Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting -	October 17, 2000

7:30 p.m.

Call to Order

Larry Baker, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Roll Call

Present:	Larry Baker, Jim O'Brien, Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz, Jeff Schopf,

Absent:	Mike Livingston and Paul Zisla

Also Present:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Char Samuelson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by O'Brien, to approve the minutes of the September 19, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Report on Council Actions

Samuelson said the Council recently discussed implementation of a Franchise Fee Ordinance, and several public information meetings have been scheduled.

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings

Teague presented a special use permit and 30 ft. setback variance to construct a 120 ft. monopole with antennas for Verizon Wireless at 1415 1st Ave. NW. Verizon will also construct a 20 x 11.5 ft. equipment shelter to house equipment for the site. The site contains an existing 100 ft. tall monopole with antennas owned by Sprint. Verizon approached Sprint regarding the use of this existing pole, but only lower site coverage was available.

Verizon believes the hardship criteria has been met due to the lot width not allowing the 30 ft setback. Verizon conducted a search of other city locations, but did not find a site adequate for this use. Staff does not feel the hardship is caused by the lot width or lack of available parcels. The hardship is caused by the applicant's desire to construct a 125 ft. tower that cannot be supported on this site. Also, staff has concerns granting a variance which may establish a precedence for other cellular companies to request a variance to the setback requirement.

If the Planning Commission recommended approval, staff suggested an ordinance amendment regarding setbacks that would allow the proposal rather than requiring a variance. An amendment would require language stating the pole be engineered with a break point of 80 ft. to prevent poles from falling onto adjacent properties.

Jay Littlejohn, Verizon, explained that existing coverage connections in New Brighton for Verizon customers are inadequate and necessitate construction of the 120 ft. pole. Also, the topography in the area requires the 120 ft. height.

Calvin Vogelman, Verizon, added there are dramatic variations in service and coverage between the 90 ft. and 120 ft. pole. Zisla asked if constructing two poles of reduced heights at different locations would achieve Verizon's goals. Vogelman said constructing poles at different sites would require seeking locations within residential or park locations which Verizon does not support. Littlejohn added that Verizon recommends locations within industrial districts or railroad tracks to avoid affecting the public.

Schiferl asked if a monopole tower could be built upon an existing building. Vogelman said this type of structure would be a guide tower which is less desirable and more difficult to find interested landlords to allow a tower on top of their building.

In regards to setbacks, Littlejohn added that the architects altered the location so that setbacks are met on three sides, and only the southerly setback requires a variance. The pole is engineered to ensure the pole bends 40 ft. from the top in the event of wind.

Baker asked if each cellular service provider's equipment is unique to competitor's frequencies. Vogelman verified that equipment is unique and the smallest allowed distance between antennas is 10-20 feet vertically and 30-40 feet horizontally.

Baker asked if it is common occurrence for competing providers to co-habitat on one site. Littlejohn said Verizon does co-locate sites where competitors exist, but in this case, the height of the existing pole is 90 ft.

O'Brien asked if it is possible for another company to interface between antennas. Vogelman said interfacing could create bad mixing and communication failure. O'Brien confirmed there have been no discussion between Sprint and Verizon regarding relocation of antennas or monopole usage.

There were no comments from the audience.

Motion by Schmitz, seconded by Schopf, to CLOSE THE HEARING. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Schiferl noted concern with granting a variance when the current zoning code does not provide adequate control over such uses. Teague was directed to speak to Council regarding creation of an ordinance amendment.

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Schmitz, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF SP00-14 AND VN00-7. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Teague presented a request by Qwest Communications for a special use permit and site plan to convert an existing metal storage building to a maintenance garage located at 100 9th Ave. SW. There will be no noticeable difference in the use of the properties, no traffic generated by the use, and no additional outside storage. Prior to this request, Qwest committed to significant investment in the property by upgrading the parking lot, remodeling interior, construction of a retention pond, and landscaping. The City Forester recommended minor adjustments to the landscape plan. The Building Official found that all codes have been adhered to. Staff recommends approval.

Joe Stroblonski, Qwest architect, explained this is a very desirable upgrade to the operation and will not create drastic changes to adjacent properties.

There were no comments from the audience.

Motion by Schopf, seconded by Schiferl, to CLOSE THE HEARING. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Schiferl, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SP00-1 AND LP00-10, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1.	LANDSCAPING/GREEN AREA BE PROVIDED AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN DATED 10/12/2000. STAFF SHALL INSPECT THE SITE FOLLOWING INSTALLATION OF THE PLANTINGS BY THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE THAT ALL PLANTINGS SHOWN ARE IN PLACE.

