Loading...
PL 06/04/1997 - 30842CITY OF F'RIDLEY PLANNING CO1rIl�IISSION N�ETING, JUNE 4, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the June 4, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Larry Kuechle Members Absent: Diane Savage, Connie Modig Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Jim Randers, Display Arts Paul Stone, Stone Construction Wes & Jeanine Grandstrand, 5431 Madison St NE Linda Oslund, 5412 Madison Street N.E. Pauline Charchenko, 589 Cheri Lane N.E. Bob Dietrick, 572 Cheri Lane N.E. ^ Steve Britven, 572 - 63rd Avenue N.E. Al Noutsby, 5421 Madison Street N.E. - Norma Amundson, New Brighton APPROVAL OF MAY 21, 1997, PLANNING CODM�lISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the May 21, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED T� MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. l. (Tabled from 5/21/97 meeting) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #97-02, BY HOME DEPOT USA, INC.: To allow nurseries or garden centers which require outdoor sales and storage on Lot 1, Block 1, Home Depot Fridley Addition, generally located at 5650 Main Street N.E. Ms. McPherson stated this item was tabled at the May 21st meeting. Staff today received communication that Home Depot wishes this item to remain tabled until the June 18th meeting. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #97-04, BY JIM RANDERS: To allow construction of a 3,000 square foot addition, which would bring the total lot coverage of the property to � approximately 500, on Lots 24 - 28, Block 1, Onaway District, generally located at 7839 Elm Street N.E. PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 2 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC SEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the request by Mr. Randers of Display Arts, Inc., requires that a special use permit be approved to increase the maximum lot coverage on an industrial lot from 40o to 500. If approved, a 3,000 square foot, or 50 foot x 60 foot, addition would be constructed onto an existing industrial building. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located generally at 78th Avenue and Elm Street. The property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, as are all of the surrounding properties. Currently on the property is a 10,500 square foot building which houses the petitioner's business. Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of the special use permit as outlined in the City code outlines two standards for consideration n of a special use permit request to increase the maximum lot coverage. These standards are the total net impact of the amount of hard surface on a site and whether or not all other ordinance requirements can be met by the request. Ms. McPherson stated staff looked at the proposal in terms of the hard surface impact. There will be a net increase of 3,477 square feet of hard surface with the addition and a driveway. The proposed addition would be added to the north of the existing building. Also proposed is a small driveway from the existing hard surface parking area in the alley to an overhead door in the new addition. The purpose is for loading and off-loading displays constructed by the petitioner. There is an opportunity to offset this increase by about 676 square feet by removing a portion of the front sidewalk that currently exists in front of the building. It appears that the main entrance will be toward the north with another entrance to the south. A door is proposed for the new addition and the sidewalk would be expanded. If the proposal is approved with the offset, a total impact of the liard surface would be 2,801 square feet. Ms. McPherson stated, in terms of other code requirements, the petitioner has submitted a landscape plan which meets the requirements of the code. Staff has recommended that additional landscape materials would assist in offsetting the impact of the addition and the increase in hard surface. �� Ms. McPherson stated, in terms of the zoning requirements in ^ PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, JiJNE 4, 1997 PAGE 3 addition to the special use permit, the petitioner is also processing a variance request consisting of several variances including: l. Reducing the lot area from 1.5 acres to 27,000 square feet. 2. Reducing the side yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet. 3. Reducing the building setback from an alley right-of-way from 40 feet to 39 feet. 4. Reducing the number of parking stalls from 31 spaces to 15 spaces. 5. Reducing the parking setback from the side lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet, and from an alley right-of-way from 15 feet to 0 feet. Ms. McPherson stated, on May 28, the Appeals Commission reviewed the variances requested and recommended approval to the City Council of all variances with the stipulation that the special use n permit request also be approved. Ms. McPherson stated, regarding the stormwater drainage, the engineering department has no items required of the petitioner. The impact is relatively small and the engineering department is not requesting any ponding or change on the site for stormwater drainage purposes. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends denial of the request as it cannot meet the two standards set forth in the code. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of this request to the City Council, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. The landscape plan shall be amended as follows: a. Substitute a rubrum maple for the proposed Marshall's ash. b. Add six flowering crabapples or plums; four in front and two in the green area in the rear. c. Add two additional Black Hills Spruce at the front (northwest corner of the building). 2. The green area on the east side of the addition shall not be /"� converted to hard surface. PI,ANNING CONIl�ISSION MEETING, JiJ1�TE 4, 1997 PAGE 4 3. The sidewalk in front of the building shall be removed as indicated in the drawing "site modifications". 4. The petitioner acknowledges that the site is deficient in parking and future reuse of the building will require a tenant with similar or less parking space demands or processing a special use permit for off-site parking. 5. Variance request, VAR #97-05, shall be approved. Mr. Oquist asked what two factors they were concerned about in Section 205.18.03.C.(4).(a) and (b). Ms. McPherson stated the first is the total amount or impact of hard surface whether it is a net increase or a net decrease. The code would like it to be a net decrease. The second is whether or not the other ordinance requirements can be met. The code talks about drainage, landscaping, setback requirements, etc. Mr. Oquist stated the drainage and landscape requirements can be met. The setbacks were recommended for approval by Appeals. If ^ you eliminate the sidewalk in the front, how do they get to the other doors? Is there not going.to be an extension of the sidewalk to the entrance in the new addition? � Ms. McPherson stated the portion recommended to be removed is the triangular segments extending out from the front. The sidewalk along the building would remain. Mr. Kuechle stated parking is a problem there. Mr. Kondrick asked how much increase in hard surface is there. