HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2009
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 17, 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. October 20, 2009
5. Public Hearings
6. New Business
a. East Metro Regional Fire Training Facility-Informational Presentation
7. Unfinished Business
a. Conditional Use Permit-T-Mobile Cellular Phone Tower, 1961 County Road C
8. Visitor Presentations
9. Commission Presentations
a. Commissioner Reports: There were no planning commission items for the October 26, 2009
or the November 9, 2009 city council meetings so there is nothing to report. The October 26
meeting would have been Commissioner Hess's turn. The November 9 meeting would have
been Commissioner Martin's turn to represent the planning commission.
b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of November 23, 2009. Commissioner Boeser is scheduled
to attend should there be a need for planning commission representation. At this time, the
only item scheduled for review is the first reading of the proposed sign code amendment.
Planning commission representation is not required for this item.
10. Staff Presentations
a. Follow-up Discussion-1) Election of Officers 2) PC Memberships/Reappointments
11. Adjournment
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20,2009
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Cornmissioner Joseph Boeser
Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Comrnissioner Harland Hess
Commissioner Robert Martin
Comrnissioner Gary Pearson
Comrnissioner Dale Trippler
Cornmissioner Joe Walton
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
City Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand, City Planner
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Trippler rnoved to approve the agenda as presented.
Cornmissioner Hess seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. October 6, 2009
Comrnissioner Boeser rnoved to approve the minutes of October 6, 2009 as submitted.
Comrnissioner Trippler seconded
Ayes - Boeser, Fischer, Hess, Martin, Trippler, Yarwood
Abstentions - Pearson
The motion passed.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
a. Ordinance Amendment: Planning Commission Ordinance-Election of Officers
City planner Tom Ekstrand explained this ordinance amends the commission's tirne of election of
officers from the second meeting in January to the date specified in the commission's Rules of
Procedure.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-20-09
-2-
The comrnission discussed the problem with not having a quorurn at the end of commissioners'
expired terms and if a cornmissioner's vote would be legal if the commissioner continued on and voted
before they were officially reappointed. The commission discussed whether a commissioner's terrn
could be continued by the council until either they are reappointed or a replacement is appointed, or if
those seeking reappointment could be reappointed by the council before the expiration of the term. It
was suggested by a commissioner that the council could make reappointments of current
cornmissioner terms at the last meeting in December.
The commission felt the policy should be stated in the ordinance as to what is permissible for
reappointments in order to keep a full commission and asked staff to check the policy. Planner
Ekstrand said he would check and report back to the comrnission.
Council member John Nephew said that it should be a clear policy that when a cornmissioner's term
has expired, the commissioner if possible should continue until a replacement is appointed.
Councilmember Nephew commented that the end of the year is a busy time for council and staff with
the annual budget process.
The commission thought it would be more effective to have terms end at a more convenient time of
the year and also, that it would be helpful to have the various board and commissions terms end at
different times.
Commissioner Boeser moved to approve the amendment of the planning commission ordinance to
specify that the election of the chairperson and vice chairperson shall be held once a year in
accordance with the planning commission's Rules of Procedure.
Commissioner Yarwood seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
b. Rules of Procedure Amendment: Parliamentary Procedure for Meetings
Planner Ekstrand explained that this amendment proposes that the governing parliarnentary practice
to be followed by the comrnission shall be Rosenberg's Rules of Order and not Robert's Rules of
Order.
In response to a cornmissioner's question on why this is changing, Councilmember John Nephew
responded that Rosenberg's Rules of Order is simpler and more accessible.
Commissioner Trippler moved approval of the amendment of the planning cornmission Rules of
Procedure to specify that the parliamentary procedure to be followed shall be Rosenberg's Rules of
Order.
Commissioner Hess seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
c. Sign Ordinance Amendment Discussion: Recommendation to the Cornmunity Design Review
Board
Planner Ekstrand explained that at a previous meeting Commission Martin volunteered to review the
entire sign ordinance amendment. Planner Ekstrand said he has included with the staff report a copy
of Mr. Martin's sign review comments, along with a summary from Planner Shann Finwall of the major
changes proposed to this arnendment by the community design review board.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-20-09
-3-
The commission discussed the difficulty in enforcing parts of the sign code without having the staff
time required. The commission felt the commercial window sign coverage change frorn 75 percent
rnaxirnum coverage to 30 percent maximum coverage might be particularly difficult to enforce. Some
corn missioners felt that if the code was not going to be enforced, it may be better not to include these
items in the ordinance. Other cornmissioners felt it was still a better option to have these requirements
included in the code, even without 100 percent compliance.
A commissioner suggested that a legal opinion be obtained on what would be a reasonable set of
restrictions to regulate opinion signs without limiting free speech.
A commissioner suggested a clause be added to the code to allow city staff to determine whether
there has been a violation of the sign ordinance and then to allow the violator the option to come
before the city council if they feel they have been wronged by staff.
The commission requested that staff assemble the commission's comments and forward them to the
community design review board.
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. City Council Meeting of October 12, 2009: There were no planning commission items.
b. City Council Meeting of October 26,2009: Commissioner Hess is scheduled to attend if needed.
X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Planner Ekstrand updated the comrnission on the T-Mobile proposal, saying that it will be on the next
agenda. Commissioner Boeser requested that a representative of the school district be present for
discussion.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
East Metro Regional Fire Training Facility-Presentation by Fire Chief
November 9, 2009
INTRODUCTION
Steve Lukin, the Maplewood Fire Chief, prepared the attached report and will present it to the
planning commission describing this proposed multi-jurisdictional partnership for a fire-training
facility. Refer to the attached maps and report.
p:Planning Commission\Fire Training Facility\Fire Training Facility re Steve Lukin Report 11 09 te
Attachment:
1. Location Maps
2. East Metro Regional Fire Training Facility Report
.~.. ~'I/~'
I _.-"" /
- '~I"
tl. t!l
~--- \. ,L
\ '. /
. 'I
.~.
to:'
A :/., &'" ----:r--
"f!" ~-- "
re,".,1c .'/.
."'r=:+--;; 1
~I::=~T ' JI
L~_
-
-
/
.l ~ \
~ '\11 .
LOCATION MAP
D
w
~
ii2
:::>
....
z
w
()
1\
,
I'
[)
tnfjlDAHO AVE
~
"
'"
LOCATION MAP
(ENLARGED)
East Metro Regional Fire Training Facility
A multi-jurisdictional partnership between a number of local fire departments and public safety
organizational is proposing to build and operate the East Metro Regional Fire Training Facility.
The project will be built to serve the training needs of local fire departments, police and
emergency management agencies, as well as training organizations like Century College. The
project facilities will use about S acres of the existing 26-acre site. The facilities will follow the
city of Maplewood's sustainable building goals as described in their 2009 Comprehensive Plan
and a critical part of this project is to create and established a buffer along this edge to enhance
the overall wetland functions and the values of this wetland complex.
