the hill near the soccer fields been investigated? Regardless, It appears to me that other towers are going to have to be installed within a quarter- mile radius from this tower within both North St. Paui and Maplewood to meet the proported needs of the T-Mobile resident customers who will not be abie to benefit from this tower. other cell phone towers located in the City of Maplewood have been placed in corner areas, not smack in the open center of large residential, school and wildlife areas. They have also been surrounded with various objects and designed to be unobtrusive wherever possible, The T ~Mobile Tower located behind the Steelworkers Union building, less than a mile away, is placed very close to the building and next to the Dumpsters. The argument that better cell phone coverage is needed for car service in this area is going to fall upon my deaf ears - especially since cell phone usage while driving in the car is such a problem issue. Reference all Drivers using the cell phone on County Road C and White Bear Avenue while driving now. Is the goal of T-Mobile to eventually install cell phone towerS every hi'llf-miie within this city area to provide full and unlirnlted cOverage to every geographical depression in the city? How many more towers are being discussed for future installation in the City of Maplewood? What is being planned for the adjoining City of North St. Paul? This may be the best place for a new tower from T-MObiles corporate viewpOint Simply because this site Is so open and easily accessible. placing this tower on grade in a flat, open space and next to curb and gutter must seem ideai. But placing this IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS PARKING LOT is the most obnoxious and intrusive location possible to both residents and users of this facility. Thlsdesign rnay be best for T-Mobile beCause It offers the cheapest possibie construction costs. Surrounding this tower With an 8 foot high chain link fence, tOPped with 3 strands Of barbeo wire, and NO Landscaping - simply because "none exists", is the cheapest possible and most obnoxious at grade design possible. And the ONLY community enhancement or 'improvement' to the site being proposed is to add parking lot lights, which easily can be obnoxious all by themselves. Finally, if this tower MUST be placed on the Harmony Learning Center site, for what I must assume are financial considerations to the school district, then there are other locations on the property 5/12/2009 Page 3 of3 that must be considered. First, it must be placed MUCH CLOSER to the building. Smack in the center of such a large, exposed open space in a residential area is simply not acceptable. Other areas on the Harmony School site that should have been considered are near the north side of the building. Any location on the north side of the building could be more easily tied Into the exsisting site and be landscaped to create a much less obtrusive structure. Another option Is the hill immediately next to the intersection on the north-east corner of White Bear Avenue and County Road C, where the old Maplewood School was originally located, would provide a natural elevation that would not only .raise the base of the tower and increase the range of the signals, but be much easier to landscape and conceal the base and infrastructure. This location would still be accessible to utility vehicles from the existing utility parking area located on the south side of the building. As outgoing Chairperson of the Community Design Review Board, my first reaction to this letter from the City was that this had to be some kind of a sick joke. Is placing this monstrosity next to my home is my repayment for choosing to take a break from nine years of continuous, dedicated and unpaid volunteer in service to the City of Maplewood? Staff has clearly not taken any overall residential Community Impact into consideration by promoting the placement of this tower. Do all of the lessons learned over the last decade about cell phone tower placement within the City of Maplewood have to be revisited? And fair warning - the "experienced' f-Mobile engineer who submitted this proposal is going to have a serious uphill fight with me to justify both the proposed placement and design of this tower. I VOTE NO!!!! Linda Olson Active Volunteer and Current Chair Community Design Review Board Citry of Maplewood Mrs. Linda Mae Olson Mr. Larry Gold Property Owners and Residents 2005 East County Road C Maplewood, Minnesota lindamae5185tIDmsn.com Linda M. Olson Engineering Aide II Dept of Public Works, Bridge Division City of St. Paul ' 651-266-6185 Iinda.olson@ci.stoaul.mn.us 5/12/2009 Page 1 of2 Attachment 9 Michael Martin From: Linda Olson [lindamae5185@msn.com] Tuesday, May 05,200911:41 PM Tom Ekstrand Michael Martin; DuWayne Konewko; Ananth Shankar, Matt Ledvina; Matt Wise; Rossbach; Diana Longrie Subject: Re: T-Mobile Tower at Harmony Learning Center Sent: To: Cc: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 Please run all of my cornrnents, sarcastic, critical and otherwise. My initial e-mail covered everything I could think of in the few days I had between receiving the mailing from the city and meeting your deadline for resident submissions. I would rather have all of my observations out there noW so others can consider my comments and ponder the issues this proposed cell-phone tower raises before the matter becomes a single yes or no issue. I knew the tirning on this proposal would be close as to whether I would be revieWing this as the sitting Chair of the CDRB or not. That is one reason I threw so many of my arguments into that e-mail. I am not opposed to T-Mobiles attempts to improve their cell phone coverage, nor am I opposed to cell phone towers as a general rule. I am, in fact a T-Mobile user. However I am very unhappy with the careless placement and design of this particular tower, and I can assure you that even if I Was not an impacted resident, I would hot approve of placing this tower in this place on this site with this current design. Presiding as Chair of the CDRB over this issue does present a clear conflict of interest. I am grateful that I will be able to present my viewpoints from the audience, and not have to worry about running the meeting and managing the gavel, motions, audience and camera at the same time. During a simple drive-around our city after work tonight, I easily located the following cell phone towers or antenna clusters: 1. The Sheet Metal workers Union site - just south of Hwy 36 a very large tower located about 15 feet from a building, next to a fence and the dumpsters on the back corner of a parking lot, just south of Hwy 36. 2. a cluster of Antenna on top of the Tallest North 5t. Paul Water Tower located directly south near Ariel Stree and south of HWy 36. 3. a cell phone tower just south of Hwy 36 between the frontage road and the Gateway Trail, across the street from the North St. Paul Public Works storage site. 4. a cluster of antenna located on top of the older North 5t. Paul Water ToWer on 14th Avenue hear Richardson School. 5. cell phone towers and antenna located on top of the Ernerald Inn by 694, east of White Bear Avenue. 6. another cell phone tower located just horth of County Road D behind the Midas Muffler Shop (next to the Old Best Buy) and south of 694. 7. I have not yet visited the T-Mobile tower called A1N0050A located north of Hwy 36 and south of Gervais, and West of Clarence. According to the SUbrnitted, that tower appears to be about 1.5 rniles from my horne. If T-Mobile has a One-mile radius of coverage from all of these existing tower locations, then my hOme is currently overlapped with coverage from three of these existing strUctures. If T "Mobile requires a half-mile 5/12/2009 Page 2 of2 radius for cell phone coverage, then this city is in for a wave of new cell phone tower construction. I'm still having trouble with the comment that... "we had no prior meeting with T-Mobile on this site selection before they presented their application for the tower. We will have to review it like any application we receive and weigh the pros and cons of this proposal." It seems to me that city staff should at least speak with an applicant prior to spending taxpayer time and money reproducing, mailing and distributing proposal letters, plans and maps for review and resident feedback. The number of people who have told me they either received or have seen this mailing is increasing daily, and I wonder if it this is standard procedure - to take what an applicant submits and just put it out there in the community, before having any kind of internal discussion - or even a phone call with the applicant first. Placing the burden of review first upon the community seems to have the potential for creating unnecessary confusion and conflict. Finally, just for the heck of it, I drove through most of the southern part of White Bear Lake adjoining our city tonight, and I was unable to locate a single cell phone tower visible from my car windows. They have hidden their cell phone towers very well. Linda Olson Resident 2005 East County Road C Maplewood 5/12/2009 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 10 Michael Martin From: Glen Olson [gleno29@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 04,200910:09 PM To: Michael Martin Subject: T-Mobile cell tower at Harmony Mr. Martin, As a T-Mobile customer with poor service In my house, I would be pleased to have better service. But as a nearby landowner to the proposed site, I have some serious questions and concerns. The letter enclosed in the notice mentions that other compahies could potentially rent space on the new tower from T-Mobile. What I don't see is much information or consideration