Loading...
PL 11/16/2005 - 30885.^ ^� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Savage called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Brad Dunham, Leroy Oquist, Dean Saba, Diane Savage, David Kondrick, Larry Kuechle, Barbara Johns Others Present: Stacy Stromberg, City Planner Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Steve Edwards, 501 50th Street West, Minneapolis Donna Bohls, 7514 Alden Way Bill Holick, 21019 West 58th Street Siah St. Clair, Springbrook Nature Center APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - November 2nd, 2005 MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Saba, to approve the minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE � MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consideration of a Special Use Permit SP #05-04, bv Sprint, to allow wireless � telecommunication facilities (a 125' monopole towerl in an M-3, Heaw Industrial Outdoor Intensive District, aenerallv located at 8290 Main Street. Ms. Stromberg, City Planner, presented a request from Steve Edwards, who represents Sprint PCS, is requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of a 125 ft. telecommunications tower on the industrial property owned by Don Kasbohm, located at 8290 Main Street NE. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed facility will consist of a 125 ft. galvanized self-support monopole tower, equipment platForm and related electronic equipment. The proposed facility will be contained in a fenced in, 15 ft. by 30 ft. leased space on the north side of the industrial building, near the rear of the property. Sprint PCS will initially install six transmit and receive antennas to the monopole tower. Six additional antennas will be mounted on the tower at a later date. The proposed tower is also being designed for at least two additional wireless carriers. Ms. Stromberg stated in 1996, the federal government passed a new Telecommunications Act. Over the past nine years the number of 75 ft. to 250 ft. mono-pole towers or lattice-type tower structures has been on the rise in both the metro and rural locations across the state. The 1996 Telecommunications Act opened the door to a whole new wave of technology. Communities have been required to recognize and accept the new technology. Cities do have the ability to control the location of PCS towers; however, cities cannot take a position of °not in my city." Ms. Stromberg explained a typical PCS tower may have a 75 ft. to 125 ft. mono-pole structure. Planning Commission November 16, 2005 2 of 9 Ample ground area is generally required to allow the electronic control devices to exist beside ,� the base of the tower. A fence of some type surrounding the tower and the equipment is typically required. Some users require very little encroachment on the land, beyond the pole itself. In this particular case, Sprint is proposing a 15 ft. by 30 ft. area, with an eight foot cedar fence to surround and secure the base of the tower and control devices. Ms. Stromberg stated in December of 1996, the Fridley City Council established a moratorium temporarily prohibiting the construction of new communication and antennae array. The moratorium establishment allowed the City to take a comprehensive look at the impact of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and establish acceptable antennae locations. With the moratorium in place, staff worked with PCS consultants to get a clear understanding of the technology, issues, and to determine how many antennae locations would likely be required to service the community. As a result of the analysis, an approved site approach was approved. The City of Fridley now has a series of approved sites for the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities. To install a telecommunication tower in an industrially zoned area not on the "approved site" list, a special use permit must first be obtained. Ms. Stromberg explained that Sprint PCS is proposing to locate the telecommunications tower at 8290 Main Street NE. The subject property is zoned M-3, Outdoor Intensive Heavy Industrial, as are the properties to the south and west. The Springbrook Nature Center is located directly north of the subject property and the property to the east is zoned, M-2, Heavy Industrial. There is a 33 ft. easement dedicated to the City that runs parallel along the north property line, abutting the Springbrook Nature Center. This 33 ft. easement runs along the subject property's north property line and all the way to the railroad tracks. The existing 88,000 sq. ft. (80 ft. by 1,100 ft.) building was constructed in 1977. Several interior alterations have been made to the ,,� building since it was constructed; however there have been no additions. Ms. Stromberg stated according to the building permit records, the current property owner, Mr. Kasbohm purchased the property around 1982. This property has been involved is several code enforcement cases since the early 1980's. Most of the violations pertain to inoperable/unlicensed vehicles, outdoor storage, and dumpster screening. In 1986 there was a citation issued to Mr. Kasbohm for storage of junk (inoperable/unlicensed) vehicles and failure to provide screening of dumpsters and storage area from the public right-of-way. This citation was dismissed based on the property owners signed statement that he would resolve these