Currently, there are inadequate training facilities in the north and east metro and surrounding
areas for firefighting agencies to properly train. Some of the training facilities that east metro
departments are using now do not provide the full suite of training components needed to
meet National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards. This facility will provide this ability
as well as achieving costs savings for local departments resulting from reduced travel costs, and
reduce time commitments needed to meet training requirements and keep them closer to their
response areas.
A Joint Powers Agreement will be developed and executed between the participating Local
Units of Government. The JPA will enable the establishment of the East Metro Firefighter
Training Facility, govern operations, maintenance, and provide financial accounting for the
Facility. In addition to serving the LGU's who are a part of the JPA, the facility will also be
available for rental to other LGU's and agencies and the public sector. Also stated in the 1999
study and the most recent study in 2009, additional consideration for funding should be given
to facilities with collaborative ownership or operational among federal, state and local agencies
and private sector organizations in which this new facility will meet.
This new facility will provide the following multidiscipline training in defensive tactics, live burn
training, live fire arms training, scenarios based training, hazardous materials and spill
. response, search and rescue and confined space exercises and well as other specialized training
that is needed by the different agencies.
HIGHLIGHTS
)> Currently, 10 fire departments are providing service within Ramsey County and 14 fire
departments are providing service within Washington County utilizing over 1,400 paid-
per-call and full-time firefighters to cover a combined population of 716,158.
)> In 1999, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety submitted to the Legislature a
statewide master plan for fire and law enforcement training facilities and at that time,
designated the East Metro region as a potential future site based on the number of fire
departments, firefighters and population.
)> In an updated report of public safety training facility needs that was released in October
of 2009, it again stated that the East Metro region had potential needs based on
population, number of departments and firefighters.
)> Also in the 2009 report, it identified the East Metro Regional Fire Training Facility as a
potential facility, along with two other colleges.
)> This site will be available to the BCA, MnSCU, Homeland Security and Emergency
Management and other state and federal agencies and local communities.
)> The training facility will ensure that the agencies can meet the minimum standards for
training established by the firefighters and police officer training boards, OSHA and the
National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA).
)> Acquiring structures for live burn training is considered as a very high training
experience. But the availability of such structures in the future will become limited to
non-existent in the East Metro area.
)> Travel time and distance away from their responding areas makes utilizing other training
facilities within the metro area difficult. Also, the time available at these other facilities
is limited.
)> It is difficult at this time for fire departments to meet their driving requirements and
their only options are utilizing local streets and parking lots. These areas do not support
the type of training that requires special setup or equipment.
)> Some of the major training barriers are money, lack of access to training facilities and
equipment, specialized training and the time needed to setup, take down, travel and
train within a two-hour timeframe.
)> Needed upgrades to the site due to MnDOT's 40 years of operation is an integrated part
of the plan and will implement numerous objectives identified called marshlands which
will include wetland enhancements, trail construction and joint use of educational
facility.
FUNDING
Currently, we are seeking three million dollars from the 2010 bonding bill which will be
matched by three million dollars. We currently have approximately two million of the three
million dollars needed for the match.
The ongoing operation and capital will be funded through a joint powers agreement (JPA) and
other fees. Century College has shown a great interest in a partnership with the East Metro
Regional Training Facility to offer education classes through Century College utilizing this site.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
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
November 2, 2009
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
Amy Dresch, 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. The pole would have a flush mounted installation
instead of the standard triangular antenna installation which is commonly seen on
existing towers within Maplewood.
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 cedar fence. The fence would include a 10-
foot-wide gate for access. The tower would be placed on the grassy area within the
parking lot at Harmony Learning Center. The applicant initially did not propose any
additional landscaping but after working with staff the plans now show 10 American
Arborvitae surrounding the ground equipment and fencing.
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 attached applicant's letter
of request.
2. The tower design and site plan.
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 May 19, 2009 meeting requesting
that the applicant consider other tower-placement options on the Harmony Learning
Center property and also other parcels in this coverage area. After following the
direction of the planning commission, the applicant's proposal largely stayed the same.
The school district is not open to placing the tower at other locations within the Harmony
site. The school district only wants to see the tower placed where it is currently
proposed. The applicant has stated the current proposed location is preferable to the
school district because it would be accessible through the parking lot without the need to
build a driveway to a more remote location.
The applicant has submitted a letter stating how it evaluated other potential sites and
described why Harmony Learning Center is the preferred site. Code states a new tower
cannot be approved unless it is documented that another existing or planned tower could
be used within a half mile radius. Staff has confirmed that there is not another existing
or planned tower within the half-mile radius. Code also states commercial buildings
could be used for locating a proposed tower but if the applicant cannot secure a lease or
purchase space then a new location could be approved. The applicant has submitted
proposed coverage maps for the Hazelwood Professional Center, 2785 White Bear
Avenue and the Premier Bank building, 2866 White Bear Ave, but has stated the two
locations are not viable candidates. According to the applicant, their search for
alternative locations was unproductive.
Concerns over the safety of the proposed tower location were expressed at the May 19,
2009 planning commission meeting. The applicant has submitted a "Design and
Reliability of a Monopole Structure" study which is attached to this report. If approved,
the applicant would have to submit plans through the building permit process which
would be reviewed by the city's building, planning and engineering departments which
would ensure all codes were being met for telecommunication towers.
The applicant also submitted a study on the impact of telecommunication towers on
residential property values. The cover letter is attached to this report. The entire study
is more than 100 pages and could not be included with this report. However, a copy is
available at city hall for review and can also be e-mailed to anyone interested in
reviewing the entire document. Contact staff if interested.
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
2
areas for towers requiring a conditional use permit. The applicant stated 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 it is always
T-Mobile's first option to 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 the water tower, the Harmony Learning Center and two local
commercial building locations.
Sec. 44-1331 (a) requires 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 towers should not be located between a principle 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 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
Sec. 44-1327(13) requires the community design review board to make
recommendations on the plans for towers, utility, equipment or accessory buildings, site
plans and proposed screening and landscaping. 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 the new lights meet all current lighting ordinance requirements.
3
The telecommunications tower would have a flush mounted installation instead of the
projecting triangular antenna installation. Staff finds the flush pole an improvement over
the standard tower design seen in Maplewood and throughout the Twin Cities metro
area.
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 not 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. After
working with staff the applicant has submitted plans to plant 10 American Arborvitaes
surrounding the ground equipment and fencing
The applicant has submitted two renderings for the proposed screening of the ground
equipment and the base of the tower. Both drawings show the 10 American Arborvitaes.
One drawing shows the ground equipment being housed in a small building that would
match the exterior of the existing school building and the base of the tower being
screened by an 8-foot-tall cedar fence. The other drawing shows both the equipment
and base of the tower being screened by an 8-foot-tall fence. The applicant is seeking
feedback for which drawing is preferable. Staff finds both potential screening plans
acceptable but recommends having both the ground equipment and the base of the
tower screened by an 8-foot-tall cedar fence.
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 telecommunications
monopole tower.
. 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.
4
SUMMARY
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 action. Staff finds the additional landscaping and
modifications of the tower design as good faith efforts at mitigating the impact of the
tower as much as possible.
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. This conditional use permit is conditioned upon T-Mobile allowing the
collocation of other provider's telecommunications equipment on the
proposed tower. T-Mobile shall submit a letter to staff allowing collocation
before a building permit can be issued.
B. Approval of the site and design plans stamped October 14, 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. Repeating the review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this
project.
2. All work shall follow the approved plans. The community development staff
may approve minor changes.
3. The flush mount design for the telecommunications tower shall be utilized.
4. The lighting fixtures installed on the tower shall comply with city ordinances.
5. An 8-foot-tall cedar fence shall screen both the ground equipment and the
base of the tower.
6. The applicant shall provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the
cost of the landscaping before a building permit will be issued.
5
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 32 property owners within 500 feet of Harmony Learning Center for
their opinions about this proposal. Of the nine replies, one had no comment, four were
in favor and four objected.
In Favor
1. As a T-Mobile customer, we look forward to better coverage in our home. (Flor,
2032 17'h 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, 204517'h Avenue East)
3. Email attached to this report. (Olson, 2027 17'h Avenue East)
4. This report seems one-sided. What are the negative effects of a tele-monopole?
High EMF's are linked with many health effects. Nausea, skin irritations,
disillusionment and others. What will be T-Mobile's responsibility to this effect?
(Zellmer, 1896 Kohlman Avenue)
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 initial60-day review deadline was June 22, 2009. After the planning
commission tabled this application at its May 19, 2009 meeting, T-Mobile requested
three additional60-review periods. The current review deadline is December 19, 2009.
The city has yet to extend the review an additional 60 days, as stated in Minnesota State
Statute 15.99 and can do so if needed to complete its review.
PI SEC2S11961 Co Rd CIMonopole CUPICDRB_11 0209
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Zonin9 Map
3. Land Use Map
4. Applicant's original letter of request,
5. Applicant's En9ineer's letter, dated March 18, 2009
6. Proposed Coverage Maps
7. Site Plan, dated October 14, 2009
8. Applicant's letter, dated October 14, 2009
9. Design and Reliability of a Monopole Structure study
10. Valuation study
11. Rendering of existing conditions
12. Rendering of proposed fencing
13 Rendering of proposed fencing and building
14. Email from Linda Olson, dated May 4, 2009
15. Email from Linda Olson, dated May 5, 2009
16. Email from Glen Olson, dated May 4, 2009
17. Email from Dale Olson, dated May 4, 2009
18. CUP Resolution
19. Applicant's plans (separate attachment)
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
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 of T -Mobile International AG, the
mobile communications subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG (NYSE: DT). Deutsche Telekom is
one ofthe largest telecommunications companies in the world, with nearly 120 million customers
worldwide. T-Mobile USA's headquarters are located in Bellevue, Washington with a Minnesota
office located at 8000 W 78th St in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
In 2006, the usage of cell 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 first half of2007; that number jumped to nearly
one out of every six (15.8) during the second half of 2007. 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 calls
everyday across the country and the caller location system called Enhanced 911 ("E911") 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 ofthe 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
Comrnission ("FCC") to provide personal wireless service throughout the United States. These
licenses include the City of Maplewood and the remainder ofthe Minneapolis-St. Paul
metropolitan area, as part of an integrated nationwide network of coverage.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The subject property ofthe Conditional Use Permit application is the location ofthe
Harmony Learning Center parking lot, the address ofthe site is 1961 County Road C,
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109. The legal description ofthe 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, MN 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 ofthe 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.l 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 enclose the accessory ground equipment
within an eight foot (8') tall chain link fence and to line three strands of barbed wire along the top
ofthe 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 to 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 first looks for
existing towers within the search ring where T -Mobile can collocate its antennas. Collocation on
an existing tower is preferred because it cuts the cost of new construction and minimizes the
number oftowers in a local zoning jurisdiction. If no 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 ofthe 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 County 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 ofthe 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 ofthe Harmony Learning
Center. Harmony Learning Center was selected for its location near the center ofthe issued
desired coverage area and also to meet the zoning regulations ofthe City of Maple wood.
T -Mobile and the site acquisition specialist met with representatives from the School
District to corne 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 AT-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 will 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 govemmental
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 all RF emissions are subject to the
exclusive jurisdiction ofthe 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 ofthis 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 Hannony Learning Center (A1N0609C).
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 Hannony 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 (A1N011O
and A1N0057). 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), AWS 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
'D !i;
... (J)
"
Q) tJ) I'D
a w -
..c: .-
Q t- W
OJ
... - -
:< - w "
0 I'D
CD a:: (J)
16 - 0
<t Q.
" :z: 0
I'D 0 ...
(J) Il..
0
Q.
0
...
Q.
I'D
tn
m
...
I'D
>
0
U
t-
~
Q
:z:
w
<--'
W
..J tn
W c:
'U
<--' ...
<t ~ ro
a:: co ()
w z z
>
0
U
a
z
w
C)
w a::
...J 0> 0
c
W .- 0
C) "0 .... 0
.-
<( ::l I-
0:: co ::>
w 2:0
>
0 .
u
t@
,.....'
:--...-.-.----;~.
:, !i~ll~! i!i1
~~~~~~s h~ ~~~~
lim!! ill nil
;;:~~I~; ~~~ ~~g~
!mil! i!! ! Ii
~~~~~~~
:~iU;~
,~,,"J"
~a~t:~~f
'D~
':~
~~
:l
Gl~ '
, iucJ
~.L
"" ;JBd"'ld, "~LlSl~ _ __
.^,
\ 1\
- - ~'.~-.- ---~l'~;,- ::_~'-
'+.
\'r-J" '. ,_
. ',F-"' 'I~' .. '0,
;; / ~
):/
,;--J"!",.'I" -'" '/y "- 'I
' ,,</\
,;1 /:( \ '1"1
- ::/~ ~5 '''"
' .t. "! " >"",
\, 'I >~ ~ ~; ~,~ ~';' "
\ ~~~ ~g '16 u~ \
\ ~~~ ~~:~ Fm
\ I,
, '------
"
.,'
;p'
,
il
0,
~~ .,~,,-
~~
~11
~'J
<il
'~"..""Jp''''''''E
",
r~l;~
~~u
L
,
,
,
,
,
!
",
,
,
i
,
,
','I
"
"
"
:!;/
~I
0'
~i
,
,
,
,
i
,
I
I
I
i
I
I
,
I; !
", 1,
I ~ /
,; I I
"i : ,
:' ! :!i Ii i i
' , i~:,
------ , ,~! ;0:'
~> ~~~~ ~~ ,~~~~ ~ ~~ '"''
!~''''','' "'" --------\-L--~___L~
! \', ,
- -------.--- -.J"-:;;.~,:; ':"'-~""'"~''',,'_____ _________"'!", '
-;/1,1.,-1/\'( 8'138 ]i//-",Ij,j
"
"
::1
"
"
gl
,
,
,
- - ~'''~-'":~ ~..":.!.~
{
II
,
,
,
,
,
,
/.
,
~
~~
D~
;.',~
..,
~~
15
------
---~------
---------
-~2~.:::!"::.":.:!.~~__
.
~ I i I I
r"JuJ.ui.:..uj.'f,
l"IIIIIIYlllil
'LL:'~j
i I
, I \.,'"
i'1
1'1
I i.,:.
rill ~I
~I
~I
~I
~I
"
~I
~I
,
,
,
,
.
~
z
.
u
" z
~""<l;
zo~
~~::;
~<~
>
z
o
>
.
<
"
.....'"'''''~
ti<'> t'
~
;
. f- -'i
~~ ~i;
~g ~:
B~ ! I
~9; ~ ~
-"~l
1.l t,
~ S
o
~ ~ i ~:i ~
it
~!~!
'<~'i~<~_ji~
~L~'~:;~~
~~~~~~~%~~
~~U2- ~h~
~~~M~!:~~.o
'.
~
~
<
~
l
"
Q)
~
.~
~
;:s
.
.
~
0;
~
<
~
z
z
~
~
&4
.
"
..
~ ~ ~ ;
- '""
Attachment 8
)))
fm
c
taking telecom to now hoights
October 14, 2009
City of Maplewood
Attn: Mr. Michael Martin, Planner
1830 County Road BEast
Maplewood, MN 55109
Chairperson Fisher and Members of the Planning Commission,
On Tuesday, May 19'h, the Maplewood Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for T-Mobile's
Conditional Use Permit application to erect a 75-foot-tali wireless communications tower on leased land
from Independent School District No. 622 at the Harmony learning Center located at 1961 County Road
C East. Prior to the public hearing, it was determined by City Planning staff that T-Mobile's proposal met
all of the ordinance criteria regarding the tower height and location. However, there were concerns by
some members of the Planning Commission, and adjacent neighbors, regarding the aesthetics, safety
and location of the proposed facility on the subject property, In addition, the Planning Commission
requested that T-Mobile look into the feasibility of alternate locations for the communications facility,
As was requested by the Planning Commission, Dennis Sullivan, Director of Business Services and Mike
Boland, Supervisor of Operations/Health & Safety/Grounds, for ISD #622 were approached about
shifting T-Mobile's proposed communications facility to either the northeast or northwest corners of
their property. They declined to move the proposed tower location stating that they were satisfied with
the proposed location as it would not interfere with their daily operations.
T-Mobile was also asked to evaluate the Hazelwood Professional Center, which is a 4 story office
building located at 2785 White Bear Ave., and the Premier Bank building, which is located at 2866 White
Bear Ave., as pOSSible alternate locations for their communications facility. Due to the combination of
the heights and locations of these buildings, T-Mobile has determined that they are not viable
candidates for rooftop installations.
Linda Olson, adjacent property owner to Harmony Learning Center, requested that T-Mobile investigate
the Maplewood Covenant Church, located at 2691 White Bear Ave., as a potential alternate location.
While a 75-fooHall tower on the Maplewood Covenant Church property would provide similar coverage
to that provided by the proposed tower at the Harmony learning Center, T-Mobile did not pursue this
church location as its primary candidate for several reasons, First, T-Mobile was concerned where the
placement of a new tower would need to be located on the property in order to meet the 100 foot
setback requirement from the adjacent residential property line. ThisWould require the toWer to be
located in an undeveloped portion of the property, and potentially restrict any future development of a
portion of their property. Second, T-Mobile is proposing to replace an existing light pole at the Harmony
Learning Center. Because there are no existing light poles to replace on the church property, it would be
necessary to introduce a new structure on the church property that, in T-Mobile's opinion, would have
just as much exposure to residential dwellings, and White Bear Avenue, than the proposed structure at
the Harmony Learning Center. Finally, T-Mobile had worked with Independent School District No. 622 in
the past to develop telecommunication facilities on School District property and had general lease
language in place.
In an effort to make the proposed communications faCility at the Harmony Learning Center more
aesthetically appealing, T-Mobile is proposing to replace its standard triangular antenna Installation with
a flush mounted Installation. In addition, T-Mobile would enclose the compound with an eight-foot-tall
cedar fence or, should the City prefer, they can enclose the base of the tower with an eight-foot-tall
cedar fence and locate the radio equipment within an equipment enclosure next to the tower base and
having a brick fa~ade painted to blend in with the existing Harmony Learning Center school building
located on the propertv.
Information regarding the safety ofthe monopole design has been Included with T-Mobile's
supplemental material. On January 12, 2007, a property value impact study regarding cellular phone
towers in the Twin Cities 13 County Metropolitan Area was completed for T-Moblle. A copy of this
report has also been Included to help address any questions or concerns regarding the effects of
communication facilities on property values.
Sincerely,
Amy Dresch
FMHC Corporation
7400 Metro Blvd., Suite 260
Edina, MN 55439
Office: 952.831,1043
Mobile: 612.802.0452
E-Mail: adresch@fmhc.com
Attachment 9
ENGINEERED
ENDEAVORS
INCORPORATED
TlUJ Exporlenced Point of View
March 2, 2007
Reference:
Design and Reliability of a Monopole Struchlre in the Telecommunication Industry
Fall Zone Radius
Quality of Steel and Fabrication of a Monopole Structnre
In response to your inquiry regarding the design and anticipated reliability of a monopole structure:
1. TIle monopole structure is designed to meet the requirements of the ANST TIAlEIA 222F
(Jnne, 1996) titled Structural Standardsfor Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting
Structures and mostly recently publishcd ANST/ETA-222-G (August 2005) titled Structural
Standard for Antenna Support Structures and Antennas. It also meets or exceeds the
requirements oftheJnternational Building Code and the Manua/ ofStee/ Construction ASD
and LRFD by the American Institute of Steel Constmction. Furthermore, the foundation and
anchor bolts meet the requirements of the American Concrete InstiMe's Building Code
Requirementsfor Structural Concrete (ACT 318-05). Thc pole itselfis also designed to mcct
the provisions of thc Amcrican Socicty of Civil Engineers (A.S.C.E.) Design of Steel
Transmission Pole Structures, which was just recently published (2006) as a design standard.
2. Bascd on thc location ofthis structurc and thc applicablc design codes, the basic design wind
speed offastest mile and/or 3 second gust is used to deign the structure. An additional case
with ice is also checked based on past historical data on ice accumulation in the area, The
specified wind speeds exceed the 50-year maximum anticipated wind velocity at 33fi above
ground level. Additional L1ctors arc applicd to incrcasc the wind loading, e.g" a gust
response factor is imposed in order to account for sudden changes in wind speed, a height
coefficient to account for increasing wind speed with height, and an exposure coefficient.
Based on these conservative coefficients, the structure could in fact survive even greater
wind loads than the basic design wind speed without any failures.
3. The monopole structure design is controlled by wind induced loads, however, earthquake
induced loads are also evaluated with all building code requirements being satisfied.
Vertical loads (i.e., gravity loads) arc minimal on these types of structures, approximately
20% ofthc maximum capacity.
Engineered Endeavors, Inc.
7610 lenther Drive
Mentol',OH 44060
Phone(440)918-tI01. Fax (440) 918-1 to8
Reference:
Design and ReliabililyofMonopole Structure in the Telecommunication Industry
Fall Zone Requirement
Quality of Steel aud Fabrication of a Mouopole Structure
2
4. The design and loading assumptions, which are used for the analysis ofthese structures, are
very conservative in nature when compared to other building codes; as a result, structural
failure is highly improbable.
5. Failurc of a steel monopole stmcture is defined as being that point at which the induced
sh'esses exceed the yield strength of the material. At this point, deflections will be induced
in the structure, whieh will no longer be recoverable onee the load has been removed.
Hence, a permanent deflection in the monopole would exist.
6. The induced loads must be sustained for a long enough period in order that the structure has
time to respond to the load without its removal. Monopoles are flexible, forgiving structures,
which are not generally susceptible to damage by impact loads such as wind gust or
earthquake shocks.
7. As the structure leans over from the induced loads, it presents a markedly reduced exposure
area for the development of wind-induced forces. This would result in the lowering ofthe
applied forces and, therefore, the reduction of stresses and a halting of the structural
deflection.
8. Hypothetically, let's assume that a pole becomcs ovcrloadcd. The typical consequence of
this overloading is "local buckling" where a relatively small portion ofthe shaft distorts and
"kinks" the steel. Upon the removal of the applied load, the struchlre will not return to a
plumb position. This does not cause a free falling pole. Even though the buckle exists, the
cross section of the pole is cable of carrying the entire vertical load. As a result, wind
induced loads could not conceivably bring this type of structure to the ground due to
the excellent ductile pl'Operties, design criteria, and failure mode. In the event of an
unlikely failure, theoretically, the mouopole is designed to have a high stress point at an
intermediate height. Tbis will keep the monopole structure within a certain fall radius.
9. This monopoles is theoretically designed to collapse upon itself in the event that a
catastrophic circumstance arises, however this type of failure has never occurred on an EEl
tapered tubular monopole structure. The initial failure point or high stress point of the
monopole can be specified at certain elevations, The structure was designed so that the
stresses in the upper section of monopole arc greater than the stresses in the bottom sections.
The upper section fails and collapses onto the bottom section producing significantly less
wind area, hence decreasing the loads applied to the structure. As a result, the structure
does not "free fall" to the ground and stays within the compound area.
10. Further proofs to the integrity of these structure-types arc the fact that all EEl monopole
Engineered Endeavors, l1w.
7610 Jenther Drive
Mentor, OH 44060
Phone(440)918-tlOI . Fax (440) 918-1 108
Reference:
Design and Reliability of Monopole Structure in the Telecommunication Industry
Fall Zone Requirement
Quality of Steel and Fabrication of a Monopole Structure
3
structures in the Florida region withstood thc dircct impact of Hurricane Andrew with
absolutely no structural damagc rcportcd. Wind loading was reported to be in thc rangc of
100-120 MPH. Most recently, all EEl monopoles in the Wilmington, NC rcgion withstood
the force of Hurricanes Bertha and Fran, which had wind speeds of I 05 MPH and wind gusts
of 115 MPH,
I I. In another incident, an EEl monopole withstood the impact of a run away bulldozer, which
rammcd the monopole at the hase. The monopole stood firm with only a dent in the shaft.
After field repairs, this monopolc is still in service and performing to its design capacity.
12. EEl has never experienced a structural failure due to weathered induced overloading. EEl
personnel have over 75 years combined experience in dcsign and fabrication ofthese types
of structures,
In response to your inquiry regarding the quality of steel and fabrication of a monopolc structure:
I) Thc monopole is fabricatcd from ASTM A572 Gradc 65 matcrial with a controlled
silicon content of 0.06% maximum to promotc a uniform galvanized coating. Thc
basc plate material is fabricated from A871 Gradc 60 material. All plate matcrial
mects a Charpy V -Notch toughness requirement of 15ft./bs @ _20' Fahrenheit. By
meeting the strict toughness requiremcnt, thc monopole is best suited to rcsist the
cyclic/fatigue type loading (i.e., wind induced loading) these structurcs exhibit. The
toughness specification is based on 35 years of taper tubular poles being designed
and manufactured for the electrical transmission and communication industries.
2) Anchor bolts arc fabricatcd from A615 Grade 75 material. The bolts arc 2 Y. in
diameter, made from #1 8J bar stock. All threads arc rolled. Anchor bolts come
complete with two (2) AI94 Grade 2H hex nuts. The anchor bolt matcrial must also
mcct a Charpy V-Notch toughncss of 15 ft.lbs @ _20' Fahrenheit, to resist the
cyclic/fatiguc typc loading (i.e., wind induced loading) these structures exhibit.
EEl guarantees the quality of steel used on the entire monopole. Material Certifications
(Mill Tcst Reports) are available on all material at the timc of fabrication. The toughness
requirement should be taken very scriously, for over the lifetime of the structure not having this
toughness requirement, "toe" cracks may occur at the base of the structure and the structure could
ultimately fail.
Fabrication of the monopole is performed in accordance with the provisions of the AISC
Manual of Steel Construction and ASCE's Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures. All
Engineered Endeavors, IlIc.
7610 lenthe,. Drive
Menlor,OH 44060
Phone (440) 918-1 JOt + Fax (440) 918-Jl08
Reference:
Design and Reliability of Monopole Structure in the Telecommunication Industry
Fall Zone Requirement
Quality of Steel and Fabrication of a Monopole Slfllcture
4
welding and inspectiotl is itl accordance with the American Welding Society's Specification D1.1 -
latcst rcvisiotl. Tcsting and inspection reports are available upon request at the time offabrication.
In conclusion, due to the aforementioned items, EEl's monopole structures have not
expcrienccd "fi'ee fall" type failure due to wind or seismic induced loads. I hope that these
comments address the issues, which YOll might encounter relative to the anticipated performance of
monopole structures and quality of stcel and fabrication. However, I will be most happy to answer
any specific questions, which you might have.
Sincerely,
Enginccrcd Endeavors, Inc.
?1' wtC7 Ji;?ttQ
iiJ1i?
Michnel 1(, Mowl. I',E,
Vice President of Engineering
Engilleered Elldeavors, Inc.
7610 lenther Drive
Mentor, OH 44060
Phone (440) 9U.1101+ Fax (440)918-1108
EMERSON.
ENDEAVORS
INCORPORATED
fllfJ f!.p'ul~nCl)d PoIlll {>{ View
i\Jpt 1"\}'iMC,'i
Fall Zone Calculation
In order to calculate the height oithe hinge point or high stress area on a monopole structure to fall
within a specified fall radius, the following equation can be applied.
H'-FR'
x=
2H
where:
x Height to theoretical high stress,f!
H Height of structure,ji
FR Fall radius,f!
Notes:
I. Monopoles are very flexible, forgiving structures
2. EEl's tubular monopoles have never experienced a "free fall" type failure due to wind
induced loads
3. As the structure deflects, it creates a markedly reduced exposure area, therefore, lowers the
applied forees
4. Design criteria is very eonservative
5. Due to gust factor, height coefficient, and exposure factor, the structure could in fact survive
even greater wind than the specified basic wind speed
6. Due to the ductility of the steel, failure is defined as permanent deflection in the pole
7. Initial failure points can be designed at speeific loeations
Engineered Endeavors, Inc.
7610 Jcnthcr Drive
Mentor, OH 44060
Phone (440)918-1 101 . Fax (440) 918-1108
SHEAR
r MAXIMUM
DEFLECTION
r.~~:t:J,-~ (j~
i7f;# j ~~
rrN 'i iI/if 'A.:::...
,il,/; f//II
,f,'/f/ ,t/:;t
V'~ {~
~"'fJ ~JP4'
mN hll
1/119 /,ip
irI, 1/,5
"'1' t! ~J
'~/! /1/ I ~"ill.lj!
"-I~ z,1 / t/fj:ly!:'"
II!I~ _-J 't/1'IJ..1';f /
~/N tt?/~J
111//1 jJrJ/
1110/ I]/{I
k'fO! VI/!
111"1 !illl!
III/~ /'111
I fll'~ /lrl/
III'~ Pljj
111111 /'11/
i' 1iI1/' Ift',
f',,1 lilli' )11,1'
lilt/II! f/t!
',t U/Jit ~~' /!
Ol!/I f,ll!
[,I' ~IF( $If~
'11"',"',,
'I /IIII' fflt
,I 111d~~/'1
."i:", :[Iv,'J/I~
mJ ('If
{tIt/If!
,hlli'tfl
l/tll,/
,/1'/1
:,1/1
I~"l"
1Jflr
Nil!!
~r'~f
~I
I
,
"
"
.
....
r
o
W
I
x
Ii
'I
I!
I,
!'
h
If
n'
nl
H.
I'
"
ii
FALL
RADIUS
Engineered Endeavol's, Inc,
7610 J eother Drive
Mentor, OR 44060
Phone(440)91S-1101. Fax(440)9!S-11OS
Attachment 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
3655 PlymOUUl Boulevaro, Sui., 105
Plymouth, MN 55446
763-525,0000 Ind;n
765-525-8875 fax
'fA I,
THE
~. ,';u)j.,""r,M.,I'T1," ,';.J.','@,N
. ;:, :~~ltl\3l.
liROlJP;U'K, ,
P,ul G, a,kk,n, MS, CCIM
CleTU$ C. Liedl, MAl
Thomas J. Day, MAl, SRA
David S. Rea(':h, MAl
Scott F. Muenchow, MAl
Michael A. aownik, MAl
January 12, 2007
Eric Engen
T-Mobile USA
Development Manager - Central Region
N19 W24075 Riverwood Drive, Suite 100
Waukesha, Wisconsin 53188
RE: Property Value Impact Study-
Cellular Phone Towers
Twin Cities 13-County Metropolitan Area
Minnesota and Western Wisconsin
Dear Mr, Engen:
As requested, the appraisers have completed a Property Value Impact Study to
ascertain whether cellular phone towers have an impact on neighboring residential
properties, This report provides a summary of the analysis for the Property Value
Impact Study.
We have considered four study areas that are improved with residential properties
that are near cellular phone towers. The study areas were analyzed to determine
whether there is market evidence indicating that cellular phone towers have an
impact on the market value (or selling price) of the neighboring residential
properties. The following steps were employed in the analysis:
1, Identiiy locations in the Twin Cities 13-County Metropolitan Area where
residential properties are located in close proximity to cellular phone towers,
The neighborhoods chosen include owner occupied residential properties,
which are fairly homogeneous (in terms of age, style, size, view, amenities,
etc.), This will allow for better comparison based on proximity to the cellular
phone tower.
2. When there are an adequate number of comparable sales within the study
area, we have conducted a paired sales analysis. This analysis compares the
sales prices of individual homes located near a tower to the sale prices of
similar homes not located in close proximity to a tower.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Eric Engen
January 12, 2007
3. Interviews have also been conducted with sales agents and buyers of
properties in close proximity to a cellular phone tower to determine if the
presence of the tower had an impact on the sale price.
We also identified three new housing developments situated near cellular phone
antenna sites. In this regard, we interviewed developers and sales agents that are
marketing the developments to determine any impact by the neighboring towers.
In all study areas, our findings indicate there is no measurable difference in the
market value (or selling price) between properties that are near cellular phone
tower (s) and. those that are farther away from the tower (s). Therefore, it is our
conclusion that cellular phone towers do not have a measurable or identifiable
impact on residential property values.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
1HE V ALUTION GROUP, INC.
Jt#fl~
Scott F. Muenchow, MAl
Minnesota Certified General Real
Property Appraiser #4000872
J~ J ~/dc,
David S. Reach, MAl
Minnesota Certified General Real
Property Appraiser #4000648
Wisconsin Certified General Real
Property Appraiser #635-010
.
s
g
(,;1
Z
o
~
:::l
~
~
~
Page 1 of3
Attachment 14
Michael Martin
From: LINDA OLSON [lindamae5185@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 332 PM
To: Michael Martin
Cc: 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;
ekstedlfamily@hotmail.com; stevekranick@msn.com; littlelady@pressenter.com;
dale.olson@thomson.com; ekstedt@minnehahaacademy.net; glen029@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: T-Mobile Tower at Harmony Learning Center
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
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 possible placement on the entire Harmony site for this tower.
