HomeMy WebLinkAbout101199REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1999
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #99-065 U.S. West Wireless Communications is requesting a conditional
use permit for co-locating a communication tower with the replacement of an existing
utility pole located within the Candy Cove right-of-way.
B. Case File #99-066 U.S. West Wireless Communications is requesting a conditional
use permit for the construction of a free standing monopole communication tower
located in the right-of-way.
C. Case File #99-079 Amendment to Zoning Ordinance relating to setback requirements
for residential driveways.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #99-063 Amy and Eric Frank - Consider Resolution 99-23PC approving
side yard setbacks and bluff setbacks on 3856 Green Heights Trail.
6. New Business:
A. Case File #99-071 Vacation of portion of roadway easement for Pike Lake Trail on
Lots 1-4, Block 4, Knob Hill Second Addition.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
r.L:'og~ILFt~k99PI.~COIxfl~PC.~F~A'~G 10119~.DQC
16200 =ague ~.reeK ~ve.~.a., ~-'rior t~aKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1999
1. Call to Order:
The October 11, 1999, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye and Planner Jenni Tovar.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
Cramer Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the September 27, 1999 Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the public hearing procedure statement.
A. Case File #99-065 U.S. West Wireless Communications is requesting a
conditional use permit for co-locating a communication tower with the replacement
of an existing utility pole located within the Candy Cove right-of-way.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated October 11, 1999, on file in the
office of the City Planner.
The applicant is proposing to replace an existing utility pole (NSP) of approximately 27
feet in height with a new wood pole of 52½ feet in height. The current pole is located in
an easement on private property. The proposed pole will be located within the right-of-
way. This property is zoned R-1. Section 1110.600 of the City Code requires a
Conditional Use Permit for towers located with a light pole or power line support device.
Section 1110.500 requires a conditional use permit for towers exceeding 45 feet and
attached to existing structures.
Staff recommended continuation of this matter to allow the applicant time to submit
required documentation relating to co-location as required by Section 1110.1200.
Dave Fischer, representing U.S. West Wireless, 426 North Fairview Avenue, St. Paul,
clarified the existing pole is 35 feet and with the extension, the pole will be 48 1/2 feet.
R:\COUNCIL\PLANCOMMWIINUTES~/IN 101199.DOC I
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1999
The combined height with the antenna would be 52 1/2 feet plus the 2 foot lighting rod.
They would be adding 13 1/2 feet overall. Their objective is to provide coverage to
Highway 13 and the surrounding area. Fischer explained the Joint Use Agreement with
NSP. He also said they could not co-locate on any of the existing structures. U.S. West
felt this location made better business sense.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· Questioned the cross-arms sections for NSP. Fischer explained the unipac system
allowing antennas to be more compact and aesthetically pleasing. Tovar pointed out
the NSP lines on the map.
· Questioned the utility box. Fischer said it would be painted beige and blend with the
environment.
· Concern for maintenance. Fischer assured him they would take of it.
Comments from the public:
Les Sonnabend, Superintendent for the Prior Lake Schools, stated the site is right above
the schools tennis court. The School District maintains the site and is concerned with
mowing around the utility box. Sonnabend said he started working with Mr. Fischer 6 to
8 months ago. U.S. West set up a testing location off one of the school's poles last
spring. Sonnabend has not heard from Fischer or U.S. West until he received the City's
notice. The School District has already entered into a contract with another company to
use an electric pole above the football field. The District did not want to add more poles
to the environment. They never negotiated with Fischer on a cost, but did ascertain after
4 or 5 attempts the site was appropriate. U.S. West could choose any of the 6 existing
poles which would make better sites and provide coverage without adding another pole.
Sonnabend said he did not know the City's ordinances or concerns, however the School
District is not in favor of the site location.
Sonnabend went on to explain the District has a fenced in area that another company is
using. He said there is plenty of opportunities but it would cost U.S. West some money,
the District wouldn't be free.
Kuykendall questioned the fee. Sonnabend said there is no specific price. They would
check around and see what other locations charge.
Fischer responded to Sonnabend's comments that U.S. West would not be adding another
pole. U.S. West is trying to provide coverage to the area in a timely manner. To go
through and negotiate a contract with some other than who they have a contract with
would be a delay and wouldn't make business sense.
