Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-21 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 21,2010 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 a. September 7,2010 5. Public Hearings 6. New Business a. Cell Phone Tower Ordinance Discussion 7. Unfinished Business a. Ordinance Review to Consider Allowing the Keeping of Chickens in Residential Areas 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. Commissioner Report: City Council Meeting of September 13, 2010. Commissioner Desai was scheduled to attend. There were no items needing planning commission representation. b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of September 27,2010: Commissioner Yarwood is scheduled to attend. Potential items to be discussed are: Metro Transit's PUD for a parking ramp at the mall area park and ride, Walser Automotive's CUP to sell used cars at 2590 Maplewood Drive and the Gladstone Neighborhood rezoning to R3 (multiple dwelling residential) and MU (mixed use) 10. Staff Presentations a. Zoning Map/Land Use Plan Inconsistencies-Any Found by Commissioners? (no report) b. Summary Minutes Discussion (no report) c. Planning Commission Attendance Roster with Commissioner Addresses (to be handed out) d. Commission Terms up for Reappointment-Commissioners Fischer, Boeser and Desai 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7,2010 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. 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 Absent Present Present Present Present Absent Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Yarwood seconded the motion. Ayes all; the motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of July 6, 2010: On the vote for approval of minutes, Chair Fischer was listed as having voted aye and abstaining. Chair Fischer was not present at the July 6 minutes; therefore, the minutes should be corrected to reflect that she abstained from that vote. Commission Pearson commented that some of the resident comments that should have been captured were not. All public hearing comments should be included in the future. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the minutes of the July 6, 2010, as amended. Commissioner Yarwood seconded the motion. Ayes all; the motion passed. Minutes of August 17, 2010: Change to reflect that Robert Martin was not present at the August 17, 2010, meeting. September 7, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 Commissioner Bierbaum moved to approve the minutes of the August 17, 2010, as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes: Commissioners Bierbaum, Fischer, Nuss and Pearson. Abstained: Commissions Martin and Yarwood; the motion passed. 5. PUBLIC HEARING a. Conditional Use Permit for Use Car Sales, 2590 Maplewood Drive, Don Schilling, Walser Automotive Group Mr. Ekstrand provided the following background information on this matter. Mr. Schilling of Walser Automotive Group (Walser) is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to be allowed sell used cars from the former Mitsubishi site referenced above. Walser Automotive would like to commence operations of used car sales. City code allows for the sale of new and used cars, but not used cars only; therefore, a CUP is required. Staff supports approval of this CUP with the usual provisions and zoning requirements, including complying with signage requirements and restricting the loading and unloading of vehicles to the site property. In response to a question from Commissioner Martin, Staff explained that it is not necessary for the CDRB to review this application because the application refers only to the use and not to the design. Visitor Don Schilling of Walser commended Staff on his presentation of the issues and offered to answer any questions. The public hearing portion of this issue was closed. Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the staff's recommendation to approve CUP to allow the sale of used cars at 2590 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the conditions 1 through 6. Commissioner Nuss seconded the motion. Ayes all; motion carries. This matter will go before the City Council at its meeting scheduled for September 27, 2010. September 7, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2 b. Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development for Maplewood Mall Area Park- and-Ride Parking Ramp, 1793 Beam Avenue Mr. Ekstrand provided background and led discussion on this issue. A request is being made by Metro Transit, a division of the Met Council, to build a three-level parking ramp at its current park-and ride facility located at the southwest corner of Maplewood mall. The request includes a ground-level and two upper parking levels. Metro Transit is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) to build the structure. The current facility consists of 426 stalls as well as the park and ride bus transit hub. The proposal includes a request for two reductions from the city's zoning ordinance for setback and parking stall width. The setback reduction would reduce the setback from 30 feet to 15 feet, and applicant is requesting a reduction in parking stall width from 9.5 feet to 8.5 feet. Staff explained that the PUD does allow for flexibility in design. Staff believes the setback request does meet the five criteria imposed by the ordinance. Staff also noted that the city has allowed reduced setbacks in the past for the Legacy Village PUD, St. John's Hospital's parking ramp and for Maplewood Toyota's parking ramp. The applicant has shown that the requested width of 8.5 feet is commonly used in parking ramps, although the city has a fairly conservative view on this issue with the code at 9.5 feet. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD with the reduced setback and reduced stalls to 9- feet wide. Pat Jones, Tom Downs, Gary Milne Rojek all spoke in support of the proposal as representatives of Metro Transit or their consultants and presented justification for the setback and parking stall width reduction. Audience member, AI Olson, 1221 Frost Avenue, addressed the commission explaining having more stalls, even though at 8 Y, feet wide, gives him more options and a better chance of finding a stall that he can park in easily. The public hearing portion of this issue was closed and the commission continued their discussion. Commissioner Pearson moved that the Planning Commission table the resolution to approve a CUP for a PUD for the proposed Metro Transit park-and-ride facility at the Maplewood mall to allow the applicant time to review plans to designate some small and large reserved parking spaces. Commissioner seconded by Commissioner Martin. Ayes: Pearson and Martin; Nays: Bierbaum, Fischer, Nuss, Yarwood. Motion fails, Commissioner Yarwood moved to adopt the resolution to approve a CUP for a PUD for the proposed Metro Transit park-and-ride facility including the proposed setback reduction from 30' to 15' from the Southlawn line right of way and reduced stall width from 9'6" to 9". Approval is subject to conditions 1 through 6. Commissioner Nuss seconded the motion. Ayes: Bierbaum, Fischer, Nuss, Yarwood; Nays: Pearson and Martin. Motion carries. September 7, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3 c. Rezoning within the Gladstone Neighborhood to Multiple Dwelling and Mixed Use. Mr. Ekstrand introduced this item. This is the final zoning map revision to review as a result of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update. Staff is recommending changing certain zonings in the Gladstone Neighborhood to bring them into compliance with the plan, which should result in mixed-use zoning or multiple dwelling zoning. The changes proposed would change certain properties to R3 (multiple dwelling residential) and MU (mixed use). AI Olson, 1221 Frost Avenue, Ku Vang, 1310 Frost Avenue, and Victor Meysenburg, 1851 Ide Street, addressed the commission. The public hearing for Gladstone Neighborhood Rezoning was closed. Motion: Yarwood to approve the rezoning of properties within the Gladstone Neighborhood, near the intersection of English Street and Frost Avenue, from R2 (double-dwelling), R1S (small-lot single-dwelling), M1 (light manufacturing), BC (business commercial) and BCM (business commercial modified) to R3 (multiple dwelling residential) and MU (mixed use). Please refer to the attached maps and resolution for the specific rezonings. These rezonings are 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. Ayes: Bierbaum, Fischer, Martin, Pearson, Yarwood Nays: Nuss Tanya apposed because she lacks background on the Gladstone Neighborhood redevelopment matter and would have preferred that the matter would have been tabled pending additional information. This matter will goes before the City Council on September 27,2010. Commissioner Yarwood encouraged staff to try to protect and preserve the interests of the existing businesses until such time that there is a development proposal for the area. 6. NEW BUSINESS None 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None September 7, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4 8. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS John Nephew, City Council liaison, addressed the commission to respond to any questions the commission may have for him. Commissioner Yarwood inquired about a recent press article regarding legal standing of cities to grant variances. Mr. Nephew explained the issues around this case, which was heard by the MN Supreme Court. Mr. Nephew also noted that a mobile home park CUP amendment was passed. The City Council generally went with staff recommendations. However, the Council received correspondence from residents of the park informing the Council that, in response to the condition that park management must maintain the restrooms as part of the storm shelter, the management removed the toilets entirely. Because of this, the matter will be revisited by the City Council. 9. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. City Council Meeting of August 23, 2010: Commissioner Trippler was scheduled to attend. The item for review was the Kingston Avenue right-of-way vacation. . Staff reported that the item was approved as requested. b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of September 13, 2010: Commissioner Desai is scheduled to attend. There are no scheduled planning commission items for this meeting. Staff reported that the Rolling Hills mobile home park issue will be revisited by the City Council due to the removal of the toilets from the storm shelter, which may have put them in violation of the CUP. Staff will request the City Council make this determination. c. Unscheduled discussions included the following: 1. Chair inquired is staff had received input from the commission members regarding the review of the current zoning for errors. Staff indicated that input had only been received from Chair. Chair also requested that staff review where each commissioner lives and identify any neighborhoods that do not currently have a commissioner residing therein. 