The only location 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 would 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 midd Ie 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 T-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 of3
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, it 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 should 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. Paul and Maplewood to meet the proported needs
of the T-Mobile resident customers who will not be able 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 wild life 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 half-mile within this city area to
provide full and unlimited 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 ideal. 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.
This design may be best for T-Mobile because it offers the cheapest possible construction costs.
Surrounding this tower with an 8 foot high chain link fence, topped with 3 strands of barbed 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 lig hts, 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, ded icated
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' T-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
Iindamae5185@msn.com
Linda M. Olson
Engineering Aide II
Dept of Public Works, Bridge Division
City of St. Paul
651-266-6185
Iinda,olson(illci. stpau I. mn. us
5/12/2009
Page 10f2
Attachment 15
Michael Martin
From: Linda Olson [lindamae5185@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1141 PM
To: Tom Ekstrand
Cc: Michael Martin; DuWayne Konewko; Ananth Shankar; Matt Ledvina; Matt Wise; Rossbach; Diana
Longrie
Subject: Re: T-Mobile Tower at Harmony Learning Center
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Please run all of my comments, 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 timing 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 not 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 St 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 St. Paul Water Tower on 14th Avenue near
Richardson School.
5. cell phone towers and antenna located on top of the Emerald Inn by 694, east of White Bear Avenue.
6. another cell phone tower located just north 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 A1 N0050A located north of Hwy 36 and south of Gervais,
and west of Clarence. According to the submitted, that tower appears to be about 1.5 miles from my home.
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 16
Michael Martin
From: Glen Olson [glen029@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 1009 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 companies 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 midd Ie 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 1
Attachment 17
Michael Martin
From: dale.olson@thomsonreuters.com
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 359 PM
To: Michael Martin
Subject: RE: T-Mobile Tower at Harmony Learning Center
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
Unfortunately I do not collect the mail on a daily basis so was unaware of this issue until yesterday and hope this e-mail will
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 fence 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 build and maintain was not even considered.
I and the other participants in the Trust are not agreeable to this proposal.
Dale Olson
Trustee, Priscilla 1. Olson Trust
Owner of parcel east of Harmony Learning Center
2027 E. 17th Ane.
North st Paul, MN 55109
5/12/2009
Attachment 18
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Amy Dresch, 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 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.
Attachment 18
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. T-Mobile shall submit a
letter to staff allowing collocation before a building permit can be issued.
The Maplewood City Council
this resolution on
,2009.
p:sec2S11961 County Road CIMonopole CUPIPCIT Mobile CUP Resolution MM TE
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Discussion Follow-up-1} Planning Commission Election of Officers 2) PC
Memberships/Reappointments
November 9, 2009
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
Election of Officers
On October 20, 2009 the planning commission reviewed a code amendment for the planning
commission's ordinance as it relates to the election of the chairperson and vice chairperson.
This ordinance was to bring the code requirement for when the planning commission elects a
chair and vice chair in line with the officer election guideline in the planning commission's Rules
of Procedure.
Since that meeting, staff found that this code amendment had, in fact, been approved by the
council already. The council adopted this same revision on September 10, 2007. Refer to the
attached ordinance.
With that being accomplished already, there is no reason to proceed with the October 20th
ordinance revision the commission discussed.
DISCUSSION
PC Memberships/ Reappointments
On October 20th the planning commission raised several questions, however, which relate to
member reappointments and the legality of a member serving if they have not been officially
reappointed by the council. Their questions are: .
1. What is the process for the appointment of new commission members?
2. Are there any legal issues for a PC member to continue serving in the event the council has
not reappointed that person yet?
3. Is any action the PC votes on valid if all members are not made official because the council
has not reappointed them yet?
4. Would it conflict with the ordinance if a PC member continued to serve until they have been
reappointed by the council?
5. The PC encourages the city council to hold reappointments before the start of each new
year. If this cannot happen, clearly allow a member to continue serving until they are either
replaced or reappointed.
6. Would there be a problem in the membership count to establish a quorum if PC members
voting on a matter have not officially been reappointed? Perhaps there should be a clear
"rule" made by the council that these PC members may continue serving until the city
council reappoints them.
Response to Questions
1. This process used to be handled by the staff liaison for each committee, but in recent years,
it has become the task of the city manager's senior administrative assistant. The city
manager's senior administrative assistant keeps track of all committee membership rosters
and notifies those that are up for reappointment to see if they would like to be reappointed.
This process is generally undertaken at the end of each year.
2. It has been common practice for a commission member to continue serving (if they are
willing) until their seat has been filled. There are no legal ramifications in this since the
planning commission is a recommending body and does not take official action. Alan
Kantrud, the city attorney, checked for state statute requirements and city ordinance
requirements that address this issue. There were none found. Therefore, there is no legal
ramification in a member continuing to serve even if they have not been officially
reappointed. Furthermore, it is an accepted and common practice for a member to stay on
the commission (again, if they are willing to do so) until they have been reappointed. There
is no specifically written policy, but it has long been an accepted practice.
3. Voting on a matter by the planning commission, even though a member or members have
not been officially reappointed by the council, is still valid. Since the planning commission is
a recommending body which does not take final action, their action is still valid input for the
city council.
4. Section 2-248(b) of the planning commission ordinance (attached) states that "all terms shall
expire on December 31 of the year in which the appointment ends." However, as stated
above, being that the city council has supported the practice of a member continuing to
serve until he or she is replaced, and being that the planning commission is a
recommending body and does not take official action, there is no legal problem with this
practice continuing.
5. City staff is aware of the time it takes to review the roster, notify members whose terms are
expiring, getting their request for reappointment, scheduling reappointment interviews,
advertising for new members if needed, etc. This process always takes a considerable
amount of time. Staff hopes to make an earlier start in 2010 for the 2011 membership
rosters.
6. As stated above, being that the planning commission is advisory to the city council, there is
no problem in the membership being considered a "quorum" even in the event that a
member(s) voting may not yet be officially reappointed.
2
EXPIRING TERMS
The logical question to follow, then, is "which terms on the planning commission are ending this
year?"
The following terms are set to expire on December 31, 2009:
Lorraine Fischer, Dale Trippler, Harland Hess, Joe Walton, Joe Boeser and Tushar Desai.
The following terms would expire on December 31, 2011:
Robert Martin, Gary Pearson and Jeremy Yarwood.
According to ordinance, "the city council shall appoint members of the planning commission for
three-year terms. The city shall divide the membership into three groups of three members
each. The terms of the three members in the same group shall end in the same year."
Being that there are currently six planning commissioners in the same group scheduled for term
expiration, staff has notified the city manager's senior administrative assistant to suggest that
appointments/reappointments be made now to redistribute the nine-member planning
commission so each year only three members come up for renewal. To correct this, the council
should reappoint three members for one-year terms to end December 31, 2010 and the
remaining three members for three-year terms to end December 31, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the planning commission:
1. Advise staff which members are seeking reappointment.
2. Choose which of those members may opt for serving their next term as a one-year term vs.
a three-year term to get the rotation back on track (a coin toss, perhaps).
p:ord\planning commission ordinance amendment election of chair and vice chair 11 09 #2 te
Attachment:
Planning Commission Ordinance
3
ORDINANCE NO. 882
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING DIVISION 4. PLANNING COMMISSION
The Maplewood city council approved the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out):
DIVISION 4. PLANNING COMMISSION*
Sec. 2-246. Established.
The city council establishes for the city a planning commission as an advisory
board to the city council, as provided in Minn. Stats. 99462.351-- 462.364.
(Code 1982, 925-17)
Sec. 2-247. Advisory body; exceptions.
All actions of the advisory planning commission shall be in the nature of
recommendations to the city council, and the commission shall have no final authority
about any matters, except as the council may lawfully delegate authority to it.
(Code 1982, 925-18)
State law reference-- City planning agency to be advisory, except as otherwise provided
by state statute or charter, Minn. Stats. 9462.354, subd. 1.
Sec. 2-248. Composition; appointment; qualifications; terms.
(a) The planning comrnission shall have nine members appointed by the city council.
The members shall be residents of the city and may not hold an elected city public
office. When possible, the council shall select commission members to represent the
various areas of the city and to help meet the needs of the residents.
(b) The city council shall appoint members of the planning commission for three-year
terms. The city shall divide the membership into three groups of three members
each. The terms of the three members in the same group shall end in the same year.
If the appointment is to fill a vacancy, the appointment would be to finish the
unexpired part of the vacated terms. All terms shall expire on December 31 of the
year in which the appointment ends.
(Code 1982, 9 25-19)
Sec. 2-249. Chairperson and vice-chairperson.
The planning commission shall elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson each vear
durinq the first planninq commission meetinq in June. at the second pl3nning commission
meoting in January each year. The chairperson shall be responsible for calling and
presiding at meetings and shall have an equal vote with other members of the
commission. If the chairperson is not at a meeting, the vice-chairperson shall assume
the duties of the chairperson for that meeting.
September 10, 2007, City Council Meeting 9
If the chairperson resigns from or is otherwise no longer on the planning commission, the
vice-chairperson shall become the acting chairperson until the planning commission can
hold an election for new officers.
(Code 1982, 325-20)
'State law references--Municipal planning, Minn. Stats. 3462.351 et seq,; city
planning agency, Minn. Stats. 3462.354, subd. 1; metropolitan government, Minn. Stats.
ch. 473; Ramsey County included within "metropolitan area" over which "metropolitan
council" has jurisdiction, Minn. Stats. 3473.121, subds. 2, 3; metropolitan land use
planning, Minn. Stats.
3473.851 et seq.
ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 2-250. Vacancies.
(a) Any of the following may cause the office of a planning commissioner to become
vacated:
(1) Death or removal from the city.
(2) Disability or failure to serve, as shown by failure to attend four meetings in
any year, may be cause for removal by council majority, unless good cause
can be shown to the council.
(3) Resignation in writing.
(4) Taking public office in the city.
(b) Vacancies shall be filled by the council for the unexpired portion of the vacated
term. (Code 1982, 325-21)
Sec. 2-251. Officers; meetings; rules of procedure.
(a) The planning commission shall elect its own officers, establish reqularlv
scheduled meeting times and dates in coniunction with the availability of
city facilities and the meetinq times of other qroups as directed bv the city
manaqer, and adopt its own rules of procedure to be reviewed and
approved by the city council.
(b) All meetings of the planning commission shall be open to the public. (Code
1982, 3 25-22)
Sec. 2-252. Duties and responsibilities.
The planning commission shall have the duty to:
September 10,2007, City Council Meeting
10
(1) Prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan of development for the city.
(2) Conduct hearings and make recommendations to the city council about the
adoption of the city comprehensive plan and any amendments thereto. The
comprehensive plan certified and adopted by the city council shall be
recognized as the city's official comprehensive plan.
(3) Study and make recommendations to the city council about implementing
the comprehensive plan and any land use regulations.
(4) Study and make recommendations to the city council about zoning code
amendments.
(5) Review, prepare and make a report to the city council by the second city
council meeting in February of each year regarding the commission's
activities in the past year and major projects for the new year.
(6) Maintain a liaison and coordination with government and private agencies
so that the city council may be familiar with the planning activities of such
agencies in order to establish an order of planning and development unity
for the city.
(7) Review and recommend, on or before June 30 of each year, a capital
improvements program to the city council, which is designed to accomplish
the comprehensive plan for the city.
(8) Review and make recomrnendations to the city council on development
applications, such as rezonings, conditional use permits, variances,
vacations, preliminary plats and home occupation licenses.
(9) Accept such other and further duties as may, from time to time, be directed
by the city council, including conducting hearings.
(Code 1982, 3 25-23)
Sec. 2-253. Compensation; expenses.
All members of the planning commission shall serve without compensation.
However, approved expenses of the planning commission shall be paid from available
city funds. (Code 1982, 325-24)
September 10, 2007, City Council Meeting
11
Sec. 2-254. Responsibilities of city planninQ staff community development
director.
Subject to the direction of the city manager, the planning commission and its
chairperson, the city planninQ staff community dO'iolopmont diroctor shall:
(1) Conduct all correspondence of the commission.
(2) Send out all required notices.
(3) Attend all meetings and hearings of the commission.
(4) Keep the dockets and minutes of the commission's proceedings.
(5) Keep all required records and files.
(6) Maintain the files and indexes of the commission.
(Code 1982, 9 25-25)
Sec. 2-255. Duties of city engineer, city attorney, city inspectors and other city
employees.
(a) The city engineer and the city attorney shall be available to the planning
comrnission. The city engineer and attorney shall have the right to sit in
with the commission at all meetings, but shall not be entitled to vote as
members of the commission.
(b) All city inspectors and other regular employees or personnel of the city shall
cooperate with the planning commission and make themselves available
and attend meetings when requested to do so.
(Code 1982, 9 25-26)
Secs. 2-256-2-280. Reserved.
This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper.
The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on September 10, 2007.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach.
A yes- All
September 10, 2007, City Council Meeting
12