Commissioner Stamson closed the public hearing.
r:\council\plancomm\minutes\mn I 01199,doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1999
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Questioned Fischer on the location of the pole in the right-of-way line. Fischer said
he believed it was approximately 8 feet.
· Questioned if the box was within that area. Tovar pointed out the site on the survey
being 5.1 feet. There is no easement but it is in the City right-of-way.
· Questioned the alternative sites and asked if there are any engineering challenges
using the High School site. Fischer responded there were no other sites and no
engineering problems.
Kuykendall:
· Felt it was not unreasonable.
The pole is existing, it is aesthetically pleasing. The
pole has to meet NSP's needs.
The City is not in the business of trying to create business from one public entity to
another.
Supported the request.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Kuykendall. There is already an existing pole.
It meets the current use. It is a little bit taller.
· Supported the application.
Criego:
Questioned Fischer on his intentions with the High School 6 or 8 months ago.
Fischer said they were trying to find out what kind of signal they needed.
· Questioned the length of time of the agreement with NSP. Fischer did not know an
exact date, possibly since 1968.
· Fischer said they originally were looking at the High School but did not know the
projected height. U.S. West was able to utilize NSP's pole and only add 13 feet.
Cramer:
· Questioned Fischer on his initial intent and the referenced the statute in his letter to
staff. Fischer responded their intent is to allow telecommunication usage in the right-
of-way. The statute was adopted in 1998.
Open Discussion:
Criego:
· Do not create a pole much higher than the standard.
* The School has lights, why not utilize the School's facility rather than creating
another pole system higher than NSP's? The School could come to some agreement
with the applicant regarding cost.
r:\council\plancommXminuteshrm 101199.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1999
Stamson:
· Agreed. The ideal situation would be for U.S. West to put it on the light post at the
High School. It would be revenue for the School and it would not be added height to
any pole. However, the proposal is not unreasonable. They are adding 13 feet to an
existing pole, which is probably the shortest pole in the area. It is not in a residential
area. This pole is not going to stand out in the area as being unusual.
Vonhof:
· Concurred with Criego. The City would prefer to see less towers by multiple uses.
· It would be more consistent to seek out alternatives.
Kuykendall:
· Questioned the Telecommunication Act.
Fischer felt State Statute 337 permits their
usage in the right-of-way. Fischer also said they originally went to the City and did
not feel a Conditional Use was necessary. They are going through the process to
appease everyone. None of the other utilities go through a CUP process and are
allowed the height.
Tovar said utilities are permitted in the right-of-way. The ordinance is very specific
on communication towers requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Instead of going
through the amendment process, U.S. West opted to go through the CUP process and
expedite.
The proposed site is on a NSP pole.
Cramer:
Questioned who had authority for the decision, State or local government. A brief
discussion on utility poles and standards followed. Rye read the ordinance.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH STAFF'S THREE
CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Kuykendall, Cramer, Criego, Stamson. Nay by Vonhof.
MOTION CARRIED.
Tovar stated this matter will go before the City Council on November 1, 1999.
B. Case File #99-066 U.S. West Wireless Communications is requesting a
conditional use permit for the construction of a free standing monopole
communication tower located in the right-of-way.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated October 11, 1999, on file in the
office of the City Planner.
The applicant is proposing to construct a freestanding 81-foot tall monopole within the
County right-of-way. This property is zoned A (Agricultural) and SD (Shoreland
District). Section 1110.600 of the City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for
r:\council\plancomm\minutes\nm 101199.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1999
towers not meeting required setbacks with respect to public roads. Section 1110.500
allows for the pole height not to exceed 112.5 feet.
Staff recommended continuation of this matter to allow the applicant time to submit
required documentation relating to co-location as required by Section 1110.1200.