2. Tania inquired about the Edgemont Street vacation for which staff recommended denial. Staff reported that the application was withdrawn. Applicant is putting together a proposal for a senior housing development, which will require the purchase of some land. 10. STAFF PRESENTATIONS At the next Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Ekstrand will present a review of the tower ordinance. 11. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:55 p.m. September 7,2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director Cell Phone Tower Ordinance Review September 15, 2010 TO: FROM: INTRODUCTION On January 19, 2010, the planning commission set their 2010 Activities while preparing their 2009 Annual Report. One of those activities, or goals, was tOTeview the cellular telephone tower ordinance for possible changes. At that time, one of the things the planning commission considered was the creation of a map that would establish allowed locations for future towers as well as prohibited locations. On May 4, 2010, the planning commission chose not to pursue hiring a consultant for that analysis, but moved to study the ordinance once they have finished with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan zoning amendments. Request Review the attached Commercial Use Antennas and Towers Ordinance (cell phone tower ordinance). BACKGROUND The city council adopted the Commercial Use Antennas and Towers ordinance in 1982. There was an ordinance revision on April 23, 2001, which incorporated changes about co-location, design and placement. DISCUSSION Existing Towers in Place Presently, there are nine cell phone towers in Maplewood and one site approved for a tower at Trinity Baptist Church, 2220 Edgerton Street. Refer to the attachment. Recent Approvals On November 24, 2008, the city council approved the T-Mobile tower at Trinity Baptist Church (not yet installed). On December 14, 2009, the council approved the recently installed tower at Harmony School, 1961 County Road C. Prior to those two proposals, the city had not received a request for a new cell phone tower since 2001. RECOMMENDATION Review the attached cellular phone tower ordinance to consider the need for revisions. p:1 OrdlCell Phone TowerslTower Ordinance PC Review 9 10 te Attachments: 1. List of Existing Ceil Phone Towers dated September 13, 2010 2. Tower Ordinance 2 Attachment 1 EXISTING CELL PHONE TOWERS September 13,2010 1. 1217 Frost Avenue, AI's Auto 2. 2670 Highwood Avenue, west of Carver General Repair 3. 1779 McMenemy Street, MnDOT office building 4. 2500 Hudson Road, Christ United Methodist Church 5. 500 Carlton Street, Qwest office building 6. 1681 Cope Avenue, Sheet Metal Workers Union Hall 7. 1905 County Road D, Aamco Transmission 8. 2385 English Street, Wheeler Lumber and Landscape Materials 9. 1961 County Road C, Harmony Community Education building Approved but not Installed 10i2220 Edgerton Street, Trinity Baptist Church (This was a replacement of a previously installed tower. The city council approved this reinstallation on November 24,2008, but T-Mobile has not yet put the tower up.) P:ordlcell phone towerslexisting cell phone tower locations 9 10 te 3 Attachment 2 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 751 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /fustJpubdocs/mcc/3111217 _ full 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 community, 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 sitillg 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 telecommunication antenIl.aB 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 communication 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 8 12:31:102003 /frrstJpubdocs/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 meanings 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 a:ndsatellite 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 govemments 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 Intemational 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 /fustJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 jllll 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, uuless 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 frorn 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 of this article to interfere with, abrogate or annul any covenant or other agceement between parties. However, where this article imposes gceater 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 puuished 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 notiry 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 use permit. (a) In reviewing an application for a conditional use permit for the construction of commercial antennas, towers, and accessory structures, the city council shall consider the following: (1) Standards in this Code. CD44:151 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 754 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /fustJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 jllll ~ 44-1326 MAPLEWOOD CODE (2) Recommendations of the planning commission and commuuity design review board. (3) Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, conveuience 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 obtaiuing a conditional use permit from the city council. Such a tower shall be subject but not limited to the followiug conditious: " (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 ofthe 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 ApT 8 12:31:102003 /fiTstJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full ZONING ~ 44-1327 c. If the proposed tower is to replace an existing tower and if the owner/user of the existing tower agrees to remove the existing tower within 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 ifthe 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) Tcansmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure wheuever 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 community design review board shall review such a building and the landscaping and screeuing. 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) Towers 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 planning for a residential use. If the tower would be next to a residential property line or next to a property that the city is planning for a residential use, 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 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 screecing better reflects and complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood. CD44:153 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 756 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /firstJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full Ii 44-1327 MAPLEWOOD CODE (11) Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening possible for off-site views of the facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower. (12) The existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent. (13) The community design review board (CDRB) shall make recommendations on the plans for towers, utility, equipment or accessory buildings, site plans and proposed screeuing 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 obtaiuing 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 maximuin 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 community 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 8 12:31:102003 /firstJpubdocs/mcc/3/l1217 _ 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 noniouizing radiation and other health hazards related to such facilities. 1. 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 design review board, must approve the plans for all sets of antennas on a building after the second personal wireless communication service provider has installed its antennas on the building. j. Towers with antennas shall be designed and constructed to withstand a uniform wind loading as prescribed by the UBC (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 uuless the site is next to a residential lot line. If the tower would be next to a residential property line or next to a property that the city is planning for a residential use, 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 screening 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 /frrstJpubdocs/mcc/3/l1217 _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 uighttime light or other illuminating devices except: (1) Those needed during time of repair or installation. (2) Those Tequired 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, crowls 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 waming 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 ofthe 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 /fustJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _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 I coverage or to accommodate system capacity needs. This do.cumentation 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 altematives 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 812:31:102003 /fustJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full ~ 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 ifthe 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 of future 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 telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with public safety telecommuuications. (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 unique 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 8 12:31:102003 /frrstJpubdocs/mcc/3/l1217 _full ZONING !i 44-1334 (4) The proposed variance will not alter the essential character ofthe area or the zouing 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 ofthis 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, !i 1(36-613),4-23-2001) CD44:159 MEMORANDUM DATE: Planning Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Ordinance Review to Consider Allowing the Keeping of Chickens in Residential Areas September 14, 2010 for the September 21 Planning Commission Meeting TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION Urban communities throughout the country are considering allowing chickens in residential areas as a way of promoting urban agriculture and sustainability. There has been an interest by some Maplewood residents and the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission to allow chickens in Maplewood for this purpose as well. Maplewood's zoning code prohibits the raising or handling of poultry (including chickens) in all single dwelling residential zoning districts. BACKGROUND