Loading...
PLM 03/18/2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 18, 2015 Co-Chairperson Oquist called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Leroy Oquist, Brad Sielaff, Dean Saba, and David Ostwald MEMBERS ABSENT: David Kondrick and Todd Olin OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, City Planner Lewis Martin, Martin Consulting Ed Schmeda, Fridley VFW Randy Byrne, Fridley VFW Approval of Minutes: February 18, 2015 MOTION by Commissioner Saba to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CO-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP # 15-03, by Martin Consulting (on behalf of Verizon Wireless), to allow the construction of an 89-foot telecommunication tower in the rear yard of the property, generally located at 960 Osborne Road. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CO-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:01 P.M. Stacy Stromberg , City Planner, stated Lewis Martin, with Martin Consulting on behalf of Verizon Wireless is requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of an 89-foot telecommunications tower on the industrial property, owned by Walter Whitney, which is located at 960 Osborne Road NE. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed facility will consist of an 89-foot monopole telecommunication tower, with accompanying ground equipment. The proposed tower and related ground equipment will be contained in a fenced in, 40 feet by 40 feet leased space in the rear yard of the subject property. Ms. Stromberg stated the tower has been designed to allow for two additional wireless carriers as is required by code. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial, as are the properties to the east and south. Residential homes in Spring Lake Park are located to the north, and Woodcrest Elementary School is located to the west. The subject property was developed in 1969 with the construction of an Auto Body Shop. Additions were constructed to the building in 1970 and 1971. Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2015 Page 2 of 9 Ms. Stromberg stated 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. Ms. Stromberg stated telecommunication towers and the installation, operation, and maintenance of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities are allowed in the industrial districts, but only with a special use permit. The property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial, therefore meeting that requirement. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is requesting this special use permit to allow the construction of an 89-foot telecommunications tower in the rear yard of the property at 960 Osborne Road. The tower and related ground equipment will be contained in a fenced-in 40-foot by 40-foot space that Verizon is leasing from the property owner. Ms. Stromberg stated according to Verizon, the main reason for construction of this new telecommunications tower is to replace existing tower equipment that is located at 7350 Commerce Lane, which is ConAgra Foods (previously Lofthouse Bakery). The ConAgra Foods site is approximately 1.2 miles to the west of the subject property off of University Avenue. The petitioner has articulated that the attorney for ConAgra has provided notice to terminate Verizon’s existing lease. Verizon has performed extensive negotiations with the building owner with no success; as a result, Verizon needed to find a location to relocate the existing equipment at ConAgra Foods to continue to provide coverage to the subscribers in this area. Ms. Stromberg stated City Code requires the petitioner prove that a new site is necessary and that usable “Approved Sites” are not located within a ½ mile radius of the proposed new site. There is not another site on the “Approved Sites” list developed by the City within ½ mile radius of this site; nor is there any existing towers within the ½ mile range, therefore, meeting that requirement. Ms. Stromberg stated when searching for a new location, Verizon notes that the new site needs to be close enough to the existing site to maintain as much of the existing coverage as possible. In suburban areas such as Fridley, cell sites need to be approximately 1-1.5 miles apart. There are 5 existing sites in the area, and the only one within that 1-1.5 mile range is located on a Fridley water tower in Locke Park, west of Hwy 65. This site is approximately .84 miles from the subject property and is currently serving a very large area between itself and County Hwy 10. When the ConAgra site is decommissioned, the Locke Park water tower equipment will be greatly overburdened. As a result, in order to maintain quality connections in this area, the new tower construction is proposed. Ms. Stromberg stated the telecommunications ordinance 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. The petitioner is proposing to locate the tower in the rear yard of the property and behind the existing building. A fence will be installed with privacy slats to help screen the tower and ground equipment from the school to the west and the public right-of-ways to the north and south. The petitioner also plans to remove the asphalt from under the fence so ivy can be planted in this area to further help with screening. This area will also be mulched and irrigated. Staff suggested a combination of fence slats and landscaping, since the site is so close to a Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2015 Page 3 of 9 public zoning on the west and residential zoning on the north. The proposed slats and ivy are the best solution on this site to comply with code requirements. The petitioner also proposes to plant some arvividae (sp.) type trees on the south side of the fence to help screen the ground equipment from neighboring properties. Staff did suggest the combination of the slats and ivy just because of the location of the school to the west and the subject property and the residential properties to the north. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit request as telecommunication towers are a permitted special use in the M-1, Light Industrial, zoning district, subject to stipulations. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of installation of any facility equipment on this site. 2. No signs other than warning or equipment information signs are permitted as part of this application. Commissioner Sielaff asked if the petitioner is required to do an analysis to determine alternative sites from the existing site now. If nothing is within the half mile, they can go look anywhere? Are there any restrictions as to how far they look? Ms. Stromberg replied, for their purposes there are restrictions as to how far towers can be from one another. The range is one to one and one-half miles they need a tower. When the City approves a site, it needs to have an industrial zoning. If they looked at other sites that were maybe commercially-zoned or such as the hospital which is residentially-zoned that is west of this property, those sites would not have worked for this application. Commissioner Sielaff asked it is the City's opinion this is the best site available to them right now? Ms. Stromberg replied, it is an acceptable site. Staff is doing everything it can to help it blend in. It meets all the code requirements. Commissioner Sielaff stated his point is whether this is the best alternative site. Ms. Stromberg replied the City does have an approved site list map that is in the Commission's agenda, and those were the sites the City had identified when the City did a study. Would the City prefer to see it on one of those sites? Maybe. However, it did not work for this user. Lewis Martin, Martin Consulting, stated they made several modifications to their architectural engineering drawings. They are now at a Revision F. All those changes incorporated the landscaping and screening requirements. Verizon wanted to listen to what the staff had to say and made those changes voluntarily. The changes are pretty reasonable and standard for what other municipalities require as well. Mr. Martin stated as to other locations. He went to the hospital and asked, and they have an internal system, and had zero interest in leasing any space to them. The reason is they did not have enough room on-site. Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2015 Page 4 of 9 Mr. Martin stated he went to a church about a mile west, but it was not zoned properly. The VFW to the east was ecstatic about it when asked. In talking with Scott Hickok, the property was not the M-1 or M-2, zoning, so it was not considered a favorable type of property. To the south of the subject property at LAI, there is zero interest. To the east and south there is a BBA Development who said they have six buildings on this property, and they can barely turn trucks around. They had no place to put it. Mr. Martin stated the only place they were allowed was the gray areas on the Zoning Map. The attorney for the site Verizon currently has said they were terminating the lease and stated they did not feel it was worth the time or money. Even if the lease was ten times the amount, they just do not want to deal with it. They have something going on over there, a change of ownership, or the way they are conducting business. Mr. Martin stated any properties within a half mile is what the Verizon engineers had provided to him. As to the Code items, the Code asks for a 205.30.7.10 non-interference letter. On his cover letter that is Item No. 8 so they show they would not have any type of interference with public safety, etc. Item No. 9 in his report is a justification letter by a professional RF engineer explaining why this tower would have to work. Mr. Martin stated the tower does meet the requirement for three carriers. The cover letter demonstrates that they provided the required items as part of the Code. This is not something Verizon takes lightly. Constructing a new tower is much more expensive. They would love to go on a rooftop or try and go on an existing tower but, with what their service needs are and with the RF engineer and his nine-page report explaining why, this is the only thing that would work. Co-Chairperson Oquist asked the petitioner about the stipulations. Mr. Martin replied, they are very reasonable. He has literally over the past three weeks talked with staff maybe every other day. That is why they have the drawings modified. They do want to put the screening up there. They want it to blend as nicely as possible. It is an 80-foot tower with a 9-foot lightening rod. They are not asking for a 160-foot tower. All they need is an 80-foot tower, and as part of the NEC Code they just have to make sure that lightening rod is there to provide the proper grounding the Code requires. Co-Chairperson Oquist asked Mr. Martin, they will be taking down the existing tower then? Mr. Martin replied, it is actually not a tower, it is equipment on a rooftop. His recommendation would be within six or nine months that Verizon would have that equipment removed. When the new tower gets built they have to optimize it and make sure it integrates with the other adjacent cell sites, and they will turn that one off. If they just turned that one off, all the subscribers would lose service including any type of emergency personnel or City personnel or subscribers. Mr. Martin stated Ms. Stromberg made the comment they have to get a deconstruction permit for the other tower, and they are fine with that; but they would just need some time. His request would be to apply for the permit within six months and then just have the work completed within one year after this tower goes up. In case there are problems outside of Verizon's control such as getting power or telephone service, they can request it. They already have the landlord wanting it over so they are moving forward with it. He thanked the Commission and Ms. Stromberg and stated it was a very detailed report. Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2015 Page 5 of 9 Ed Schmeda , Fridley VFW, stated he is the Commander of the Fridley VFW. He asked if it were at all possible to get a variance or whatever to get that tower somewhere on the VFW's property. They talked about putting it on the far corner of the property where they are now. They talked to Verizon about a year ago who stated if they have any type of trouble that they would be going somewhere else, and they made the assumption that was probably because of the zoning. Mr. Schmeda stated why he is flustered though is where they are talking about putting the tower up. It is probably about 50-100 feet from where they were going to put the tower on the VFW property. Their VFW really could use that lease money. He is being honest with them. It would certainly help. What they are talking about putting in would take up four parking spaces in their parking lot which they could afford. It would be in the back part of the parking lot real close to where they recommended putting it on right now. Co-Chairperson Oquist stated it is unfortunate because their property is zoned different. This property is zoned so they can actually put it in there with a special use permit. Mr. Schmeda stated the Planning Commission is the powers that be which could change it. Co-Chairperson Oquist stated they could change it but somebody has to request it. They have to go through a whole set of public hearings; and it may not be changed. That is the way it is. Mr. Schmeda stated they are trying to work with the City on this. It is outside of the Verizon stuff here, but he knows there is a ten-year plan where they are going to redevelop this area. He does not know what means? Does that the City is going to knock over their building or condemn it or something like that? Co-Chairperson Oquist stated he does not know what that would be either. Randy Byrne , Fridley VFW, stated he is the Men's Auxiliary President for the VFW of Post 363. A couple questions and facts he wants to bring up are at one time a long time ago the Fridley VFW expanded and bought that land and he believes it was zoned industrial at that time. Mr. Byrne stated at one time that was light industrial years ago he is assuming. That land was purchased by the Post when they started expanding. It used to be owned by the lumber yard. After years of expansion and development the City would have to change its zoning, and he understands that. Mr. Byrne stated as to the question brought up by the Commander, to do a variance. They are literally talking less than 100 yards away from the proposed location. If you look at the fence line, 2 feet across the fence is Industrial. He does not understand why the City of Fridley would not entertain changing a small section to industrial. It does not make sense to him. He would think the City would entertain helping their City's VFW which has been around since 1962 and doing much for the City of Fridley over the years and for its community. Mr. Byrne stated Verizon Wireless came to them as the first one as they want to come to the VFW's first as they want to help them; and they are a non-profit organization which continues to help the veterans, the City, and the community. As the Commander said, yes, this would help. They are not suffering. It would help continue new things they want to do and alleviate a little pressure off their shoulders. Mr. Byrne stated to him it would make sense if the City would budget a bit and entertain the fact to Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2015 Page 6 of 9 change a small section of a 40 foot by 40 foot area to Light Industrial since it is already neighboring Light Industrial to the south and also the west. He honestly thinks the City should help with this. Mr. Byrne stated there are so many people from the cities of Fridley and Spring Lake Park who come and support their Post on a consistent basis. The owner of Amoco is one of their biggest customers who comes in and supports the VFW all the time. He is a Men's Auxiliary member. He probably does not even know that Verizon has asked the VFW. Literally this would be a big thing for the Post. Also, it is further away from the school. Commissioner Sielaff stated the VFW is commercial-zoned and is also a commercial establishment and the VFW is asking to have a small portion of their lot zoned to industrial. Co-Chairperson Oquist stated that is spot zoning. They do not want to do that. Chairperson Sielaff stated he does not see the basis for a variance. Is that right? Ms. Stromberg stated the best case scenario would be to ask for a rezoning or a text amendment to the City's telecommunication ordinance which would allow telecommunication towards in the City's commercial zoning district. The whole commercial area would have to rezoned to Industrial because the City could not just rezone a piece of it. That would be spot zoning which is illegal in Minnesota. Ms. Stromberg stated she has not had any discussions with the VFW. Had they come to staff maybe a year ago before this application got submitted maybe they would have had some discussions with them, but she has not had any discussions with them to be able to help answer their questions before now. Was part of their property previously zoned Industrial? She is not sure. She would have to spend some time doing some research on that. However, for now all of these properties they see on the map in pink are zoned C-2, General Business; and telecommunication towers are not allowed in that zoning district. Mr. Schmeda stated the VFW did not know they should talk to City staff. They were told by Verizon that if they had any trouble, they were going to look somewhere else. That was the last they heard until they got the letter for the public hearing notice. They did not know. He would have been on the City's doorstep had he known they could have tried working on something. Mr. Byrne stated Commissioner Sielaff mentioned that the City would not even entertain a rezoning. Why is that? Co-Chairperson Oquist stated they are talking about a spot rezoning. They do not want to do it. It is even against State ordinance now. They would have to rezone that whole property, and then the VFW might have to get a variance to be on that property. Mr. Byrne stated so if the City did a rezoning, it would have to be the whole 1040 property. Co-Chairperson Oquist stated yes, that whole area and the parcels next to it. It is unfortunate it works out this way. He hears what he is saying. Mr. Byrne stated there has to be an answer to work this out and benefit the VFW. Co-Chairperson Oquist replied, it would be nice. Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2015 Page 7 of 9 MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Ostwald. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CO-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:32 P.M. Commissioner Saba stated it is pretty clear. Co-Chairperson Oquist stated it is pretty straightforward as far as the zoning as what they can do. Commissioner Saba stated he sympathizes with the VFW, and it would be extra income for them. However, there is not much they can do at this point. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff approving Special Use Permit, SP # 15-03, by Martin Consulting (on behalf of Verizon Wireless), to allow the construction of an 89-foot telecommunication tower in the rear yard of the property, generally located at 960 Osborne Road with the following stipulations: 1. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of installation of any facility equipment on this site. 2. No signs other than warning or equipment information signs are permitted as part of this application. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CO-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Text Amendment, TA #15-01, by the City of Fridley, to modify the Chapter 213, which is the fence section of the City Code to put all regulations related to fencing in this one section. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Ostwald. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CO-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:35 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated the current Code has fence regulations both within Chapter 213, Fence, and Chapter 205, Zoning. At times it has been confusing for City staff, residents, and business owners to determine where they are going to most up-to-date language regarding the fencing regulations. Ms. Stromberg stated for simplicity's sake, City staff is proposing the text amendment that will repeal and replace Chapter 213 so that any code language related to fencing is in one section. As to what has been done, staff has consolidated all the existing language and put it in the one section. They have also revised some of the language to make it clearer and added some more regulations, specifically to permitting requirements and fence location. In Fridley it does not require a permit for a fence unless it is Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2015 Page 8 of 9 over 7-feet tall, and that is a requirement of the Building Code. That has never been in the City Code before so staff added that in as it does get a lot of questions on that. People calling to see if they need a permit. Ms. Stromberg stated staff also created some fence diagrams to help make the Code language more understandable. Sometimes it can be confusing to read the language and the diagram she presented showed you cannot have a fence within the vision safety zone and how you measure that out. It is easier to show somebody if you have a diagram. Ms. Stromberg stated staff has not received any phone calls or written comments on this item to date. The purpose of this hearing is to allow the public to give any input they might have on the proposed changes, and the City Council will also hold a public hearing related to this request on April 13. Ms. Stromberg stated staff does recommend that the existing fence code language be repealed and replaced with the language that is in the Planning Commission's packet. Co-Chairperson Oquist stated they are deleting Chapter 205, is that correct? Ms. Stromberg replied, that part will come at a later date because they are working on a bunch of changes to Chapter 205. For now they are just going to get rid of the old Chapter 213 and adopt a new one. Co-Chairperson Oquist asked whether 8 feet is the maximum height? Ms. Stromberg stated 7 feet is the maximum in residential and 8 feet is the maximum in a commercial or industrial district. They have had variances as the Commission may recall to have a 10-foot fence for the City's salvage yards. However, they do not see a lot of requests for more than 8 feet. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CO-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:39 P.M. MOTION by Commissioner Saba approving Text Amendment TA #15-01, by the City of Fridley to modify Chapter 213, which is the fence section of the City Code to put all regulations related to fencing in this one section. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CO-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Receive the Minutes of the February 2, 2015, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Ostwald. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CO-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2015 Page 9 of 9 4. Receive the Minutes of the January 8, 2015, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CO-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Stromberg stated she wanted to welcome Dave Ostwald, our newest Planning Commissioner. He comes from the Charter Commission and the Appeals Commission. Ms. Stromberg stated she just wanted to give them another reminder about the Columbia Arena planning meetings being held at the Community Center on Wednesdays from 6 to 8 p.m. The next one is next week, March 25. Commissioner Sielaff asked, how did the last one go? Ms. Stromberg replied, the last one went great. They had a lot of people in attendance and there was a mixture of residents in the community. Ms. Stromberg stated the next Planning Commission meeting is April 15, 2015. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CO-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:42 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary