Loading...
08/19/1998 - 00003384CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 19, 1998 _ • •:� : Chairperson Savage called the August 19, 1998, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. :• • Members Present: Diane Savage, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Jesse Sellards, 8491 Hillside Trail, Cottage Grove, Minnesota Bob Egerer, CeIINet Data Services Susan Fauver, Leonard, Street & Deinard Tom Stimack, 5331 5th Street N.E. Shirley Barton, 5331 5th Street N.E. Harvey G. Teske, 4800 Flag Avenue N., New Hope, Minnesota David Johnson, 6300 Georgia, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota Gary Brewster, 401 53rd Avenue NE Keith Graham, Ulteig Engineers ���:• � • ••: - �►► ► •►�►� •► ►� ► MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the July 15, 1998, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF ZnNINC� TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #98-01, BY C;ELLNET DATA SERVIC;ES �MSP�, INC; : To allow the location and development of Micro-cell facilities within the City of Fridley for storing, processing, filtering, and forwarding of communication data within the Public Safety and Utility bandwidth licensed by the Federal Communication Commission, including any antenna attached to such device, generally located in the City of Fridley. MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 2 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:36 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the zoning text amendment is requested by CeIINet Data Services to allow the location and development of micro-cell facilities in the community. Last year, they spent a great deal of time on the telecommunications issue and the locations for the towers throughout the city. Staff realized the technology would be moving beyond that in the not too distant future, and that time is now here. This is the next round of technology that takes us from communicating from the master cells on the tower sites to the micro-cell technology with locations spread throughout the city. The petitioner has brought a box which will show what a micro-cell looks like and to provide a sense of the technology and the size of the device that will be installed at the various locations. The petitioner has 140 locations that have been identified. These locations are in the public rights-of-way, public infrastructure or utility infrastructure that currently exist in the community. Mr. Hickok stated that in 1997, the City approved Ordinance 1112 which talks about telecommunications and is very specific about permitting site locations. The text amendment is new language that will be added to this chapter to make way for the micro- cell technology. Also approved in 1997, Ordinance 1116 adopts a new chapter for right-of- way management. This coincides with some of the work that will be done in the rights-of- way. There is some overlap with the meter reading people. They are not excavating rights- of-way, roadways, etc., as they are putting in the boxes. Instead, the boxes are going up on existing facilities. This can be done rather quickly and without obstruction to the right-of- way. There is a registration requirement as part of Chapter 407 which is referred to in the amendment, and there is also a data contribution from them that would allow them to provide for the city electronic data that can be entered into the Geographic Information System (GIS) system so staff know where these devices are throughout the community. Mr. Hickok stated the proposed amendment was included in the agenda packet. A revised copy of the amendment was distributed at the meeting with the additional changes in bold. Throughout the amendment, the phrase "and Automatic Meter Reading Systems/Devices" will be added. Section 2, Definitions, provides a definition of the automatic meter reading device and automatic meter reading system. Another amendment is a Pad Mount Device which is a device meant to be ground mounted as opposed to being on a utility pole. If, for example, there is an area where underground electrical service is provided and NSP needed a device in that area, a pad mounted device would be used. Mr. Hickok stated the ordinance amendment goes on to talk about in E, Chapter 112, the standards for the structures themselves. Following E, there is an addition of language that talks about Chapter 407, Right-of-Way Management System and, in addition, all meter reading systems must follow certain performance standards. The performance standards 1 through 5 have been added to the language of the telecommunications ordinance to be very specific about the meter reading devices, as follows: (1) All Automatic Meter Reading Devices located in the public right-of-way, must PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 3 obtain an Automatic Meter Reading Device permit and pay the appropriate registration fee, as provided for in Chapter 407. (2) Mapping information for the site(s) must be provided with the Automatic Meter Reading Device permit application in a format compatible to be utilized by the City of Fridley's Geographic Information System (GIS). (3) All Automatic Meter Reading Devices must be located no higher than the top and no closer to grade than fifteen feet of a public utility structure. (4) Automatic Meter Reading Devices not installed on a public utility structure will be considered as pad mount design. Its location shall be subject to review and approval of the City prior to permit application. (5) All Automatic Meter Reading Devices must be the same color as the public utility structure on which they are located or as approved by City Staff. Mr. Hickok stated the fees mentioned in paragraph (1) above are listed as part of ordinance 1116, Chapter 11. CeIINet would be paying a registration fee of $22.50 for their system as a whole. Because there is no excavation or obstruction of the right-of-way, those fees will not apply. CeIINet has agreed to provide the electronic data as opposed to the city entering their own data. This will eliminate the mapping fee. CeIINet would not be paying a degradation or user fee because they are not excavating or taking up space on the ground. In the event of a pad mount device, then the user fee would apply. He understands that the devices will be mounted on existing infrastructure wherever possible. Mr. Hickok stated the mapping information is electronic. CeIINet's engineering staff will work with City Engineering staff to make sure the systems are compatible so that CeIINet can enter all the locations which will show up as part of the city's GIS data. This will help the city in the future as other users come in and want to use the right-of-way. Mr. Hickok stated staff is recommending an entire new section listed in the handout as Section 7.5. The numbering will likely be changed to Section 8 and the following sections renumbered appropriately. Other than that, the wording will remain the same. Mr. Hickok stated Section 19, regarding Maintenance has the language adding "Automatic Meter Reading Systems/Devices". This makes sure that maintenance of the devices is kept to the city standard. Mr. Hickok stated Section 22, Fees, adds wording to include "Automatic Meter Reading System/Devices" as well as the public utility structure and pad mount device. The devices are subject to a fee of $25 per device. This is in addition to the registration fee and the occasional user fee for the pad mount devices. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 4 Mr. Hickok stated Section 23, Abandonment, adds wording for the "Automatic Meter Reading System/Device" and the process for what will happen if a location is abandoned. There is a master cell tower on an existing NSP tower near the Onaway industrial district. This tower has a master communicator which communicates with these micro-cell devices. Ms. Savage stated NSP has started changing the meters. Mr. Hickok stated he understand that NSP is making provisions. NSP is changing out the meters but will have the ability to read the meters manually until this system is turned on. Ms. Savage asked that without the proposed ordinance amendment, would CeIINet have to go through the special use permit process for that installation. Mr. Hickok stated, yes. Without the proposed amendment, they would have to do that for each of the 140 sites. Ms. Modig asked how the City would know when a site is abandoned. Mr. Hickok stated staff may observe that the site needs maintenance. A property owner may indicate it is no longer being leased for that purpose. NSP may indicate a location is no longer necessary for the equipment. That would then initiate the abandonment proceedings. Mr. Sielaff stated there is a$25 fee per facility and a$22.50 fee per system. What is a system and what is a facility? Mr. Hickok stated the $22.50 fee is to identify and register all of the information about the system, how many locations, and the details about the installation. This is a one time fee. The $25 fee is a per device fee accompanied by a spread sheet with all of the specific locations which will be tied to engineering details and site plans for each of the locations. This fee is per device. Mr. Egerer showed a sample of the device that is mounted on the utility-owned poles. These boxes are mounted on the poles as high as they can be mounted. They are also locked and sealed. Mr. Egerer stated the only concern CeIINet has with the changes are concerning Section 7.5, A, (2), regarding the mapping information for the sites. They ask the City Council for consideration in the information that is easy to provide. Mr. Egerer stated that instead of the engineering plan or the site plans, they are asking to be allowed to provide a detailed map showing the structure around the streets but not including the trees and the houses. These are structures that have existed for many years. If they were to turn in site plans including buildings, there is no assurance that they will be existing for any length of time. It is costly to map in such detail. They normally provide something that would show the street location and/or the address. One can look at the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 5 dwellings that are there and see the relationship to the streets. Mr. Saba asked if the City already had that information on GIS. Mr. Hickok stated they do not have footprints of buildings. This would help to illustrate where they are at. It also becomes important when getting vendors providing layers of service and using the right-of-way. Staff wants to make sure the City has a good idea of what is collecting in the rights-of-way. Ms. Savage asked if staff was saying the language as indicated is necessary. Mr. Hickok stated, yes. After discussions with CeIINet, he had a staff meeting with the Public Works Director and Community Development Director, and through that discussion it was made clear that this was an issue. The Public Works Director believes it was important to have that information because eventually so much will be in the right-of-way and staff need a clear sense of that. The in-house technology is getting advanced enough that the City can have CeIINet's layer of data, click onto a location, and have a site plan of that location. If another entity wants to locate some equipment, staff can check to see what is there, see the use and co-location potential without having to go out in the field for every application. Mr. Egerer stated they also provide GAPS information on the locations. Mr. Kuechle asked what kind of resolution is being asked for on the site plan - 100 meters, 100 kilometers? Mr. Hickok stated staff is asking for closest buildings. Staff would like to see the right-of- way width and proximity to the closest building. There may be no building. In that case, the site plan may show a right-of-way with the utility structure in the right-of-way. Some of the drawings may be very simple. Some may show the nearest cross street and right-of-way width. Staff is looking for the right-of-way width and the relationship to the closest building on the site plan. Mr. Kuechle asked if this would be at 20 meters. Mr. Hickok state the right-of-way is typically 3 to 5 meters. If looking at 20 meters, he thought that is where they would find the closest buildings or the relationship to what is of concern. From the pole, if staff had a sense of 10 meters on either would be a good scale. Mr. Kuechle asked the petitioner to what resolution are they providing with the GAPS. Mr. Egerer stated they can show any resolution. The example he had shown was from 1/3 of a mile above grade. He can show those images up to 50 miles. With GAPS and with the same system, they may have a 5 to 10 meter variation. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 6 Mr. Kuechle stated that in order to get a plan like what they are talking about, would you have to go out with a surveyor to get the resolution you want or is a tape measure from the pole to the building good enough? What kind of plans is staff looking for? Mr. Hickok stated typically the site plans are surveyed site plans. As it is worded, it is to an engineering scale. Staff is looking for the accuracy which would allow them to understand the rights-of-way better as these things are placed. Mr. Sielaff asked the petitioner what types of things they would be metering. Mr. Egerer stated the meters are on the residences. The actual transmitters are being incorporated into the meter design. They will actually replace all of the meters. They do electric and gas metering. Mr. Sielaff stated they would not then be going down the street and taking the readings off the individual meters. Mr. Egerer stated this was correct. This is part of NSP's plan to reduce the number of estimated bills and inaccurate bills based upon estimations. Mr. Sielaff asked if CeIINet is a company that provides this service to the utilities. Mr. Egerer stated this is correct. Mr. Sielaff asked if they had competitors in this business. Mr. Egerer stated, yes. One of their competitors has a similar service for gas meters for Minnegasco. Their meters are the type that they have to drive down the street to read the meters. Mr. Sielaff asked that if they changed these meters that are mounted and someone else wanted to come in to compete and/or CeIINet wanted to cut back, etc., what would then happen to these boxes? Mr. Egerer stated they are a service provider for NSP and in other states that are deregulated they cooperate with other service providers. They will transmit others data over their network and provide that to the service providers. Mr. Sielaff asked that if another company wants to provide the same service, would additional boxes to be placed or does that mean you would take your boxes out? Mr. Egerer stated they would take their boxes out if another company came in to provide the service. They do have a long-term lease with NSP for a minimum of 15 years. Mr. Sielaff asked staff if the one permit fee per box was for however long the box was in PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 7 place. Mr. Hickok stated, yes. Ms. Savage stated NSP is in the process of changing these meters for the homeowners. Mr. Egerer stated they have started that process and have covered the majority of the west suburbs. They are ready to start moving more toward St. Paul. They are working with NSP at this time for the metro area. They will then work with some of the other high population areas around the state. Mr. Saba asked if staff was asking for 140 site plans. Mr. Hickok stated that is correct. Mr. Kuechle asked if the petitioner had to do a site plan in any of the other municipalities. Mr. Egerer stated, no. They provide the same information as proposed here - the GAPS latitude and longitude, street address along with a scale of the maps. They would provide that information in electronic format that would be compatible with the city's GIS system also. Ms. Modig asked that if the site plan stays as proposed, how would CeIINet deal with that. Mr. Egerer stated it depends on the cost. It costs $1,000 per unit for a site plan. They would have to reconsider putting devices in the city. It is expensive to put a site plan together. They are in a pennies business which is capital intensive. He was not sure they could do this up front. Ms. Modig asked that if they cannot do this, would their competitors do this? Mr. Egerer stated more than likely the City would stay as it is now. Ms. Modig asked how long these boxes had been in communities in the state. Mr. Egerer stated boxes have been in the east in test areas for nearly five years. Ms. Modig asked if the petitioner has a record on vandalism. Mr. Egerer stated they have not had any vandalism. They have lost two devices when poles have been hit by cars. The devices go on the poles and are placed as high as possible. Anyone climbing the poles would endanger their life. Ms. Modig asked that if something does hit the pole, does that take the power off at the same time? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 8 Mr. Egerer stated, no. It notifies the network that the device has failed. It would be the same as in a storm. NSP would know that power is out and respond. Ms. Modig asked that since this issue seems to be quite a bit of hitch, how does staff plan to deal with this or would it be logical to table discussion until the issue is resolved. Mr. Hickok stated the Commission can do so if they wish. Staff s recommendation is to keep it in, and the recommendation stands as such. If the Commission feels that this is something on which they would like further research, he would like to point out that they are up against their 60-day window. They will be going beyond the 60-days. They have asked for an extension that would have caused them to be through the process by August 31. The City does have in its discretion the ability to extend this another 60 days. It is important to the petitioner that we are now going out beyond that first 60-day window. That does give the Commission more time if they would like to see this request come back one more time. Ms. Savage stated whatever the Commission's decision to continue the point, it will be ultimately the decision of the City Council. She did not know if there was any additional information that the Commission would be able to get. Ms. Modig stated she brought it up in the event this was something that could be settled between staff and the petitioner before it goes before the City Council. Mr. Sielaff stated the petitioner indicated they could give the location of the boxes through GAPS. What does a site plan give the City? Mr. Hickok stated staff is interested in the room in the right-of-way. Right-of-way space will become a commodity. As technology advances and more data/information boxes go into the right-of-way, staff needs to know what is in the right-of-way. Staff wants the ability to pull up a stretch along an area and know how much space is left. The City needs to manage that space, know what is there, and at the same time provide for the industry. This will allow staff to analyze a site quickly. Mr. Sielaff asked if the site plan was just of the right-of-way itself or do staff also want to know about adjacent areas. Mr. Hickok stated staff want to know about adjacent areas. As mentioned earlier, 20 meters or 10 feet from the pole either way would take them into the roadway on one side and 10 feet to the other side to see if they are close to any buildings. Ms. Modig stated it did not seem to her that the City needed to ask the petitioner to show every tree or every bush. They are going to be putting these boxes on trees or that type of thing. If we had an idea that there are 4 poles on a property and 2 have no devices and one pole has four, would that not serve the same purpose. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 9 Mr. Hickok stated one might wonder if we asking for too much information. Using that example, what if four people have decided that they want to go on an existing utility structure and they had an ample amount of trees and some screening from the roadway. Staff could then say that this couldn't be in a better place because of the screening. Mr. Saba stated trees can be cut down. Mr. Hickok stated this is correct but that is the same with every survey. Ms. Modig stated that if the City has that kind of concern about blocking the view, they are going to still have someone going out on an individual basis after the initial work is done to see whether it is becoming an eyesore, whether there is enough room, etc. She can understand the desire of the City not wanting to go out to a number of sites and do an individual site plan but at this point we are talking about 140 sites. She can understand the desire to bring this information up on the computer, but eventually someone will have to go out on an individual basis because things are going to change anyway. Mr. Hickok stated he disagreed. Each one of the poles has an address. If the City keeps compiling the data as being tenants to an address, they will know the number of users, etc. Ms. Modig stated she is saying that the site plan perhaps may not have to include the exact distance between the pole and the tree or the tree and the structure because the structures are most permanent thing on the property. Trees can die. For the initial cost to do this, could some of the minute details be eliminated which may be important in the future but are not necessary at this point. This requirement does not seem logical to her. Mr. Hickok stated staff s recommendation is the first step. The Commission can deviate from that if they wish. It is ultimately the City Council who will make the final decision. Mr. Kuechle stated one of the problems that he personally is facing is that he can understand the burden this is placed on the petitioner if they have to get a surveyor, find reference points, etc., it will get expensive. He can understand and respect that the Mr. Hickok is a professional City planner and has spent some time thinking about this. He is uncomfortable with the vagueness of exactly what is expected of the petitioner. He would feel more comfortable if this could be defined. Are they asking them to tell the City what is on the pole, what is within 10 meters of the pole, or is it enough that they tell us the location of the that pole within two meters and what is on it. We are looking at a whole range of information. He is uncomfortable with whether or not the information that is required of the petitioner to get would be of cost/benefit down the road. Somehow, he is not sure how a survey would tie into the GIS system because he thought the GIS system was probably a metric quadrant system. You can convert latitude and longitude. It would be more difficult unless a surveyor is going to put in a GAPS and try to do it that way to try to translate. For example his lot survey on his house, to put that on a GIS map would be a formidable task because the reference points are not there. He would be most comfortable with defining PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 10 this more closely. He did not know if they could do that without having a delay in the process for the petitioner. Ms. Savage asked if this is something that is possible. Mr. Hickok stated he thought it would be. These are very good points. In earlier discussions, they talked about how many. In further discussion with the Public Works Director, they could define what is appropriate and what is essential. Perhaps they can find that a limited size and a limited detail is necessary for what they need to know. If that is what the commission is comfortable doing, staff will go back and do that. Mr. Egerer provided a copy of the information that their company provides including the device, GAPS location, street address, etc. MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive into the public record the materials provided by Mr. Egerer. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Sielaff suggested this information be reviewed by staff and then brought back to the Commission. Mr. Kuechle asked how would a delay impact the petitioner. Mr. Egerer stated it allows their network not to operate. They are forced to do manual meter readings. If they cannot do it through the network, they must do it manually and absorb those costs. Ms. Savage asked if there would be a way without tabling for this information to be provided to the City Council. Mr. Hickok stated this request will go to the City Council on September 14. That gives staff ample time to meet with the engineering and technical staff to see if this information would suffice. Mr. Sielaff asked if the Planning Commission had a meeting between now and the September 14 City Council meeting. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission meets next on September 2. Mr. Kuechle stated that if the Commission decides to table this item, he would like the petitioner to provide for the Commission how accurately they can determine the GAPS location of those poles. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 11 MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:28 P.M. MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to table Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #98-01, by CeIINet Data Services, Inc., to the next Planning Commission meeting so that the petitioner can provide some additional information, and additionally city staff can look into it and see what they can negotiate for a satisfactory resolution to section 7.5, A, (3) pertaining to the site engineering plans. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated she understands that the Planning Commission is in favor of the text amendment changes but want to clear this one area of dispute. 2. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF A REZnNINC� RECJIIEST, ZnA #98-02r BY RnSLYN PARK WESLEYAN C;Hl1RC;H: To rezone property from R-2, Two Family Units, to R-3, Multi-Family Residential, so that all of the contiguous Roslyn Park Wesleyan Church property is located within a single zoning district, generally located at 5300 6th Street N.E. 3. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF A VAC;ATInN RECJIIEST, SAV #98-02� BY RnSLYN PARK WESLEYAN C;Hl1RC;H: To vacate all that part of the alley in Block 15, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, Anoka County, Minnesota, which lies between the Northerly line of 53rd Avenue N.E. and the Southerly line of 54th Avenue N.E. in said Block 15, generally located at 5300 6th Street N. E. MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:30 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Brewster of the Roslyn Park Wesleyan Church is requesting a rezoning and an alley vacation for their property that is generally located at 5300 6th Street. The church is located on 53rd Avenue between 5th Street and 6th Street. The property on which the church sits is zoned R-2, Two Family Residential. The church itself is located to the north and east area of the site and parking is to the south. The church owns property to the west side of the alley which is zoned R-3, Multi-Family Residential. On this parcel is located a parish house to the south and another home and garage located to the north. Ultimately, the church would like to develop on both sides of the alley and they see this as PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 12 one contiguous master plan. The rezoning and alley vacation are part of their master plan for growth. Mr. Hickok stated that north of the church-owned property are a series of single family homes that face 5th and 6th Streets with an alley that exists behind the homes. Mr. Hickok stated that as part of the church master plan, the petitioner is looking at two expansions of the church. The church would first be expanded to the south with a second addition planned to the west. The footprint of the building relates directly to the required amount of parking that is necessary. The proposed expansion to the west would extend over the alleyway. Additional parking and ponding would be required to accommodate the additional seats that would be housed in the new building. Future parking is proposed across the alley to the west along with a ponding area. Mr. Hickok stated that as part of the alley vacation and with one garage that takes access off the alley, the church had to consider alternatives for bringing access to that home. They have indicated that they will prepare and file an access easement agreement that will allow access to the lot to the north. With the alley vacated, this would also allow access to the utilities to the north. The alley contains the upright utility poles, and those parties with a utility interest have been notified. Staff have not heard from any of the vendors who have utilities in this area. In the recommendation, staff has asked the church to reserve an easement to allow continued access into this area. The church would recognize that, at this time, the alley being vacated would provide the ability for utility folks to get into the site and would dedicate an easement. As the site develops, they may have to move poles and redefine the easement line. Mr. Hickok stated that with the rezoning, staff analyzed the surrounding uses and the compatibility issues. This area is a mix of R-3, R-2, and some R-1 to the east. This could have gone either way. The language in the R-2 and R-3 is the same as it relates to the church. The recommendation is to rezone the church parcel to R-3, have contiguous R-3 property, and use the standards of the R-3 rather than have two zoning districts. As the site develops, staff recommend the lot be joined for tax purposes. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of rezoning request, ZOA #98-02, without stipulations. Staff recommends approval of the vacation request, SAV #98-02, with the following stipulations: The petitioners record an easement to allow garage access for the homeowners at 5329 5th Street N. E. 2. The petitioners record an easement over the alley to allow access to the utilities until a new easement is defined as necessary for utility access until the church expansion occurs. 3. The petitioners shall record a new easement to allow a utility access alternative prior PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 13 to issuance of the proposed church expansion on the west end of the existing church structure. 4. The petitioners shall apply for and receive a special use permit prior to expansion of their church facility. 5. The petitioner shall record an easement to provide Amoco continued rights across the former alley. Mr. Hickok stated Amoco has an easement across the southern edge of the property. As we vacate our portion of that interest, there needs to be a new easement applied to the now church property that would allow the Amoco pipeline to continue to be in this area. Mr. Brewster stated the alley is not maintained and is not used by all the property owners on the block. Their proposal is that the entire alley be vacated. Their petition includes the entire block, and they obtained signatures for that. Ms. Savage asked the petitioner if there were any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Brewster stated, no. Their engineering firm has corresponded with the utility companies and Amoco, and would comply with the easement requirements. Mr. Kuechle stated the petitioner indicated that the alley is not used. He asked if the alley was used by the people on the south side. Mr. Brewster stated the church property is located at the south end. On the north end, there are neighbors who use the alley but it is not maintained. Where the alley is used, they maintain it ourselves. Mr. Kuechle stated if the only resident that needs access off the alley was the one that the stipulation is for. Mr. Brewster stated, yes. They have a garage that is used for tools, lawn mowers, etc., but they do not need access. The neighbor who would uses the alley has put in their own driveway to 5th Street but still has access through the alley as well. Ms. Modig asked if there were any complaints or objections from the neighborhood. Mr. Brewster stated they have had questions but have not received any objections to their petition. Ms. Modig asked if staff had received any comments. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 14 Mr. Hickok stated, no. Mr. Stimack stated he lives at 5331 5th Street and seems to be the forgotten property owner here. It has been stated this is not a maintained alley but it has been. He bought the property seven years ago. The day of the Halloween snowstorm was his closing day. This alley was the only way to his house, and he could not get in. He did not get help from the City although he made a number of requests for plowing. The neighbors came out and plowed as far as 5329 5th Street, and left an 18-foot pile of snow which really blocked him out. With continuous talks with the City all the way from the truck drivers to the Mayor, he has not gotten any help. He himself has maintained the alley for the last seven years. He has taken money out of his own pocket to have stabilizer put on the alley, has filled holes and ruts, and has been up at 5 a.m. in the winter to maintain access out to the street which he shoveled by hand for the first six years. Mr. Stimack stated the preacher that was at the church before Mr. Brewster took over would plow the end of the alley for him to the existing garage that is part of the church property. When Mr. Brewster took over, he agreed to clear drifts at the very end of the alley after the plow went by. Many times, he has shoveled that alleyway all the way to 53rd. He did not see why he was on the list for the petition. The alley has been his sole entry. His garage enters off the alley behind the 5329 property. That has been his only access for the first 6 years he has lived here. As he stated, he has maintained the alley and has done the snow removal. Mr. Stimack stated last year he got off street access. He got some help from the city when it was their plan to hire a contractor to get the alleys paved. He contacted other contractors but this was the cheapest. He did get a driveway installed for off street access from the front of his house. The fact remains that his garage door faces the alley so he would have to drive between his house and garage into the alley and turn around to enter his garage. This is not feasible but he can do it if need be. The alley is still his main access to the garage. He is opposed to the alley vacation. Mr. Stimack stated, regarding his name on the petition for the alley, when Mr. Brewster came around looking for names, he told Mr. Stimack this was not the petition itself but just a preliminary thing to get it into the city to be heard. As he looks at it, he now realizes this is the petition. He is requesting that his and Ms. Barton's name be removed from the vacation for the alley due to the circumstances described. Mr. Stimack stated he has spoken with Mr. Brewster on several occasions informing him if the alley is closed he would not have enough room to get in there. In order to have permanent off street access, he would have to do some renovation. The garage door would have to be moved to the other side. An existing shed would have be moved with another foundation put in for it. He would need additional pavement because the existing pavement does not go all the way to the garage. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 15 Mr. Stimack stated for the past seven years he has maintained the alley. This is set up so that the church can get access to their garage but it would block him out with no justification about what will be done for him. He feels like the forgotten person at the end of the alley. Under these circumstances, he requests his name be removed from the petitioner to vacate the alley. Unless they can renegotiate some issues, he is opposed. These may be minor issues but none have been resolved. Ms. Savage asked if staff had any comments. Mr. Hickok stated he was surprised after seeing the petition signed by all of the property owners. Knowing that Mr. Stimack had a driveway put in, staff did not understand that a problem existed. This does present a problem. Ms. Modig asked what it would take to resolve this issue for Mr. Stimack. What are the issues that he needs to have addressed? Mr. Stimack stated this would require renovation of his garage so he can come off the street into his garage without having to go through the alley. He would need a door put on the other side of the garage. He also has a shed that would have to be moved with a new foundation, and the paving issue because it is not tarred all the way to the garage. Mr. Sielaff asked the location of the driveway. Mr. Stimack stated the driveway goes along the north side of the lot toward the garage. It is wide enough so, if the shed was moved, it could match up to the garage if the doors were moved. Mr. Kuechle asked why he put the driveway in the front. Mr. Stimack stated he needed off street parking and that was the only way to obtain it. Ms. Modig asked if there is a driveway cut in the front. Mr. Stimack stated, yes, there is a curb cut. Ms. Modig asked that using that cut and if he turned the garage around, would it go straight into the garage? Mr. Stimack stated, yes, with additional pavement and moving the shed. Mr. Sielaff stated he understood Mr. Stimack received a loan from the City to do that. Mr. Stimack stated, yes. They had been looking at paving and found the going rate to be $2.65/square foot. The City had a contractor with a low rate and with a low interest loan, so he decided to go ahead for financial reasons. Unfortunately, the contractor did poor work. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 16 If he would have known that, he would have hired a better contractor. That issue also needs to be resolved. Ms. Savage asked staff if there is anything further the City can do with this problem. Mr. Hickok stated this is why the City Council does not like to be in this position. That is why a 100% petition is so important. At this point, it puts everyone in a difficult position. He believes it is an issue between the petitioner and the individual. If the petitioner wants to vacate the alley, the City wants people to have access to their property. Ms. Modig stated it sounds like there is nothing the Planning Commission can do because there is not a 100% petition. Mr. Hickok stated this is correct. With Mr. Stimack taking access from the alley, they would be hard pressed to make a decision without further discussion. Mr. Sellards stated he is Mr. Stimack's neighbor at 5365 and 5357 5th Street. He currently lives in Cottage Grove, and this is now rental property. He lived here before moving. There is access to his property, and that is where the alley ends. Mr. Stimack's house is at the back of the alley so he cannot maneuver. With the driveway, it was the only thing he could do for off street parking. Mr. Sellards stated he did not sign the petition. He opposes the alley vacation because he likes having the access from the alley. His property is a rental property, and the trash service is in the alley and is picked up in the alley. That works nicely because it keeps the property cleaner. Since he is not there everyday to see what is going on, this is not seen on the street. There are other times that, when he does go out there to work, he will go through the alley do whatever work he must do. He did not sign the petition and he likes having access through the alley. He also has maintained the alley by mowing the grass. Mr. Brewster stated it was his understanding when presenting the petition regarding Mr. Sellers as the owner and the tenants that are at the property, they could not get a response so they brought the petition with that understanding. They talked with Mr. Stimack and Ms. Barton about various ways they might be able to work out something with them. They are willing to revisit this to comply or make other plans. Ms. Modig stated the easement is for the entire alley. The difficulty lies at the other end. Is it possible to vacate only half of the alley? Mr. Hickok stated the City Council has taken a strong position to not do that. It presents problems. He knows of several situations where this has happened in the past. There are problems because people will drive into others back yards. The City Council has taken a firm position, and that is why they need to know that it is supported. He believed this has too many issues to move forward. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 17 MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:00 P.M. Ms. Modig stated she saw no choice but to table this until the issues are resolved. Mr. Hickok stated the deadline is September 15. This could come back at the Planning Commission meeting on September 2. Mr. Kuechle stated that if they table the issue, the petitioner could choose to withdraw the request and take their chances with the City Council. With the residents along the alley being against the request, the City Council in all probability will not vacate. They almost have to try to get it worked out. He would be in favor of tabling the request to give them a chance to work it out and try to change their strategy in the next few weeks. Mr. Hickok stated that if the Planning Commission denied the request, the petitioner could reapply for the alley vacation and represent their case. Mr. Sielaff stated he would be willing to give them an opportunity to try to work something out in the next few weeks. Ms. Savage stated that if the request is tabled, staff could let the Commission know if there is no resolution and can remove it from the agenda. MnTInN by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to table consideration of the Alley Vacation, SAV #98-02, until the September 2 Planning Commission meeting to allow the parties to resolve the issues. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MnTInN by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to table consideration of the rezoning request, ZOA #98-02, to the next Planning Commission meeting on September 2. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated the request has been continued to September 2 to see if the parties involved can resolve the issues that are in dispute. � � ■ 11 \ � ■ i •�i �" � �1111 �\ 11 \ MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the Appeals PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 18 Commission meeting of July 8, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. : . ►I ► • . • •: � - - � • ►I ►I • ► 11 \ MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of July 22, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • � ■ 11 \ �� ■ 11� � •�� \ ��\11 \ � � � r � .. \ : �1111 �\ 11 \ MnTInN by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting of May 18, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. REC;EIVE THE MINl1TES nF THE .Il1LY 2, 199g, Hnl1SINC� & REDEVELnPMENT Al1THnRITY MEETINC�: MnTInN by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of July 2, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. : � � _ �7�[Nti�'LK�IiI�[NIIe��[i7�I.� Mr. Hickok provided an update on City Council actions. Ci . : : yl�l��� Ms. Modig stated that regarding the site plan requirement, she was not criticizing the City for the requirement. She thought there may be a way to do this that was not cost prohibitive. Mr. Saba stated that if they look in the future, he thought they could have multiplicity of boxes and it could get unsightly. Ms. Savage stated she thought it a good idea to take a good look at it. She does not have PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 19 the expertise herself. She is happy that the Director of Public Works is recommending a site plan. There is the question of what is best for the city versus the cost to the petitioner. She thought what they were doing is a good idea and to look into it further. e� • :►►� ► MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE AUGUST 18, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary