Loading...
PL 01/16/2008 - 30937�, PLANI�TING COMNIISSION MEETING January 16, 2008 Chairperson Savage called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Dean Saba, Diane Savage, Jack Velin, Leroy Oquist, David Kondrick, and Brad Sielaff Brad Dunham OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, City Planner Brian Dahlke, Dahlke Trailer Sales Steve Stulz, Pro Source Technologies, for Sprint Greg Welcome, Dahlke Trailer Sales APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: December 5, 2007 MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Kondrick. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIItPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #08-01, by Prosource Technologies, for Dahlke Trailer Sales, to allow the construction of a 125-foot telecommunications tower and related ground equipment in an M-3, Heavy Industrial Outdoor Intensive Zoning District, generally located at 8170 Hickory Street N.E. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING OPENED AT 8:03 P.M. Stacy Stromberg, City Planner, stated the petitioner is Pro Source Technologies for Sprint. Mr. Stulz, who is with Pro Source Technologies and also an agent for Sprint PCS, is requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of a 125-foot telecommunications tower at the industrial property owned by Greg Dahlke of Dahlke Trailer Sales located at 8170 Hickory Street NE. 1 Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed facility will consist of a 125-foot monopole telecommunication tower and a 12-foot by 20-foot prefabricated accessory shelter. The proposed tower and related ground equipment will be contained in a fenced in, 20-foot by 30-foot leased space on the subject property. The tower is also being designed to allow at least two additional wireless carriers. � Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned as M-3, Outdoor Intensive Heavy Industrial. The subject property was developed in 2003, with the construction of the existing building. An addition was constructed to the building in 2004 to allow for a paint booth. Ms. Stromberg stated telecommunication towers are allowed in any industrial district but only with a special use permit. Ms. Stromberg stated Sprint evaluated potential sites within their search ring and found the proposed site best meets the criteria required for the placement of a new tower. The criteria is based on the height of the tower setback requirements, adequate ground space, limited tree displacement, the proximity to power and telephone poles, and the need for coverage in the area to fill the gap between surrounding sites. When Sprint started their initial search for a tower location, they identified the existing T-Mobile tower, which is located on the Park Construction property just south of the subject property. That address for Park Construction is 30 — 81St Avenue. City Code requires the petitioner prove that a new site is necessary and they are unable to use an approved site that is located within a one-half mile radius of the proposed new site. Ms. Stromberg stated the T-Mobile tower is approximately .25 miles from the proposed new tower site. Sprint has determined if they located their antennas on the T-Mobile, it would not provide the adequate coverage needed in the area they are looking to serve. T-Mobile's equipment is already at the top of their 125-foot tower and, if Sprint were to locate on this tower, it would have to be at a lower height. According to Sprint, because of the lower height availability on this tower, it would lose approximately 45 percent of the coverage that would be accomplished on the new proposed tower. Ms. Stromberg stated the telecommunications ordinance within City Code states that in order to minimize adverse visual impacts of the tower and related ground equipment, the petitioner shall carefully consider the design, placement, landscaping, and innovative camouflaging techniques. It also states the tower and equipment shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment. The petitioner is proposing to construct the tower and related equipment on the north side of the property, in the side yard, just west of the existing parking lot. Even though the proposed location is in an Industrial District, it is important to consider the Code requirements she just identified. As a result of that staff recommends and will stipulate the proposed tower location be moved to the reax yard or further north on the land that was previously used for Frattalone's rock crushing operation. Relocating the tower will minimize visual impacts from Hickory Street as it will move it to the rear of the subject property and it will also help it to blend into the 2 environment, as there are several Xcel transmission poles along the rear property line of the subject property. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff does recommend approval of this special use permit request as telecommunication towers are a permitted special use in the M-3, Outdoor Intensive Heavy Industrial District. Staff recommends if this special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached: (1) Telecommunications tower to be located to the rear of the lot or along the northern property line. Location to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to.issuance of a building permit. (2) A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of installation of any facility equipment on this site. (3) A landscape and screening plan shall be submitted and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. (4) The petitioner or successors shall install and maintain the proposed equipment so that it blends into the surrounding environment. (5) The facility shall be designed to discourage unauthorized entry. (6) No signs other than warning or equipment information signs axe permitted as part of this application. Commissioner Sielaff asked whether there was any restriction on how tall the towers can be? Ms. Stromberg replied the maximum height is 125 feet. Commissioner Velin asked regarding Stipulation No. 4, shall install and maintain the proposed equipment so that it blends into the surrounding environment. How do you blend a tower into the surrounding environment? Another thing, the suggestion to have it back in the corner, why do they have to have landscaping and screening? Ms. Stromberg replied those are Code requirements that are restated as part of the stipulations. All cell towers within the City are required to have their equipment screened, whether it is with fencing or some type of landscaping. Commissioner Kondrick asked is it not also to guard them against vandalism and tampering, etc.? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes. Steve Stulz, Pro Source Technologies, stated Ms. Stromberg pretty much covered everything. They are doing this in order to increase Sprint Nextel's coverage in the area. With the additional bandwidth needed now with all the on-line internet things and wireless traffic, they found there is a dead spot right in this area. They researched the area for close to year now, and they have taken some recommendations from the City planners on the location. There are many drainage issues there and that is where the park is so they axe very limited as to space and where they could go to pofentially locate this 3 tower. With the exhaustive search they did, they finally ended up with this location. They worked extensively with Dahlke Trailer to pick a location that works for them without interFering with their business but also works for Sprint to complete the adequate coverage they are trying to accomplish in the area. They did look extensively into co- locating on the T-Mobile tower because ultimately in the long run it is cheaper for them to go on an existing tower than it is to build their own tower. Also, the coverage would be reduced by approximately 45 percent in the area. That 25 feet is a big difference when you are talking about the area they are looking at. Chairperson Savage asked if they would agree with the first stipulation about locating the tower to the rear or along the northern property line? Mr. Stulz stated they are happy to work with the City with any recommendations they have that they could work out and would be beneficial for all parties involved. They have a couple issues with the locations. They looked at the northern location prior to picking the one they have, and the owner could probably speak more deliberately to these things but he will give the Commission Sprint's ta.ke on it. The northern location was purchased from Frattalone by Dahlke Trailer in order to have additional storage space for their trailers, and that is a transition area. They have paved that since then and the trailers come in and out. There is also towards the left in the transition area, the corner is cut about 30 feet in so they have to stay a certain amount away from the existing transmission lines that are there. Mr. Stulz stated the other issue with that location is it is a separate parcel from the Dahlke Trailer parcel so they have the opportunity to either sell that off at a later date or to have some potential construction plans for that area. The other location is right in the back of the property where there are two additional drainage areas and that is where they plow all the snow from the parking lot. There are many drainage issues back there, and they have anywhere from 10-25 feet of snow that they do pile back there. So it presents more potential drainage issues by moving the tower back there as well as potential flooding issues for the shelter they have containing the electrical equipment inside it. Mr. Stulz stated there is also the issue of access. Where they have proposed, they can fence and have it accessed for service if they need to do routine or emergency maintenance. They come and access the shelter without coming into the entire area of Dahlke Trailer. If they move it to either one of the suggested locations suggested by the City, they will have to have access to the entire Dahlke property. Mr. Dahlke has expressed his concern because there have been many break-ins and equipment stolen from that area. So he is concerned about security issues and having additional people having access and also the potential liability should anything happen while they are on this property. They are, however, willing to work out a location that is feasible for all parties. Chairperson Savage stated to Mr. Stulz he has to understand that if he is not willing to agree with the stipulations, it may or may not have an effect on whether the Commission recommends approval. 