2.	AN ADDITIONAL SPRUCE TREE SHALL BE PLANTED ALONG 9TH AVENUE BOULEVARD TO FILL IN AN OPEN SPOT ON THE NORTH EAST SIDE OF THE SECOND ENTRANCE TO THE SITE. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Teague presented a minor subdivision and lot width variance request to divide an existing lot at 1654 Valerie Ln. into two lots. The proposed lot widths would be 65.71 and 72.26 and do not meet the 75 ft. minimum lot width. Applicants, Orville and Evelyn Holmbo, intend to sell the vacant portion for future home construction. Staff has some concerns due to the elevation of the property. It would be in the City's best interest to deny the plan, unless it can demonstrate the new home would not negatively impact adjacent properties. In addition, the applicant never paid assessments for the two lots towards road improvements or utilities. Also, there are no stub connections for sewer and water for a second home.

A precedent was set for granting similar lot width variances, however, the Council did previously deny a lot width variance in this neighborhood. However, in that case the property did not have direct access to a public street, and the width was narrower than this proposed lot. However, they are similar in the fact no assessments were paid to assume future creation of an additional lot.

Orville Holmbo feels the request should be approved being the lots meet the size requirement, however, he did admit the lots were never legally subdivided. ? asked the future location of the new lot's driveway. Teague said no building plans have been submitted for the new home and the Code does not require a grading plan at the time of the subdivision request.

Jim Lindgren, 1665 Roxanna Lane, feels the subdivision could create problems with on-street parking.

Bob Kinney, 2933 Valerie Lane, said a petition has been circulated throughout the neighborhood, and noted issues with the location of the fire hydrant, additional traffic, substandard lot, and size of the home being out of character with the neighborhood.

Baker noted that the existing home would only have 30 ft. of curb space in the front which creates an inferior street access.

O'Brien tends to agree with the homeowners' statement that the home was placed on the northern most portion of the site for possible subdivision. If it were subdivided, the existing and future driveways could be reconfigured to allow for additional curbing area. He would be inclined to see this proposal continue if changes were made.

Schmitz agreed that the large size of the parcel would allow for reconfiguration.

Schmitz feels there is potential to allow continuation of this proposal, but had some concerns of a two story home which could tower over the existing homes. However, the parking concerns raised would not affect his decision.

Holmbo does not know what type of home would be constructed on the new lot, and would consider providing a grading plan for City Engineer review.

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Schmitz, to CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT SITE, GRADING, AND ELEVATION PLANS. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Teague presented a zoning ordinance amendment regarding accessory buildings and garages within residential zoning districts. In July, Council received a petition and directed staff and Planning Commission to draft an amendment and consider requiring a special use permit for accessory second garages over a certain size.

Staff surveyed ten cities and found New Brighton was more restrictive in the number of buildings and the maximum size allowed. Over the past 2 years, 33 building permits have been issued for accessory buildings, and 16 permits were for structures larger than 400 sq. ft.

The following changes were recommended from the September Planning Commission meeting:

•	Clear distinction between accessory buildings or garages

•	Gazebos allowed in addition to accessory buildings and garages

•	Ordinance reflects the City's new building coverage requirement rather than the old floor area ratio requirement

•	Attached garages shall not exceed 1,000 sq. ft. The current code does not have a maximum restriction

•	Accessory buildings or detached garages exceeding 400 sq. ft. require a special use permit which would involve a public hearing before the Planning Commission to allow for public comment.

Baker is there should be notation reflecting a maximum size for a gazebo. Teague feels the building coverage requirement would come into play if the size was out of the ordinary. Baker feels the gazebos should be considered an accessory building if they are over a certain size. Baker suggested the following wording "gazebo shall not be considered an accessory building however the square footage of the gazebo and accessory building shall not exceed what would be allowed for an accessory building".

Schiferl questioned whether the Council may require landscape screening to lessen visual impact from adjacent properties.

In regards to the materials used for the accessory building, the Commission suggested that buildings over 400 sq. ft. should have complimentary roof and exterior materials to the principle structure.

There were no comments from the audience.

Motion by Schmitz, seconded by Schiferl, to CLOSE THE HEARING. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Schopf, to WAIVE THE READING AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND GARAGES. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried.

General Business - None

Announcements and Updates - None

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner