Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-04 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 4,2010 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: March 16, 2010 and April 6, 2010 5. Public Hearings 6. New Business a. Cell-Phone Tower Ordinance Discussion b. 2010 Tour Route Planning 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. Commissioner Report: Commissioner Desai attended the April 26, 2010 city council meeting. The council reviewed the rezoning of 2095 Prosperity Avenue from M1 (light manufacturing) to R2 (double dwelling residential). b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of May 10, 2010: Commissioner Yarwood is scheduled to attend (Note: Mr. Yarwood attended the March 220d CC meeting as a fill-in for Mr. Pearson). The anticipated items for review are: 1.) Conditional Use Permit Revision for Feed Products North Office Addition Proposal, 2.) rezoning of the Bailey Nursery Property from F to MU, 3.) rezoning of 1400,1420 & 1440 Sterling Street from R1 to R-1R, 4.) rezoning of lots on Dorland Road/ Heights Avenue/Overlook Circle from R1 to RE30, and 5.) rezoning the former Carver Crossing lots lying between Carver Avenue and Fish Creek from F to R-1 R. 10. Staff Presentations a. Dropping Designated Public Hearing Times-Discussion b. Side by Side Land Use Plan/Zoning Maps-Discussion 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 16,2010 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner AI Bierbaum Commissioner Joseph Boeser Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Tanya Nuss Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present City Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, City Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Trippler seconded Ayes - all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. March 2, 2010 Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the minutes of March 2, 2010. Commissioner Desai seconded The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING Ayes - Bierbaum, Desai, Fischer, Nuss, Trippler, Yarwood Abstention - Martin, Pearson a. 7:02 p.m.: Rezoning of properties located at 2055 White Bear Avenue, 2080 Prosperity Avenue and 2075 Prosperity Avenue from M1 (light manufacturing) to MU (mixed use) City planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report explaining this request for rezoning changes for three parcels from M1 (light manufacturing) to MU (mixed use) revising the zoning maps to conform with the newly approved land use classifications updated in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The public hearing was opened to comments from the public. There were no comments from the public; the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-16-10 -2- A commissioner suggested staff review the small area not included in the proposed three rezonings to consider a reclassification to single dwelling residential and also review the city hall and community center parcels for rezoning. Commissioner Trippler moved approval of the rezoning of the properties located at 2055 White Bear Avenue, 2080 Prosperity Avenue and 2075 Prosperity Avenue from M1 (light manufacturing) to MU (mixed use). This rezoning is based on Minnesota Statute 473.865 subdivision 3, requiring the city to bring the zoning of these properties into conformance with the adopted comprehensive land use plan classification. Commissioner Pearson seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all b. 7:15 p.m.: Rezoning of the Town & Country Manufactured Home Park and adjacent vacant properties from F (farm residential), R1 (single-dwelling residential) and M1 (light manufacturing) to R3 (multiple-dwelling residential). Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report explaining this request for rezoning of the properties located on the west side of Highway 61, south of the homes at 1094 to 1122 County Road C, including the Town & Country Manufactured Home Park and the three properties to the north. The public hearing was opened for comments; the following people spoke: Jim Nygaard, 1110 County Road C, said his property was zoned R2 at one time, but was changed to R1. Mr. Nygaard said he would like the property behind his house zoned R1 instead of R2. The commission considered possible alternate classifications for the property south of Mr. Nygaard's property, for example a R1 S (small lot single dwelling) classification that may have a lower density. Pete Boulay, 1100 County Road C, said he agreed with the discussed R1 S zoning as a buffer between the R1 and R3 zoning areas. Mr. Boulay said he is concerned that the wetlands remain protected. Mr. Boulay said he prefers R1 or R2 zoning for the property north of the manufactured home park. There were no further comments from the public. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yarwood said he favors the R3 zoning that would allow clustering of housing, and would have less harmful impact and allow more undeveloped land to remain. Commissioner Yarwood moved approval of the rezoning of the properties located on the west side of Highway 61, south of the homes at 1094 to 1122 County Road C, including the Town & Country Manufactured Home Park, from F (farm residential), R1 (single-dwelling residential) and M1 (light manufacturing) to R3 (multiple-dwelling residential). This rezoning is based on Minnesota Statute 473.865 subdivision 3, requiring the city to bring the zoning of these properties into conformance with the adopted comprehensive land use plan classification. Commissioner Nuss seconded Ayes - Bierbaum, Desai, Fischer, Martin, Nuss, Yarwood Nays - Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-16-10 -3- Commissioner Trippler said he voted nay because he wanted to see more of a transition between R3 and R1. Commissioner Pearson said he voted nay because he wanted the R 1 S zoning to be considered. V. NEW BUSINESS None VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Ordinance Amendment Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report for the final review by the commission of the conditional use permit/planned unit development ordinance. The commission suggested a few minor changes for staff. Commissioner Trippler moved the planning commission has reviewed the revisions to the conditional use permit/planned unit development ordinance that incorporate the planning commission's most recent suggestions on March 2, 2010, along with the suggested minor changes made tonight, for submittal to the city council for approval. City Councilmember John Nephew spoke explaining that he remembers the past discussion of Section 44-1092 and understood the commission intended to strike "not permitted and". The commission agreed and commissioner Trippler accepted this change as a friendly amendment to his motion. Commissioner Pearson seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. March 8, 2010 City Council Meeting: Planner Ekstrand reported on this meeting. b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of March 22, 2010: Commissioner Yarwood will attend for Mr. Pearson. Mr. Trippler will serve as an alternate. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS-IN-SERVICE TRAINING a. Sign Ordinance Amendment Distribution-Requested by Commissioner Nuss Planner Ekstrand told commissioners a copy of this amendment was in their packets. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner AI Bierbaum Commissioner Joseph Boeser Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Tammy Nuss Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present City Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, City Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Desai moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Trippler seconded Ayes - all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None V. PUBLIC HEARING a. 7:03 p.m.: Conditional Use Permit Revision for Feed Products North, 1300 McKnight Road N. City planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report explaining this request to build a 1,997 square-foot addition to an existing building located on a 30-acre site, which would approximately double the size of the existing 30-foot by 35-foot building. In response to comments from commissioners, planner Ekstrand said he estimates that this addition would actually be located more than 350 feet to the home sites to the north. Mr. Ekstrand said that conditions could be required regarding noise or landscape issues to protect the neighborhood. In response to a parking lot paving question, Mr. Ekstrand explained that this site is within a Shoreland District and a porous pavement might be required for another situation, but this site is already paved. Bruce Lenzen, representing the applicant John Fallin, said he is the designer on this project. Mr. Lenzen said he is in agreement with the required conditions of the staff report and does not see any problems with them. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-06-10 -2- The public hearing was opened to comments from the public. There were no comments from the public; the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yarwood moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit revision for the Feed Products North office building, located at 1300 McKnight Road. This permit allows the construction of an office building on land zoned M1 (light manufacturing) within 350 feet of residential property. Approval of this CUP revision is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. 2. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 3. Any parking spaces provided on site shall be on a paved surface and be striped. 4. Update the alarm system at the facility, subject to the approval of the police chief. 5. Provide several signs along the wetland edge on the warehouse site. The number and placement of these signs shall be determined by staff. These signs shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping in or around the wetland. 6. Submit an industrial storm water protection plan to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for their review and approval. 7. The office trailer must be kept in good condition and repair, including skirting around the base. Commissioner Desai The motion passed. Ayes - all b. 7:29 p.m.: Rezoning from M1 (light manufacturing) to R2 (double-dwelling residential) Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report for this request for rezoning of the property located at 2095 Prosperity Avenue. Mr. Ekstrand explained that this rezoning is necessary to be in conformance with the newly approved land use classifications of the 2030 comprehensive plan. The public hearing was opened for comments. There were no comments; the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution rezoning the property located at 2095 Prosperity Avenue from M1 (light manufacturing) to R2 (double-dwelling residential). This rezoning is based on Minnesota Statute 473.865 subdivision 3, requiring the city to bring the zoning of this property into conformance with the recently adopted low density residential comprehensive land use plan classification. Commissioner Bierbaum seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all Planning Commission Minutes of 04-06-1 0 -3- VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Review of Pending Zone Changes and Zoning Code Amendments Planner Ekstrand reviewed the list of zoning map changes and zoning code amendments from the staff report as a follow-up to the 2030 comprehensive plan update. The commission requested that farm zonings be updated with more appropriate zoning. Commissioner Martin requested a book for commissioners be prepared using the 14 neighborhood maps showing the land use classifications on one page and the existing zonings on the opposite page. Staff said the books for commissioners would be prepared using appropriate coloring. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Mayor Will Rossbach noted the commission's earlier discussion considering canceling an issued conditional use permit. Mayor Rossbach said that canceling the CUP could not be done. Mayor Rossbach explained that the conditional use permit was issued for a property that was split off and platted separately with the intension of being rented out. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. March 22, 2010 City Council Meeting: Commissioner Yarwood reported on this meeting. b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of April 12, 2010: Commissioner Trippler will attend. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Staff reported on upcoming items for consideration by the commission. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director Cell Phone Tower Ordinance Discussion April 27, 2010 TO: FROM: INTRODUCTION On January 19, 2010, the planning commission directed staff to study the cell phone tower ordinance. The planning commission also suggested creating a map that would establish locations in Maplewood where future towers could be allowed and where they should be prohibited. The evaluation of the cell phone tower ordinance was one of the planning commission's 2010 goals. Staff is still planning to bring this matter before the planning commission in late summer once the planning commission has concluded the rezoning work related to the comprehensive plan update. At this time, however, staff is seeking direction from the planning commission regarding whether we should hire a consultant to address mapping the city for possible future tower locations. Request Review the following information and direct staff to either hire a communications expert to determine the locations of future tower locations or take no action. DISCUSSION Recent Tower Requests The planning commission has expressed concern about an increase in the number of new towers in Maplewood. This stems from two recent requests that were made. The first was in 2008 for a tower to be located at Trinity Baptist Church, 2220 Edgerton Street. This was a replacement of an earlier tower installed in the same location in 1998 and then subsequently removed. The second proposal was in 2009 for a T-Mobile tower located at Harmony'School, 1961 County Road C. Neither has been installed. Prior to those two proposals, the city had not received a request for a new cell phone tower since 2001. City Attorney's Comments Alan Kantrud, the city attorney, has stated that the city should not try to predetermine the locations of where we would allow towers and where we would not. We can better limit them by defining where we would allow them based on public safety reasons rather than arbitrarily deciding where they will not go based on physical location. Mr. Kantrud would not support this approach. He also has observed that the technology of the telecommunications industry is changing or advancing so rapidly that we cannot determine the future needs of the industry in order to create a service-area map of the city. Additional Input on the Subject Terrence Heiser, the network manager of the Roseville IT Department, has spent some time evaluating tower locations and coverage in their city. I learned of Mr. Heiser's work from one of the Roseville planners during a meeting earlier in the year. Mr. Heiser offers the attached in-depth response concerning the need and control of towers. Although, Mr. Heiser may not be an expert in the telecommunications industry, his comments make sense and warrant consideration. Please refer to the attached email correspondence from Mr. Heiser. CONCLUSION Staff has the following concluding comments: . The city is not experiencing a proliferation of tower installations. We have had only one new tower proposed in 2009 and one replacement tower proposed in 2008. Before that, there were no towers proposed since 2001. . With changing technology and service needs, the city cannot make an accurate determination as to where towers and antennas should be located. . Studying the city to create a map for allowing and denying future tower locations would require that the city hire a specialist in analyzing Radio Frequency coverage to determine voids in coverage. This would cost several thousand dollars. . Federal Telecommunications Act requirements make a predetermination of towers difficult unless we have sound "public safety" reasons to base a denial on. . The ordinance already: 1) Encourages collocations; 2) requires the protection of public health, safety and welfare; 3) prioritizes the placement of towers in: industrial & commercial areas, on city owned properties, on water towers in parks and open spaces. . Rather than an increase in new tower requests, the city is still experiencing requests for antenna collocation. The ordinance is doing its job in that respect. -<', The PC should consider the above and advise staff how they wish to proceed. Staff feels that revisiting our ordinance is prudent to see if there are upgrades or improvements needed. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Take no action on directing staff to pursue hiring a consultant to establish a map showing where we would allow future cell phone towers and where towers would be prohibited. 2. Direct staff to review the tower ordinance and to submit revisions to the planning commission. p:1 OrdlCell Phone TowerslCell Phone Tower Ordinance PC Discussion 5 10 te Attachments: 1. Email transmittal from Terre Heiser 2. Tower Ordinance 3. Map of Existing Tower Locations in Maplewood 3 Attachment 1 -----Original Message----- From: Terrence Heiser [mailto:network.manager@ci.roseville.mn.us] Sent: Friday, March 0S, 2010 10:00 AM To: Tom Ekstrand; Pat Trudgeon Cc: Pat Trudgeon Subject: RE: Map of cell tower coverage Tom) The map represents generalized coverage areas based on a simple 1 mile radius from the known tower/antenna location. The map provided is color coded to show city owned towers (red), roof top installations (blue), towers owned by others (black) and the proposed Clearwire tower in Acorn Park (yellow). The city would own the Acorn tower. The map was not intended to show the RF range of the towers. I created the map to show that given the locations of the multiple towers in and near Roseville and given that assumptions can be made about general RF propagation that there was definitely a "hole" in Roseville near Acorn Park, primarily along Dale Street. This is also confirmed by complaints that I've received about the lack of cellar services in this area. I don't believe that hiring a consultant will provide a definitive answer on where a cell tower should be located, and where these should be denied. First there are 4 primary PCS providers in the metro; Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint/Nextel, and AT&T. Everyone uses a different frequency and while the RF propagation will be similar, developing a comprehensive RF map of the city would be very difficult. This would require someone to drive through the entire city with a spectrum analyzer and measure the levels of every service providers assigned frequency. And even if you could map out the RF coverage for the city, how do you accommodate for capacity? AT&T is struggling with capacity issues due to the popularity of the iPhone. In many markets AT&T needs to add additional antennas to adjust to the bandwidth demands of data enabled phones. Technology is constantly changing. Clearwire is deploying WiMax that has a completely different RF composition and expected capacity demands. Clearwire will be providing fixed and mobile connectivity. Home users demand high bandwidth. Clearwire needs to provide high bandwidth services to compete with DSL for fixed data subscribers. This will require a greater density of antenna locations than PCS. And with the higher frequencies of WiMax, absorption and interference from trees is much greater than with PCS. And trees grow taller each year. Branches sprout more leaves. Leaves and trees and buildings will alter RF propagation. Add a 6 story building in Maplewood and this will change the RF landscape considerably. I don't believe that it is possible to develop a comprehensive tower location plan. If a service provider needs a tower it will be for a very specific based on their individual RF study and customer base. This will be different for every provider. Towers are no longer