Loading...
2006-04-25 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 25, 2006 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:30 pm. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners McManus, Lally, Povolny, Harms, and Hesse. Those excused: Commissioner Dolan. City Staff present were City Engineer Sue McDermott and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Approval of March 28, 2006 Min u tes Chair Lorberbaum asked that the approval of the February 28, 2006 minutes were written as follows with the addition of the word `Minutes': "Approval ofFebruary 28, 2006 Minutes" COMMISSIONER LALLY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HARMS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2006 AS CORRECTED. 5 AYES 0 NAYES Abstention (Chair Lorberbaum) MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #06 -09 Dianne Wilke 739 Cheyenne Lane Variance Mr. Grittman shared a map showing the location of 739 Cheyenne Lane, which contains a single family home. The applicant is seeking a variance to provide for an addition to the home that would extend toward Cheyenne Lane and would encroach into the front yard setback about 19 -ft. The applicant has proposed that the expansion will be to provide an addition that will be comprised of garage space and additional living space. Mr. Grittman said the current garage is a non - conforming garage and by allowing the variance would bring the garage to conformance. The hardship has been defined as no other alternative location for garage expansion. Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 Mr. Grittman said this home in located in the Friendly Hills area, which is an area that the City has been more liberal with property owners as the lots are quite smaller than surrounding neighborhoods, in providing building expansions to bring their properties to compliance. Chair Lorberbaum said she visited the applicant's home to do a site visit and the applicant informed her that they had requested their application be withdrawn. After further consideration, they have decided to continue with the application but to table the case at this time. Mr. Hollister said his most recent communications with the applicant indicates they want this matter to be tabled to the May Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hollister said the case is on the agenda to give the Planner the opportunity to present this case. Chair Lorberbaum asked the Commissioners if anyone had questions for the Planner. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the applicant, or any neighbors of the applicant, was in the audience. Seeing nobody come forward to speak, Chair Lorberbaum called for a motion to table. COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO TABLE CASE NO. 06 -09 UNTIL THE MAY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #06 -10 T- Mobile Conditional Use Permit, Wetland Permit, and Code Amendment Chair Lorberbaum called for a 5-minute recess to allow the Commissioners time to read additional information submitted. It is also noted that this additionla information included excerpted minutes from the February 21, 2006 City Council meeting, as well as a letter that was submitted by Mr. John Wood, 689 Wentworth Avenue, stating his opposition to the proposed tower. Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of a portion of Wentworth Park, located at the corner of Upper Colonial Drive and Cherry Hill Road. The map also indicates the proposed location of a wireless communication facility which will consist of a 120 -ft. galvanized monopole tower. The request requires a series of zoning requirements that would be necessary to accommodate a cell tower in this location. The applicant has provided some additional site planning material and quite a bit of background material related to their particular coverage maps. The City Ordinance regulating cell towers has a number of requirements: ➢ Freestanding Antennas and Towers — requires that no freestanding antenna or antenna tower should be allowed in the R -1, R -lA, or R -2 districts unless collocated on existing utility towers. (The first Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 amendment would be to change this section of the code to accommodate this tower, which would be a new freestanding tower and not immediate plans for any collocating) ➢ Freestanding towers shall only be permitted if the applicant can demonstrate the following to the Council: o That a building mounted or water tower mounted antenna in the manner would not provide sufficient communication effectiveness. • That it is not possible or feasible to collocate on an existing freestanding tower or building in the vicinity of the proposed location (another location that may have been identified would not provide adequate coverage). • Freestanding tower must be on a monopole type design and painted eggshell (The applicant has proposed a galvanized tower). • All freestanding towers shall be no higher than 75 -ft. (The applicant is proposing 120 ft.) • All freestanding towers and accessory structures must adhere to all appropriate setbacks (the proposed tower location conforms to all setbacks). • All accessory buildings are to be screened by public view by a landscaping plan. (The applicant will be required to provide a landscape plan). • Advertising is not permitted on any freestanding tower or accessory structure. • Artificial lighting of any kind is not permitted unless required by FCC, FAA, or another federal or state regulatory body. Mr. Grittman said it is his understanding that the applicant is researching issues related to FAA in this location. • The sole of this tower is to be used to cellular communications and no other uses allowed. • Safety requirements — the applicant needs to show by a professional structural engineer that the tower will meet /exceed standards including but not limited to standards for meteorological conditions. • The applicant will need to provide electrical plans. • Fencing may be required by the Council to erect a security fence around the ground equipment. • The applicant was notified by the Council that the Planning Commission has an advisory role in this regarding the architecture of the building, which must be architecturally compatible with any principle structures on the site. The Planning Commission shall review and the Council shall approve the design of any accessory building. • Removal requirements are to be in place so that any tower that is not used after a period of 6 months be removed. The applicant will then have to provide an abandonment bond to the City to provide funds in the event that this tower or other facilities are abandoned. • The applicant needs to provide a series of supporting documents for approval under this code section and those documents must show that the applicant has received proper licensing and permits. These documents also must show that there will be no interference with public safety systems. • Applicant needs to demonstrate that the location and height of any freestanding tower /antenna is necessary to meet the communication frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication services system. • The applicant is to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by located towers in a less restrictive district or on an existing, freestanding structure. (The applicant states there are no existing structures of adequate height that would allow for additional coverage within this area). • The applicant needs to show compliance with FCC regulations and to show they do not need an environmental impact statement. Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 o The applicant is required to show an area map that shows all towers by that same provider located within a 2 -mile radius and all future planned antennas of the same provider for the next five years. (The applicant has provided a 2 -mile radius map from the proposed tower location). o All costs of application shall be the responsibility of the applicant. o The Council may at its discretion waive any or all requirements of this section in order to approve a unique "stealth" or "camouflage" design. o There are a series of prohibitions related to interference of emergency equipment or public safety requirements in the area. Mr. Grittman said the City would need to approve a text amendment to address the use of towers in residential districts. The second amendment relates to the height of the tower. The Planning Commission has the option of considering a variance to the height if they so wish. Mr. Grittman said this case also includes the requirement for a wetlands permit due to the proximity of the proposed site in relation to current wetlands. Mr. Grittman included Findings of Fact in his report: 1. The applicant has met the conditions of ordinances 12 -1J -6 D 4 relating to telecommunications towers. 2. With the conditions noted, the proposed tower will not create conflicts to the existing site area. 3. The proposed plan does not appear to negatively impact on the adjoining wetland. Commissioner McManus asked Mr. Grittman if he participated in selecting this location for the tower on this site. Mr. Grittman said he did not. Commissioner McManus asked why the building is not depicted on the computer generated rendition of the proposed tower. Mr. Grittman said the intent of the photograph, which was provided by the applicant, is to show the tower is to be located behind the tennis court. There will, in fact, be ground buildings in this area as well. Commissioner McManus asked how much area the building and tower will cover. Mr. Grittman said the plans show a 15 -ft by 35 -ft lease area. That dimension would be the fenced in area, not the actual size of the building itself. Commissioner McManus asked if a park use can be changed to accommodate commercial operations. Mr. Grittman said this question may need to be addressed by the City Attorney. Commissioner McManus asked if there is a need for an impact statement. Mr. Grittman said these facilities are relatively common albeit not in the Mendota Heights area. The State of Minnesota has some specific rules for when environmental impact statements are required. These facilities typically are not required. Commissioner McManus asked if the City has any moral or legal obligation to accommodate this particular tower. Mr. Grittman said from a legal standpoint, the FCC regulates these facilities and pre -empts local zoning authority in certain ways, primarily to require the City to make reasonable accommodation of cellular facilities in a community. The City probably does not have the authority to prohibit in a way that would interfere with reasonable coverage, which is not to say that the City has to allow this particular location or this particular height, but the City cannot regulate in a way that would prohibit access or coverage. It is unlikely that this tower needs to be as tall as the applicant has proposed, and a shorter tower may provide adequate coverage to their users. The purpose of the height may be that additional height would provide opportunities for collocation for 4 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 other providers, not necessarily T- Mobile coverage area. Because the City is required to make reasonable accommodations, it's not just for T- Mobile, but for any other federally licensed provider. The theory would be that other providers may also be looking for sites in Mendota Heights, and would be able to locate on one tower to collocate rather than build a new tower in another spot. Mr. Grittman said the Council asked the applicant to research the possibility of other's collocating on this tower. Chair Lorberbaum said when towers collocate, there needs to be adequate space between the receptors, and therefore the higher the tower, the applicant can utilize the highest location on the tower which is an advantage for them. Commissioner McManus said they will also gain rental fees. Commissioner Lally asked if other cities have restrictions on this type of proposal. Mr. Grittman said the majority of the cities allow some tower construction in residential areas and those cities typically require shorter facilities in residential areas than they do in commercial or industrial areas. The issue in this case is there is a very large area of pure residential zoned land and it's difficult to reach coverage into those neighborhoods from the perimeters of the area. It is very common to see 75 -ft in residential areas, and taller in commercial /industrial. Commissioner Lally said there are currently antennas located at Henry Sibley, and asked what the school is doing. Mr. Grittman said it is his understanding that the school district is in the process of eliminating the antenna locations and over the next few years, those antennas will need to be replaced. Chair Lorberbaum said she talked to the school district, who told her they are discontinuing because although they appreciated the rental income, it was a nuisance as there are many unions and laborers who refuse to go up to the tower because their union rules prohibit against being near microwaves and cannot be on the towers while the towers are active. There is also an issue of how long their license is good for because some of the cell tower operators are feeling that this rental agreement is in perpetuity and they can't end the lease. Commissioner Povolny expressed his concerns about the lighting issues. He would not want to see lights on this tower because it would affect the residents in the area. Mr. Grittman said it's his understanding these towers would not require lighting, but the FAA can require it. Commissioner Povolny said that does not help at the moment because the Commission does not have adequate information to make any decisions. Commissioner Povolny asked if towers are located parks in other cities, and that there is not much more parkland left anymore. Mr. Grittman said it's rare, but not unheard o£ Chair Lorberbaum asked for the heights of existing towers throughout the city. Ms. McDermott gave the following information: ➢ Tower located at I -494 and Hwy. 55 is 125 -ft tall. This tower holds AT &T and Nextel. This tower's height was increased from 95 -ft to 125 -ft. ➢ Tower located at Highway 13 and Highway 35E is 75 -ft. tall. This tower holds AT &T. ➢ Tower located in the City Center ball field is 55 -ft tall. The City owns the land and rents to Qwest. ➢ Tower at the Police Garage is 45 -ft. tall and used by the police department. ➢ The average height of all the towers in town would be 75.75 feet and the average without the police tower is 85 -ft. Chair Lorberbaum said the proposed tower would be substantially taller. Chair Lorberbaum said there seems to be a lot of information missing such as: 5 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 ➢ A landscaping plan ➢ The applicant has no idea whether lights are needed ➢ The Planning Commission has no idea what other locations have been considered by applicant ➢ The Planning Commission is unsure of the architecture of the building and how large it is ➢ The applicant has not provided sufficient documentation proving they have a license ➢ The applicant has not submitted future plans (1 -year, 5- year, 10 -year out) ➢ The applicant has not specified details on fencing plans — will it have barbed wire? ➢ The submitted plans are not signed Chair Lorberbaum asked if a decision should be made based on the information that was provided or would it be better to table this discussion after the residents have a chance to talk. Mr. Grittman said that would be at the discretion of the Commission and feels additional information would be helpful in making final decisions. Commissioner Hesse referred to the City Council minutes where Acting Mayor Vitelli talked about a possibility that a higher tower may benefit police and fire services as well as T- Mobile. Mr. Grittman said if one were looking at this from the point "how can we gain maximum power from a public standpoint ", he is sure the Police Chief would agree that a taller tower is better. But most of these comments would most likely refer to the proposed tower at City Hall (Case No. 06 -11). Commissioner Hesse said the Wentworth Park location would not have any affect on the police and fire as the one at City Hall will have. Mr. Grittman said police generally likes to have better coverage because residential callers can communicate better with the police. Commissioner Harms said she believes there is a siren in Wentworth Park, located on a tower of about 40 -ft., and asked if that would provide adequate height to place antennas on top of it? Mr. Grittman said the ordinance allows collocation on existing facilities in residential areas, and may be an option to explore. Commissioner Harms asked about collocating with power lines. Mr. Grittman said he believes Excel Energy would not allow that due to electrical interference. Commissioner Harms asked if there have been any precedence in granting such substantial changes, and would kind of policy would have supported them. Mr. Grittman said amendments to zoning ordinances are not common, but certainly not unprecedented. The process for amending zoning ordinances requires public hearings before the Planning Commission, who then makes recommendations to the City Council for approval. Public notices have been sent out for these text changes as well. Commissioner Harms asked if the City approves a shorter tower, with only one carrier, would that force the City to provide similar accommodations for other providers. Mr. Grittman said reasonable accommodation ends up on a case by case basis. Commissioner Povolny asked if the applicant wants more height on the tower so they can rent space and receive more income? Mr. Grittman said the height of this particular tower is to provide opportunities for other providers and there needs to be some vertical separation (about 15 -ft between receptors). Commissioner Povolny said it seems clear that the applicant is not constructing this tower for just T- Mobile and their wish is to receive income. Mr. Grittman said it's the City Council's policy to encourage collocation. Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 Mr. Steve Carlson, 349 Country Road, Stillwater, is the representative from T- Mobile. Mr. Carlson spoke briefly about the history of T- Mobile and how they came to this point. ➢ T- Mobile began in the mid -90's with their phone service. ➢ Personal Communication Services (PCS) was soon developed and at that point, most of the focus on building the network is to make sure they were providing adequate coverage along commercial and industrial areas along major thoroughfares, which is why the existing towers have been placed as they are. ➢ PCS technology has grown and has been accepted by the general public to a degree over the past years that cell phones are no longer a luxury, but has become a necessity for many people. It is estimated that 70% of households have at least one cell phone. ➢ Part of the purpose of the network is to provide adequate service to residents as well, and customers are relying on cell phones to the point that they are getting rid of their land line use phones. It's becoming common to have towers located in residential areas to provide adequate service. Mr. Carlson shared coverage maps in the Mendota Heights area and explained why the proposed sites were chosen, and why there were no alternative sites identified. The maps show huge gaps in coverage and no adequate location in which T- Mobile would be able to collocate. The tower needs to be high enough to rise about the 65 -ft tree in the park. Collocating on sirens does not work as the siren needs to be on the top of a tower. Mr. Carlson said they originally came before the City Council proposing a 75 -ft. tower as a light pole replacement at the hockey rink on the south side of the park. Discussions revolved around what happens when other carriers come knocking at the door, and there was some concern on the City Council side regarding Henry Sibley and those carriers losing those infrastructure locations and where they will go. Mr. Carlson said the proposal was not changed from the 75 -ft structure just because T- Mobile wanted more height, but because it was felt there were concerns by the City Council to find a place for everyone else. Mr. Carlson said this 75 -ft. structure would not provide adequate space for collocating. Mr. Carlson said T- Mobile is willing to go back to their original design of 75 -ft. without any collocating. Mr. Carlson said some of the benefits include: ➢ Police and public safety would prefer both locations equally. Free tower space would be provided to the City for public safety use. ➢ Located by the tennis courts will work better as there is less traffic /activity in that area. ➢ Revenue from tower space is a secondary issue as their primary concern is getting coverage to residents. ➢ Provide flat -rate leasing regardless of location and carrier. ➢ Enhanced 911 Service: placing 911 calls on traditional analog cellular service does not indicate to the dispatcher when you are. In the case the caller cannot speak, the Enhanced 911 will route calls to the nearest dispatch center, provides call back number to the dispatcher, and provides approximate location of the distressed caller. Mr. Carlson said the five year plan has been provided in the form of an updated coverage map, which includes the location of Wentworth Park and City Hall. All the other locations on the map are existing towers. Mr. Carlson said a definite answer has not been received by the FAA. The general guidelines is that anything under 200 -ft does not require lighting unless the tower is in the proximity of a landing strip and safety zone. Mr. 7 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 Carlson said he believes just about anything in Mendota Heights will require some type of study by the FAA. T- Mobile will agree to any stipulation by the City by capping the height of the tower so lights will not be required. Mr. Carlson reviewed the layout of the compound, which takes in about 35 -ft by 15 -ft area. Mr. Carlson spoke about the materials and equipment used. Elevation drawings were also reviewed. Mr. Carlson said any collocation can expand the building for their equipment, but that any leasing of property would be through the City. Mr. Carlson summarized his comments by saying: ➢ T- Mobile is making an application to build a new tower at this location because there is no other location available to service the neighborhood. ➢ T- Mobile came to the City with the idea the park is institutionally owned and in that sense, will help enhance public good. ➢ T- Mobile is open to further discussions. T- Mobile will work on collocation or go back to original proposal if it is the desire of the City. Commissioner McManus asked Mr. Carlson if he has anxiety about placing a commercial facility in a park that is considered to be owned by the residents. Mr. Carlson said he did not, and there are other communities in the area that have done this, and it is becoming more common. Mr. Carlson said there is a challenge in trying to provide the best service between what the customers are demanding and what T- Mobile can provide. Mr. Carlson said these facilities are not cheap to make, and they don't build them unless they feel there is a huge need for it. Commissioner McManus asked how many sites T- Mobile would need if the Wentworth location is not approved. Mr. Carlson said he does not know where they would go. Commissioner Lally asked to see a map showing all the current T- Mobile users in the area. Mr. Carlson said the network is monitored and most of the complaints are from users reporting dropped calls. When enough complaints come in, then T- Mobile needs to reassess the particular area. Commissioner Lally asked how T- Mobile coverage would work by collocating with other carriers towers in the area. Mr. Carlson said if towers are not allowed in residential areas, it could cause a problem for them as well as other carriers. Commissioner Lally asked for clarification of the ground equipment. Mr. Carlson said there is room for T- Mobile, Public Safety Equipment, and three other carriers. Commissioner Lally asked for clarification of the tower equipment. Mr. Carlson said flush mounted antenna can be placed on the towers if the City chooses. Commissioner Lally asked the applicant why the residents in this neighborhood would want to have this tower in their park if the school district and the neighboring golf clubs do not want them. Mr. Carlson said it's strictly whether the City wants to have wireless phone service. Commissioner Povolny said he has a problem with the fencing and barbed wire in the park with all the kids that play in the park. The parks are green space for the kids to play in and every time a carrier joins on this tower, a new pad will be dropped and it will look like a small trailer court. This could also set precedence for additional carriers that want to service the area and cannot be collocated on this tower, so they will have to build another one. Mr. Carlson said the size of building would vary with each carrier. Commissioner Povolny said with four 8 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 carriers, the building would be substantial. Mr. Carlson said the building would be built in a row type fashion. Commissioner Povolny said four carriers would take approximately 60 -ft of green space. Commissioner Povolny said the fact that the applicant can't answer questions about lighting is a major concern because no one wants a blinking beacon in their back yard and park. Commissioner Povolny said he is also concerned about the lights as they would pertain to the proximity of the airport. Chair Lorberbaum said if the receptors at Sibley High School are taken down, Wentworth Park will not accommodate them, thereby Wentworth would have no help for Sibley. Mr. Carlson said it's hard to say as there is a different zoning criteria, a different topography and development of their area. Mr. Carlson said it's possible the Wentworth Park location could cover that what is lost at Sibley with a multiple situation, but not by itself. Chair Lorberbaum asked what would happen if T- Mobile does not find carriers to collocate if they built the higher tower. Mr. Carlson said that is totally speculation. Chair Lorberbaum asked if a cell tower can be built at the lowest point possible, and then at a future date, if the need arises, the cell tower can have height added on. Mr. Carlson said this is possible, and the foundation needs to be in to accommodate any additions. Chair Lorberbaum wants to know why T- Mobile needs more towers, while some carriers have very few towers or no towers at all in the area. Mr. Carlson said those carriers most likely have not pursued additional towers yet. Mr. Carlson said budget constraints may play a part in the speed of their upgrades. Carriers may all have different reasons. Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant to provide a landscaping plan and that the fencing and building materials (siding, roof) look more residential than what was proposed. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the applicant would be comfortable with providing a galvanized pole instead of a painted one. Mr. Carlson said they would. Galvanized would be better against the elements, but they are happy to paint it. Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant if sites were explored farther along Dodd Road toward Smith, or on Wentworth towards West St. Paul. Mr. Carlson said he did, and did not find anything except suggested Somerset Elementary School, but his engineers stated that would be too far north. Mr. Carlson said there was nothing to be find within the radius needed that would provide adequate height. Chair Lorberbaum said she would prefer the bond instead of the line of credit. Chair Lorberbaum said she noted that Mr. Carlson said the increased height of the tower was to accommodate the City Council's wishes. Mr. Carlson said just the statements made during the discussion that was held at the City Council meeting. Mr. Carlson said he was not trying to speak for the City Council, and apologized if the Commissioners took it that way. Chair Lorberbaum said Mr. Carlson would be in deep trouble if he would have said that in front of the City Council. Chair Lorberbaum told Mr. Carlson that if he would try to say to the City Council that "this building works in many other locations, it should work in Mendota Heights ", that Mr. Carlson would not get very far. 9 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 Chair Lorberbaum would like to have some feedback from the Police Department on their opinions of the necessity of these towers. Chair Lorberbaum said she questions the statement made that the City asked for this location. Chair Lorberbaum said Mr. Carlson made statements regarding flat rates with collocators and yet the City was told that different locations have different rates. Mr. Carlson said there are flat, set rates between various carriers. Mr. Carlson said "we have flat, set rates between the various carriers for power pole locations. If we have built a tower, and we have already achieved the zoning conditional use permit we've gone to the development cost. And now another competitor of our wants to collocate on the structure, we have a flat rate for them. That's done so that they 1) abide by most municipalities in terms of collocation requirements and 2) we don't want to create a situation where there is lease fighting among competitors when they should be collocating on structures so there are established rates." Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant has no "Plan B" if the City says no to this. Mr. Carlson said they would only modify the proposal but there are no other properties to fall back on. Chair Lorberbaum said if the Commission tables this, the applicant can come back with modifications. Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant if he has all the information he needs and listed those things which are required. Mr. Carlson's said T- Mobile would: ♦ Need to modify and provide a landscape plan ♦ Need to provide a lighting plan, but at this time they don't know if they need it or not — waiting for FCC ruling ♦ Modify the building and roof to give it a more residential feel ♦ Provide proper documents showing licensing. Mr. Carlson said he thought that was already done, but he would follow up on it ♦ Mr. Carlson said the maps that were provided is T- Mobile's plans for the future, which only include the two new proposed towers. Chair Lorberbam said the city wants to know what the plans are for the entire city. ♦ Documents would all have the proper signatures ♦ Provide a description of the fence Mr. Carlson said these will all be submitted before the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Hesse said he would also like to hear from the police chief as to how critical this is to public safety. Commissioner Hesse asked if carriers ever buy towers from each other. Mr. Carlson explained how partnering of carriers and joint ventures play a part in this. Commissioner Hesse asked if these towers are strictly for the use of cell phone in the city, or are they going to be used for other wireless technologies. Mr. Carlson said they will handle any kind of wireless technology. The uses coming out today and in the near future could change dramatically. Cell phone carriers are also starting to use wireless internet and other services. Wireless technology today is what land line technology was many years ago. Land line is going away as the generations have progressed. Commissioner Hesse expressed his concerns that it is important to keep up with technology, and maybe a T- Mobile engineer will be able to speak at the next 10 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 meeting to give some forecasting information. Mr. Carlson said he will make sure an engineer is in attendance at the next meeting. Commissioner Harms said the feeling is strong against a larger structure and asked to what extent an accessory building or a fence would be needed around a pole. Mr. Carlson said they still need to have the same equipment and how the landscape pads are built, or how the facility is enclosed, that all can be modified. A fence or a building is needed to protect the facility. Commissioner Harms spoke about concerns regarding microwaves and asked if safety studies have been done. Mr. Carlson said T- Mobile has put together a brochure that talks about the technology about internet sources through the FCC, the FDA, and the Medical College of Wisconsin. Mr. Carlson said the technology is very low power and therefore, the danger of microwaves are minimal and well within the safety standards. Commissioner Harms asked what the typical length of a lease is. Mr. Carlson said it would be typically 25 years, with 5 -year increments on renewable options. Commissioner Harms asked about the safety studies on the structure of the pole. Mr. Carlson said soil boring studies are done and from there, will generate a foundation plan with engineering specs that would be provided to the City. A typical foundation would be 15 -ft. to 35 -ft. deep, depending on the soil type. Commissioner Harms said this location is near a stream, and would like to know how a big structure such as this could be constructed without damaging the stream. Mr. Carlson said they can do a "spread- foundation ". Commissioner McManus said he never accepts that there are no alternatives and asked Staff if there have been any studies, or drive - around with the applicant, that Staff would be ready to assure the Commissioners that there are no other sites anywhere around that doesn't include a parkland. Mr. Hollister said it's true that T- Mobile came to the City. The City is not looking for profit opportunities at its parks or City Hall. T- Mobile came to the City identifying gaps in their coverage and the City is not experts on wireless operations and need to rely on representations about where the gaps are and what is necessary for them to fill their gaps. When T- Mobile identified those "dead spots ", Staff looked at their maps and although Staff is not lobbying for Mr. Carlson and T- Mobile, they are in agreement that in the case of Wentworth Park, this location became the suggested proposal by default because there is nothing else in that area except single family homes. As objectionable as this tower may appear, it would be worse if the City allowed residents to open their properties up to rent space for towers. Mr. Hollister said the City is under some obligation by law to make reasonable accommodations to wireless communication technology and while that does not mean they can put up towers wherever they want to, nor does that place a burden on the City to eliminate all dead spots, the City is supposed to reasonably accommodate these things. Mr. Hollister said he agrees with Mr. Carlson in that T- Mobile's own preference for expediency purposes would be the 75 -ft. pole option, but it is true that when Mr. Carlson met with City Council, the City Council was interested in the general concept of collocation, but that doesn't mean the City Council was enthusiastic of a 120 - ft. pole. The City Council, and the City in general, is in a dilemma to a certain extent with this technology because almost everyone would consider these towers aesthetically unappealing and so when the City drafted their Cell / PC ordinance about 9 or 10 years ago, a lot of the language was designed to minimize the visual impact and the proliferation of these towers. The City is trying to place these towers in less offensive, less 11 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 obtrusive places. There is also a public interest in providing service to residents, and the City does on occasion receive phone calls from residents that they are experiencing dead spots in Mendota Heights. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, asking the audience to be mindful that others are waiting to speak as there were a lot of residents wishing to participate in the public hearing, and to be mindful of the time that they do not repeat what has already been said. Alan Stasny, 823 Lavelle Avenue, Roseville, said he grew up at 750 Upper Colonial Drive. Mr. Stasney shared pictures of the park and spoke on how the tower would negatively affect this area. Mr. Stasny also talked about the service road in which a lot of people use this as a walking path. Mr. Stasny said the proposed building will take up a lot of green space. He showed pictures of other towers and equipment to give examples of how big these facilities are. Mr. Stasney is in opposition of this proposal. Stan Robins, 1309 Knollwood Lane, said he has been a T- Mobile customer for quite some time. Mr. Robins said he lives in the white area depicted on the map and says he has no trouble with calls. Mr. Robins shared photos of the pond area during fall, winter and shared a computer generated picture of the pole by the tennis courts. Mr. Robins is in opposition of this proposal. Mary Voight, 1408 Cherry Hill Road, said she is offended by the conversation by Patrick Hollister of City Staff, and that residents were told what they could not say, whether they repeated themselves. This is a public hearing and she believes residents have a right to talk. Ms. Voight said she has been a T- Mobile customer for many years and has never had a problem with coverage in this area. Ms. Voight says she uses that park on a daily basis with her small son and her dog. Ms. Voight said that although she can't see the structure from her home, she does not want that structure in her park. Ms. Voight said it's about time someone stands up and says "no" to something like this in a park that is so valuable. Ms. Voight told Mr. Carlson that she does not believe there is not a Plan B. The issue about public safety is important and needs to be addressed. June Stasny, 750 Upper Colonial Drive, said she built her house in 1966 and she still lives there. Mrs. Stasny said the picture that T- Mobile has submitted in their packet includes the hedging and driveway of Ms. Stasny's property. Mrs. Stasny spoke about T- Mobile coming in with a private commercial use in a public park and voiced her opposition in a letter submitted to the City. Ms. Stasny also spoke on the issue of depreciation of her property and said she is in total opposition of any tower / facility built in Wentworth Park. Linda Wirt, 723 3rd Ave., said she lived in this community for 25 years and the front