Loading...
090412 planning commissionCITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 4, 2012 City Hall, 7 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chair Houle called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten, Roger Landy, Christopher McKenzie, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen Absent: Ranjan Nirgude, Sunday Onadipe Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 12 -08 Chair Houle introduced Item 4.1, request for text amendment to Section Item 4.1 4- 3(1)(3)h "personal wireless service antenna towers" pertaining to tower separation distance, conditional use permit for the construction of a personal wireless antenna tower, and site plan review, 3980 Quebec Avenue North, Verizon Wireless, petitioner. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen reported that the applicant was requesting a text amendment to section 4- 3(1)(3)h pertaining to tower separation distance, a conditional use permit for the construction of a personal wireless service antenna tower, and site plan review at 3980 Quebec Avenue North. The property is zoned industrial and is surrounded by industrial land uses to the north, west, and south along with residential properties across the railroad tracks to the east. The entire site contains 3.16 acres. The total leased area would be 2,500 square feet and include a 360- square foot equipment building. The site is located in planning district 9S, which is guided for industrial uses. Mr. Jacobsen explained that Verizon Wireless was requesting a conditional use permit to install a 120 -foot wireless antenna tower (monopole) along with a 12 by 30 foot equipment shelter and generator inside a 50 by 50 -foot leased area. A text amendment would be necessary to accommodate the tower spacing. Currently, city code requires 1,000 foot spacing for towers and the proposed spacing would be 350 feet. The proposed amendment would create an exception if specific conditions are met. The tower may be allowed by CUP if it meets certain conditions: The land and tower must be under same ownership; written authorization was provided. The antenna tower is in compliance with Minnesota building code. Documentation was provided stating the structural design would be compliant with manufacturer's specifications. The tower also requires approval from a construction engineer. Licensing documentation was provided from the Federal Communications Commission. Documentation was provided regarding the 60 -foot collapse zone. The tower is more than 60 feet from the on -site building. An existing large diameter water main requires the tower base to be 30 feet away. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the proposed tower does not meet the separation requirements, which necessitates the request for a text amendment. The text amendment must be approved so the tower can be built. The proposed tower would be 120 feet in height and would provide space for three antennas. The tower would not be lit and no advertising would be allowed. One identification sign would be posted giving emergency contact information. The tower would be painted silver or have a galvanized finish. The security fence was proposed to be seven feet in height which would need to be increased to a minimum of eight feet, per city code, with barbed wire at the top. New trees and shrubs were proposed as screening for the site, but due to the fact that the proposed tower site is quite a distance from residential properties, the Design and Review Committee was not requesting a great deal of additional screening. Mr. Jacobsen commented that the petitioner had indicated they were unable to utilize the tower to the south due to height limitations. The applicant indicated he had pursued other possible options to meet the 1,000 -foot separation requirement to no avail. Mr. Jacobsen showed maps illustrating current and proposed coverage areas. The need for greater coverage is due to increased cell phone usage and the use of cell phones to access the internet, watch movies, etcetera. Property owners within 350 feet were notified by mail and a notice was published in the city's newspaper. Staff did not receive any comments. Mr. Jacobsen summarized that the applicant was proposing to construct a personal wireless service antenna tower requiring a conditional use permit. The applicant also was requesting a text amendment pertaining to the separation requirement between towers. The amendment would be necessary so the applicant could fill a service hole in its network area. The language in the proposed text amendment would allow an exception to the 1,000 -foot spacing if certain conditions are met. The amendment would not remove the separation requirement from the ordinance. An applicant would have to try to find a collocation or meet the 1,000 -foot separation, but if not, the applicant could move forward to meet the conditions in the amended ordinance. Those conditions include: 1) if new antennas are not able to collocate on existing towers, documentation must be provided; 2) new tower is a minimum of 120 feet in height and able to accommodate at least three service providers (initial and 2 collocations); 3) tower has a minimum service area of 1/2 mile; 4) tower is located Planning Commission Meeting 2 September 4, 2012 within the industrial district; and 5) tower meets all other conditions of approval. Mr. Jacobsen stated that if the text amendment was approved, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the conditions in the planning report. Commissioner Schmidt inquired as to what districts antenna towers are allowed and whether four antennas could collocate on one tower. Mr. Jacobsen replied that towers are allowed in industrial districts only and the maximum height would be 165 feet. A 165 -foot tower could potentially have five antennas. Commissioner Brinkman wondered whether the reception was better the higher on the tower the antenna was located. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the volume an antenna could handle would be composed of the type of usage. Commissioner Brinkman initiated discussion on the appropriate separation distance for towers might be and whether or not the ordinance should be changed to lower the separation spacing rather than providing an exception to the 1,000 -foot requirement. Mr. Jacobsen responded that the Design and Review Committee had discussed this issue at great length. When the 1,000 -foot distance was established, it was done for aesthetic reasons. At that time, cell phone usage was not as extensive as today. Chair Houle added that the committee could not determine an appropriate distance. Commissioner Svendsen suggested the city review each request on a case -by -case basis. This is the first request for an exception to the separation requirement. Mr. Alan Brixius, city planner, stated that he drafted the text amendment based on the discussion at the Design and Review Committee meeting. The 1,000 -foot rule was originally drafted when the technology was first coming out. The city's biggest concern was the appearance of tall towers in prime locations along Highway 169 and other major thoroughfares. Also, the tower height had a larger coverage area because there was less demand at that time and the 1,000 -foot spacing was adequate. Mr. Brixius stated that an applicant must first see if they could meet the collocation requirement of 1,000 feet. If not, then the other requirements must be met. The service area of 1/2 mile is standard for the industry. Currently, towers can only be located in the industrial districts. Approximately a year ago, the city reviewed the antenna ordinance as far as location, setbacks, and expanding to other zoning districts; however, the ordinance did not move forward. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, stated that a city must have a governmental reason for the spacing and separation, such as aesthetics. Towers are limited to the industrial district. The exception may be problematic for staff in determining the appropriate documentation. He agreed that the spacing requirement in the ordinance may be somewhat Planning Commission Meeting 3 September 4, 2012 out of date for today's technology. Limiting the towers to the industrial district would be the aesthetic governmental interest. Mr. Jacobsen added that towers are also allowed in municipal parks, such as the tower located at Victory Park. Antennas are currently located on the city's south water tower. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that antenna towers and antennas are two different items. Antennas are allowed on existing structures in other zoning districts. St. Therese Home has several antennas erected on top of the building. Mr. Jacobsen reported that the city had renewed the lease for the antenna tower at Victory Park for another 20 years. Commissioner Brinkman inquired what adjacent communities are doing with regard to towers. Mr. Jacobsen responded that every community has different regulations. One community allows up to three towers on one property. In answer to a question, Mr. Sondrall explained that the exception to the code, if amended, would apply to all properties. Mr. Brixius noted that a variance would require that the applicant establish practical difficulties and reasonable use of the property. Commissioner Hunten commented that the exception would provide flexibility for the future. Mr. Sondrall stated that staff would have to determine whether the applicant had satisfactorily proved they could not collocate on another tower and make a finding that would hold up in court if the tower was denied. He suggested the city consider adopting this text amendment with the thought that it may need to be revised depending on technology changes in the future. Mr. Jacobsen suggested that another condition be added stating that towers could be no closer than 350 feet. Commissioner Brinkman wondered whether the city could regulate who an individual tower owner could lease space to for collocation of antennas. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the ordinance specifies that a tower must have space for collocation. It would be much less expensive for a company to lease space on an existing tower than to construct a new tower. Mr. Rob Viera, Buell Consulting on behalf of Verizon, came forward to answer questions. Mr. Viera stated that when he is given a map by the Verizon engineers to search for a tower site, it is about a quarter or half mile search radius. The engineers desire a collocation, if possible. The cost to build a tower is approximately $500,000 for this type of tower. He talked to Crown Castle, owners of the tower at 3940 Quebec Avenue, and was told he could collocate at 55 feet; however, that height did not provide the coverage Verizon required. There also was not enough area for the shelter at the base of the tower. He met with Paddock Laboratories about expanding the lease area, but Paddock could not eliminate the five parking spaces that would be required to expand