Loading...
2009.07.13 PC Meeting MinutesPage 1 of 6 J:\PLANNING\Planning Commission\2010 and earlier\2009\07.13\minutes.doc CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2009 A. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: X Commissioner (Ward 1) Sears X Commissioner (Ward 2) Whitenack X Commissioner (Ward 4) Fiedler Page 2 of 6 J:\PLANNING\Planning Commission\2010 and earlier\2009\07.13\minutes.doc Commissioner Sears asked if there is some overlap as some of the issues addressed in the plan were requirements for contractors when building permits are issued. Mr. Barth noted that city ordinances need to address some of the same issues to allow enforcement on a city level. The Public Hearing was opened by Commissioner VonRueden and following were heard: Janet Moore recommended that businesses be required to include low impact development or a storm water pond when resurfacing or replacing impervious surfaces in order to be proactive in reducing storm water runoff. Joe Selton asked what authority the city had regarding the Crystal Airport wetland area 639W . Tom Mathisen explained that wetland in MAC park at the NE corner of the city is a source of the phosphorus that is going into Twin Lake. The city has a renewable lease with MAC for use of the land as a park. The city is in negotiation to make changes in the pond. The impact of the runoff from the airport into the wetland is minimal. MAC is an entity of its own with their own permit with PCA for discharge. MAC has been cooperative with the watershed regarding the wetland 639W , however, that area is not part of the city’s plan. Mr. Sutter added that MAC is not proposing to close the airport but has proposed closing 2 of the 4 runways, one turf and one taxiway. W e do not know when or if they will implement this plan. MAC also hopes to develop areas for non- aeronautical use. If they would move forward with such development , planning and zoning ordinances including the Surface Water Management Plan would apply to development. The Public Hearing was closed. Hearing no further discussion amongst the Planning Commission, Chair Von Rueden asked if anyone would like to make a motion. Moved by Commissioner Whitenack and seconded by Commissioner Sears to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2009-10 for an updated Surface Water Management Plan. Motion carried. 2. Consider Application 2009-11 for an updated Joint Water Commission Water Supply Plan. Staff member, Tom Mathisen, presented the staff report. Chair VonRueden opened the Public Hearing. The following were heard: Page 3 of 6 J:\PLANNING\Planning Commission\2010 and earlier\2009\07.13\minutes.doc Tom Schmitt asked how long it would be before the city could get water through Minneapolis from the river after airborne contaminants entered the river. Mr. Mathisen stated that is was really dependent upon the contaminant. Mr. Mathisen stated that wells would not be affected by most airborne contaminants. Hearing no further questions for comments from the Planning Commission, Chair VonRueden asked if anyone would like to make a motion. Moved by Commissioner Sears and seconded by Commissioner Whitenack to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2009-11 for an updated Joint Water Commission Water Supply Plan. Motion carried. D. OLD BUSINESS 1. Consider Application 2009-09 to amend City Code Section 515.21 and Sections 515.33 through 515.53 to allow certain types of telecommunications towers in all zoning districts subject to limitations on height, location, adjacent uses and other factors (continued from June 8, 2009 meeting). Staff member, John Sutter, presented the staff report. Commissioner Buck asked if any applicant would still have to show a need for any proposed tower. Mr. Sutter stated that the applicant would need to document the technical need for the tower at the applicant’s expense and a Conditional Use Permit would need to be granted. This would apply for any of the options, other than the Baseline. Any application would also require review by the Planning Commission and approval of the City Council. Commissioner VonRueden noted that the property owner would first have to grant approval before an application could even be submitted. Commissioner Whitenack remarked that the two Option B’s would allow towers on Residential and Commercial properties greater than 3 acres. Mr. Sutter commented that if the property is zoned residential and it has a dwelling on it, then a tower would not be allowed. Commissioner Strand expressed that she favored Option C-2 as it did not allow towers in parks or school property, but feels that it leaves a sufficient number of alternate sites. Page 4 of 6 J:\PLANNING\Planning Commission\2010 and earlier\2009\07.13\minutes.doc Commissioner Fiedler stated that his preference was for Option C-1, as he feels it leaves more options available to applicants. Commissioner Whitenack agreed with Commissioner Fiedler regarding Option C- 1, stating that it gives some latitude and applications will still be considered on a case by case basis. Commissioner VonRueden reiterated that with each Option, some sites still may not qualify. Mr. Sutter stated applicants still need to meet requirements of CUP. The shaded areas on the option map does not mean applicants will qualify, it represents the maximum areas that may qualify. Commissioner Whitenack asked if the Planning Commission, as an advisory commission to the city council, should vote on each option. Mr. Sutter stated that the motion needs to be specific but support of another option can be recorded. In this way the Planning Commission would be letting the City Council know, and get it into