Loading...
PL 03/19/1997 - 30839�'"'� � � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, MP,RCH 19, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the March 19, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Larry Kuechle Diane Savage, Connie Modig Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Associate Mark Paltoch, 401 Rice Creek Boulevard Kevin Olson, Anderson Trucking Service Darwin "Butch" Voigt, Fridley Bus Service Curt Carlson, Lease Management Group Jim Steilen, Popham, Haik, 3300 Piper Tower John Prichard, McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. Dennis Zylla, Fridley Business Center Partnership APPROVAL OF MARCH 5, 1997, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the March 5, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #97- O1, BY LEASE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.: To allow agencies selling or displaying new and/or used vehicles, recreational vehicles, or boats, on that part of the southeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 lying southerly of the northerly 50 feet thereof, lying northerly of the southerly 400 feet thereof, and lying westerly of the easterly 600 feet thereof, excluding that part taken for road, and subject to easements of record, generally located at 7011 University Avenue N.E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CEAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M. - � /�1 � PLANNING CONNIl�IISSION ME�TING, 1�iRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated the subject property for the request is Columbia Arena, otherwise addressed as 7011 University Avenue. The purpose of the special use permit request is to allow the sale of used vehicles on May 16 and 17, 1997. The Commission has reviewed similar requests in 1993 and 1994 for Friendly Chevrolet which occurred in May and September of those years. She spoke with the County, and they indicated that last year Friendly Chevrolet chose not to pursue use of their special use permit. This special use permit is requested by a new petitioner, hence the review by the Planning Commission. Ms. McPherson stated this request is similar to previous requests by Friendly Chevrolet in that approximately 200-300 vehicles are intended to be displayed in the north parking lot. They propose a food tent adjacent to the north side of the arena and portable restrooms along the east part of the site. Ms. McPherson stated the Planning Commission in its review of similar requests required 11 stipulations. Staff did not receive any verbal complaints regarding the sale; however, today staff received a letter from Kathleen Gagnon, 561 Rice Creek Boulevard, indicating her dissatisfaction with previous sales. In speaking with the police department, they did not indicate any complaints; however, they do recommend a traffic control person to keep traffic out of the residential neighborhood known as Holiday Hills which is located south of 69th Avenue and south of Locke Park. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request with the following stipulations: 1. The vehicle sales will occur no more than once per year. 2. The use of streamers, pennants, and flags is prohibited. 3. � The petitioner shall comply with the temporary sign ordinance for all temporary signs on the property. The petitioner shall obtain a temporary building permit and shall comply with Article 32 of the Uniform Fire Code. 5. Portable toilets shall be handicapped accessible. 6. The petitioner shall provide a traffic management person to properly control traffic on-site and to prevent problems occurring on 69th Avenue at the University Avenue frontage road, and to direct unnecessary traffic away from the residential neighborhood. ,� PLANNING CONIl�SSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 3 7. The participating dealerships shall apply for and receive the appropriate City licenses. 8. There shall be no test driving of cars in the residential neighborhood located south of 69th Avenue and in Locke Park. 9. Barricades shall be placed at the entrance to the neighborhood on 69th Avenue and on 71st Avenue. The barricade at 69th Avenue shall include a sign with the language "residential area - no exit". 10. The cars for the sale shall be street operable and shall not be leaking fluid. 11. The special use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the next sale. 12. A second sale will not be held for at least 90 days after commencement of the first sale to eliminate the appearance and impacts of a perpetual auto sale in this location. ^ Mr. Sielaff asked why is the stipulation regarding the 90 days necessary if there is only one sale. Ms. McPherson stated, after writing the report, she spoke with the petitioner to let him know what the stipulations would be. While only one date is on their application, the petitioner indicated verbally an interest in a second sale in 1997 pending the level of success of the first sale. Ms. Sielaff asked if the second sale would have to occur in 1997. Ms. McPherson stated yes. Mr. Saba asked if it was a totally different organization conducting this sale. Ms. McPherson stated that the original special use permits, SP #93-13 and SP #94-02, were issued to Friendly Chevrolet. She spoke with Anoka County who is the property owner and lessor of the site. They indicated that Friendly Chevrolet has not exercised their option or requested a sale in the last two years since the 1994 approval. If Friendly Chevrolet wanted to have a sale this year, they would have to come back before the Planning Commission. Lease Management Group is a separate organization from Friendly Chevrolet. Mr. Sielaff asked who was responsible for the trash. �i Ms. McPherson stated the organization conducting the sale would be responsible for the trash generated by the sale. PLANNING CO1rIl�lISSION MEETING, MARCB 19, 1997 PAGE 4 Mr. Sielaff asked if staff were aware of any problems with the trash. Ms. McPherson stated this is the first that staff has been made aware of a problem with trash as a result of these sales. Mr. Kondrick stated the clean up of the site once the sale is over is not addressed in the stipulations. Ms. McPherson stated this is not included in this list of stipulations; however, the Planning Commission could add that as a 13th stipulation. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive into the public record a letter from Kathleen Gagnon dated March 18, 1997, regarding this proposed event. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CEAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Carlson stated he is a representative of Lease Management n Group. Many of the facts about the sale were reviewed by Ms. McPherson. They are an auto sales and leasing company. They operate a retail sales facility at 9901 Central Avenue N.E. They applied for a special use permit to allow the two-day used car sale. They have held several sales at the Immanuel Christian Center on University Avenue, and they thought they would have more success at Columbia Arena. On May 16, the sale would operate from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. and on May 17 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.. They will have security to watch the site overnight to be sure there is no vandalism. The site will be under guard at all times. Mr. Kondrick asked how many cars they expected to bring in. Mr. Carlson stated they would have approximately 250 cars. That seems to be a good number for the area where they will be parked. The cars will be displayed in the north area of the parking lot. If there is still room for more parking, they would display some toward the front. There will be no pennants, no streamers, no flags on the vehicles. They have an application for a perm.it for a temporary sign. They would like to provide a sign which will be within the ordinance of the City. They have contracted with ten area credit unions to provide the sale for the membership. The sale is being marketed to the members of the credit unions. They will have a free standing tent, approximately 40 feet x 60 feet, with an administration area. Also in that area will be a caterer to provide hot dogs, pop, coffee, donuts, etc., for the people � attending the sale. There will be no charge for the refreshments. The caterer will get their own permit. They have the required PLANNING CONIlrlISSION 1�ETING, 1�,RCH 19, 1997 PAGE 5 number of fire extinguishers on hand. Electrical and phone lines will be made available to them by Columbia Arena. Handicap accessible portable toilets are going to be placed. Trash cans will be placed generously around the area. Mr. Carlson stated they would like to have, if approved, a second sale in September. They expect this sale to be successful. By Saturday evening, all evidence of the sale will be removed from the property. The sale is a Friday evening and Saturday event. Mr. Sielaff stated it sounded as if they would not be using the parking area to the south. Mr. Carlson stated this was correct. There are activities inside the arena which will need that parking area. Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioner had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Carlson stated no. They had the list of the stipulations and have no problem with them. If the Commission would like to add � another regarding the trash, that is okay. Mr. Kuechle stated the first stipulation states a sale is not occur more than once per year while the last stipulation stated another sale cannot be held for 90 days. This is not clear. Ms. McPherson stated, if the Commission chooses to allow a second sale, it would be appropriate to amend the first stipulation to say twice per year. Mr. Kuechle asked why they would need the last stipulation. Ms. McPherson stated that stipulation clarifies that there must be a 90-day separation between sales. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CEAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:48 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated he has attended previous sales and saw no problem. Mr. Saba stated he would amend stipulation #1 to read twice per ,� year and leave stipulation #12 as is. PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, NIl�iRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 6 Mr. Oquist stated he would like to add stipulation #13 to read, "The petitioner shall be responsible for trash containment and removal." MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #97-01, by Lease Management Group, Inc., to allow agencies selling or clisplaying new and/or used vehicles, recreational vehicles, or boats, on that part of the southeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 lying southerly of the northerly 50 feet thereof, lying northerly of the southerly 400 feet thereof, and lying westerly of the easterly 600 feet thereof, excluding that part taken for road, and subject to easements of record, generally located at 7011 University Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: l. The vehicle sales will occur no more than twice per year. 2. The use of streamers, pennants, and flags is prohibited. �3. The petitioner shall comply with the temporary sign ordinance for all temporary signs on the property. � 4. The petitioner shall obtain a temporary building permit and shall comply with Article 32 of the Uniform Fire Code. 5. Portable toilets shall be handicapped accessible. 6. The petitioner shall provide a traffic management person to properly control traffic on-site and to prevent problems occurring on 69th Avenue at the University Avenue frontage road, and to direct unnecessary traffic away from the residential neighborhood. 7. The participating dealerships shall apply for and receive the appropriate City licenses. 8. There shall be no test driving of cars in the residential neighborhood located south of 69th Avenue and in Locke Park. 9. Barricades shall be placed at the entrance to the neighborhood on 69th Avenue and on 71st Avenue. The barricade at 69th Avenue shall include a sign with the language "residential area - no exit". 10. The cars for the sale shall be street operable and shall not be leaking fluid.. � 11. The special use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the next sale. PLANNING CONIl��IISSION MEETING, N�iRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 7 12. A second sale will not be held for at least 90 days after commencement of the first sale to eliminate the appearance and impacts of a perpetual auto sale in this location. 13. The petitioner shall be responsible for trash containment and removal. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CEAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLP,RED TEE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request at their meeting of April 14. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZONING", BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205.17.05.D.(6), 205.19.05.D.(6), ADDING SECTION 205.20 (M-4 MANUFACTURING ONLY). AND RF'NTIMRFRTNC� SECUTIVE SECTIONS MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public � hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CAAIRPERSON KONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:53 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the public hearing is regarding M-4, Manufacturing Only, which is an amendment to the industrial zoning district regarding distribution and warehouse facilities. Ms. McPherson stated recent developments include the construction of approximately 500,000 square feet of distribution and warehouse space in 1995 and 1996. With this construction came an increase in residential complaints regarding truck traffic, noise and odors. The City Council established a"no truck traffic" zone south of 53rd Avenue. Staff has received complaints regarding the Northco Development on 73rd Avenue with the parking of trucks in the front yard adjacent to 73rd Avenue. Ms. McPherson stated, with the moratorium, staff divided the City into three study areas. The first is south of 61st Avenue to the southern border of the City and between East River Road and University Avenue. The second is east of University Avenue toward the easterly City border north to Osborne Road. The third is north of 73rd Avenue to 83rd between East River and University Avenue. When staff looked at the industrial land analysis, they �'`1 determined that there are 17 existing distribution and warehouse facilities in the City with over 2.7 million square feet or about � PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 8 63 acres. Some of these facilities have expansion opportunities. The City has approximately 1,148 acres of industrially zoned land in total; however, there are only 89.79 acres which remain vacant or approximately 7.8% of this total. The goals of the ordinance amendment would be to reduc.e the truck traffic impact on residential properties; to increase job opportunities and economic value to increase the city's tax base; to promote clean uses which do not include fumes, odors, or noise; and to eliminate outdoor storage. Ms. MePherson stated staff looked at several alternatives before bringing this recommendation before the Commission. Those options include - do nothing; amend only the performance standards in the existing industrial districts; require special use permits in the M-1 and M-2 districts for distribution/warehouse facilities; to eliminate distributiori uses entirely in the M-1 district; and create M-4, Manufacturing Only. Al1 of these options have various pros and cons, and staff is recommending a combination of amending the performance standards and creating an M-4 district. Ms. McPherson stated staff's recommended option is to amend the �,.,1 performance standards in the existing industrial districts which would require on corner lots no loading docks face the public right-of-way and lots which face a residential district would have no loading docks or truck parking in that portion of the property. The second part is to create the new district entitled M-4, Manufacturing Only. Ms. McPherson stated the components of the ordinance would include no loading docks to face the public right-of-way on corner lots or lots across the street from a residential zoning or use; no truck or trailer parking would be visible from the public right-of-way or residential zoning or uses; and the new zoning district would not allow warehouse or distribution facilities as a principle use in the district. It could be incidental or accessory uses to a manufacturing use. Ms. McPherson stated, once staff determined the ordinance option, they looked at the properties that could be affected out of the 89.79 acres which are left in the City and asked four basic questions: 1. Is the property adjacent to or across the street from a residential use? 2. Would the property meet the minimum requirements of the proposed M-4 zoning district? � � � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, ND�fRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 9 3. 4. Would it be possible to develop a distribution or warehouse facility is excess of 10 loading docks? Is there an adjacent distribution or warehouse facility already in the area? Ms. McPherson stated, given those questions, staff identified seven possible properties which could be rezoned to the M-4 zoning classification if it is approved. The sites are scattered throughout the City. As a parallel project, Ms. Dacy is suggesting to the Housing & Redevelopment Authority that these properties be included in an economic development district which would allow them to receive tax increment financing (TIF) to encourage development of manufacturing uses. Those properties include 2-acres south of 73rd Avenue and east of University; 1.6- acres between Ashton Avenue and the Burlington-Northern railroad tracks; 6.3-acres north of the McGlynn's Bakery facility; 3.2- acres to the rear of Friendly Chevrolet and adjacent to Central Avenue; 5.77-acres east of Kurt Manufacturing and adjacent to Central Avenue; 3.81 acres at the intersection of Osborne Road and Central Avenue; and a total of 11 acres located at the intersection of 61st Avenue and Main Street. Mr. Oquist asked why the second piece was included. Ms. McPherson stated it was included because it is across the street from Ruth Park. JTI Powder Coating is located north of this parcel and Lindstrom Metric, which is a distribution facility, is located south of that parcel. Mr. Sielaff asked why the parcel by McGlynn's Bakery was included. Ms. McPherson stated this parcel met three of the four questions asked, excluding the adjacent residential district. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendment changing the performance standards in the existing industrial district as well as establishing a new district entitled "Manufacturing Only". If the Commission chooses to concur with staff's recommendation, the next steps in the process are for the City Council to conduct a public hearing at the April 14, 1997, meeting at which time the ordinance's first reading would occur; the second reading would be April 28; the ordinance would become effective May 23; and the moratorium which currently exists would expire on May 27. Ms. McPherson stated, at the meeting of February 19, the Planning ,� Commission preliminarily discussed this ordinance amendment and requested that staff ineet with the affected property owners. ^ PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, NIl�iRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 10 Staff did that on March 12, 1997. The owners expressed concern about their marketing opportunities as well as their market value. Ms. McPherson spoke with Mr. Ed Hervin, the City Assessor, regarding the market value issue, and he indicated that, in terms of how he assesses property, he would not diminish the assessment on the property because of the change in the industrial classification. The only way this would occur is if the City chose to adopt an ordinance that was so restrictive that they could not do anything on the property. In this case, we are eliminating a particular purchaser of the property, but the owner would still have the opportunity to market the property to potential industrial users. In addition, Mr. Hervin did not feel the market would reflect a diminished value for the land because of the change in the zoning requirements. Mr. Kondrick stated the City had received a letter from McGlynn Bakeries, Inc., stating this would adversely affect their company. Ms. McPherson stated their discussion regards being able to build a stand-alone warehouse. The change in the ordinance would prevent construction of a warehouse only on that site. However, ^ the Commission or the City Council could choose not to include the McGlynn site as a candidate under M-4 or it could be rezoned to M- 4 with the option for McGlynn to come back requesting the site be re-zoned to M-2. Staff have had some discussions with them regarding their proposed warehouse expansion, and they are looking at many alternatives as to how that can be accomplished on their site. The site is currently zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the letter from McGlynn Bakeries, Inc., dated March 18, 1997, and the letter from Kelly & Berens, P.A., dated March 19, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CEAIRPERSON KONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Saba asked if there were any comments about the letter from Kelly and Berens and the proposed use by Everest development. Mr. Hickok stated the letter just arrived and staff had just today an opportunity to peruse the statements in the letter. There has been some discussion of development of one of the sites being reviewed for the Manufacturing Only classification. One of those sites did have a proposal that would have in excess of 10 doors, in this case nearly 50 doors, potentially facing Main Street. As far as some of the other details of the discussion and how it applies to the proposed changes, staff have not had a opportunity to speak with the developer about their understanding of those issues. Staff does recognize they were interested in a facility � PLANNING COD�lISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 11 whose details were very sketchy. Little was known in terms of what the actual use or user would be. Staff was interested in working through the planning and development aspects of the site and minimizing impacts, etc. Those interests were not shared. The developer felt 50+ bays and the use would be appropriate. Mr. Saba stat�d, in light of the letter from McGlynn and the concern expressed regarding Everest Development, it would seem premature to go ahead with this ordinance until the issues are resolved. Mr. Hickok stated the moratorium was for 120 days with the idea that we want to make sure we are through the moratorium and have a decision for the City so that, if someone has a development they want to move ahead with, this does not keep them from doing so. For that reason, staff wants to keep the steps moving along and come to a conclusion on the ordinance. As far as it being premature, he thought it was the right time. We do have a very limited inventory of industrial land left in the City, and we do need to ask these critical questions and make some decisions about ordinances as we move forward. �� Mr. Sielaff asked if it was correct that the proposal is to create an M-4 district and at the same time we are also identifying sites that will become M-4 so we are creating another category and then rezoning the proposed areas. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. In the existing M-1, M-2, and M-3, we are also strengthening the language of those existing districts, and selecting sites where the land use designation on the zoning map would change and all the associated ordinance language that would apply to those sites. Mr. Sielaff asked if this public hearing was to create a category. Ms. McPherson stated the public hearing is being conducted regarding the ordinance amendment. Staff is letting the Commission know what sites they are recommending for change. Mr. Sielaff stated the Commission can make a recommendation regarding the ordinance change. What about the sites? Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending sites. Staff has not written the ordinance language to actually change those sites at this time. Mr. Sielaff asked if it designates in the ordinance what areas are ,� M- 4 . � � PLANNING CONIlKISSION MEETING, 1�iRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 12 Ms. McPherson stated no, that is a separate issue. Mr. Oquist asked if that issue would come before the Planning Commission. Ms. McPherson stated, to put this in perspective, this is very similar to other development proposals. Staff has made a recommendation of the language and sites. The Planning Commission will hear comments and make a recommendation based on that information. Mr. Oquist stated the Commission is looking at an ordinance change. Once that is approved, then we come back and identify the sites and make it formal. Is that to be done at this meeting or at a later date? Mr. Hickok stated this public hearing will talk about both the specific sites and the proposed language. Mr. Oquist stated, if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance, are we also making a recommendation to approve the sites. Mr. Hickok stated yes. The role of the Planning Commission is to concur with the language or to suggest alternative language and also to concur with the sites or to eliminate and include sites. Mr. Saba stated he was concerned about the potential of impacting development that is in some kind of stage right now by changing zoning and also concerned about McGlynn's planning a potential development and impacting that. Ms. McPherson stated, if the Commission feels more comfortable, there is room in the schedule that if you would prefer to give staff further direction, it can be brought back to the April 2 meeting for further information and discussion. Mr. Sielaff stated he has no objection to the ordinance itself, but he does have some concerns about the sites included. Mr. Kondrick stated he understands that staff is doing this to prevent Fridley from becoming a warehouse city and along with that the problems of trucks and truck traffic occurring in residential areas. However, McGlynn is not by a residential area. Mr. Zylla stated he represents the Fridley Business Center Partnership which owns land in the Northco Park and actually developed the park. He would like to clarify one statement. Ms. � McPherson made a statement that the new building on 73rd Avenue which was recently constructed has generated some of the concern �i PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, NIl�,RCS 19 , 1997 PAGE 13 for the ordinance was Northco Development. That is not true. Northco sold the land but did not develop that property. This is the only parcel in the park that staff is suggesting to be rezoned to M-4. If he understands correctly, they are suggesting this be M-4 because this could be potentially have 10 loading docks. Ms. McPherson stated staff chose the site because staff was unsure as to the total number of loading docks; however, more so because the parcel to the east already has a distribution/warehouse facility located nearby. Mr. Zylla stated, if 10 docks comes into play on this parcel, he would be very surprised if anyone could develop 2.2 acres with 10 loading docks and still have a viable development. They object to the proposed rezoning to M-4. They believe it diminishes their use, diminishes the marketability of the property, and diminishes the value. The laws of supply and demand being what they are, if you diminish the marketability, you also diminish the value. He is not an attorney, but he is suggesting that they get a lot of calls from potential buyers and at least 50a of the calls come in from Fridley companies or from companies in this general area that � are office/warehouse type companies rather than pure manufacturing, and they would like to be able to sell that property to someone that may have an office/warehouse function as well as to someone who may have a manufacturing function. Mr. Zylla stated the other issue for them relative to the code relates to the amended language for M-1, M-2 and M-3 which deals with the potential change where on corner lots or lots across from residential no loading docks shall face the public right-of-way. They have also the two lots and have filed an application with the City for tax increment and have taken soil borings there. They are interested in developing a 59,000 square foot building on that site and have one loading dock which faces east. It does not face any of the public streets but it is on a corner lot. Even though the lot is internal, the dock faces south toward 71st Avenue. It is not across from a residential district, but across from a P district. Even though we are currently in compliance by locating the dock on the interior rather than on the street, we are now in technical violation. This development will die if we have to shift the building further to re-locate the dock so it is not visible from the public street. Mr. Zylla stated the other point of the code to which he would speak is the provisions about corner lots or lots across from . residential areas and that no trucks or trailers shall be parked in a manner that is visible. That seems to him to be extremely �"� restrictive. He is not sure what that means. Does that mean parked overnight or parked for five minutes? If you potentially � PLANNING CONIlKISSION MEETING, 1�iitCH 19, 1997 PAGE 14 park by a corner lot or across from a residential area, you are in technical violation of this code. He thought that was restrictive. Mr. Zylla stated the last point is that the whole Northco Business Park has been approved under a development agreement that goes back a number of years. In that development agreement, they are allowed to come in and pull permits as long as they comply with the M-2 zoning for that land. He does not know to what extent their development agreement may supersede this change in code. If their development agreement governs, his personal concern from the point of view is that their land value would be diminished. As a developer, he thought this was a mistake to the extent that their development agreement controls and this does not affect them. They have not had that question answered, and they have not gone to anyone to get that question answered. Ms. McPherson stated staff had not had the opportunity to consult with the City Attorney on that question but they will do so. Mr. Prichard thanked the Commission for hearing their concerns. He appreciated the Commission receiving his letter into the record n� and stated he would follow some of the points in his letter. One of the first questions he had was why this parcel. As they see it, there is no affected residential. Their understanding was that this issue was brought about to a large degree by residential complaints. On this particular site when they develop it and they plan to develop it, the traffic would flow through industrial parks and out onto University. They do not see an impact to residential. He thought that staff had mentioned that as one of the criteria for this site. Also, they are concerned about future expansion opportunities for that site. In the past, they purchased the old Totino's site which is south of that vacant land and refurbished and restored that facility bringing 400 jobs to the City. McGlynn's has a history of growth, outgrew the site, and needed the land adjacent for growth in their warehouse and distribution operations. As they grow and expand their business, they feel they are going to need the opportunity to potentially have some warehouse on that facility. Their past history has been to put warehouses up first to handle the manufacturing once the manufacturing needs grow to that point. � Mr. Prichard stated, as you may or may not know, they entered into a redevelopment agreement with the City when they acquired the former Totino's facility. They look at the spirit of that agreement as one of growth and expansion, job creation, and tax revenues for the City. Today they have 500 jobs generating over $16 million in payroll. In addition, they pay over $170,000 in real estate taxes after the tax increment assistance. That is � PI,ANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 15 nearly $800,000 since they moved to this site. They look at that and see the proposed zoning as working against them as a business who is trying to be a good corporate citizen and trying to accomplish growth and job creation in the City. They feel they need the flexibility to keep the current zoning, M-2, intact so they can as they grow build the type of facility on that property that they will need. Mr. Prichard stated, as a business, they are forced to be competitive in the marketplace. One of the issues facing them is, in order to be competitive, they need to have their operations as close as they can. If they are restricted to build on this land, they will not be as efficient. They will not be as close to their warehouse and distribution as they would like. This puts them in a position of not being competitive and makes them look at other options. They believe the market value will decline on the land. He did not see how the City could take something away and say the value will be at the same level. That they intend to develop the land is a concern in that they would suffer an economic loss because, if they cannot build the kind of facility they would like on that property, they may end up selling it. They are opposed to n the proposed change. Mr. Steilen stated he was the counsel to McGlynn Bakeries. He was not sure what was going to be considered at the meeting. He would like to make some comments on the suggested changes to the M-2. Mr. Prichard commented about McGlynn Bakeries' position to having the property rezoned to M-4, but they are also objecting to changing the M-2 classification by making a warehouse use a special use. As they understand the proposal, it would render the warehouse a nonconforming use and, if that is the case, it would be a real problem for McGlynn Bakeries. Typically, to have a nonconforming use and if it burns down, they may or may not be able to rebuild it and, in most communities, you cannot expand it. He would request that they not change to the M-4 and also that they not change the M-2 restrictiori and make the warehouse use a special use and create the nonconforming use problem for them. Ms. McPherson stated that was one of the options they looked at, but that is not what is being proposed. The only change in the M-2 is the performance standards with where loading docks can be faced or located on corner lots and lots adjacent to residential districts. They are not recommending the special use permit option in M-2. Mr. Olson stated he represented Anderson Trucking Service which �, owns the property at Osborne Road and Central Avenue and the property is zoned M-1. In 1992, they had this property replatted. � PLANNING CO1��IISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 16 There are actually three pieces on that corner, and only one portion is left. In order to sell that, they had to split it so now they are left with 3.1 acres. They have a buyer who wants to develop that. They may have been in contact with the Planning Commission. They feel this will scare them off. The parcel has been on the market since it was replatted, and it has been on the market ever since they have owned the property. They have never gotten a call from manufacturing. He feels it will adversely affect the sale of this property. Anderson Trucking has no desire to develop this further for the trucking company. Anderson Trucking is currently leasing a portion of the property to the south so it would not increase truck traffic. No one likes a trucking company, but they are necessary. They have no desire to create any conflicts that way. They oppose the M-4 designation and also adding too many restrictions. The people interested in buying this property understand the loading dock issue. They are only looking at putting in three or four loading docks and they would not face directly onto Central or Osborne; however, it is difficult to develop right back to the corner where there is no• visibility. They would oppose this. n Mr. Voigt stated they have the property next to Anderson Trucking. The property is zoned M-1. When they had site plans approved in 1994, they had a phase II plan which was approved at that time. In 1995, when they changed their holding pond, it was approved again to put on a 17,000 square foot addition to the existing building. He is wondering if the change in the ordinance would affect that part of their phase. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed expansion is to the south. This ordinance amendment does not impact this property. The bus facility has overhead doors which face west and east on the site. They are not a corner lot and there is property separating Mr. Voigt's property from other uses so there is no impact to the proposed expansion. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public �earing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND TgE pUgLIC EEARING CLOSED AT 8:40 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated, from what he has heard, he can understand and appreciate what the City is attempting to do but he thought there were some things they needed to think out. A good point was made regarding the Northco property that is next to Columbia Arena. � That is in an area where it does not affect anything. It is a corner lot, but he did not know if one could define it as a corner �`1 � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, 1�iRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 17 lot based on the way this ordinance amendment reads as far as where you can put a loading dock. He did not know why the McGlynn Bakeries property was included. It is in a commercial area and does not fit the criteria. These people have also talked about future expansion. Regarding Anderson Trucking, that lot is a corner lot but there not a lot of residential in that area. There are businesses across the street and across the intersection, and nearby is a towing service. He did not know where that fits the criteria. He was not willing to move on this tonight because there are some things that needed to be thought out. Mr. Saba agreed. He was not opposed to the ordinance, but he is concerned about the properties selected. He is concerned about impacting proposed developments that are already in place. Rather than prohibiting some of those through an ordinance, he would rather see some type of incentives to promote other types of development and not penalize through devaluation of real estate by restricting development. He did not want to see the City turning into a warehouse or trucking terminal type of city either. He did not think they should have trucks parked facing residential property. He would like to see that limited, but he cannot accept the proposed list of properties. Mr. Oquist stated it was pointed out that we talk about truck parking but we do not define the size of the trucks. Is a pick-up considered a truck? Does this mean overnight parking or parking for business? He thought that needed to be identified as well. Mr. Kuechle stated to him a truck is a truck if it has a truck license so he did not think it was particularly confusing. He thought they needed to spell out more clearly what constitutes being visible from the right-of-way or residential area. He thought saying not visible was too restrictive. He thought they also need to be aware that anyone who has land and wants to develop and/or sell it also want to keep the regulations as loose as possible because that gives the widest berth possible to develop or sell. It is their job to say where do we need to be. Mr. Sielaff stated his biggest issue is what sort of agreements are in place right now such as development agreements. He thought it was only fair that this ordinance would not apply to those agreements made before this was considered. He agreed that there is some value in this ordinance change. He would not mind voting for it tonight, but again what applies to the majority. Mr. Kondrick stated he did not think they were ready to vote this �"1 evening in light of the properties affected. He thought they should define trucks because there are differences. He suggested r''1 PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 18 tabling this item to the April 2 meeting to provide an opportunity to explore the minutes and to get various points of view so they can understand the issues and rediscuss at a later date. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought the Commission should give staff some input as to what parts we are not sure of and what information we want. Otherwise, we are starting where we are now. He would like a better definition on visibility. He is fairly comfortable about the restrictions on corner lots, about the trucks and loading docks if it is more clearly defined. There is a difference between parked with the loading docks being next to a residential area, for example, on Main Street versus around the back. He would like to see some clarification of that issue. He did not know how to answer clarification of changing to Manufacturing Only. The conflict is between wanting to develop the land and us wanting to restrict to a denser use. Mr. Kondrick stated he would like some clarification from the assessor in understanding how he feels that denying certain types of use does not diminish value. He has a hard time understanding that. The taxes may be the same, but it does affect the use or the ability to sell. Mr. Oquist stated, if we can get a better definition, perhaps that will answer some of the questions. He would still need to be convinced of including the McGlynn and Northco properties where there is no residential nearby. Mr. Kondrick asked if staff took all the properties that were available and these are the ones that might be affected. Ms. McPherson stated staff looked at the vacant land inventory and tried to make some qualitative judgments about what properties would be best suited for M-4. Staff can bring the Commission additional information about properties they did not select and perhaps the Commission would like to choose other sites. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to table consideration of an ordinance recodifying the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, entitled "Zoning", to the April 2, 1997, meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CEAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED T� MOTION CARRIED UNAiQIMOUSLY. Mr. Oquist stated he thought they should have separated the ordinance from the sites. He could have voted for the ordinance and then over a period of time they could deal with the sites. �"'1 They would have more time to choose sites. The ordinance is good and they should have voted on the ordinance and said now you have PLANNING COD�lISSION MEETING, N�iRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 19 so much time to pick the sites. People are trying to keep the regulations loose to develop and we want to control that, but people also pay taxes and we want to be careful. Mr. Hickok stated, about the timing, one of the things we have to consider as we look at this is that requests that we get for industrial land have been unbelievable. Right now it is an extremely hot market in the industrial warehouse industry. It is quite possible with less than 90 acres left that we could see industrial warehouse fill the remaining inventory in a very short time. Mr. Saba asked how many requests the City was getting for manufacturing. Mr. Hickok stated industrial as a whole has been a very hot market. Fridley's industrial land has been a hotbed of activity and has been a real mix. They have seen from recent development activity that it has been warehouse, but there is some interest from folks that are already here in expanding to other sites in manufacturing and others moving here from other areas. Al1 of �,.� that is considered as we evaluate what is left and how we handle what is left. 3. INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE Ms. McPherson stated the proposed telecommunications ordinance is a new chapter of the City code which would regulate telecommunications facilities. The Planning Commission's role is to give their opinion on the regulatory approach and to provide input into the proposed scope of the chapter. The Commission's role would also be to review special use permits related to these facilities once the City code chapter is adopted. Ms. McPherson stated, in 1996, the Federal government passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act which eliminated previous regulatory "boxes" - Title VI regulated cable television; Title II regulated broadcast television and telephones; and Title III regulated radio, broadcasts and cellular phones. Basically, those boxes have been eliminated and we are seeing a convergence of those technologies. Telephone companies are getting into cable, cable companies are getting into telephone, etc. The purpose of the Act was to increase competition, to reduce monopolistic opportunities and to remove as many regulatory barriers as possible. Ms. McPherson stated staff is proposing two regulatory approaches. /`1 The first is site specific. In this approacH, the City would identify specific sites which are privately or municipally owned. PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, NIlARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 20 Building mounted antenna arrays would be considered accessory uses because they have little impact such as on the municipal water tower. However, new towers would require a special use permit. The second approach is in the limited open market approach where the sites are driven by the market and the providers. There would be a hierarchy of zoning classes which would prohibit tower installations in residential districts or in areas that may be adversely impacted such as a municipal park facility. Building mounted antennas would still be considered an accessory use and would require a special use permit. Ms. McPherson stated both options have their pros and cons. The limited open market approach is an advantage to the providers in that they have more flexibility. There is no convincing of owners by the City to accept this particular use on their site. The disadvantage is that the burden of proof would lie with the City for denial of special use permits. The regulatory approach may coerce unwilling parties into expensive lease