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