built on the presumption that if we build it then the customers will come. This may have been the case in the late 90's when carriers were scrambling to put up towers anywhere and everywhere they could just to get a jump on the emerging personal communication system (PCS) technologies. Today it comes down to filling in the holes, supporting the ever increasing wireless data demands of their customers, and accommodating new technology. As for new technologies that is why it was important to steer Clearwire to first use existing towers or buildings that are already hosting PCS antennas and only construct new towers where they 2 cannot find a suitable tower. And even at that, WiMax simply needs more antenna locations. And only the RF engineers at Clearwire can determine these locations. These are my thoughts and comments based on my experience working with providers over these past 15 years. As the Network Manager I also deal with wireless in our buildings and face the same RF issues. Simply putting radios x feet apart doesn't necessarily mean that I can reach all corners of our building. It is part science, part guess work. Terre -----Original Message----- From: Tom Ekstrand [mailto:Tom.Ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 8:55 AM To: Pat Trudgeon; Terrence Heiser Subject: FW: Map of cell tower coverage Pat, thank you again for this map. I am beginning my work now on our cell-phone tower/antenna coverage issue. Terre, how did you determine these coverages? Our planning commission wants me to do the same, but I would think I'd need to hire a consultant to determine the coverage ranges around all our antennas, wherever they are located. Do you have any recommendations to get me pointed in the right direction? Is there a way you did this without going to a radio frequency (if that's the correct term) consultant. How did you compile these ranges? Our planning commission has hopes of creating a comprehensive "tower-location" plan which would denote where we should/would allow future towers. I have my doubts about whether we can actually do this legally, but I'm just beginning on the project. Thanks to you both. Tom 651-249-2302 -----Original Message----- From: Pat Trudgeon [mailto:pat.trudgeon@ci.roseville.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 11:55 AM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Map of cell tower coverage Tom, Attached is the map I mentioned in our meeting. This was prepared by Terre Heiser of the Roseville IT Department. It doesn't go too far into Maplewood but Terre may be able to help you guys out. His direct line is (651) 792-7092 or can be emailed at terre.heiser@ci.roseville.mn.us Patrick Trudgeon, AICP City of Roseville Community Development Director 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 (651) 792-7071 (651) 792-7070 (fax) pat.trudgeon@ci.roseville.mn.us www.ci.roseville.mn.us 3 Attachment 2 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 751 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /firstJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 jull ZONING ~ 44-1321 (5) No part of the rehabilitation area which is planned for utilization for uses other than open space or agriculture shall be at an elevation lower than the minimum required for gravity connection to a sanitary or storm sewer. (Code 1982, ~ 36-599) Sees. 44-1294-44-1320. Reserved. ARTICLE XI. COMMERCIAL USE ANTENNAS AND TOWERS Sec. 44-1321. Purpose; preferences for selecting sites. (a) To accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of the commuuity, the city council finds that this article is necessary to: (1) Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city. (2) Require tower equipment to be screened from the view of persons located on properties contiguous to the site and/or to be camouflaged in a manner to complement existing structures and to minimize the visibility and the adverse visual effects of antennas and towers through careful design and siting standards. (3) Ensure the operators and owners of antennas and towers design, locate and construct antennas and towers that meet all applicable code requirements to avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements. (4) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings for new wireless telecommuuication antennas to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. (b) The following preferences shall be followed when selecting sites: (1) Primary structural location preference for wireless commuuication equipment as permitted uses shall be as follows: a. Water towers or tanks. b. Collocation on existing towers. c. Church steeples or the church structure, when camouflaged as steeples, bell towers, or other architectural features. d. Sides and roofs of buildings or structures over two stories. e. Existing power or telephone pole corridors. f. Light poles or towers at outdoor recreational facilities. CD44:149 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 752 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /firstJpubdocs/mcc/3111217 jull ~ 44-1321 MAPLEWOOD CODE g. Parking- lots may be used to locate towers where the structure replicates, incorporates or substantially blends with the overall lighting standards and fixtures ofthe parking lot. (2) Primary land use areas for towers requiring conditional use permits shall be as follows: a. Industrial and commercial. b. City-owned property except water towers, other government-owned property, schools, churches or places of worship, utility, and institutional sites. c. Public parks/golf courses, when compatible with the nature of the park or course. d. Open space areas when compatible with the nature of the area and site. (Code 1982, ~ 36-600; Ord. No. 812, ~ 1(36-600), 4-23-2001) Sec. 44-1322. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meauings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Accessory structure means a use or structure subordinate to the principal use of the land or building with a tower or antenna. Antenna means any structure, equipment or device used for collecting or radiating electromagnetic waves, telecommunication, microwave, television or radio signals including but not limited to directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes and-.satellite dishes, and omnidirectional antennas, such as whips. Personal wireless communication services means licensed commercial wireless communica- tion services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services. Public utility means persons or governments supplying gas, electric, transportation, water, sewer, or land line telephone service to the public. For this article, commercial wireless telecommunication sources shall not be considered public utility uses. Tower means any pole, monopole, spire, or structure or combination thereof, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna, meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade. UBC means the Uniform Building Code, published by the International Conference of Building Officials and adopted by the state to provide jurisdictions with building-related standards and regulations. (Code 1982, ~ 36-601; Ord. No. 812, ~ 1(36-601), 4-23-2001) CD44:150 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 753 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:102003 /firstJpubdocs/mcc/3111217 _full ZONING ~ 44-1326 Sec. 44-1323. Existing antennas and towers. Antennas, towers and accessory structures in existence as of January 13, 1997, that do not meet or comply with this article are subject to the following: (1) Towers may continue in use for the existing purpose used and as existing, but may not be replaced or structurally altered without meeting all standards in this article. (2) If such towers are damaged or destroyed due to any reason or cause at all, uoless the user or owner voluntarily removes the tower, the owner or operator may repair and restore the tower to its former size, height and use within one year after first getting a building permit from the city. The location and physical dimensions shall remain as they were before the damage or destruction. (Code 1982, ~ 36-602; Ord. No. 812, ~ 1(36-602), 4-23-2001) Sec. 44.1324. Interpretation and applicability. (a) It is not the intention ofthis article to interfere with, abrogate or annul any covenant or other agreement between parties. However, where this article imposes greater restrictions upon the use or premises for antennas or towers than are imposed or required by other ordinances, rules, regulations or permits or by covenants or agreements, the sections of this article shall govern. (b) This article does not apply to the use or location of private, residential citizen band radio towers, amateur radio towers or television antennas. (Code 1982, ~ 36-603; Ord. No. 812, ~ 1(36-603),4-23-2001) Sec. 44-1325. Inspections and violations. (a) All towers, antennas and supporting structures must obtain a building permit and are subject to inspection by the city building official to determine compliance with UBC construc- tion standards. Deviations from the original construction for which a permit is obtained, other than antenna adjustments, is a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, the person shall be punished in accordance with section 1-15. (b) Notice of violations will be sent by registered mail to the owner, and the owner will have 30 days from the date the notification is issued to make repairs. The owner will notify the building official that the repairs have been made, and as soon as possible after that the building official will make another inspection. The owner shall be notified of the results. (c) Adjustments or modifications to existing antennas do not require a conditional use permit or a building permit. (Code 1982, ~ 36-604; Ord. No. 812, ~ 1(36-604), 4-23-2001) Sec. 44-1326. Conditional nse permit. (a) In reviewing an application for a conditional use permit for the construction of commercial antennas, towers, and accessory structures, the city council shall consider the following: (1) Standards in this Code. CD44:151 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 754 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /firstJpubdocs/mcc/3111217 _full ~ 44-1326 MAPLEWOOD CODE (2) Recommendations of the planning commission and community design review board. (3) Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of residents of surrounding areas. (4) Effect on property values. (5) Effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. (b) The applicant shall provide, at the time of application, sufficient information to show that construction and installation of the antenna or tower will meet or exceed the standards and requirements of the UBC (Uniform Building Code). (c) Conditional use permits will not be required for the following: (1) Repair or replacement or adjustment of the elements of an antenna array affixed to a tower or antenna, if the repair or replacement does not reduce the safety factor. (2) Antennas mounted on water towers; on the sides or roof of existing structures; and on existing towers, power, light, or telephone poles. (d) The fee to be paid for the conditional use permit shall be set by city council resolution. (e) The applicant shall have a property acquisition specialist and a radio frequency engineer attend all city-related meetings to be available to answer questions. (Code 1982, ~ 36-605; Ord. No. 812, ~ 1(36-605), 4-23-2001) Sec. 44-1327. Communication towers proposed in residential zoning districts. No person shall build or install a tower in a residential zoning district without obtaining a conditional use permit from the city council. Such a tower shall be subject but not limited to the following conditions: (1) The city will only consider such a tower in the following residentially zoned locations or properties: a. Churches or places of worship. b. Parks, when the city determines the facility would be compatible with the nature of the park. c. City-owned property, government, school, utility and institutional sites or facil- ities. (2) There shall be no more than one freestanding tower at one time on a property that the city has planned for a residential use or that the city has zoned residentially, unless one of the following applies: a. The additional towers or antennas are incorporated into existing structures such as a church steeple, light pole, power line support device or similar structure. b. The residential property is at least five acres in size. CD44:152 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 755 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /firstJpubdocs/mcc/3/l1217 _full ZONING ~ 44-1327 c. If the prbposed tower is to replace an existing tower and if the owner/user of the existing tower agrees to remove the existing tower within 30 days of the completion of the new or replacement tower. (3) The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that location of the tower as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the cellular or personal wireless communication services systems, and to provide adequate personal wireless communication or portable cellular telephone coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure. (4) If no existing structure that meets the height requirements for the antennas is available for mounting the antennas, such antennas may be mounted on a tower not to exceed 75 feet in height. The tower shall be located a distance of at least the height of the tower plus 25 feet from the nearest residential