issues. Ironically, these are the same code enforcement violations that we are currently dealing with on this property and with the same property owner. The property is currently in non- compliance for most of the above requirements for outdoor storage. The outdoor storage that exists on the site is not screened, there are hazardous chemical being stored outside and the property isn't surrounding by curbing. There are also unlicensed/inoperable vehicles being stored on the property and unscreened dumpsters. As a result of these non-compliances, stipulations will be placed on this special use permit request to ensure that the property comes into compliance before a building permit for the telecommunications tower is issued. Ms. Stromberg explained that the purpose of a special use permit is to provide the City with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety of the area in which it is located. The special use permit gives the City the ability to place stipulations on the proposed use to eliminate negative impacts to surrounding properties. The City also has the right to deny the special use permit request if impacts to surrounding properties cannot be eliminated through stipulations. This telecommunication tower is designed so it will withstand wind and ice loads as required by the �` Uniform Building Code, In the event that the tower was to begin falling over, it is designed to break apart and collapse on top of itself rather than tipping over. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner's Radio Frequency engineers have indicated that the Planning Commission November 16, 2005 3 of 9 location of a tower in this geographic area or the immediate vicinity is crucial to link in with their ,.� existing system. When the engineers started their initial search for tower locations, they identified the existing T-Mobile tower, which is located on the Park Construction property at 30 81St Avenue. City Code requires that the petitioner prove that a new site is necessary and that usable Approved Sites are not located within a'/2 mile radius of the proposed new site. The T- Mobile tower is located approximately .348 miles from the proposed new tower site. There are two towers located just beyond a%z mile of the proposed site, one which is located at Talco Industries at 7835 Main Street, and the other is located at Northtown Mall. Sprint's Radio Frequency engineers have determined that if Sprint located their antennas on the T-Mobile tower site, it wouldn't provide the adequate coverage needed in the areas they're looking to serve. The proposed location would provide the adequate coverage needed for the Springbrook Nature Center and the Northtown area. The petitioner has also stated that the demands in this area exceed the ability for coverage using any of the neighboring cell tower sites; thus the need for the construction of a new tower. Ms. Stromberg stated while the subject property isn't on the approved site list with the City for telecommunication towers, it is located in an industrial district, which is allowed through a special use permit. Even though the proposed location is in an industrial district, there still is a negative impact in that the appearance of the tower will not be consistent with the surrounding area. With the Springbrook Nature Center to the north and the Springbrook apartments to the northeast, appearance of a telecommunications tower 125 ft. high, may become an issue. Therefore, city staff would recommend approving the pole finish color prior to installation to ensure that the pole blends with the surrounding environment as much as possible. The petitioner does intend to screen the ground control equipment from the public right-of-way, with a solid cedar fence. Ms. Stromberg stated on November 9, 2005, Sprint PSC coordinated a balloon test on site at the property at 8290 Main Street to simulate the location and height of the proposed telecommunications tower. The purpose of this test was to see how visible the proposed cell tower would be from the Springbrook Nature Center and other surrounding properties. Due to strong winds, the balloon test didn't give staff an accurate idea of how visible the proposed tower would be from surrounding properties. Staff will contact the petitioner and recommend that an additional test, be conducted prior to the City Council meeting on December 5, 2005, so staff can properly identify additional stipulations, if needed. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends approval of this special use permit request as telecommunication towers are a permitted special use in the M-3, Outdoor Intensive Heavy Industrial zoning district, provided that code requirements are meet related to outdoor storage of materials, equipment, and vehicles, and subject to the following stipulations: 1. The property owner to meet all code requirements related to outdoor storage, unlicensed/inoperable vehicles and screening prior to issuance of a building permit for the telecommunications tower. 2. A landscape and screening plan shall be submitted and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit for the tower. 3. The color of the pole shall be "sky blue" or a similar color approved by staff. 4. The petitioner or successors shall install and maintain the proposed equipment so that it blends into the surrounding environment. 