Comments from the public:
Don Johnston, 3960 140th Street, said he owns the property where U.S. West is
proposing the tower. Johnston said he is not opposed to towers or any progress, his
concern is for property value. U.S. West has some what of a cavalier attitude. He came
home from vacation and found their testing equipment on their property with no approval
nor contact with them whatsoever. He feels U.S. West should know where the property
lines are between public and private property. There was no apology given for the trash
left on Johnston's property. Johnson questioned how the location was determined, was
his property the only one considered, and easements. Johnston stated the pole will be in
their front yard and feels U.S. West is taking advantage of the situation.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Cramer questioned Johnston on the existing U.S. West poles across County Road 42.
Johnston said U.S. West lines are underground.
Criego asked to see Johnston's home on the map. Johnston stated to avoid more poles he
paid the utility companies to bury the electric lines following the County Road 42
construction. He also pointed out the intersection of County Roads 42 and 21 are going
to be gateway areas. This pole is going to be less than attractive and very noticeable.
Johnston suggested moving it approximately 200 feet north or 400 west or some other
location less obtrusive. Johnston said it would even be better in among the trees.
Cramer questioned Fischer on the existing U.S. West pole on County Road 21 and why
that site was not considered. Fischer said there would be more space on County Road 42
for the equipment. The pole is on private property. Tovar explained the County has
tower and setback requirements. There is a larger right-of-way along County Road 42.
Cramer said he failed to see the point. He is not opposed to the pole, but opposed to the
fact there is an existing central location on U.S. West property. Adding another utility
box would be okay.
Kuykendall questioned the site criteria. Fischer said there were several, topography,
amount of signal and results from dry tests. Kuykendall also expressed concern for
impact on the public and traffic safety. Fischer responded they took all of those issues
into consideration.
Fischer apologized to the Johnstons for the U.S. West's oversight in using Johnston's
private property.
r:\council\plancomm\minutes\mn 101199.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1999
The public heating was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· Asked Fischer at a later time, to identify the actual costs in going through this
process.
· Emphasize with the property owner but sees no other alternative. This is the only site
in the public fight-of-way. The Telecommunications Act is in place. Shifting the
location a few feet will not make any difference.
· Support the recommendation.
Criego:
· Believed there are alternative sites. Locating an 81 foot tower in an R1 District is
sinful on U.S. West's part. They should be more sensitive to the community. U.S.
West can find other sites. They may have to negotiate for land or pay for land.
· Do not put a tower in front of someone's home.
Cramer:
· There is an alternative site in the area which already has a large utility box. It has
power poles in the area similar to the area by the High School. U.S. West might have
to get additional easements from the County, but they are getting the benefit because
that location is a higher elevation. U.S. West already owns the property and does not
have to offend residents of the community.
· The alternative property is zoned commercial.
· U.S. West needs to look at an alternative location.
Vonhof:
· Questioned staff on County setbacks from the roadway. Tovar said she did not know
the County's ordinance. Rye responded there are design considerations. They are
required to establish a safety zone along side the travel roadway. There are criteria
for that based on the design standards.
· Agreed with Criego and Cramer that there appear to be alternative locations.
Stamson:
· In reviewing the ordinance it appears the intent was to co-locate the poles. The site
meets all the applicable zoning regulation. It is the County's preferred location.
There is no alternative existing tower.
· It is not ideal to have a pole in front of a home. It is a disadvantage living on a
County Road.
· The intent of a fight-of-way is for utilities. That is what the Communication Act is
about, it is a utility like anything else.
r:\council\plancommh-ninutesXmn 101199.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1999
Open Discussion:
Cramer:
· Main opposition is there are existing U.S. West poles with major utility box.
· If the utility companies do not share poles, there would be a separate set of poles for
every utility. Combine the utilities and poles and use the existing structures.
Stamson:
· There is not enough space in the existing easement to site the facility. The
surrounding property is in abatement which makes it difficult to purchase. The
ordinance requires they attempt to negotiate, not that they have to.
Cramer:
· Before approving, would like to see something that says this facility will not fit in the
alternative area.
Kuykendall:
· Should not be second guessing professional engineers. They are the experts. If they
say they studied the area and did a 33 page report and feel there is no alternative, the
Commissioners have no choice. Work with what is presented.
Cramer:
· This group is to take all the information and come up with a level of common sense.
· There are other locations for the pole. There is a resident with the possibility of
having an 81 foot tower in his front yard. If it was just the box, would not object.
But this is a tower. There are other areas in the fight-of-way up and down County
Road 42.
· Object to this location.
Kuykendall:
· Requested someone from U.S. West to clarify and convince the Commissioners this is
the only location.
· Steve Mangold, the Regional Real Estate Manager for U.S. West Wireless, 426 North
Fairview, St. Paul, responded to the Commissioners' concerns. His main points
included:
· This is a County Road, with approval by the County for this site.
· It is in the right-of-way.
· The adjacent property is zoned that U.S. West could have a tower up to 113
feet. They are proposing a much lower tower.
· There is an existing high tension distribution line on the north side of the
fight-of-way. It is the proper area for their structure.
· U.S. West is using the State Statutes as guidelines.
· It is good business sense for the community.
· U.S. West did not whimsically pick this location. This matter was studied.
· It is at a busy intersection. Not a residential area.
r:\council\plancommXminutesLmn 101199.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1999
Scott Shuckelman, engineer with U.S. West, explained why this area was selected as the
best site.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO ADOPT THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS LISTED BY
STAFF IN THE PLANNING REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof. Nays by Criego and
Cramer. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on November 1, 1999.
Kuykendall suggested U.S. West document the expense of the preparation for this action.
It is a hidden cost to the public and exceeds cost the public is not aware of.
C. Case File #99-079 Amendment to Zoning Ordinance relating to setback
requirements for residential driveways.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated October 11, 1999, on file in the
office of the City Planner.
The Planning Commission considered this ordinance amendment at a public hearing on
August 9, 1999, and recommended approval of the ordinance. The City Council also
reviewed the ordinance on September 9, 1999. The Council was concerned the criteria
established by this ordinance was not specific enough and would result in inconsistent
decisions, and referred the issue back to the staff to determine if more specific criteria
could be developed.
The proposed amendment is the same language previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission. Following the Council's directive, the staff discussed the proposed criteria
extensively. The staff was unable to formulate any additional criteria.
Rye explained why this issue was brought back with the Duluth Avenue street project.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stflmson:
· Comfortable with the wording.
· Support.
It is consistent with other areas of the ordinance.
Criego, Cramer, Vonhof and Kuykendall.
· Agreed.
r:\council\plancomm~ninutes\mn 101199.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1999
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #99-063 Amy and Eric Frank - Consider Resolution 99-23PC
approving side yard setbacks and bluff setbacks on 3856 Green Heights Trail.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Resolution.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-
23PC APPROVING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES AND TOP OF
BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCES ALONG WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED IN
THE REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Case File #99-071 Vacation of portion of roadway easement for Pike Lake
Trail on Lots 1-4, Block 4, Knob Hill Second Addition.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated October 11, 1999, on file in the
office of the City Planner.
The City obtained an easement for Pike Lake Trail across the property prior to the
platting of Knob Hill 2nd Addition. In 1997, when Knob Hill 2nd Addition was platted
and Pike Lake Trail was improved, the road was realigned to the east of the original
easement. The 16.5' easement, however, remains along the westerly lot line of Lots 1-4,
Block 4, Knob Hill 2nd Addition.
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan was satisfied by the dedication of the right-of-way
in Knob Hill 2nd Addition. Furthermore, the City does not require the entire 16.5' for
drainage and utility purposes. A 10' wide easement is adequate for this need. The
Planning staff therefore recommended approval of the vacation of the easterly 6.5' of this
easement.
There were no comments from the public or Commissioners.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED VACATION FOR THE EASEMENT
PRESENTED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
r :\council\plancomm~ninutes\mn I 01199.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1999
Commissioner Kuykendall pointed out the Lake Advisory Minutes fi.om September 15,
1999, included a Comprehensive Lake Management Plan on water quality. The Lake
Advisory is proposing a 25 foot natural buffer strip around delineated wetlands and water
bodies for new construction. Kuykendall suggested the Planning Commission have input
on this issue and invite the Lake Advisory to a meeting.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Economic Development Authority workshop Tuesday, October 12, 1999.
The new library grand opening, Thursday, October 14, 1999.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
r:\council\plancomm\minutesXmn 101199 .doc 10