the lease area. Mr. Viera stated he talked to several other businesses along Quebec and 42nd Planning Commission Meeting 4 September 4, 2012 avenues. One property met the setback requirements, but was not interested in leasing the land. Chair Houle questioned the market rate for leasing space and was told approximately $20,000 per year. Mr. Sondrall interjected that due to the cost to construct a tower versus collocation, there was not a need for aggressive language in the ordinance. Commissioner Svendsen stated that at the Design and Review meeting it was mentioned that the generator would be powered by natural gas and he wondered whether there would be accommodations for spill containment. Mr. Viera stated he would check and report back to staff. Svendsen clarified that the applicant was in agreement with constructing an eight -foot fence with barbed wire at the top, as well as the 12 -foot anti - climb locking device. Chair Houle inquired of the decibel level for the generator. Mr. Viera stated that the generator ran at 50 db when not housed in the building. This generator would be located in a shelter and the decibel level would be much less. The generator would be tested for an hour about once a month. Chair Houle pointed out the 30 -foot setback to the water main. He inquired if there was any concern with the transformer and electric lines in close proximity. He also inquired of the depth of the eight -inch water line. Mr. Jacobsen replied that the water line was probably seven to eight feet deep. The 30 -foot setback was required in the event of a large washout in the area. Commissioner Brinkman asked for clarification on how Verizon determined where to place the antenna and if the best reception was received at the top of the tower. Mr. Viera stated that in theory higher is better, but not always. It depended more on the coverage needed. This particular site would be for a larger coverage area and Verizon antenna would be located at the top of the tower. Brinkman wondered if there would be reception interference among users if towers were placed closer together. Mr. Viera replied that antennas need to be at least five feet away from each other. Commissioner Schmidt interjected that different frequencies are utilized as well. Commissioner Schmidt clarified that Verizon would be putting LTE (long term evolution) on the tower. He heard that LTE does not carry voice, so would LTE and CDMA (code division multiple access) go on the tower. Mr. Viera stated Verizon would be fully covered on the tower. Commissioner McKenzie inquired of the lighting required and was told that no lighting was required below 200 feet. There was no one in the audience wishing to speak at the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy to close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting 5 September 4, 2012 Mr. Brixius stated that due to discussion at this meeting, he would suggest revising the proposed text amendment by adding to condition #1 "...new antennas are not able to collocate on existing towers 'due to tower and broadcasting functions, such as capacity, height or coverage. Financial interests alone shall not be the sole purpose for not collocating. "' Also add #6 "minimum antenna tower separation of 350 feet" and #7 "maximum of one tower per lot." Commissioner Svendsen stated that one discussion point at the Navigating the New Normal workshop was the fact that many people do not have a landline and use cell phones only. They use their cell phone for internet access and need adequate coverage at their residence. He stated he was agreeable to one tower per lot, but did not know if minimum spacing was required. Commissioner Landy was agreeable to specifying 350 feet as the minimum. Commissioner Anderson inquired if the applicant was in agreement with the 350 -foot requirement and Mr. Viera stated he was. He added that most providers had adequate coverage in the city. Motion #1 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 12 -08, request for text amendment to Section 4- 30)(3)h "personal wireless service antenna towers" pertaining to tower separation distance, Verizon Wireless, petitioner, subject to the following criteria: All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation of 1,000 feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved. An exception to this requirement will be made when the following conditions have been met: 1. New antennas are not able to collocate on existing towers due to tower and broadcasting functions, such as capacity, height or coverage. Financial interests alone shall not be the sole purpose for collocation. Documentation must be provided that illustrates the attempt to consider existing towers as alternative locations for new antennas. 2. The antenna tower is a minimum of 120 feet in height and is able to accommodate at least three service providers (the initial service provider and collocations for two additional service providers). 3. The antenna tower has a minimum service area of 1/2 mile. 4. The antenna tower is located within the Industrial District. 5. The antenna tower meets all other conditions of approval. 6. Minimum antenna tower separation of 350 feet. 7. Maximum of one antenna tower per lot. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, McKenzie, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Nirgude, Onadipe Planning Commission Meeting 6 September 4, 2012 Motion approved. Motion #2 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 12 -08, request for a conditional use permit for the construction of a personal wireless service antenna tower and site plan review, 3980 Quebec Avenue North, Verizon Wireless, petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. The text amendment is made to Zoning Ordinance Section 4- 3(1)(3)h creating an exception to the 1,000 -foot separation requirement given certain conditions. 2. The applicants demonstrate that a minimum 60 -foot setback from the outside perimeter of the monopole to all adjacent property lines has been attained in the design of the monopole site. 3. The applicants demonstrate that a minimum 30 -foot setback from water main has been attained in the design of the monopole site. 4. The applicants provide a sign on the fence surrounding the monopole site which identifies the owner of the tower, emergency and maintenance contact information. 5. The applicants provide information explaining the color and make of the proposed tower. 6. The applicants provide evidence that the height of the fence surrounding the monopole site will be increased to meet the eight - foot fencing requirement for antenna towers; and that a 12 -foot locked anti -climb device will be installed on the tower. 7. The proposed project undergoes a building permit review. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, McKenzie, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Nirgude, Onadipe Motion approved. Chair Houle stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on September 24, 2012, and requested that the applicant be in attendance at that meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen stated the Design and Review Committee met Committee with the petitioner in August. Item 5.1 Mr. Jacobsen reported that two pre - application meetings were conducted and staff was expecting at least one application to be submitted by the deadline at the end of the week. One application is for a lot split with variances requested for two undersized lots, and the second would be for a conditional use permit for an adult daycare in the Tharp building on Bass Lake Road. Staff will contact committee members if a meeting is necessary. Planning Commission Meeting 7 September 4, 2012 Codes and Standards Mr. Jacobsen stated that a committee meeting will not be scheduled for Committee possibly a couple more months. Item 5.2 NEW BUSINESS Planning Case 12 -03 Due to a conflict of interest with this planning case Chair Houle turned Item 6.1 the meeting over to Commissioner Schmidt. Commissioner Schmidt introduced Item 6.1, continuing discussion of City Center zoning revisions. Mr. Brixius stated in August a number of changes were presented to the text of the draft City Center ordinance. A lot of text has been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and the Design Guidelines. The architectural standards were moved to the Comp Plan as guidelines. The city has an opportunity to be more flexible in the application of the architectural standards as guidelines. Wording was incorporated that adopts the Visioning Study as a document in the Comp Plan. The goals and objectives of the Visioning Study become the city's established goals. In the metropolitan area, the Comprehensive Plan is the superior document toward zoning, allowing the city to impose the City Center design intentions as policies, recommendations, and guidelines, rather than hard and fast zoning standards. The city's zoning must follow suit with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Brixius stated he looked at the physical constraints of the City Center site. There are 34 individual parcels and how do all those individual parcels fit into a larger block arrangement. For example, the Sunshine Factory would be a business the city would want to keep, however, redesigning their lot and changing setbacks would be impractical. The city must determine if the streetscape configured for the block from Walgreens to the east with established businesses would be the same as what may be proposed for a block that could be totally redeveloped. Mr. Brixius stated the land uses should be those that fit within the context of a tight urban environment, both residential, entertainment and commercial. Some of the uses he suggested removing include medical research or biotechnology, which are allowed in the industrial district. Administrative uses were combined to fit in the context of the City Center. The conditional uses were outlined with measurable performance standards, such as live /work units with commercial on the first floor. Veterinary care in a multi- tenant building must be regulated to eliminate odors for other residents. With regard to bulk and building placement standards, Brixius explained some of the constraints of the site, such as access points. The super block, from 42nd to 45th avenues and Xylon to Winnetka avenues, would probably be divided into four 600 foot blocks. He suggested that the build -to line would protect the corners and allow flexibility internally for parking lot design, access, circulation, and service vehicles. Brixius Planning Commission Meeting 8 September 4, 2012 pointed out that the ordinance would allow for greater flexibility for a private developer to devise a plan that would work for the site and community. The densities were not changed. Mr. Brixius stated that the city was seeking a vital City Center. Something that would provide compact living space and also an area that would draw people from outside the community to a destination in City Center. The text was revised with regard to minimum and maximum parking standards. The maximum is now more lenient than current parking standards, but for minimum standards a developer must demonstrate criteria such as proximity to shared parking or a ramp, and other performance standards that would allow them to reduce their required parking on site. The current standard for bicycle parking was thought to be too aggressive. A graduated parking arrangement was established with minimum and maximum standards based on building size. With regard to pedestrian access, the build -to line for corner units would provide an exception where there may be a plaza, an entry, archway or some feature that would introduce pedestrians to the site and allow a variety of travel modes. Loading and trash enclosures were not changed from the current standards. Indoor open space would be allowed. Landscaping requirements mimic current standards. Architectural components were moved to the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Brinkman agreed the main access points would probably remain from 42nd and Winnetka avenues. He wondered whether or not there could be a couple access points on Xylon and Mr. Brixius stated that the same rules would not apply to the local streets versus the county roads. On the local streets, the access points should match up with an access point across the street and the county would dictate the access locations on 42nd and Winnetka. Adequate stacking at the intersection on Xylon at 42nd Avenue should also be a consideration. Another consideration would be the pedestrian crossing on Xylon at the swimming pool. A question was raised whether the county would allow an additional access point mid block on either street. Mr. Brixius answered that the county reviews all plats that abut county roads, at which point the county may dictate different terms. There is a fairly large grade separation between the back of the Kmart site and the back of the shopping center. Commissioner Hunten initiated discussion on the layout of the buildings and whether the buildings would face the county road or the internal street. Hunten stated she felt there should be some parking near the street to draw patrons into the site and stressed that adequate parking be provided. Planning Commission Meeting 9 September 4, 2012 With regard to residential /mixed -use, Mr. Brixius stated the idea was to keep the first floor as a retail use, and the second floor or above would be residential. Office uses could be on the second floor, but residential would never be placed on the first floor in City Center. Free - standing residential would have specific areas where it could be located. Mr. Brixius commented that he tried to bring flexibility into the code so a developer would not have to request variances to develop the property. There would be certain requirements for a mixed use building, such as keeping the first floor as commercial. The build -to line was established to protect the corners and give more flexibility internally as to building orientation. Parking may be allowed adjacent to the street, but must be landscaped. Commissioner Svendsen commented that the vision study was not hard set plans. Mr. Brixius added that the Zoning Ordinance would be hard and fast. He reiterated that he removed some of the requirements from the draft ordinance and put them into the Comprehensive Plan and Design Guidelines to allow more flexibility. He kept the land use components in the ordinance. Commissioner Anderson stated that it would be helpful to see projects that had been completed. Mr. Brixius suggested adopting the Vision Study as an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan, approve an amendment to the City Center land use map, and approve changes to the Design Guidelines. The city should also establish the City Center zoning district, which would define the uses allowed and the performance standards. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the next step would be the public hearing. Discussion ensued on whether or not an open house should be conducted prior to the public hearing. The consensus was to wait until a developer was ready to present a proposal. Mr. Sondrall stated that the adoption of the zoning ordinance was not for the public in general, but an invitation to the professional developers. The developers would study the ordinance to determine what could be built on the site within the established parameters. At the end of the City Center discussion, Commissioner Schmidt turned the meeting back to Chair Houle. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, Item 7.1 to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 8, 2012. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Svendsen stated that the commission was to present a Planning Commission Meeting 10 September 4, 2012 positive spin on what was being presented. Once a motion was made, the entire commission would vote on the motion. Commissioners could vote against a motion if they did not agree. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Jacobsen mentioned that the City Council had requested that the Codes and Standards Committee study parking standards city -wide. Mr. Jacobsen stated that Ron Clark Construction would be conducting another open house for its Compasse Point project at 62nd and West Broadway on Tuesday, September 18, from 5 to 7 p.m. at New Hope City Hall. They intend to discuss the project with neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 11 September 4, 2012