5. A 20' drive aisle around the building shall remain clear of debris and vehicles for fire � equipment access and circulation. 6. The tower shall not be artificially illuminated except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 7. The facility shall be designed to discourage unauthorized entry. 8. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of installation of any facility Planning Commission November 16, 2005 4of9 equipment on this site. ,� 9. No signs other than warning or equipment information signs are permitted as part of this application. 10. Any future placement of antennae on the tower shall require review by the City to determine if the equipment location requires additional stipulations or a revised special use permit. 11. The petitioner to provide the City with structural plans on how the tower will break apart in a high wind event and will not fall over. (Code requires towers to collapse upon themselves rather than tipping in extreme wind conditions). 12. The petitioner to provide the City with a soil report and footing analysis indicating that the existing soils and footings can support the tower. 13. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by City engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit for the tower, to alleviate existing storm water problems. 14. Necessary storm water flow controls and curbing, as required in the M-3 code, will be installed prior to issuance of a building permit for the telecommunications tower. Commissioner Kondrick questioned why the tower at Park Construction (T-Mobile) cannot be used by Sprint and why is it not desirable. Is it because the tower is not tall enough, not enough power? Why can't Sprint link onto the tower which is currently occupied by T-Mobile. Ms. Stromberg replied that it would not provide the coverage Sprint needs. A lot of Sprint calls come from the Northtown area and one tower cannot handle the demand of Sprint's customers as well as other wireless providers. ^ Commissioner Saba asked if the height of the tower made a difference in the reception of their customers. Commissioner Dunham questioned if we have ever varied from the pre-approved tower sites in the past. Ms. Stromberg replied that both Park Construction and Talco Industry sites were not approved sites and were approved through a Special Use Permit in 2000. Commissioner Dunham asked if the plan we have is inadequate today. Ms. Stromberg replied that many of the approved sites have cell towers and others approved sites have property owners that do not want towers on their property. Commissioner Saba questioned if there was an approved site in the general area that is not currently being used that would fill the needs for Sprint customers. Ms. Stromberg stated that there is an approved area one block away but the property owner has not been amendable to allow a tower on their site. Commissioner Kondrick asked if the City of Fridley is in line with other cities when it comes to the number of communication towers it has in the city. Ms. Stromberg replied that she did not know how the City of Fridley compared to other cities � but she could find out that information. Commissioner Kondrick questioned if the other towers discussed in the proposal were all 125' feet tall. Planning Commission November 16, 2005 5 of 9 Ms. Stromberg replied that she believed the tower at Park Construction is 125 ft. high and the ,.� one at Talco Industries is 95 ft. high, but she would need to verify those heights. Mr. Edwards, representing SprintlPCS, stated that the T-Mobile tower is 125' tall and the Qwest tower is 95' tall. Sprint has chosen this particular location because of the increased need in the area. The Sprint usage and communication needs have grown dramatically since 1996. At the time they did not foresee this increase in usage and the main reason for this large increase is due to Sprint customers sending photos, video, text messages etc. Through research, it is easiest to work together and try to be on the same tower and work with the City in a co-location situation. Going forward with a special use permit is what is needed to meet the growing need. The maps discussed show the current usage and needed areas. If Sprint links on to the T-Mobile tower, it will not service the additional needs for their customers. The only other option is to build in a residential area and that is not possible. For these reasons, we are requesting the approval of a Special Use Permit. Commissioner Kondrick commented that the difference befinreen the requested tower and existing towers is 30 feet. So in essence, 30 feet in height is what is needed to take care of the poor coverage areas. Mr. Edwards stated that it is not the height that increases the reception but the location closer to the area in need. The requested location to build the new tower is further north than the existing towers. The towers work like an umbrella and cover areas under and around the tower. Commissioner Kondrick noted that the current tower sites are four blocks away from the proposed site. He questioned if the new site is going to change the coverage that much and if � they could move an additional four blocks north. Mr. Edwards replied that if they moved the proposed tower further north, there is an existing tower in that area already and the towers would be to close together. All of the towers work together so 3-4 blocks can