the record. The council can accept the Planning Commissions suggested Option, or can vote for another Option. The Public Hearing was opened: Joe Selton had questions regarding the number of towers per site, where the towers will go, how many towers are needed, what height the towers would need to be to accommodate all providers. Commissioner Whitenack commented that the “C” options provide for all private property and the city would be cut out. He also asked if 82 ½ foot tower is functional for all providers. Mr. Sutter stated that currently the 165 foot towers are allowed in the darkest areas on the map. This 82 ½ foot maximum tower height would apply for areas specified in the option, still allowing for the taller towers in the areas already designated in the current ordinance. Addressing Mr. Selton’s questions, Mr. Sutter has heard no objection from the providers regarding the proposed 82 ½ foot maximum tower height, but this low height tower would likely serve no more than 2 providers. As discussed at the Planning Commission meeting in June, because of the change in technology, customer base, etc., it is unknown how many towers may be needed. Concerning Mr. Selton’s question as to possible bidding for sites, Mr. Sutter noted that Options C-1 and C-2 do not allow towers on most city owned property. Option B-1 and B-2 would allow towers in larger parks. The city could choose to be more restrictive about the location on their land. The Council could establish limits on the number of towers in each park, although as written, the options already limit the towers by separation requirements. Page 5 of 6 J:\PLANNING\Planning Commission\2010 and earlier\2009\07.13\minutes.doc Commissioner Fiedler asked what the annual fee is. Mr. Sutter indicated it is a one-time fee of $4000. Commissioner Fiedler asked if this could be an annual license fee. Mr. Sutter said the council could consider an annual license fee. Commissioner Sears stated that his preference is that the towers not be allowed in parks and that the revenue derived for the city is less important than the value of the parks. Frank Weber addressed the Commission regarding health effects. Mark Holm, T-Mobile, addressed the Commission. He expressed that the industry is asking for flexibility. He asked that if Option C is chosen the Commission look at giving more flexibility to the proposed set-backs to allow for things such as replacement of light poles on commercial site with small towers that would include both a light and an antenna. He stated that there are 4 major providers. The proposed 82 ½ foot tower height would allow for 2 or 3 providers. The providers’ goal is to provide complete coverage for their customers. Mary Weber addressed the Commission. Ms. Weber expressed her appreciation to the Planning Commission for taking the time to listen. She asked that the commission not change the existing ordinance. Janet Moore addressed the Commission stating that research continues on towers. Tom Schmitt addressed the Commission. Mr. Schmitt asked if a cell phone provider demonstrated there is a need, can their application still be denied. Mr. Sutter stated that the property owner can deny any providers request to place a tower on their property. Some ordinances have been challenged in other areas when the ordinances are too restrictive, but he knows of no property owner being forced to lease space for a tower. Mr. Schmitt stated that if the ordinance is too restrictive the city would be back to square one. Commissioner Whitenack stated that Option B-1 and B-2 do not allow towers on sites having a residence. Mr. Sutter stated that Option C-1 and C-2 would allow some of the sites, such as larger apartment complexes, to have towers. Mr. Schmitt affirmed that and added that he would hate to see the ordinance so restrictive that this process has to be redone again in a short period of time. Page 6 of 6 J:\PLANNING\Planning Commission\2010 and earlier\2009\07.13\minutes.doc Hearing no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed by Chair VonRueden. Chair VonRueden polled the commission: Commissioner Fiedler –C-1 Commissioner Strand – C-2 Commissioner Sears – C-1 Commissioner VonRueden – C-2 Commissioner Whitenack – C-1 Commissioner Buck – C-1 Commissioner Whitenack asked if there was any mechanism that would allow set-backs to be considered on an individual basis at application. Mr. Sutter stated that there is a variance provision. In addition to the 3 part test for a regular variance, they would have to meet additional criteria unique to towers to obtain a variance. Mr. Sutter recommended the variance requirements only be revisited if, after putting the new ordinance to the test, we find in needs to be relaxed. Moved by Commissioner Whitenack and seconded by Commissioner Buck to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2009-09 to amend City Code Section 515.21 and Sections 515.33 through 515.53 to allow certain types of telecommunications towers in all zoning districts subject to limitations on height, location, adjacent uses and other factors; as described in the following proposed ordinance: Option C-1 - by vote of 4 – 2 (the nay voters favor Option C-2) Motion carried. E. NEW BUSINESS F. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. City Council actions on recent Planning Commission items in packet. 2. Development Status Report for quarter ending June 30, 2009 in packet. 3. It is unknown if there will be any agenda items for the August 10, 2009 meeting. G. OPEN FORUM H. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Sears and seconded by Commissioner Whitenack to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.