Loading...
Agenda CITY OF ELK RIVER SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, December 19, 1996 7:00 p.m. Elk River City Hall - Council Chambers ACTION ITEM NUMBER TAKEN 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER. 2. CONSIDER 12/19/96 AGENDA • *3. CONSIDER CONSENT AGENDA *3.1. Holiday Companies Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate a motor vehicle service station, Public Hearing Case No. CU 96-25 Postponed 4. CONSIDER 11/26/96 MINUTES App. 6-0 5. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND 1/21/97 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thompson 6. PLANNING ITEMS 6.1. American Portable Telecom Request for Rezoning Postponed to AT (Antenna Overlay) District, Public Hearing to 1/28/97 Hearing Case No. ZC 96-20 P.C. Mtg. 6.2. American Portable Telecom Request for Postponed Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing Case to 1/28/97 No. CU 96-26 P.C. Mtg. 6.3. John Weicht & Asso./Plaisted Companies Request for Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing Case No. CU 96-27 App. 6-0 • 11 6.4. City of Elk River Request for Ordinance Amend- ment regarding designation of Planning Commission as Board of Adjustment, Public Hearing Case No. OA 96-17 App. 6-0 7. OTHER BUSINESS 7.1. Annual Meeting 1/11/97 8:30 a.m. 7.2. Joint Meeting with City Council Discussion 8. ADJOURNMENT 10:00 p.m. "This agenda is available in alternate formats upon a 72 hour advanced notice. "Auxiliary aids and services are also available upon a 72 hour advancedlnotice. Please'contact the City Clerk at 441-7420 (TDD 441-7420)to Make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include:large print,Braille,audio tape,etc." Examples of auxiliary aids may include a`sign language interpreter,assistive listening device, etc." • • • CITY OF ELK RIVER SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION I, Judy Thompson, Planning Commission Chair, hereby request a special meeting of the Planning Commission on Thursday, December 19, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., to be held at the Elk River City Hall - 13065 Orono Parkway. The purpose of the special meeting is to consider general planning commission business. In accordance with State Statute, I hereby request the city clerk to post this notice at least three days prior to the meeting date. I further request the city clerk to notify each member of the Planning Commission of this special • meeting, in writing, at least one day before the meeting. L ,,-,L t/Gc5-Y2- /'�//6-A4 Judy Thompson, Chair Date I HEREBY CERTIFY, that this notice has been posted and that I have served this notice upon the members of the Elk River Planning Commission by mail at least one day prior to the above-called special Planning Commission meeting. /4" Sandra A. Thackeray, City Cler Date • F9EDOn U SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1996 Members Present: Vice Chair Anderson, Commissioners Minton, Sullivan, Tacheny, Kuester and Mesich Members Absent: Chair Thompson Staff Present: Steven B. Ach, City Planner; Scott Harlicker, Assistant Planner; Also Present: Dave Sellergren, City Attorney 1. Call Meeting To Order j; Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice Chair Anderson. 2. Consider 12/19/96 Planning Commission Agenda The following items were added to the December 19, 1996 Planning Commission • agenda: 7.3. 2001 Committee Community Values Checklist- Commissioner Minton 7.4. City Council Meeting Report- Commissioner Tacheny COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 19, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 3. Consider Consent i'Agenda 1 COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS FOLLOWS: 3.1. HOLIDAY COMPANIES REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - POSTPONED COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 4. Consider 11/26/9.6 Planning Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO AMEND THE NOVEMBER 26, 1996 MINUTES AS FOLLOWS: ITEM 6.2. - PAGE 7, MOTION SHOULD REFLECT COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN OPPOSED THE MOTION AND CHAIR THOMPSON VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. • COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 19, 1996 • 5. Planning Commission Representative to Attend the 1/21/97 City Council Meeting The 1997 meeting schedule will be distributed at the Planning Commission annual meeting on January 11, 1997. COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO POSTPONE A DECISION ON THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO ATTEND THE JANUARY 21, 1997 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO THE ANNUAL MEETING ON JANUARY 11, 1997. COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6.3. John Weicht &Assoc./Plaisted Companies Request for Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing Case No. CU 96-27 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. John Weicht and Associates are requesting a conditional use permit to expand the Plaisted Companies' maintenance shop located at 11555 205th Avenue NW (County Road No. 33), immediately west of Highway 169. An office addition has previously been approved through the site plan review process and is currently under construction. Site plan issues were reviewed including parking and access, landscaping, elevations, grading and drainage. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the four conditions outlined in the staff report. • The Commissioners raised questions regarding access, parking and increased traffic. John Weicht, applicant, explained most of the traffic to the site consists of trucks. He did not feel there was a need for signage at the access points. Also, Mr. Weicht indicated the addition would not generate an increase in traffic. Discussion followed regarding Condition #1 regarding the curbing between the customer area and the truck access. After explanation from the applicant, staff felt the condition could be eliminated. Commissioner Mesich questioned what type of material would be used for the exterior of the proposed addition. Mr. Weicht stated the addition would match the existing decorative block. Mesich also questioned what type of truck wash facility was proposed. Mr. Weicht stated wash bay is proposed to meet building code specifications. Vice Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Vice Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MESICH MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY JOHN WEICHT AND ASSOCIATES/PLAISTED COMPANIES FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. CU 96- 27, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 December 19, 1996 Si. AN ADDITIONAL 6 EVERGREEN TREES SHOULD BE PLANTED APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET ON CENTER IN TWO ROWS IN THE AREA BETWEEN THE TRUCK ACCESS AND THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. 