structure. (5) The height of a tower may be increased to a maximum of 125 feet if the tower and base area are designed and built for the collocation of at least one other personal wireless communication service provider's antennas and equipment. (6) Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmit- ting, receiving and switching, the owner or operator shall locate it at least ten feet from the side or rear lot line and shall landscape and screen it. The commuuity design review board shall review such a building and the landscaping and screening. The owners and operators of all new equipment or utility buildings and accessory structures for towers shall design and construct such structures to blend in with the surrounding environment. (7) Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, unless the city determines that such a location would lessen the visibility of the tower or would lessen the negative impacts of such a facility on nearby properties. (8) The city may reduce or vary the required setback for a tower from a public street to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as a church steeple, light pole, power line support device or similar structure. (9) 'Ibwers shall be built at least ten feet from side and rear property lines, unless the site is next to a residential property line or next to a property that the city is plauning for a residential use. If the tower would be next to a residential property line or next to a property that the city is planning for a residential use, the tower must be located at least the height ofthe tower plus 25 feet from the nearest residential structure. The owner or operator shall locate ground equipment and accessory structures at least ten feet from side and rear property lines. (10) The owner or operator of any tower shall screen ground-mounted equipment from view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of non vegetative screeuing better reflects and complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood. CD44:153 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 756 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:102003 IfirstJpubdocs/mccl3111217 _full ~ 44-1327 MAPLEWOOD CODE (11) Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening possible for off-site views ofthe facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower. (12) The existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent. (13) The community design review board (CDRB) shall make recommendations on the plans for towers, utility, equipment or accessory buildings, site plans and proposed screening and landscaping. (14) Towers with antennas shall be designed and constructed to withstand a uniform wind loading as prescribed by the UBC (Uniform Building Code). (Code 1982, ~ 36-606; Ord. No. 812, ~ 1(36-606), 4-23-2001) Sec. 44-1328. Construction requirements, setback and height restrictions in zoning districts or locations other than residential. No person shall erect a tower in a location other than residential without first obtaining a conditional use permit from the city council. Such a tower shall be subject but not limited to the following conditions: (1) No part of any tower or antenna shall be constructed, located or maintained at any time, permanently or temporarily, in or upon any required setback area for the district in which the antenna or tower is to be located. (2) All antennas, towers and accessory structures shall meet all applicable sections of this Code and this article. (3) Antennas and towers shall meet the following requirements: a. The antennas may be mounted on a single pole or tower not to exceed 175 feet in height. The pole or tower shall be set back at least the height of the pole or tower plus 25 feet from any residential lot line. b. Metal towers shall be constructed of or treated with corrosive-resistant material. c. The use of guyed towers is prohibited. d. Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening possible for off-site views of the facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower. e. Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent. f. The installation shall be designed to be compatible with the underlying site plan. The owner or operator shall landscape the base of the tower and any accessory structures. Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with any principal structures on the site. All new equipment or utility buildings and accessory structures for towers shall be designed and constructed to blend in with the surrounding environment. The commuuity design review board shall review the design plans for towers, utility, equipment or any accessory structures, site plans and proposed screening and landscaping. CD44:154 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 757 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /frrstJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full ZONING ~ 44-1328 g. Towers shall be a light blue or gray or other color shown to reduce visibility. No advertising or identification visible off site shall be placed on the tower or buildings. h. Antennas placed upon the tower shall comply with all state and federal regulations about nouionizing radiation and other health hazards related to such facilities. i. Wireless telephone or personal wireless communication service antennas, where located on an existing structure, shall not extend more than 25 feet above the structure to which they are attached. Such antennas are a permitted use in all zoning districts of the city. The city council, after a recommendation from the community desigu review board, must approve the plans for all sets of antennas on a building after the second personal wireless communication service provider has installed its antennas on the building. J. 'Ibwers with antennas shall be designed and constructed to withstand a uuiform wind loading as prescribed by the DBC (Uniform Building Code). k. Telecommunications equipment located on the side of an existing structure or on a roof of a structure shall not be screened. 1. Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street unless the city determines that such a location would lessen the visibility of the tower or would lessen the negative impacts of such a facility on nearby properties. m. The city may reduce or vary the required setback for a tower from a public street to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as a church steeple, light pole, power line support device or similar structure. n. Towers shall be set back at least ten feet from side and rear property lines unless the site is next to a residential lot line. If the tower would be next to a residential property line or next to a property that the city is planuing for a residential use, the tower must be located at least the height of the tower plus 25 feet from the nearest residential structure. The owner or operator shall locate ground equip- ment and accessory structures at least ten feet from side and rear property lines. Q. The owner or operator of a tower shall screen ground-mounted equipment from view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of nonvegetative screening better reflects and complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood. p. Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screeuing possible for off-site views of the facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower. q. The existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent. r. The commuuity design review board (CDRB) shall make recommendations on the plans for towers, utility, equipment or accessory buildings, site plans and proposed screening and landscaping. (Code 1982, ~ 36-607; Ord. No. 812, ~ 1(36-607), 4-23-2001) CD44:155 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 758 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /firstJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _ full ~ 44-1329 MAPLEWOOD CODE Sec. 44-1329. Lights, signs and other attachments. (a) No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any way any lights, reflectors, flashers, daytime strobes or steady nighttime light or other illuminating devices except: (1) Those needed during time of repair or installation. (2) Those required by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission or the city. (3) For towers in parking lots, lights associated with the parking lot lighting. (b) In addition, no tower shall have constructed thereon or attached thereto, in any way, any platform, catwalk, crawls nest, or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair. (c) No antenna or tower shall have signage, advertising or identification of any kind visible from the ground or from other structures, except necessary warning and equipment informa- tion signage required by the manufacturer or by federal, state or local authorities. (Code 1982, ~ 36-608; Ord. No. 812, ~ 1(36-608),4-23-2001) Sec. 44-1330. Removal of abandoned or damaged towers. Any tower and/or antenna that is not used for one year shall be deemed abandoned and may be required to be removed in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures as for dangerous or unsafe structures established by Minn. Stats. ~~ 463.15-463.26. (Code 1982, ~ 36-609; Ord. No. 812, ~ 1(36-609),4-23-2001) Sec. 44-1331. Collocation of personal wireless communication service equipment. (a) The city shall not approve a request for a new personal wireless serVice tower unless it can be documented by the applicant to the satisfaction of the city council that the telecom- munications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or commercial building within one-half mile radius, transcending municipal borders, of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following: (1) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or commercial building. (2) The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building. (3) Existing or approved structures and commercial buildings within a one-half-mile radius cannot or will not reasonably accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function. (4) The applicant must demonstrate, by providing a citywide coverage/interference and capacity analysis, that the location of the antennas as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication service system and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district or on existing structure. CD44:156 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 759 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 IfirstJpubdocs/mccl3111217 _full ZONING ~ 44-1331 (b) Additional submittal requirements. Besides the information required elsewhere in this Code, all conditional use permit applications for towers also shall include the following information: (1) A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use. (2) The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed facility is necessary to fill a significant existing gap in users' coverage or to accommodate system capacity needs. This documentation shall include the following: a. Coverage maps of all the applicant's or the provider's existing antenna sites within one mile of the proposed facility. b. A map showing all existing personal wireless communication service antenna sites within one mile of the proposed facility. (3) The proposal is the least intrusive method of achieving the necessary coverage or additional system capacity in the area and other alternatives will not work. (4) The equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated at any existing tower or antenna facility. The city may find that a collocation site cannot accommodate the planned equipment for the following reasons: a. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the preferred collocation site and the preferred collocation site cannot be reinforced, modified or replaced to accommodate the planned equipment or its equivalent at a reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified radio frequency engineer; b. The planned equipment would significantly interfere with the usability of existing or approved equipment at the preferred collocation site and the inter- ference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified radio frequency engineer; c. A preferred collocation site cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably, as certified by a qualified radio fre- quency engineer; or d. The applicant, after a good-faith effort, is unable to lease, purchase or otherwise secure space for the planned equipment at an existing antenna location. The city may require the applicant to hire or pay for a study or other research by a qualified radio frequency engineer to determine the need for the proposed tower. (5) Materials or documentation demonstrating to the city that the applicant has made a good-faith effort to collocate on existing towers, but he could not reach an agreement to collocate on an existing tower. (6) Design information and documentation showing how the applicant, owner or operator of the tower has designed structurally, electrically and in all respects the tower to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and the antennas for at least two CD44:157 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 760 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:10 2003 /firstJpubdocs/mcc/3111217 jull ~ 44-1331 MAPLEWOOD CODE additional users if the tower is equal to or more than 100 feet in height in all locations or for at least one additional user if the tower is equal to or more than 75 feet in