Loading...
PL 12/17/2003 - 30914CITY OF FRIDLEY � PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 2003 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the December 17, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Barb Johns, Dean Saba, Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist, Larry Kuechle, Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Brad Dunham Others Present: Stacy Stromberg, Planner Dale Helm, 7399 Symphony Street Lynn Hansen, 230 Rice Creek Blvd Mark Holm, AT&T Wireless, 11600 96th Avenue N, Maple Grove David Flaten, 7415 University Avenue Vera Schmidt, 7380 Lyric Lane R. A. Stinkski, 3647 McKinley Street APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5. 2003 � MOTION made by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the November 5, 2003, minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #03-21,by AT&T Wireless, to allow a telecommunication tower to be allowed in an M-2-Heavy Industrial Zoning District under the M-2-Heavy Industrial Zoning Code Section 205.18.1.C(3)(7), generally located at 5330 Industrial Blvd, NE. MOTION made by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Qquist, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:33 P.M. .,_ ,.�.. Ms: Stromberg stated that Mr. Holm, on behalf of AT&T Wireless and American Tower is seeking a special use permit to recognize and expand an existing non-conforming AT&T Telecommunications tower which is located at 5330 Industrial Boulevard. Ms. Stromberg stated that the petitioner is proposing to install an additional PCS panel antenna on the existing 150-ft AT&T monopole tower. The existing cell tower was never granted a � special use permit when it was constructed nor was a building permit issued, therefore, recognition of the telecommunications tower is required prior to the cell tower being added to. 1 Planning Commission Meeting, December 17, 2003 Pa e 2 n Ms. Stromberg presented a history of the Telecommunications Act affecting wired and wireless _ operations for telecommunications services, cable television, open video systems, multi-channel video�distribution, telephone long distance; d�ta:transmissions, cellular phones, personal cor�munication services and direct bro�dcast satellrte. Ms. Stromberg stated that over the past 4 years the number of 75 ft to 250 ft monopole towers or lattice type towers structures has been on the rise in both the metro and rural locations across the state. In 1996 the Telecommunications Act opened the door to a new wave of technology. Communities have been required to recognize and accept this new technology. Cities do have the ability to control the location of the PCS towers, however, cities cannot take the position of "not in my city." Ms. Stromberg stated that in December of 1996 the City Council established a moratorium temporarily prohibiting the construction of new communication and antennas to allow the city to take a comprehensive look at the impact of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and to establish acceptable antenna locations. City staff worked with PCS Consultants to get a clear understanding of the technology issues and to determine the number of antenna locations that would be required to service the community. As a result of that analysis, an approved site approach was approved. The city�now has a series of approved sites for the installation of wireless telecommunications facilities To ins��ll,�a tower in an industrial zoned area not on an irrtprove'd"site`list; a special use pe�mit �must ��.'obtaii�e�.' � " ' ' � �� , Ms. Stromberg stated that the petitioner is requesting a Special Use Permit to allow the existing tower to remain in its current location at 5330 Industrial Boulevard. In addition, the petitioner is /� also requesting to add an additional PCS panel antenna to the tower. The proposed antenna is a 7-ft GSM antenna that will not increase the overall height of the structure nor increase the horizontal face of the antenna array already there. In essence, AT&T is plugging in one additional antenna and moving an existing 4-ft antenna over. No additional equipment will be added to the facility. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner presented a letter from Ulteig Engineers Inc. (who had completed a structural evaluation of the tower) which stated the existing tower is designed to withstand the ice and wind load requirements of the intemational building code and that the structure is adequate for installation of the proposed antenna system. The consultant stated that if additional antennas are added beyond this fourth one they recommended that the tower be structurally reassessed. Ms. Stromberg stated that the p�titior�er�is re,quired;to f.ence and screen the existing g�-ound structure as part of the special use permit appro�al process. Ms. Stromberg stated that Telecommunication towers are permitted under a Special Use Permit in the M-2-Heavy Industrial Zoning District. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends that the Special Use Permit be granted with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall provide a history on this telecommunications tower and when the installation took place 2. The petitioner shall provide a structural plan on how the tower will break apart in /'1 the event that it would fall over. The code requires towers to collapse upon themselves rather than tipping in extreme wind conditions. 2 Planning Commission Meeting, December 17, 20p3 Page 3 ^ 3. The petitioner shall provide a soil report and footing analysis indicating that the existing soil and footings can support the tower. 4. A landscape plan showing the existing ground control structure will be fenced and screened be submitted and approved by City prior to issuance to a building permit for the new antenna. Ms. Savage asked if there have been any problems, complaints or any feedback received by staff. Ms. Stromberg stated that following the mailing of the public hearing notice, only one neighboring property owner indicated concem. She stated she was unaware that there was an existing tower in this location but believed it was a new tower. Mr. Oquist asked if any information had been received on stipulations 1 and 2. Ms. Stromberg stated that none had been received. Mr. Mark Holm of American Tower Corp spoke on behalf of American Tower Corp and AT&T Wireless. Mr. Holm is working with AT&T Wireless to expand their coverage throughout the metropolitan area to increase the capacity to handle the number of calls and upgrade their technology with the GSM antennas. AT8�T antennas are being added to approximately 45 existing towers owned by American Tower Corp. In most cases, adding one antenna to an existing structure is considered a modification and does not require going through a zoning processes. This tower has been in its location for over a decade and there are no records of � when they had been properly permitted. It was determined by staff that this should go through the special use permit processes to identify the tower as a conforming use, bringing it into compliance and to allow the addition of the antenna. Originally the site had been developed by McCaw Cellular who originally owned the FCC license in the metropolitan area for cellular communications but was later purchased by AT&T Wireless. Mr. Holm was uncertain as to McCaw Cellular's record keeping and the amount of information transferred to AT&T Wireless. In addition, the building was originally owned by American Midwest Power which later sold the property to the current owner, Aramark. The number of transfers may have led to the lack of records. American Tower contacted AT&T to determine the type of records they have on the site in an attempt to satisfy the stipulations on the Special Use Permit. This Permit would allow AT&T to expand their capacity in the area and further technology. Mr. Holm stated that with the limited space, there will be a need to be creative with the fencing and landscaping. He also stated that it might be difficult to find the actual geotech study that was done when the tower was originally built because of the multiple transactions that occurred over a decade ago. With further research he believes that the stipulations can be satisfied with some creative landscaping. Mr. Kuechle asked if there might be some agreement on the real estate records with the County. Mr. Holm stated he did have copies but felt he would need to get permission from AT&T to release the leases executed with American Midwest Power and the lease amendment with Aramark. He believes AT&T would not have a problem with the submission. � Mr. Kuechle questioned the stipulation dealing with the tower collapsing on itself and if it was a requirement that towers be designed that way. Also, if there was an 80 mph wind and a half- inch ice on the tower, would it be likely a tower would collapse. Kj� Planning Commission Meeting, December 17, 2003 Page 4 � Mr. Holm stated that most monopoles today were designed with a crinkle point or a fall zone stress point half way up the tower or 3/ of the way up the tower; there is essentially a built in angular piece of steel so that if a tower were to be overloaded with the wind, it would basically crinkle at the top rather than fall like a tree. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:55 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated it looked like a reasonable request and that placing towers in an industrial area is preferable to other approved sites in the city, and in a location close to 694 which is a heavy traffic area. He recommended city council approval of the request with the stipulations. Seconded by Mr. Saba. Mr. Holm questioned the stipulation of the landscape plan since it was in an industrial area. Ms. Savage stated that industrial areas also required landscaping. Mr. Holm stated that due to the limited area around the building landscaping would be di�cult . Ms. Savage stated she would like to see some effort made to do some landscaping. ,--� Mr. Holm stated it was not an expense issue but more of a bother issue. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage said this request will be heard by the City Council on January 5, 2004. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Rezoning, ZOA #04-04, by RAS Properties, to rezone multiple properties from R-2-Two-Family Unit Zoning to R-3-General Multiple Unit Zoning, generally bordered by University Avenue Service Road, 74�' Avenue, 75th Avenue, & Lyric Lane. MOTION made by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:00 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated that RAS Properties and the owner of 450 and 476 75�" Avenue is requesting to rezone the properties located at 351 74�' Avenue, 361 74th Avenue, 371 74�' Avenue, 371 74�' Avenue, 389 74�" Avenue, 415 75�' Avenue, 7400 Lyric Lane, 350 75tn Avenue, 460 75th Avenue, 450 75�' Avenue and 476 75�' Avenue from R-1 single family and R-2 finro family to R-3 multi family. � Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner had contacted all of the property owners regarding the rezoning request and has received signatures from all but one. The petitioner indicated that the 0 Planning Commission Meeting, December 17, 2003 Page 5 � one property owner isn't opposed to the rezoning request but that they would want to contribute to the cost of the rezoning application. Ms. Stromberg stated all properties are zoned R-2 two family units with the exception of 460 75�' Avenue which is Grace Lutheran Church which is zoned R-1. The R-2 zoned properties are made up of multi family housing ranging from 4 to11 unit buildings. Ms. Stromberg stated the properties became non-conforming when the city adopted a new zoning ordinance in 1964 revising the permitted uses of the R-2 zoning district. The revision in 1964 does not allow multi-family uses in the R-2 zoning district, therefore making the existing multi family buildings in the R-2 district pre-existing non-conforming uses. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner applied for a building permit to tear down and replace his existing garages. Because his property is non-conforming a building permit could not be issued to reinvest in this property. City staff suggested that the best way to resolve the non-conforming issue would be to rezone this property to R-3 which is the current use of the property. To accomplish rezoning, the entire block befinreen 74�' Avenue, 75�' Avenue, Universiiy Avenue Service Road and Lyric Lane would need to be rezoned. Ms. Stromberg stated that City staff asked the City Council and the various commissions on their 2001 counciUcommission survey if they were interested in having staff initiate a rezoning process for approximately 50 non-conforming properties. The survey indicated that the council preferred to evaluate each property on a case-by-case basis when petitioned by the property owner. The comprehensive plan designated this area as multi family; therefore, rezoning this ^ property from R-2 to R-3 is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends approval of this rezoning request as the proposed rezoning corrects an existing non-conformity and the rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Ms. Savage asked if any calls had been received about this rezoning. Ms. Stromberg stated that numerous calls were received more out of curiosity as the public notice the city sent out wasn't that clear. No opposition was received once the rezoning was explained by staff. Mr. Stinski stated he purchased finro 11-unit buildings at 450 & 476 75�' Avenue in January 2003 and discussed with city staff plans to rebuild garages currently located in the center of the property near a power pole and possibly make another driveway exiting onto Lyric Lane. The current location makes it difficult for an average truck to enter or exit and almost impossible for fire trucks to service the backend of the buildings. Staff stated this was a non-conforming use and changes could not be made to the buildings as currently zoning but that the entire block would need to be rezoned to conform. Mr. Oquist stated that there are no stipulations to deal with. Mr. Kuechle asked what Mr. Stinski projected as the life of the buildings. Mr. Stinski stated that the original garages being discussed are probably from the early 1960's i'� and are almost inhabitable. There are six units of garages that are fairly new. Permits were obtained for the improvements made to the interior of the buildings and landscape improvements but work had to be halted when I wanted to tear down the building. � � � Planning Commission Meeting, December 17, 2003 Page 6 Mr. Saba asked if these were apartment rentals. Mr. Stinski stated they were. Vera Schmidt of Lyric Lane stated she appreciated the work that had been done but there is one concem which is the addition of the driveway onto Lyric Lane. She stated it was a very busy street and an emergency route and a lot of children in the neighborhood. She asked what additional steps would be needed to have that approved. Mr. Stinski stated that when the Fire Department went through the buildings they had suggested and were in favor of a driveway onto Lyric Lane. He stated it would be easier for a big hook and ladder to enter the site. He did suggest making it a"one way" allowing the traffic to enter but exit on 75�'. He stated there were only 22 units and not a large volume of traffic. Ms. Kuechle asked if the City had a position on this issue. Ms. Stromberg stated Jon Haukaas, the Public Works Director, would need to approve any additional access points on the City streets. She was not ce�tain as to his position. Mr. Stinski stated he felt it would be a good for safety reasons. Dave Flaten of 7415 University Avenue asked if the commission knew what their property was zoned. Ms. Stromberg stated they currently are zoned R-3 multi family and are in compliance. Mr. Flaten asked whether there is talk of any other development as a part wanting to change the zoning. Ms. Stromberg stated it was simply from this request. Dale Helm of 7399 Symphony Street, stated he purchased his home in 1995 but believes that when it comes time to sell his home the multi-unit housing would devalue the surrounding property based upon the appraisal received at the time of purchase and subsequent appraisals. His concem