about T-Mobile using other existing structures. The Maplewood water tower at Hwy 36 is just. 7 mile from Harmony. It Is practically visible from my yard and at a higher elevation. Unfortunately the B&W map copies were insufficient to actually Compare the two options. The huge light poles at Maplewood Mall are not mentioned. Were they considered? The choice of placing it directly in the middle of the parking lot, with a barbed wire-topped enclosure around the base, seems at the least insensitive to aesthetics, and potentially dangerous to the many youth who still frequent the site. If there Is no danger of damage due to a collapse, why not put it right next to the building? (If there is, it doesn't belong anywhere, of course.) White Bear Avenue is zoned commercial, the land to the east and north is not. If this area is the only and best choice, it should at least be closer to the west side of the site, not within spitting distance of residences. The negative impact on adjacent residential land values from this proposal would be significant, and I am opposed to it. The cell reception I have is acceptable as is after all, all things considered. Glen Olson 2045 17th Ave E 5/12/2009 Page 1 of! A.ttachment 11 Michael Martin From: dale.olson@thorTlsonreuters.com Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 3:59 PM To: Michael Martin Subject: RE: T-Mobile Tower at Harmony Learning C~nt~r Monday, May 4th, 2009 Michael Martin Planner City of Maple wood This is in response to your request for feedoack on the proposed 75 foot T-mobile tower to be located in the middle ofthe Harmouy Learning Center Parking lot. Unfortunately I do not collect the mail on a daily oasis so was unaware ofthi, issue until yesterday and hope this e-mail wUJ provide an adequate response. I have to object to the proposal as initially provided in the mailing. Based on other sites, the location is not ideal, and the lack of any landscaping for a 6 foot feuce with a three-strand barbed wire is absolutely not acceptable. I can understand that a lease with T -Mobile would benefit the School District and they would be in favor of it. But I don't think the School Board is considering all of the impacts that this placement on this site would have. There are certainly more unobtrusive locations on that parcel of property, and while the district would not get a "free" light pole out of the deal, it would not be the eyesore that is proposed. This does not appear to be a very well thought~out proposal. It seems that any factor other than how easy it would be for T- Mobile to \JUild and maintain was not even considered. I and the other participants in the Trust are not agreeable to this proposal. Dale Olson Trustee, Priscilla L. Olson Trust Owner of parcel east of Harmony Learning Center 2027 E. l7'h Ane. North st. Paul, MN 55109 5/12/2009 Attachment 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Kelly Swenseth, of FMHC Corporation and representing T-Mobile, applied for a conditional use permit to install a 75-foot-tall telecommunications tower and related equipment. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1961 County Road C East. The legal description is: That part of the Southwest Y. of Section 2, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County. More particularly described as: Beginning at the intersection of White Bear Avenue and the South link of Said Southwest 1/4; thence northerly on said center line 420.55 feet; thence east parallel with said South line 311 feet; thence northerly parallel with said center line 140 feet; thence north 107.07 feet, thence east 391.55 feet to a point 658.95 feet north of said South line; thence to said South line at a point 200 feet west of said Y. corner; then West to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On May 19, 2009, 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 tabled their review and directed the applicant to consider alternative locations for the proposed telecommunications tower. 2. On June 2, 2009, the planning commission continued their review of the proposed conditional use permit for a telecommunications tower and recommended that the city council this request. 3. On , 2009, 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 revision, 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 in one year. 4. This conditional use permit is conditioned upon T-Mobile allowing the collocation of other provider's telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower. 5. Applicant shall provide a screening plan to the community design review board for approval to screen the base of the tower site. The applicant shall provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of the landscaping before getting a building permit. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on ,2009. p:sec2S11961 County Road CIMonopole CUPIPCIT Mobile CUP Resolution MM TE