arrangements. The intent of these two options is that we would require co-location or require buyers to locate their facilities on a single tower, and limit the distance between towers to approximately 3/4 mile. � On the site specific option, there is the advantage that the City controls the location, number and impact of the towers. The City would acknowledge that specific sites are acceptable for tower construction. This could possibly eliminate the need for special use permits if the standards were written specifically enough. However, the providers may not like the sites the City has chosen and the land owners may not want to have a tower constructed on their site, in which case the City would have to go back to the drawing board and pick new sites. Mr. Sielaff asked if the City would identify the sites beforehand. Ms. McPherson stated yes, the City would say these are the sites where we want towers. The basis for determining the sites would be regulatory. We would want to avoid sites that were in residential districts, minimize sites that create large impacts to park facilities, encourage certain types of construction in commercial districts versus industrial districts. This would depend on what other types of towers were in that vicinity. Mr. Sielaff asked what about those things that have to do with service. We cannot determine the best location for the best service. Ms. McPherson stated they would hope that the number of sites that �"� the Cit.y chose would provide enough choice for the provider so they could pick one that would meet their particular needs. ^ PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING, N�RCH 19, 1997 PAGE 21 Mr. Sielaff asked if you could provide enough diversity of sites to satisfy their needs. Ms. McPherson stated yes. She had maps put together by the consultant which talks about specific sites. Mr. Saba asked how many of these applications did staff expect. Ms. McPherson stated the consultant anticipates, with the number of licenses currently issued by the Federal government that there will be a need in the City of Fridley for 17 sites. Three are specifically for cellular installations and the remaining 14 would be for personal communication services, a new digital technology for which the licenses have been recently auctioned. With co- location, the consultant anticipates that will drop the 14 sites to 4- 6 sites in the near term. With the way that digital communication is handled, we will need more towers in the future as more people use digital pagers, faxes, phones, etc. Mr. Saba stated we cannot prohibit the number. We could have one n on every block. Ms. McPherson stated the Telecommunications Act states expressly that cities cannot prohibit these facilities from being constructed within their city boundaries. It is possible that there could be a tower on every block but that is not likely. The Act also states that the city cannot create barriers to entering the market for different providers or create a disadvantageous competitive environment. We have to provide regulations that provide a level playing field for the various providers. Mr. Saba asked if the City would get into the situation where they would have to provide utility easements. Ms. McPherson stated that is a separate but related issue. She was not sure providers would be looking for additional easements. They would probably work within the existing rights-of-way. There would be a separate and related ordinance, and probably legislation at the State level, which would regulate the cities' ability to charge utility companies for disruption of the public rights-of-way in order to maintain and repair the rights-of-way as the result of construction of these kinds of facilities. That is getting away from what the Commission feels is the best approach to recommend to the City Council in terms of how to regulate - let the open market dictate or we select sites where the towers can be built. We are talking about wireless communication. The proposed i"`� City Code chapter would also include satellite dishes. There are specific rules in the Telecommunications Act that tell the cities � � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION ME�ETING, N�iRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 22 how to regulate direct broadcast services, satellite dish size, how to regulate satellite dishes between one and two meters, and how to regulate satellite dishes in excess of two meters. Those issues will be included in the proposed City Code chapter. The Planning Commission will probably not deal with these issues on a regular basis. The Federal regulations are very specific about how those types of facilities are going to be regulated. At this time, staff is talking about tower installations for cellular and digital antenna arrays. There are other things that are included in the City co-chapter, but they are more concerned about the towers. Mr. Saba asked if the tower height could be restricted. Ms. McPherson stated they are looking at restricting the height. That is also regulated somewhat by the Federal government. Mr. Kondrick stated the elevation may dictate how high the tower may have to be. Mr. Sielaff stated these are towers for a system. He has read about AT&T getting into the local phone market through an antenna. Are we talking about that? Ms. McPherson stated they were not talking about regulating specific providers but talking about regulating specific facilities. They define facility as a tower, an antenna or a satellite dish. Typically, the antenna arrays on the towers are triangular in shape and have four separate antenna panels on each side of the triangle and can be mounted on a lattice-work tower or on a monopole. In addition, we could have microwave dishes and other types of antenna also mounted on the same pole. We are talking about the tower which provides support for a variety of antennas or dishes and its supporting ground equipment structure. That whole system ties back into the land lines that already exist. The providers like to have duplication in case part of the system would fail or if calls that are being generated are from or to a land line telephone, so they do have to tie back into the existing land line system. That is where you get into the issue of easements and right-of-way disruption. Mr. Oquist stated, if he understands correctly, we cannot restrict to building the towers. If we identify 17 sites and we get 25 requests and they do not want to share, do we then have to provide 8 more sites? Ms. McPherson stated no. The Federal government does allow the � ability to regulate where and how but we cannot prohibit outright. There is a provision in the way the consultant is proposing the PLANNING CONIl�ISSION MEETING, 1�,RCH 19, 1997 PAGE 23 City code chapter wYiere the provider must prove that there is no other site within 3/4 mile of what they are proposing. Unless the 17 sites are maxed out with providers, a provider would be hard pressed to prove that there is no way they can co-locate. It may come to the point where the City may have to mediate between two providers to agree on a lease price. Mr. Oquist stated, if a provider constructs and owns a tower, they can lease space on that tower for other providers. With that in mind, it seems logical to restrict the sites as in the site specific approach. Mr. Saba and Mr. Kondrick agreed. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought the whole field is still undeveloped. If you look at the way the sites have to be spread out in a cellular fashion, they would have to be able to provide all areas for this service. The City cannot say they will not provide service to an area of the City. He did not know that this is developed well enough that we can regulate the tower sites to the degree that will answer the letter of the law that the City n will have full coverage. Mr. Oquist asked if they could divide the City into a certain number of quadrants and pick sites in those quadrants that would then cover all portions of the City. Mr. Kuechle stated he would favor the limited open market approach because it keeps the hassle away from the City. Mr. Saba stated, in doing that, the City would have to defend. If the City makes the selection and has sites set up, the City does not have to defend it. He did not want the parks to be used for antenna sites. Mr. Sielaff stated in the open market approach the City has to show the burden of proof. Ms. McPherson reviewed two maps indicating proposed sites as indicated by the consultant. The report talks about what the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Cable Commission talked about. She went to the Cable Commission on March lOth to talk about this same issue and to get their input. The first map shows the consultant's 42 sites. There are four sites that already have an installation of some type. There are commercial sites included as well as municipal sites such as water towers. The grid shows 3/4 mile spacing. The second map also shows possible sites. The � difference on this map is that these are all municipal properties. � PLANNING COIrIl��lISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 24 Ms. McPherson stated the Cable Commission recommended to the City Council that they consider the site specific option so the City could be in control, that they be located on municipal sites and that we write some type of standard to determine which parks are acceptable. They were concerned about facilities being located in parks; however, they did not want to see parks excluded as potential options. They want the City to raise as much lease revenue as possible from these types of opportunities and have control. If the City is the owner, we just have to negotiate with ourselves to determine what sites are appropriate. Ms. McPherson stated she would talk about the code components and then the Commission can formally make a recommendation to the City Council about what you would like to see. Ms. McPherson stated in the City code components they are recommending that monopoles have priority over lattice-work structures. They also recommend that monopoles not be attached to buildings, not be painted, and that there be brick on the equipment buildings. Specific performance standards include no glare by light and no lights on the towers. They are to be � located in the side or rear yard of the facilities. The lease area should not cause non-compliance with parking or lot coverage of the primary use of the site. The boundary of the lease area is be located 10 feet from the side or rear lot line. This 10 feet should accommodate the easements that would be located on the site, provide access and separation for maintenance and separation from the property line. This.setback is similar to what is required for signs. They are also requiring a minimum of one parking stall for service vehicles. Ms. McPherson stated she talked about the recommendation from the Cable Commission. They recommended the site specific approach and putting as many of these on municipal sites as possible. They would like to see a portion of the lease monies dedicated to their cable TV activities, if possible, and they would like to review the draft of the City code once it is written. Ms. McPherson stated the Parks and Recreation Commission also reviewed the possibility of having these facilities in parks. They indicated that it would be possible if properly mitigated and would also like to receive a portion of the lease monies for park maintenance and development. Ms. McPherson stated, once the Planning Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council, the City Council will review all of the commission discussions at their meeting of March 31. �'"'1 The Planning Commission would conduct a public hearing regarding the zoning amendment. We need to put in the zoning districts • /�`� �, � � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION N�ETING, N�,RCS 19, 1997 PAGE 25 these specific facilities as either accessory or special uses in specific zoning districts. On April 16, the Planning Commission would conduct an informational meeting to discuss with the providers our proposed City code amendment as well as the regulatory approach that the City is proposing. She did not anticipate at that meeting that they would have specific sites actually identified. That would come later in the process. Mr. Sielaff asked who the providers are. Ms. McPherson stated the consultant met with them early in the process. Providers would include AT&T, Sprint, U.S. West, plus two or three others. They were pleased to be included in the early discussions. We have asked them for information, but they are reluctant to disclose information because their cell patterns are considered highly confidential. They have been giving input and are working with the consultant. We have not discussed with them the regulatory approaches at this point. Staff is working with the commissions and the City Council first to get direction and then will be talking with the providers. Mr. Sielaff asked if this includes satellite dishes. Ms. McPherson stated no, because there are very specific regulations for satellite dishes. The City's hands are pretty much tied when it comes to satellite dishes. Basically, the only thing the City code chapter will do is repeat the Federal regulations. They are very restrictive in terms of what the City can and cannot do. Ms. McPherson stated, based on the input of the providers at the Planning Commission meeting of April 16, the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the City code amendment on May 5. What happens between May 5 and June 24 has not yet been determined. June 24 is the date the moratorium is currently set to expire. Mr. Kondrick stated the Cable Commission expressed interest in having the poles constructed on municipal land. How many of the 17 sites are there that are not park facilities? Ms. McPherson stated they have not specifically identified that. Municipal sites include the Commons well field which has the above ground reservoir; the Highway 65 reservoir which does not have co- location abilities; the expanded filter plant at the intersection of 73 1/2 and Highway 65; the 63rd Avenue booster station; the City garage facility; the wellhouse at 51st and East River Road; the Marian Hills water tower at Skywood Lane and Matterhorn Drive; and city hall. There is a small booster station at I-694. In PI�ANNING CONIl�lISSION NN�EETING, L�iRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 26 addition, the consultant also suggested a community park in the northwest corner adjacent to the power lines and also Cherry Lane park which does not have park facilities per se but does have a hockey storage facility on the site. Mr. Kondrick stated they would need six more sites assuming 17 is the target number and assuming these areas are conducive to the systems. - Ms. McPherson stated 17 sites includes 3 cellular installations. The 17 sites would preclude any City requirement for co-location. The number of 17 could drop if providers are required to co- locate. Mr. Kondrick stated, with technology being what it is today, the cell phones we have today could be throw away equipment because of technology going at break neck speed. What about the ability to transmit and receive signals? Might it be possible to have one pole to cover the entire City. The number of 17 seems arbitrary. Mr. Saba stated he saw most of this as going toward line of site or a direct satellite approach. The waves will be digital rather ^� than cellular and be different from the digital that we see today. He sees much improvement in technology, but the towers should last for a while. Mr. Kondrick stated it is true that everything that is constructed must have a mechanical structure at its base. Are you suggesting the buildings be a brick structure? Ms. McPherson stated yes. Mr. Sielaff asked if school property could be designated as possible sites. The schools could lease and create a source of revenue for the schools. Ms. McPherson stated there are several school sites on the consultants list as possible sites. We would have to evaluate that. If we went to the limited open market approach, we would have to regulate that through what is permitted by the zoning districts. The Federal law recommends the exchange of services where a provider may provide, for example, fiber optic cable for a facility in exchange for leasing fees. The Federal government is encouraging other forms of compensation. Mr. Sielaff asked if the fire department would be a possible site. Ms. McPherson stated their garage may be a possible site. They do have some public safety equipment there. � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, NIl�iRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 27 Mr. Kondrick stated there are three fire stations and a fire training center. Ms. McPherson stated this expands the scope of non-park facilities. Ms. McPherson stated staff would like a motion indicating the Planning Commission's preference on the regulatory approach whether it be site specific or limited open market. If the Commission wants to be specific about the sites, they can do so. Staff would also like concurrence on the various components being proposed on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report in terms of what the City code chapter would cover. Mr. Kuechle stated the only way he would prefer site specific is if we know what the providers will say about using the same tower. Then he felt with the City owning the towers there would be leverage for them to use the same tower rather than each building their own. What leverage do we have under site specific not to have six towers on every site? ^ Mr. Hickok stated the Federal regulations require that cities recognize that they cannot say "not in my backyard" but can point to locations and not have the industry competing in control. For example, if we picked seven sites and provided a reasonable approach to those locations, we can say we have been reasonable and that is where the leverage is. Mr. Kuechle asked if this was referring to the same tower or individual towers. Mr. Hickok stated quite likely they would be locating on a monopole or other structure. The providers would be co-locating. If we thought it appropriate to have one or more structures, they could be in one location. We will be held to a reasonable test, and we have brought in expertise to be sure that we are being reasonable. Mr. Oquist asked if Mr. Hickok was saying that we can be reasonable by restricting one tower per site with multiple uses on that tower. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Mr. Kuechle asked if it was feasible that three users would use one tower. ,� Mr. Saba stated the providers are after the height which is an advantage. Whether they put one, two or three providers on a �"'\ ;� PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, MARCS 19, 1997 PAGE 28 tower is their personal decision. Mr. Kuechle stated he would dispute the height issue because they want to reuse frequ�ncies. In cellular phones, too much power is as bad as to little power because they want to reuse cells. Mr. Kondrick asked if you can restrict several providers to one brick building. Mr. Hickok stated we have to recognize that, if we are site specific, that we provide sufficient space for the equipment on the ground. Mr. Sielaff stated he thought they would have more control with site specific as to what we provide on the site. Wouldn't we just approve someone to build on that site? If they switch, they would have to have an agreement with the other companies. Mr. Hickok stated, when we are in control of the number of users and the design elements of that site, we would be in control of the buildings and could create a multi-tenant equipment space. Mr. Kondrick stated he is concerned that there could be multiple buildings or that they could be large. Mr. Hickok stated there will be variables. They need vertical separation, for example, and we could expect that we could put up a 90-foot pole and say three providers will use that. We have to recognize that the technology requires that they separate themselves vertically on the tower. If we expect a three-vendor location, we have to provide the height so they have the vertical separation and on the ground provide for the equipment for those three users. We can be in control of all of that. Mr. Kondrick stated, for example, if a tower was on the northwest corner of a park and if we build a tower and building, that would have to be of some size. He would like to be able to say where he would like to have the building and to be able to say because of the site we have chosen we can have only one user. Mr. Kuechle stated we then would have to provide additional users with a site. Mr. Kondrick stated the building issue could be a very important thing. Mr. Saba stated we can regulate that. If regulated, the provider can indicate how many square feet they would need. � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, MARCB 19, 1997 PAGE 29 Ms. McPherson stated co-location is not foreign to the providers. U.S. West manages and maintains the bulk of the existing land line system in the City. But yet someone living in the City of Fridley can have long distance service via AT&T because U.S. West allows AT&T to access those existing land lines to provide service to that customer. There are fees associated with this, but there is already an air of cooperation amongst the providers. Co-location is something that is happening all over the country. Mr. Kondrick asked why the buildings are not protected. Is security an issue that we should be concerned about? Ms. McPherson stated the consultant is recommending no fences because fences create the impression of an attractive nuisance. Mr. Kuechle asked why make a motion tonight. He would like to know what the possibilities are of co-location. Is it possible for different companies to use the same tower from a practical standpoint and are they willing to do that? Or are we faced with the fact that we may have four or five towers on each one? There must be some knowledge out there. ^ Ms. McPherson stated they can go back to the providers and ask. Staff is looking for direction for the City Council to see how the commissions feel. They are looking at the whole issue of whether or not they want to own the towers, a tower utility, if leasing municipal land is a viable option under Minnesota statutes, etc. There are still other issues that are not being discussed by the Commission tonight. Staff could come back in April, but we may recommend something else. They will still need to factor in Mr. Kuechle's comments about co-location. Mr. Saba asked if these companies can use each others equipment. Mr. Kuechle stated he would be much more in favor of the site specific option if he felt that were a practical program and could. provide leverage. He did not know if companies are willing to do that and we cannot force them to do that. Mr. Kondrick stated it is easy to be site specific if you are talking about municipal property. If it not municipal, there may be a greater hurdle. It is very easy to pick a park, and that bothers him. Mr. Oquist stated a provider could come in and pick a park if we did not go site specific. ^ Mr. Kuechle asked, if we have specific sites and the provider wanted a park site, do we have to give it to them. ,.-� PLANNING COIrIl�lISSION MEETING, 1�,RCH 19, 1997 PAGE 30 Ms. McPherson stated the City would still have control. The provider would have to negotiate with the City as the property owner. It is still up to the City Council to authorize a lease agreement with a company. If the City Council says no, they can refuse to lease to someone. Mr. Hickok stated the concerns expressed are valid concerns. That is where staff was which led to hiring a consultant. At the staff level, we had a sense that we would like to investigate selecting sites. Staff needed someone with the technical know-how to say whether this was or was not possible. Also, that person got together with the industry. The tenor of those discussions and our staff discussions with providers is that they are interested in the coverage. If it means co-location, what they need to do is cover the City. They need to have that blanket. If it means that they are on with three other providers, they do it elsewhere. We have to be reasonable and provide space for that. We had to come to some sort of conclusions about what was the right number and the right height. Once that is provided, the co-location issue is one that, from our discussions, the providers are okay with doing that. The big thing is getting here. � Mr. Kuechle asked what are the logistics of who is going to own the tower. It is an advantage to a provider to charge fees which can limit competition. � Mr. Hickok stated, if we want to limit the number of towers, that then points to site specific and raises some questions about ownership and leasing. Three people on a tower if owned by a person who does not want to share is a difficult thing to do. We might see two other poles then. But, if there is a site specific, it also has some of the questions answered like who is going to own it. Perhaps it will be a utility ownership that the providers come to and one cannot say that the other cannot be on that tower. If that is the answer, he thought they would find that the industry is going to respond that we have given them a chance and enough overlap that if this site does not work, another site nearby would provide coverage. Mr. Sielaff stated he was not worried about co-location at this point. He would rather that the providers figure it out. Mr. Kuechle stated to him the issue is how many buildings and towers will be at each site. He was not sure we can restrict. Mr. McPherson stated these types of issues can be given to the telecommunications expert. His intent was to have another meeting with the providers. We can have him pose those questions to the providers and get responses back about what is the maximum number �..1 PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, N�,RCB 19, 1997 PAGE 31 y of providers. The vertical separation between antenna arrays is the driving factor in terms of how many you can get on a particular size pole. If we say the maximum size pole in the City � � is 175 feet and they say you can have two providers, we can write into the code to get away from the issue of multiple buildings that on sites with multiple providers they shall share one building. That may mean in the case of multiple users expanding the building that exists or bringing in a totally different building. Mr. Oquist stated, because this is preliminary, he still prefers the site specific approach. He thought they can have a motion for site specific but, before final resolution, we must answer some of Mr. Kuechle's questions. Before we get to the final point, we must understand what the users will be doing, are they willing to share and yet be site specific. We need to understand all of the ramifications. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend the site specific approach and that staff provide further information on concerns and provide answers to questions. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY CONINIISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting of February 18, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CEAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIIKOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of February 13, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION C�IRRIID UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. �.,1 PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, 1�1itCS 19, 1997 PAGE 32 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CEAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED TSE MOTION CARRIED AND THE NIl�iRCH 19, 1997, PLANNING COD�Il�lISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, i � Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary i'\ �� S I G N— IN S H E E T %� PLANNING COMMISSIaN.MEETING, March 19, 1997 � /'