is that the rezoning could cause current homeowners to seek homes elsewhere. He believes that rezoning opens the door to the wrong direction for this community and will intensify issues that he already faces with multi-unit housing. Police have been contacted for issues such as trash on side lawn, front lawn and streets of 74th and Symphony left by the apartment complex residents and their visitors, increased traffic, noise, working on cars on city streets, privacy issues, and issues with unattended children. Mr. Helm cited a problem with two boys who took great glee in shooting other very small children with BB's causing injury and fear. After they ran out of ammo they started pumping the gun, placing the barrel to other children's heads and pulling the trigger. They did this at the apartment doorstep so children leaving the apartment could be caught by surprise. During this entire time no parents were on the scene. Only after the police had amved and confiscated the BB gun, did the parents show up and talk to the police. These children are far too young to be left unattended. Until something is done, groups of 5 to 20 kids will continue to congregate at this location. 0 Planning Commission Meeting, December 17, 2003 Page 7 � Mr. Helm stated that currently it is not safe for his children to play in their own front yard, and that his family is tired of being a prisoner in their own home. His request is for the commission to look at the broader scope of the picture, not look for a quick fix and not approve rezoning this area. Mr. Lynn Hanson, owner of the building at 350 75�' Avenue, stated it would make sense to rezone this area and is in favor of it. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:27 P.M. Mr. Saba asked if this block was rezoned to R-3 and if a new development does want to build a bigger complex, could they build whatever they want. Are there or can there be any restrictions once zoned R-3 or does everything that goes with R-3 goes with rezoning so no restrictions can be placed. Ms. Stromberg stated that there are lot requirements and that the lot size would determine the number of units. Ms. Kuechle stated that according to the plans 415, 430 and 489 are the largest lots but could not hold a large complex. ,'�'1 Mr. Saba stated that 415 is only 13,500 square feet. Ms. Savage stated that if these complexes were to bum down, they are duplexes not single family homes. Ms. Savage stated the public hearing had been closed. Mr. Kuechle stated that he was in favor of rezoning and that if zoning remained at R-2, Mr. Stinski and other property owners are held from improving their properties which would contribute to properties going down hill. If properly owners like Mr. Stinski are investing in their property, they are more prone to maintain the properties to protect their investment. Mr. Kuechle recommended approval. Ms. Saba agreed with Mr. Kuechle's comments. Mr. Oquist agreed that it is the right thing to do as it should improve the situation and not continue to degrade it. Ms. Johns asked if the landlords are held responsible for their tenants' actions. Ms. Stromberg stated that the Fire Department does rental inspections to make sure that they are in compliance with all code requirements, but that the landlord needs to be in control of their tenants' actions, but can't necessarily control them. %� Ms. Savage suggested that Mr. Helm work with a community officer who might have more contact with the tenants. 7 Planning Commission Meeting, December 17, 2003 Page 8 � MOTION made by Mr. Kuechle to recommend City Council approve rezoning request 03-04 from zoning R-2 to R-3, seconded by Mr. Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated this item will go to the City Council on January 5, 2004. 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 12. 2003, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the November 12, 2003 Appeals Commission meeting minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 6. 2003. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Johns, to approve the November 6, 2003 Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED ^ THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 18. 2003, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 8� ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the November 18, 2003 Environmental Quality & Energy Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 3. 2003. PARKS � RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Johns, to approve the November 3, 2003 Parks & Recreation Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Ms. Stromberg presented an overview of 2003 Planning Commission activities. ADJOURNMENT �� MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjoum the meeting. : Planning Commission Meeting, December 17, 2003 Page 9 � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE DECEMBER 17, 2003, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:36 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �r , , . �. ����i � , t/�.►� � � r� . .- . � � �� � � � �� CITY OF FRIDLEY SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ecemb�e�'' 1 �%, � 003 Name Address/Business 1� �(.� �c�t,�►...— �7 �3 � 5' ���Pl� s�� /1./t�� � y �� �C�S �� �.� � ���L� C'����C �I,,� �%� M�tiC �o�w1 �� �+1 ��' � r��� ���� � �� ���� , � / o ,��� 1 I�00 Rb#" A��e. No �3�a ��� � 7 `-f 1 s t��ive�s� ����1 Nlaple (��ov�e , M�1 s 5 �� ��- �" �ce , t�1� � `�/����� �� � �� �:!��