height. The applicant and owner must design and install a new tower to allow for the maximum future arrangement of antennas on the tower, to accept antennas mounted at varying heights and to accommodate the equipment and other needs offuture users. (7) Photo-illustrations or similar-styled artist's renderings of the proposed tower and base site that show the appearance of the proposed tower and the proposed ground equipment or buildings after the contractor completes them. (Code 1982, ~ 36-610; Ord. No. 812, ~ 1(36-610), 4-23-2001) Sec. 44-1332. Interference with public safety telecommunications. All new or existing telecommuuications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standards and regnlations and shall not interfere with public safety telecommunications. (Code 1982, ~ 36-611; Ord. No. 812, ~ 1(36-611), 4-23-2001) Sec. 44-1333. Additional submittal requirements. Besides the information required elsewhere in this Code, building permit applications for towers shall include a report and plans from a qualified and registered engineer or others that: (1) Describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation. (2) Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for collocated antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas. (3) Describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it can hold. (4) Includes an engineer's stamp and registration number, if applicable. (5) Includes all other information necessary for the city to evaluate the request. (Code 1982, ~ 36-612; Ord. No. 812, ~ 1(36-612), 4-23-2001) Sec. 44-1334. Variances. (a) The city council may grant variances to the requirements of this article. All variances must follow Minn. Stats. ch. 462. For variances regarding antennas and towers, the applicant must show the city the following: (1) There are uuique circumstances or characteristics peculiar to the property and this article would inflict undue hardship on the property owner or applicant. (2) The property cannot be developed or put to a reasonable use by strictly conforming with this Code. (3) The applicant or property owner did not create or cause the hardship. CD44:158 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 761 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /fustJpubdocs/mcc/3111217 _ full ZONING ~ 44-1334 (4) The proposed, variance will not alter the essential character of the area or the zoning district. (5) The proposed variance is the minimum variance that will afford relief from the standards of this Code. (6) The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this article. (b) The applicant for a variance for an antenna or tower-related matter shall submit with the variance application a statement showing how the proposal would meet the findings in subsection (a) of this section. (Code 1982, ~ 36-613; Ord. No. 812, ~ 1(36-613), 4-23-2001) CD44:159 ~ uO<' F / . ---J .At ~', . ~;tachment ~ . "~.' t. !";: ~ o,e I .. .. '1 N\' ~'o:~ { \~ ~J \1t ,- \ A' 0 ~'.~4 ~ ,~~~r~~!/)'J-; ~r \ ~ I >i LJ - r~i 10 . / t "( i rei ~' I U '" c -'~V:i " :"Ji ,"l~ j :" rL_h"1 /' 0 ~' f:-:=-' nl =' =- f ~ m.. b-" \"'--1 1- !I I t-= ~ i= 111'- rrn - -T 1-'). ~ ~')'!0' - "!:<..-- . ILln '. "0' I f--J~0~ '/'\~\ - - =~ /.. f'I' ~ ~,' :' 1'- .lh~" ,r..,~'~~::. Tl:;= '0 ",~= . "-(":(~': olm - )01 TI=1 '~. - I-~ vr~i,~ -'0 . ~ $ o , '" .:, 1:1 .. ~ ~,. rr-;-, ~'" .'" '.>.' J.;4.")! 'X ~ ,'f' ':: '( " ~~= i? ~ "'~ =: .... 0 L \ 1/ liW EXISTING CELL PHONE TOWERS ~/ W , Eij/' ~-jr<j~ -/TL--I . .. ~""" 1-' '- -;;- . ~ .I~li~ i l'~ ITJ,JA ~ !.,,- ~"..,,;:H I ~ ~;""II .' .,-:/",; .,., (:f.... ~ . , '~-...... =j::= '" '" '-' ~ !iF.'~ . ':I,~""'~ :)12=. ,~,\b . '~"'t~"" :: J ~ ~Jt"~, . ~ ,~-'... Tr~ .,,:~~ -'7.":- ~ ~,~~l .. .:.,;.,~_ 'O.~ '.J ",j:",fx7,>~ =--r- ~1' r - I I. ~3 ,S:: 1=j-1 )lJj~:."., - ':::F/~f - ,~.h 1. 1217FrostAvenue,AI'sAuto 2. 2220 Edgerton Street, Trinity Baptist Church (approved but not installed) 3. 2670 Highwood Avenue, west of Carver General Repair 4. 1779 McMenemy Street, MnDOT office building 5. 2500 Hudson Road, Christ United Methodist Church 6. 500 Carlton Street, Qwest office building 7. 1681 Cope Avenue, Sheet Metal Workers Union Hall 8. 1905 County Road 0, Aamco Transmission 9. 2385 English Street, Wheeler Lumber and Landscape Materials 10.1961 County Road C, Harmony Community Education buiidlng (approved but not installed) MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director 2010 Tour Route Planning April 27, 2010 TO: FROM: INTRODUCTION On April 20, 2010, the planning commission set Tuesday, June 29 as the date for the 2010 Summer Planning Commission Tour of the city. The planning commission would again like to have the tour focus on fewer, more meaningful stops rather than the former method of numerous "drive-bys." Suggested Tour Visits by the Planning Commission . Focus on the Gladstone redevelopment area. This could be a walking tour, discussion about the savannah and possible improvements with visioning about development potential and walkability. One suggestion by a staff member is to skip the bus and all meet in Gladstone should this become the sole focus of the tour. In this event, we should consider if there is enough to see and discuss how to occupy the evening. . The Seasons (former Regent of Legacy Village) senior housing apartments at Legacy Village. This is a major development now occurring, but would be a drive-by unless we were to get out and walk part of Legacy Village to see how it has developed so far. . The Priory open space land. In talking with Ginny Gaynor, the city's natural recourses coordinator, the Priory open space land will have more to show next year since they will not have planned improvements done by June 29,2010. The anticipated improvements are an entrance from Larpenteur Avenue and an overlook. If viewed this year, Ginny suggests discussion topics of conservation easement, sustainable soil, surface trails and restoration. . The significant upgrades to the White Bear Avenue/County Road D roadways. Other Possibilities and Itinerary Suggestions . A tour of the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District headquarters in Little Canada (provided they are happy to host a tour). . Consider trails and paths and how they connect and interact with development opportunities and proposals. . Some additional ideas from Ginny Gaynor: a. Review of rain gardens in the city. b. The Spoon Lake Basin-this is part of the Carsgrove Street Project and has some interesting features: EPIC tile system, tree planting, no-mow fescue, entry plantings, shrubs, meadow planting and deer control. RECOMMENDATION Give staff direction and ideas for the tour route and format for the 2010 summer tour. p:\ planning commission\PC 2010 Tourl2010 tour route planning #2 410 te 2