In October 2009 the ENR Commission began to review the feasibility of allowing chickens in residential zoning districts as a means of promoting more sustainable food products. Since that time the Commission has reviewed comments from residents, the Maplewood Animal Control Officer, Chief of Police, and Health Officer in regard to this matter. The Commission also reviewed other cities' chicken ordinances in the metropolitan area. After review of the comments and research, the ENR Commission recommended approval of an ordinance on July 19, 2010. The proposed ordinance would allow up to ten chickens on a residential lot of any size with a permit. The permit can only be approved if at least 75 percent of the property owners within 150 feet consent to the permit. The ENR Commission attempted to address all of the possible negative impacts of raising chickens in residential areas in the ordinance such as prohibiting roosters (noise impacts), requiring chickens to be housed in coops and not in habitable buildings (house or garage), requiring chickens to be located in a fenced area, requiring chickens to be banded for identification, and prohibiting the slaughtering of chickens on the property. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft chicken ordinance in August 2010. Several issues were raised by the Commission during the review. Staff has attempted to address those issues below, and has made amendments to the draft ordinance accordingly. DISCUSSION Issues Raised at August 17 Planning Commission Meeting 1. Lot Area - should the ordinance specify a minimum lot size for the keeping of chickens? The ENR Commission proposed allowing up to ten hens on "any" single family residential lot. Maplewood has five single family zoning districts. Following are the zoning districts, minimum square footage required in each district, and location of those districts: a. R-1S - Small Lot Residential (7,500 s.f.): There are approximately 30 R-1S lots located on Gall Avenue (northeast corner of the city). b. R-1 - Single Family Residential (10,000 s.f.): A majority of Maplewood's single family lots are R-1. c. RE-30,000 - Single Family Residential 30,000 (30,000 s.f.): There are approximately 30 RE-30,000 lots located on the west side of Keller Lake. d. RE-40,000 - Single Family Residential 40,000 (40,000 s.f.): There are approximately 21 RE-40,000 lots located on Haller Lane and Haller Court in south Maplewood. e. R-1R - Rural Lot Residential (2 Acres): Most of the remaining large lots located south of Carver Avenue are R-1 R. Since a majority of the city's residential lots are 10,000 square feet in area, allowing chickens on lots larger than this would limit the ordinance to a very small percentage of the city. 2. Approval process: a. Should the neighborhood petition requirement be increased to neighbors that are located 350 feet from the property proposing chickens as opposed to 150 feet? The R-1 zoning district requires a minimum lot width of 75 feet. The proposed ordinance requires consent from neighbors within 150 feet of the property. Using a 75-foot lot width as the average, the maximum number of properties that would have to consent would be seven (four property owners on the sides of the lot - two on each side and three behind - one directly behind and two diagonally behind). The ordinance further requires consent from property owners located across the street if those properties meet the required 150 foot distance. This would add an additional three properties, for a total of ten properties. Requiring a homeowner to petition up to ten properties prior to applying for a chicken permit seems more than reasonable. b. Should the neighborhood consent requirement be increased from 75 percent to 100 percent approval from neighbors that are located 150 feet from the property proposing chickens? In the example above, with a total of ten properties being notified of the keeping of chickens on a residential lot, a total of 7.5 (or 8) of those neighbors would have to consent with the 75 percent requirement. If the percentage was increased to 100 percent, that number would be ten neighbors. Requiring a homeowner to obtain 100 percent consent on any project they proposed on their lot, whether it was the keeping of chickens or building a garage, would prove very difficult. Requiring up to eight neighbors to consent in most cases seems more than reasonable. 2 3. Chicken Coop and Run Placement: a. Should there be a setback requirement for chicken coops and runs? Accessory buildings in most residential zoning districts require at least a 5-foot setback to the side and rear property line. It would be reasonable to place this restriction on chicken coops and runs as well. This requirement was added to the ordinance. b. Should chickens be allowed in the rear yard only? Allowing the keeping of chickens only in the rear yard would eliminate visual impacts to a neighborhood. This requirement was added to the ordinance. 4. Disposal of dead chickens and waste. Language was added to the ordinance addressing this concern. 