make a difference. Commissioner Kuechle questioned if the land was flat how far of a distance could be covered. Mr. Edwards replied that the coverage would be about 3/4 of a mile if the land was flat and with nothing else in the area. Commissioner Savage asked if they have researched other areas for a new tower or considered building a shorter tower. Mr. Edwards replied that most of the towers in the area are 125' tall or higher and the location in discussion is the perfect area to meet their needs. Commissioner Johns asked what kind of coverage they get with the current towers verses their competitors. Mr. Edwards replied that each company develops their own network so it is difficult to compare. Commissioner Johns asked if Sprint was granted this tower for better coverage, would all the other wireless companies be asking for Special Use Permits. The City cannot have a tower every 3/4 of a mile. � Mr. Edwards replied that Sprint has invested time and money into this site and they only develop a new site when there is a true need for it. Sprint has tried to convince their Real Estate Department that the T-Mobile site would work but they have tried and it will not serve Planning Commission November 16, 2005 Sprints needs. 6of9 r� Commissioner Dunham asked if the T-Mobile tower was higher, would it take care of their problem. Mr. Edwards replied that it would not work as well as the proposed location. Commissioner Johns asked for clarification as to where Springbrook Nature Center was on the coverage map being shown on the overhead and stated that she did not think people needed cell phones in the Springbrook area. Commissioner Saba commented that this is a sensitive area and asked if Sprint had another plan if the proposed site is denied. Mr. Edwards replied that he is aware and understands the sensitivity of the area. He also stated that currently they do not have another plan. Ms. Bohls, Springbrook Nature Center Foundation member, stated that she was present during the balloon test and even though it did not reach the height of 125' it was still visible above the tree line of the nature center. This tower would impact the visual of the nature center. The tower will have an impact on neighboring properties and is a property invasion. A smaller tower would be better to minimize the impact or Sprint should use the existing tower. Mr. Edwards replied earlier that the height of the tower didn't matter and the tower works like an umbrella, then they should consider a smaller tower. The construction of a 125' tower would impact the nature center area significantly and it will be very visible. � Mr. St. Clair, Director of Springbrook Nature Center, stated that the Springbrook Nature Center is used as a migration for songbirds and other birds and this tower would have an impact on this migration area. The tower would also create a visual obstruction looking to the west. Currently this area looking to the west is the only open landscape area that is not obstructed with any utility lines etc. so photographs would have the tower in view. Mr. St. Clair also shared a photograph from a tower in Africa that was made to look like a tree. He commented that this may be an acceptable tower if possible in Minnesota and could handle our various weather conditions. Mr. Edwards stated that he has spent some time in Florida building these types of "tower trees". The site we are looking at for the new tower, the "tower tree" would be 50' above the other trees and would not blend in with the other trees. The eye may be used to seeing a tower but not a"tower tree". We also need to take into account the winter months in Minnesota when regular trees shed their leaves, this "tower tree" would still be full of leaves and not look natural. To my knowledge, there are no "tower trees" in the five state area. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHARIPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:15 P.M. Commissioner Johns commented that the property owner has a long history of not being in � compliance or up to date with codes. She questioned if anyone has been in communication with the property owner on how he plans to stay in compliance. If the property owner becomes out of compliance what will the City of Fridley do, can we shut the tower down or take away the benefits he is getting from leasing the land to Sprint. Planning Commission November 16, 2005 7 of 9 Ms. Stromberg agreed that the property owner has been in violation of code issues for around ,.� 20 years. If the property owner was not in compliance, the City of Fridley could bring the � Special Use Permit back for review and the council could revoke it if they thought it was deemed necessary. The petitioner has had discussions with the property owner and the property owner understands that he is currently has violations and is agreeable with all the stipulations. Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated that a building permit would not be issued until property code violations are corrected. Ciiy Staff has struggled with this property owner to come up to code with his property and this may be a way to finally get these issues resolved. The property owner will be getting funds from Sprint to lease the tower so that should be an incentive to stay in compliance. Commissioner Savage asked if the property owner was clear of the stipulations and aware that a building permit would not be issued until he was in compliance on these codes. Ms. Stromberg answered that the property owner is aware of the stipulations and has told the petitioner he is agreeable to them. Commissioner Saba shared some concerns as to why he could not support this Special Use Permit. - There is a good reason why this area was not approved as a designated tower site because the City needs to protect the nature center. - This tower will devalue the nature center and the referendum that was approved recently for the nature center proves that the nature center is valuable to the City. - Building the tower would be a disservice to the voters who supported the referendum. �„� - Any nature photographer would be impacted by this tower. - A tower at 125' is excessive. This is why we have passed designated sites for these types of towers. - For these reasons, the request is not acceptable and I cannot support the request for a Special Usage Permit. Commissioner Kondrick agreed with Commissioner Saba. He felt the same way and was not convinced that adding footage to an existing tower would not be acceptable. He commented that there may be another way to meet the demands of Sprint customers other than building a tower next to the Nature Center. Commissioner Savage stated that she thought the case was presented very well but the current stipulations will not have enough impact to make the tower acceptable next to the nature center and suROUnding properties. Because of this, she cannot support the request. Commissioner Oquist commented that he could support this Special Use Permit as when a nature center is built in an urban area, there will eventually be a need to put up these towers. It will be an incentive for the property owner to clean up the area. If we revoke the permit, we would penalize Sprint not the property owner. He also does not think it would be possible to extend the current tower as it was probably designed for 90' not 125'. Commissioner Kuechle agreed with Commissioner Oquist that when we built the nature center in the middle of the city they will need to put up with this type of thing. He felt the staff did their homework and presented the request very well. Another location may be possible but he felt � that this was a reasonable request. Commissioner Dunham understood the reason the tower is needed but if a 180' tower in Coon Rapids can support many areas, he is not convinced this tower is needed. He would like to see more tower coverage results of existing towers and have Sprint check into other sites. Planning Commission November 16, 2005 8 of 9 ,—.,\ Commissioner Johns agreed with Commissioner Dunham and would like to see the balloon test. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Saba to deny the consideration of a Special Use Permit SP# 05-04, by Sprint, to allow wireless telecommunication facilities (a 12' monopole tower) in an M-3, Heavy Industrial, Outdoor Intensive District, generally located at 8290 Main Street. UPON A VOICE VOTE, 5(NAY) - 2(AYE), CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED TO DENY SUP #05-04 BY SPRINT. THE ITEM WILL BE HEARD AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMER 5TH, 2005 AT 7:30 P.M. 2. Receive the minutes of the October 3, 2005, Parks and Recreation Commission meetina. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle to receive the minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, COMMISSIONER SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Receive the minutes of the October 6, 2005 Housinq and Redevelopment Authoritv Commission meetinp. MOTION by Commissioner Kuechle, seconded by Commissioner Kondrik to receive the minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, COMMISSIONER SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Receive the minutes of the October 18, 2005, Special Meetinq of the Housina and Redevelopment Authoritv Commission. MOTION by Commissioner Kuechle, seconded by Commissioner Saba to receive the minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, COMMISSIONER SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Receive the minutes of the October 18. 2005, Environmental Qualitv and Enerqv Commission meetinq. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Saba to receive the minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, COMMISSIONER SAVAGE DECLARED THE � MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Receive the minutes of the October 26, Aqpeals Commission meetinp. MOTION by Commissioner Kuechle, seconded by Commissioner Saba to receive the minutes Planning Commission November 16, 2005 as presented. n 9of9 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, COMMISSIONER SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Stromberg reported that the Woodcrest Baptist Church Special Use Permit was approved by City Council. Lastly, the December 7th, 2005 meeting has been cancelled. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle, to adjourn. UPON UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, COMMISSIONER SAVAGE DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, G � Krista Monsrud Recording Secretary � /"1 � � Name - _� ___� - CITY OF FRIDLEY SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING �� �v��� i �, a a�S Address/Business � �1���� � l �( .� � �,..� ,, / / /, � �C --�� �,� �/ � ��;� � �� .