of her home faces the proposed area so their view will be affected by this tower. Ms. Wirt said she does not want to have her property value affected. Ms. Wirt said she would like see T- Mobile make their next presentation that they will describe the wireless carriers as "T- Mobile Wireless Carriers ". Ms. Wirt talked about the danger of increased lightning strikes around these types of poles. Ms. Wirt wants more information on what a spread foundation is and how big it will be. Preston Smith, 1416 Cherry Hill Road, said both his children use this park when playing with their friends. Mr. Smith said there is a large number of children in the area that play there. Mr. Smith said he worked at one time for Channel 2 TV and has some experience in network microwave towers that extend from Shoreview up to Alexandria and Duluth. Mr. Smith noted there are three airports in the area (International, Fleming, and Holman Field), and it is pretty likely that lights will be needed on a tower. Mr. Smith said increased technology brings 12 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 increased tower sights, and this will not go away. Mr. Smith said the issue is that the residents will have to give up some precious park land for a national concern, and at the end of the day, the residents will have to pay T- Mobile for services while putting up with the loss of this beautiful area. The residents will gain nothing by losing this park land. Mr. Smith noted some possible alternatives for towers such as the area adjacent to I -35 E and the power line right of way which is fairly close to Wentworth Park. Paul Najarian, 1480 Cherry Hill Road, spoke about metropolitan park systems and gave some history on Loring Park and Wirth Park. Mr. Najarian spoke about his concerns that these types of facilities bring in fences, danger signs, no trespassing on park land signs, etc. and expressed his concern that parks are no longer used for parks — to play, to walk, to enjoy. Mr. Najarian said he was concerned about lighting strikes near that tower during storms, when there is a possibility that children will be playing in that area and the lighting could adversely affect the area surrounding the tower. Alan Wienblatt, 754 Upper Colonial Drive, said he would like to supplement his letter that was submitted to the City by saying I could not be more proud of his neighbors. Mr. Wienblatt said he is also impressed by the Commissioners and what they are doing, being the custodians and stewards of not only the parks, but the city. Mr. Wienblatt said "In conflict between progress and humanity, progress always has the upper hand and we must, in the name of progress, have better cell phone coverage for every possible company. We must, in the name of better coverage, have the tallest tower, the widest aerial coverage. So who is to speak for the parks, who is to speak for the children, who is to speak for the residents of the city ?" Fran Stayworth, 774 Lower Colonial Drive, said someone mentioned that the pad that goes along next to the tennis court that would be access to the proposed site would be widened from 8 -ft to 12 -ft. Ms. Stayworth said it's important to remember this is an access part to the park, and is used frequently. That path will become a road, so it would not be a walking path, so people will have to walk in the street. Ms. Stayworth said she feels very concerned that the school district is willing to give up money by eliminating their towers because any time schools give up big chunks of funding, there must be a big problem with the funding. Stan Lange, 779 Upper Colonial Drive, said this is a beautiful city with wonderful parks, and great value for homes. Mr. Lange said that Mendota Heights is also a tremendous economic opportunity for all businesses and for carriers to come into the city and say the residents to not have adequate cell phone coverage are wrong. Mr. Lange said he lives a block from the park, and he uses wireless technology in blackberry, cell phone, computer, etc. while experiencing no problems with coverage. Mary Tachin, 7848 Babcock Trail, Inver Grove Heights, spoke on behalf of Cliff Nash, 719 3rd Avenue. Mr. Nash is currently out of town. Ms. Tachin said the issue is clearly accommodation where the City does not want to run into fights with the FCC and it's unfortunate that the telecommunications act was passed because it took local control away from communities. Mendota Heights has to prove that they are providing accommodations to T- Mobile or any other company. Ms. Tachin said it is very smart for the City to require the 5 -year plan, and asking the applicant to look for alternate locations. John Wood, 689 Wentworth Avenue, asked that his submitted letter would be shared with everyone. Mr. Wood said he's been a T- Mobile customer for many years and receives excellent reception. Commissioner Lally said based on the comments presented, it is clear that more information is needed. 13 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER LALLY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE NO. 06 -10 UNTIL THE MAY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum recapped the materials that T- Mobile needs to bring back to the May Planning meeting, scheduled for May 23, 2006. These items include: ➢ Landscape Plan ➢ Lighting Plan — confirm if lighting is needed ➢ Plan B — explain why the locations that were looked at will not work. Architecture of the building and the roofing ➢ Proper documents for licensing ➢ Future plans for T- Mobile for the entire city for the next 5 years ➢ Re- landscaping for the barbed wire and a detailed fence description ➢ Documents must be signed ➢ Submit report showing the percentage of T- Mobile's marketshare in Mendota Heights, and Dakota County ➢ Information on the effect of property values Information on the range of technologies — T- Mobile to bring along their Engineering Staff. Chair Lorberbaum recapped the materials that City Staff needs to bring back to the May Planning meeting, scheduled for May 23, 2006. These items include: ➢ Comments from the Police Chief ➢ Look at the possibility of a flexible height, starting with minimum and looking at the possibility of adding collocators ➢ Obtain information from T- Mobile regarding spread foundations, and allow the applicant to obtain boring analysis and soil samples to see if it would even be feasible to build in this area PLANNING CASE #06 -11 T- Mobile City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Wetland Permit, and Code Amendment Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of City Hall, located at 1101 Victoria Curve, in which the applicant, T- Mobile, would like to construct a wireless communication facility. The application calls for a text amendment, variance, wetland permit and CUP approval. Mr. Grittman said he has already reviewed the zoning ordinance requirements in the previous case hearing. Mr. Grittman said the exception in this particular case may be that the proposed tower is a collocation on an existing City Hall tower. The proposal calls for the removal of the existing tower and constructing a new one, 14 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 and sharing this tower with the City's police facilities. The applicant's proposal calls for 120 -ft. tower that will provide for collocation, and the current ordinance caps tower and antenna height at 75 -ft. This section would need to be amended. The variance relates to the setback clause that requires setback of tower from property line equal to the height of the tower, in this case, the proximity of the height of the tower is close enough to the north line that it is closer than the overall post height. The applicant has provided information that suggests that any potential collapse of this facility will actually collapse onto itself so there is no danger to fall onto other property, but nonetheless, the code requires a variance for this location. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan of the north side of City Hall and the location of the existing and proposed towers. Mr. Grittman said the equipment would be enclosed in a building instead of a fenced area. The applicant has provided a photo rendition of the proposed tower in relation to the existing tower. Mr. Grittman said a lot of the issues that were discussed in Case No. 06 -10 are still applicable. Chair Lorberbaum said based on the Planners comments, it would make sense to table this case to allow the applicant to better prepare the same type of documents as they are required to bring for the May Planning Commission meeting. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HARMS, TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE NO. 06 -11 UNTIL THE MAY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 5 AYES NAYS (Commissioner Hesse) MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Lally asked Chair Lorberbaum to recognize residents in attendance that had planned on speaking at the public hearing. Chair Lorberbaum invited the residents to speak. Karen Jones, 1903 Lexington Avenue, said she lives directly across the wetlands from City Hall and this tower would be directly in her view and opposed this proposed tower. Ms. Jones believes this tower could decrease her property value greatly. Commissioner Harms asked if T- Mobile could be asked to bring some documentation on the number of complaints they receive. Chair Lorberbaum said that was a good idea and asked the applicant to provide this information. Commissioner Povolny said he would like to extend the notification for this case out further beyond the wetlands to encourage more people to attend. Mr. Hollister said that would be done. Commissioner McManus said the applicant would be wise to address the three sites that were suggested by the speakers during the public hearing, so that it would help the Commission eliminate some of them as potential Plan B's, as well as having the applicant do some more investigating into other sites. Commissioner Povolny said there are antennas on the tower and asked that the applicant come back with the distance between the water tower and City Hall. 15 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 PLANNING CASE #06 -12 ISD - #197 — Somerset Elementary School 1355 Dodd Road Conditional Use Permit and Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of Somerset Elementary School, located at 1355 Dodd Road, where the applicant is requesting architectural, mechanical and electrical upgrades to the school. Mr. Grittman reviewed the application where a CUP is required to allow for the regrading of more than 400 cubic yards of fill to remodel the parking facilities. A variance is also being requested to allow the parking area to encroach within the front yard setback. Chair Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the entrance and exiting procedures. Commissioner McManus asked for clarification on water drainage. Greg Hultman, representing the Pegasus Group, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Ron Aplikowski. Mr. Hultman explained how the entrance and exit will remain as two separate openings (entrance only, exit only). Mr.Hultman said the parking lot will drain the same way it does now, the grade slopes so everything sheets across the parking lot and is picked up by a catch basin in the curb line at the bottom corner of the parking lot. Another catch basin will also be added to the east. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to table this hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION POLOVNY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 Ayes 0 Nays COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE CITY ENGINEER. THE HARDSHIP FOR THE VARIANCE IS SHOWN AS THE APPLICANT WISHING TO COMPLY WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND THERE IS NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE THAT EXISTS TO EXPAND THE PARKING AREA. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED 16 Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 2006 VERBAL REVIEW— Sue McDermott PLANNING CASE #06 -06 Phillip True — Variance • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #06 -07 Henry Sibley High School — Conditional Use Permit and Variance • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. City Council granted a 3 -year building permit with the requirement of an Annual Report Review. PLANNING CASE #06 -08 United Properties - Variance • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #06 -05 Visitation School — Wetland Permit, Variance, and Conditional Use Permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Chair Lorberbaum thanked Commissioner Hesse for chairing the March 28th meeting. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LALLY, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:15 PM. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 17