2. THE ACCESS TO SHEILY PROPERTY TO THE WEST BE PAVED TO MATCH THE PAVING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PLAISTED BUILDING 3. ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED SHOP ADDITION ARE NEEDED. THE EXTERIOR OF THE ADDITION SHOULD MATCH THE EXTERIOR OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. 4. THE WASHING FACILITY BE INSTALLED PER CITY AND STATE CODES. COMMISSIONER TACHENY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6.4. City of Elk River Request for Ordinance Amendment Regarding Designation of Planning Commissioner as Board of Adjustment, Public Hearing Case No. OA 96-17 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. The City of Elk River is requesting an ordinance amendment designation the Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustment to act on variances and appeals from decisions of the Zoning Administrator. This amendment would shorten the process to about one month and an applicant would only have to attend one meeting. Scott explained the appeal process, noting that the Planning Commission must meet separately as the Board of Adjustment. Discussion followed regarding the 10 day time limit to file an appeal. The City Attorney suggested the 10 day ten limit remain and an applicant filing an appeal sooner it may shorten the process. Sullivan stated that the ordinance amendment refers to a fee and questioned what the fee would be to file an appeal. Staff indicated an application fee is charged up front for the request and did not feel it would be necessary to charge an additional fee for the appeal process. COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER'S REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, DESIGNATING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. OA 96-17, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DESIRES THE CHANGE, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE CHANGE: SECTION 2. (3)(C) - STRIKE THE WORDS "ACCOMPANIED BY THE APPROPRIATE FEE" COMMISSIONER TACHENY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6.1. American Portable Telecom Request for Rezoning to AT (Antenna Overlay) District, Public Hearing Case No.ZC 961-20 S 6.2. American Portable Telecom Request for Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing Case No. CU 96-26 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 December 19, 1996 • Peter Coyle, of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, Lindgren Lawfirm, was present to represent the applicant, American Portable Telecom (APT). Mr. Coyle noted American Portable Telecom is now also known as Aerial Communications through marketing change. Mr. Jeff Peterson, structural engineer, and Mr. Ineet, radio frequency engineer, were also present to represent APT. Mr. Coyle explained the FCC has been sanctioned to build the next generation wireless telephone communication service. APT has a contract with the FCC to commence operations by the spring of 1997. Mr. Coyle feels the city has the authority to fulfill zoning and planning responsibilities, but the city does not have the authority to discriminate against a company trying to erect a facility nor impede or prohibit the installation of services. He feels the Planning Commission is exceeding its authority in forcing APT to follow a design scenario which is based on subjective notion of radio frequency coverage and optimal coverage. If APT were to co-locate on the AT&T tower, APT would be forced to construct a second tower which would be in violation of the intent of the city's ordinance to limit the number of towers in the city. Mr. Coyle explained that • information was not submitted to staff in advance because of its confidential nature. Commissioner Tacheny indicated the Planning Commission's request at the November meeting was for APT to consider the possibility of co-locating on the AT&T tower and on a tower in the northern sector of the city. Mr. Coyle stated it was his understanding that co-locating on another tower would still force APT to . build an additional tower. Jeff Peterson, APT representative, stated APT could not commit to co-location because they were not sure if the AT&T tower could structurally support their equipment. Mr. Peterson stated he did have the coverage analysis information available. Commissioner Mesich questioned why this information was not made available to staff earlier for their review. Mr. Coyle stated that APT was advised not to distribute this information in advance by their corporate legal representation. Mr. Ineet, APT representative, provided maps indicating coverage co-locating on the AT&T Tower, as well as coverage with a tower proposed by APT. Vice Chair Anderson questioned whether or not co-locating on the two existing towers meets or exceeds APT's expectations for coverage. Mr. Ineet stated it appears it may, but other factors must be taken into consideration. Mr. Coyle stated APT cannot force AT&T to allow them to co-locate. He noted APT has received a 12-page application from AT&T, which only means AT&T will look at the possibility of co-location. Mr. Coyle stated if it were possible to co-locate, APT would certainly be interested because of the significant cost savings. Commissioner Minton questioned whether or not a structural analysis has been done for co-location on the AT&T tower as well as the tower on County Road No. 33. Mr. Peterson stated it has not, due to the significant cost. Discussion followed regarding present and future coverage needs, as well as projected sites. Scott Harlicker noted the Zimmerman site has not been secured 11111 due to the moratorium on antenna towers in Sherburne County. Mr. Peterson Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 19, 1996 • explained that APT will be co-locating on the Bridgewater Telephone tower in Monticello. Discussion followed regarding the costs associated with co-locating on two towers versus building a separate tower. Discussion followed regarding the range of the proposed tower and whether or not an additional tower will need to be constructed to provide coverage. Vice • Chair Anderson questioned whether or not APT expects marketing demands will require coverage in the northwest due to the expected residential growth in that area. Mr. Peterson of APT was not sure if an additional tower would be necessary. Commissioner Minton indicated he would like to see cost figures to support why APT does not feel it is economically feasible to co-locate on the two existing towers. Mr. Peterson summarized APT's reasons against co-location as follows: • Frequency interference and co-channel use interference issues make it very difficult to co-locate on two existing towers. • Economic - Construction and installation of one tower and foundation and is approximately$100,000. In addition, the cost of the radio equipment, antennas and feedlines is approximately$150,000, totaling approximately • $1/4 million. A lease for 24 years would total approximately$1/4 million. If there are two sites (co-location), there would be equipment costs of$150,000 for each site plus there would be two leases for co-location which would be more that a property lease. Mr. Peterson felt the cost would be equal to the cost of building a tower. Commissioner Tacheny questioned how it would cost more to lease space on someone else's tower than it costs to build a tower. Mr. Coyle stated more detailed information could be provided regarding costs. He noted that costs for leasing space on another tower is approaching $25,000 per year. He explained that companies cannot force other companies to co- locate on their towers. Commissioner Sullivan questioned what is APT's long range plan. Mr. Peterson explained APT has an agreement with RCC (Radio Communications Commission) to provide coverage statewide. Marketing and sales will dictate how far Commissioner Sullivan expressed concern there are other companies in this market who may be coming forward with requests for towers. Mr. Coyle explained AT&T and Cellular One, and APT and Sprint Wireless are the two "A" & "B" Block companies who have been awarded wireless franchises. He felt there may be only one other company which may try to serve this marketplace. Mr. • Coyle added that a "C" Block franchise has been awarded, as well as a Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 December 19, 1996 • possible "D" and "E" Block license in 6-8 months, but all are a different type of technology and should not affect this market. Vice Chair Anderson stated it appears that APT will need another tower in Elk River at some point in the future to serve their market demands. Mr. Coyle felt that is entirely possible. Discussion continued regarding co-location. Mr. Coyle stated from a coverage perspective, co-location as proposed will not work for APT. He noted if APT's tower is approved they are willing to offer co-location to another company as a condition of their conditional use permit. Steve Ach explained he felt it would be in the wireless service companies' best interest to try to determine where towers are going to be needed throughout Sherburne County and develop a master plan for tower location. Mr. Coyle explained Sprint and APT are utilizing different technologies and have different needs. Mr. Coyle noted their towers will provide co-location possibilities for new companies coming into Elk River. Steve informed the Commission city staff has met with Sherburne County to • discuss development of communication towers. A master plan idea was mentioned at the last meeting. Staff will research this further and report back to the Planning Commission. City Attorney Dave Sellergren explained options the Planning Commission has • regarding a possible moratorium on cellular towers, and options for acting on APT's requests. COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO POSTPONE THE REQUEST BY AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM FOR REZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE JANUARY 28, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF A MASTER PLAN FOR LOCATION OF CELLULAR TOWERS. COMMISSION TACHENY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Vice Chair Anderson explained the following information is requested from APT: - Cost information regarding co-location -Structural capabilities for co-location - Possibility of locating on water tower - Other possible sites for location of a tower 7.1. Annual Meeting The Commissioners suggested the following items for the annual meeting agenda (January 11, 1997): -Antenna towers (Commissioner Minton) - Brief overview of Comprehensive Plan (Commissioner Mesich) • - Update on Sherburne County Transportation Plan (Commissioner Kuester) 7.2. Joint Meeting with City Council Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 December 19, 1996 • Steve will check with the City Council for available meeting dates. Commissioner Minton suggested Steve draft of list of topics to be discussed at the joint meeting. 7.3. 2001 Committee, Inc.» - Bob Minton Commissioner Minton explained the history of the 2001 Committee. He indicated the list being presented was formulated at the 2001 Committee conference held earlier this year. Commissioner Minton stated the Park & • Recreation Commission has expressed their support, and noted he will also be presenting the document to the City Council and School Board, as well as the other cities within the school district. Commissioner Kuester suggested the title of the document be changed from "checklist" to "guide". Discussion followed regarding the guide and its implementation. Dave Sellergren cautioned that the city needs to be open to the non-traditional family as well as the traditional family. Steve Ach suggested a resolution supporting the 2001 Committee "guide" be prepared and presented at a later meeting. It was the consensus of the Planning Commissioners that staff prepare a 1111 resolution for the annual meeting, supporting the 2001 Committee's recommendations. 7.4. City Council Meeting Report- Commissioner Tacheny A. Commissioner Tacheny advised the Commissioners of actions taken on planning issues at the December 16, 1996 City Council. B. Commissioner Kuester noted that Commissioner Tacheny's term on the Planning Commission expires December 31, 1996. On behalf of the Commissioners, Commissioner Kuester thanked Commissioner Tacheny for serving on the Commission and that they have enjoyed serving with him. 8. > Adjournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • 675'47 / even B. Ac Debbie Kleckner City Planner Recording Secretary