4 p Mr. Stulz replied they are willing to work with the City. Chairperson Savage stated he will have to say more than that, he is going to have to say that he agrees with that stipulation. Mr. Stulz asked Ms. Stromberg if there were other options on the property besides the two locations that staff has picked? Ms. Stromberg replied she would say anywhere along the rear portion of the lot. They could modify the stipulations to state that a location would be deternuned and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit for the tower. However, she has spoken with the Community Development Director this afternoon; and he was pretty strict about the fact that the tower needs to be moved. It cannot be in the proposed location. If it re-located, staff recommends denial. Commissioner Kondrick asked what is wrong with the place where they propose to put it? Ms. Stromberg replied because of the visual impact it would have from the public right- of-way. City Code specifically states that when a new tower is proposed the petitioner should minimize adverse visual impacts of the tower and related ground equipment by considering the design, placement, landscaping and through innovative camouflaging techniques. It also states that the tower and equipment should try to blend into the surrounding equipment. Commissioner Kondrick asked how far from the desired location is it to the northern boundary? Greg Welcome, co-owner of Dahlke Trailer Sales, replied about 350 feet. Commissioner Kondrick stated the reason he was asking is because he is interested in keeping the tower as far away from the area that is green in the northern boundary of this property. It is the Springbrook Nature Center. To have it in the northern area suggested by staff wouldn't be his desired location. He has driven by this properiy about four or five times and trying understand the best location. As far as accessing it, Sprint's proposed location would be good for them. He also thinks it would be okay with him. Commissioner Sielaff asked if the proposed Sprint site is more visible from the public right-of-way than T-Mobile's tower at the Park Construction location? Ms. Stromberg replied, absolutely. Commissioner Sielaff asked if you relocated the tower to the south on the site, closer to the T-Mobile tower, is that be a better location? 5 Mr. Stulz stated it would work for them. They are trying to stay away from the T-Mobile tower as far as possible as that is one of the requirements the City has also. Chairperson Savage asked if Ms. Stromberg could address the drainage issues. Ms. Stromberg replied she was not aware there were any. The site was just developed in 2003, it would be staff's hope that there wouldn't be too many drainage issues. Mr. Welcome stated they would be receptive to them moving south but to go north is not viable just because they want to leave that land in tact in case they do decide to sell it or if they decide to expand. Presently it is vacant land. The retention ponds were right up to the top when they had the big rainfall this last spring and they take all of their snow and push it into that pond. They stockpile the snow up to 30-40 feet tall before they can finally push it in there, and that would block the access for Sprint to be able to get to the tower if they need to do something. There is also an easement that comes into play right along the retention pond. They would look at the north corner but then you are starting to get the visibility of 81St Avenue. The street is a dead end and the only thing that comes down the street is semi's and sewer trucks. Aesthetically they are screened in and they are talking about sewer trucks coming down the street. If you go farther north you axe more visible to the residential neighborhood on the other side of the raikoad trucks. They have zoned industrial right on the left side of the railroad trucks. Commissioner Savage asked Mr. Walkom if he was okay with Mr. Stulz's position that if the Commission amended the first stipulation to say something to the effect that the location is approved by City sta.ff, would he be alright with that? Mr. Welcome replied they would be alright with that, but they just do not feel that circled yellow corner is an option just because there is no other place to put snow on that property. Commissioner Kondrick asked about another location on the west side of the property, what would happen if it were there? Mr. Welcome replied they are not enthusiastic although there is the problem of accessibility. He is more enthusiastic about that corner than going to the north side. Ms. Stromberg stated looking at the aerial of the subject property, does the property owner know if there are transmission poles in the southern end of the parking lot? Mr. Welcome replied, yes, there is one there. Re-locating the tower to the southern portion of the lot you are then looking at it from 81St Avenue. The proposed location is, tucked behind CCX Truck Terminal and Sam's Club, you are 600 yards at least from University Avenue. Putting it at this location is the ideal location for Sprint and Dahlke Trailer. It is giving Sprint access 24 hours a day through their employee parking lot that they have their own fence and it's secure. Then there are no vehicles coming onto their � properiy after hours, and it would still be visible for vanda.lism because it is close enough to the street. It is sti11200 feet off the street. Ms. Stromberg asked the property owner if they have any plans to add onto the building at all because the proposed location could interfere with an addition to his building. Mr. Welcome replied that is not in their plans because their doors go north and south so they would probably go west if they did do an expansion. They also looked at putting the cold storage building on the north lot but they have not done that yet. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIIZPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING CLOSED AT 8:29 P.M. Commissioner Saba stated he would be in favor of just deleting Stipulation No. 1. He does not have a problem with the proposed location. Commissioner Kondrick stated he did not either. Commissioner Oquist stated it allows access and it is behind their fence. Commissioner Kondrick commented it seems to be away from everybody. Commissioner Oquist stated he would go along with just deleting the stipulation. Commissioner Kondrick stated he would go along with that idea. Chairperson Savage asked Ms. Stromberg what is the feeling of the staff about that? Ms. Stromberg replied, as she articulated earlier tonight, she had a discussion with Scott Hickock, Community Development Director, before the meeting tonight and he said if the petitioner was not willing to relocate that staff would recommend denial based on the visual impacts they highlighted in the staff report. Commissioner Oquist stated there are also trailers sitting in that area and there is nothing on that road. Commissioner Kondrick commented and it is 200 feet from the road. Commissioner Velin commented also it's a better location than the one in the rear corner due to the drainage problem. Commissioner Oquist commented it also restricts where they can pile their snow. 7 Commissioner Kondrick commented he has driven by there many times and he thinks the best location is where the petitioner proposes. It is away from the street, it is 200 feet in which is more than the height of the tower, you can hardly see it from University, and it is also away from the Nature Center. Commissioner Velin commented that Hickory Street is not a main thoroughfare. Commissioner Kondrick continued and stated it is close enough where they can have quick access and also closer to the street because of any attempted vandalism. Commissioner Sielaff stated he did not necessarily disagree with him, but he wonders if they are not just missing some information about why it is opposed by the sta.ff. Ms. Stromberg replied as stated in the report, there are two main reasons, one, the visibility from Hickory Street and, two, relocating it would make it fit more into the surrounding environment with the transmission poles that are to the west of the subject property. The Planning Commission may recall that in 2005 the City had a request for the installation of a cell tower at a property northeast of the subject property. Due to the close proximity of that location to the Springbrook Nature Center there were discussions of constructing that tower to look like a tree. There are several examples of cell towers that blend into surrounding environments that look like evergreen trees or palm tree in warmer climates. Code states that when a petitioner is coming in with a cell tower, they need to look at these things and they need to minimize adverse visual impacts of the tower and any ground equipment. They have to consider the design, the placement, landscaping, camouflaging. Commissioner Oquist stated but this is on a dead end street in an industrial/trailer area. Aesthetically it blends in with the area it is being placed in as far as he is concerned. Commissioner Sielaff stated the other option would be to leave it as it is and the petitioner would agree to a location. Chairperson Savage stated she would certainly prefer that. Commissioner Oquist stated he would not. He thinks that is what they are here is to make a recommendation. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick approving Special Use Permit, SP #08-01, by Prosource Technologies, for Dahlke Trailer Sales, to allow the construction of a 125-foot telecommunications tower and related ground equipment in an M-3, Heavy Industrial Outdoor Intensive Zoning District, generally located at 8170 Hickory Street N.E, with the removal of stipulations #1, stating the tower can be located in the proposed location by the petitioner. Approval is with the following stipulations: (1) A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of installation of any facility equipment on this site. : (2) A landscape and screening plan shall be submitted and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. (3) The petitioner or successors shall install and maintain the proposed equipment so that it blends into the surrounding environment. (4) The facility shall be designed to discourage unauthorized entry. (5) No signs other than warning or equipment information signs are permitted as part of this application. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COMMISSIONERS OQUIST, SAVAGE, SABA AND KONDRICK VOTING AYE, AND COMMISSIONER SEILAFF AND CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE VOTING NAY, THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UANIMOUSLY ON A 4-2 VOTE. Chairperson Savage explained to the petitioner their request has been approved, leaving out the first stipulation completely. This will be heaxd by City Council and they will make the final decision and the petitioner should be there at the January 28 meeting. 2. Receive the Minutes of the December 6, 2007, Housing & Redevelopment Authority Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Corrunissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAI�TIMOUSLY. 3. Receive the Minutes of the December 3, 2007, Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNA1vIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Stromberg gave a review of 2007 for the Planning Commission. They had. 10 special use permits, 3 rezonings, 2 text amendments, 4 plats, and 1 street and alley vacation. Their workload was pretty normal. Ms. Stromberg stated their February 6 meeting is cancelled. The January draft of the Comprehensive Plan is available at City Hall for those interested in viewing it, and it is also available on the website. � ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:42 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � � .c G���� � Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary 10 � CITY OF FRIDLEY SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING /-�Cp- o � Name 1 ��'�� S i v L� Address/Business ��S eu 2C��--