5. What is the cost of chicken leg bands being proposed in the ordinance? Fleet Farm sells poultry bands made of heavy rod plastic rod. A bag of 50 bands cost $4.99, which would not impact the cost of the overall permit. Proposed Ordinance Amendment Residential Zoning: Following are amendments proposed in the zoning code that would allow chickens in residential areas (additions are underlined and deletions are stricken from the original ordinance, changes made since the August 17 Planning Commission meeting are shown in italics): Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 3 (R-1 Residence District) Sec. 44-6. Definitions. Poultry means domesticated birds that serve as a source of eggs or meat and that include among commercially important kinds, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, peafowl, pigeons, pheasants and others. Sec. 44-103. Prohibited uses. The following uses are prohibited in the R-1 Residence district: (1) The raising or handling of livestock, poultry (except for chickens as outlined in Sections 10-476 throuqh 10-487, Chickens) or animals causing a nuisance, except for licensed kennels. Most of the city's single dwelling residential zoning districts have a permitted and prohibited uses section. The R-1 zoning district lists the specific uses, and subsequent single dwelling zoning districts should refer to those same uses as well. There are five single dwelling 3 residential zoning districts as follows: R-1, R-1S, RE-30,000, RE 40,000, and R-1 R. Two of those single dwelling zoning districts (R-1 Rand R-1 S) do not have the reference to permitted or prohibited uses, and as such require an amendment as follows: Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 5 (R-1S Small-lot Single Dwelling District) Sec. 44-192. Permitted \lyses. ill Permitted uses. The only permitted uses allowed in the R-1S small-lot single- dwelling district are the permitted uses in the R-1 district. m Prohibited uses. {ill Accessory buildinqs without an associated dwellinq on the same premises. f!2l The raisinq or handlinq of livestock, poultrv (except for chickens as outlined in Sections 10-476 throuqh 10-487. Chickens) or animals causinq a nuisance. except for licensed kennels. Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 3.5 (R-1 R Rural Conservation Dwelling District) Sec. 44-118. Uses. (a) (b) (c) Prohibited uses. The city prohibits the following uses in the R-1 R zoning district: (1) Accessory buildings without an associated single dwelling on the same property. m The raisinq or handlinq of livestock, poultry (except for chickens as outlined in Sections 10-476 throuqh 10-487. Chickens) or animals causinq a nuisance, except for licensed kennels. Animals: Following is proposed language which would specify the permitting requirements for chickens in residential areas. This language would be added to the animal chapter of the city code. Much of the language is reflective of the city's existing dog section of the animal ordinance. 4 Chapter 10 (Animalsl. Article IX (Chickensl Sec. 10-476. Definitions. Broodinq means to sit or hatch eqqs. Chicken means a domesticated bird that serves as a source of eqqs or meat. CooP means the structure for the keepinG or housinG of chickens permitted bv the ordinance.. Coop mav be permitted with or without a run. Hen means a female chicken. Officer means anv person desiGnated bv the citv manaGer as an enforcement officer. Rooster means a male chicken. Run means a fullv enclosed and covered area attached to a coop where the chickens can roam. Sec. 10-477. Pumose. It is recoonized that the aMitv to cultivate one's own food is a sustainable activitv that can also be a rewardino past time. Therefore. it is the pumose and intent of this ordinance to permit the keepino and maintenance of hens in a clean and sanitarv manner that is not a nuisance to or detrimental to the public health. safetv, and welfare of the communitv. Sec. 10-478. Investiqation and Enforcement. Officers desiqnated by the city manaqer 3Rd 3pp;0\'od by fRO sfty SOIJRSi! shall have powers in the investiqation and enforcement of this article. and no person shall interfere with. hinder or molest any such officer in the exercise of such powers. The officer shall make investiqations as is necessary and may qrant. deny. or refuse to renew any application for permit. or terminate an existinq permit under this article. Sec. 10-479. Limitations for each dwellinCl unit in residential zones. ill No more than ten (10) hens shall be housed or kept on anyone residential lot in any area of the city zoned for sinqle dwellinq residential with a permit as outlined below. ill Roosters are prohibited. ru Slauqhterinq of chickens is prohibited. ill Leq bandinq of all chickens is required. The bands must identify the owner and the owner's address and telephone number. @ A separate Coop is required to house the chickens. 5 @ Chickens must not be housed in a human use buildina such as a basement. attached aaraae. or detached aaraae. Chickens are allowed inside an auxiliary structure or aaraae for broodina purposes onlv. m Chicken cooos and runs are limited to the rear yard onlv. @l Chicken cooos and runs reGuire at least a five (5) foot setback to the side and rear orooertv line. .all. All oremises which hens are keot or maintained shall be keot reasonablv clean from filth. GarbaGe, and any substances which attract rodents. The cooP and its surroundinG must be cleaned freGuentlv enouGh to control odor. Manure shall not be allowed to accumulate in a way that causes an unsanitary condition or causes odors detectible on another orooertv. fJ..Q1 The cooo must be constructed and maintained so as to be rodent oroof f.1J.l All Grains and food stored for the use of the hens on a licensed oremises shall be keot in a rodent oroof container. fJ.2l Hens shall not be keot in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance to the occuoants of adJacent orooertv. Sec. 10-480. Permit required. The officer shall arant a permit for chickens after the applicant has souaht the written consent of seventy-five (75) percent of the owners or occupants of private Iv or publiclv owned real estate within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is beina reauested. or in the alternative. proof that the applicant's property lines are one hundred fifty (150) feet or more from any structure. Consent is also reauired where a street separates the premises for which the permit is beina reauested from other neiahborina property if it meets the distance reauirements specified above. Where a property within one hundred fifty (150) feet consists of a multiple dwellina or multi-tenant property. the applicant need obtain on Iv the written consent of the owner or manaaer. or other person in charae of the buildina. Such written consent shall be reauired on the initial application and as often thereafter as the officer deems necessary. Sec. 10-481. Application. Anv person desirina a permit reauired under the provisions of this article shall make written application to the city clerk upon a form prescribed bv and containina such information as reauired bv the city clerk and officer. Amona other thinas. the application shall contain the followina information: ill A description of the real property upon which it is desired to keep the chickens. m The breed and number of chickens to be maintained on the premises. 6 .Ql A site plan of the property showinq the location and size of the proposed chicken cooP. setbacks from the chicken coop to surroundinq buildinqs (includinq houses and buildinqs on adiacent lots. and the location. style. and heiqht of fencinq proposed to contain the chickens. Portable coops and caqes are allowed. but portable locations must be included with the site plan. ill Statements that the applicant will at all times keep the animals in accordance with all of the conditions prescribed by the officer. or modification thereof. and that failure to obey such conditions will constitute a violation of the provisions of this chapter and qrounds for cancellation of the permit. @ Such other and further information as may be required by the officer. Sec. 10-482. Permit conditions. ill If qranted. the permit shall be issued by the city clerk and officer and shall state the conditions. if any. imposed upon the permitted for the keepinq of chickens under this permit. The permit shall specify the restrictions. limitations. conditions and prohibitions which the officer deems reasonably necessary to protect any person or neiqhborinq use from unsanitary conditions. unreasonable noise or odors. or annoyance. or to protect the public health and safety. Such permit may be modified from time to time or revoked by the officer for failure to conform to such restrictions. limitations. prohibitions. Such modification or revocation shall be effective after ten (10) days followinq the mailinq of written notice thereof by certified mail to the person or persons keepinq or maintain such chickens. Sec. 10-483. Violations. ill Any person violatinq any of the sections of this article shall be deemed quilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction. shall be punished in accordance with section 1-15. (Section 1-15 states that a person found guilty of violating this section could be charged with a misdemeanor or a petty misdemeanor. A fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 90 days or both could result in violation of a misdemeanor. A fine not exceeding $300 could result in a petty misdemeanor.) m If any person is found quilty by a court for violation of this section. their permit to own. keep. harbor. or have custody of chickens shall be deemed automatically revoked and no new permit may be issued for a period of one year. .Ql Any person violatinq any conditions of this permit shall reimburse the city for all costs borne by the city to enforce the conditions of the permit includinq but not limited to the pick up and impoundinq of chickens. Sec. 10-484. Required: exceptions. No person shall (without first obtaininq a permit in writinq from the city clerk) own. keep. harbor or have custody of any live chicken. 7 Sec. 10-485. Fees: issuance. For each residential site the fee for a permit is as may be imposed. set. established and fixed by the city council. by resolution. from time to time. Sec. 10-486. Term. The permit period under this section shall expire one year from the date the permit is issued. Sec. 10-487. Revocation. The city manaQer may reyoke any permit issued under this diyision if the person holdinQ the permit refuses or fails to comply with this article. with any reQulations promulQated by the council pursuant to this article. or with any state or local law QoyerninQ cruelty to animals or the keepinQ of animals. Any person whose permit is reyoked shall. within ten days thereafter. humanely dispose of all chickens beinQ owned. kept or harbored by such person. and no part of the permit fee shall be refunded. RECOMMENDATION Reyiew and comment on the proposed ordinance amendment outlined aboye. This amendment would allow residential property owners to keep up to ten chickens (hens) for the production of eggs with a permit. 8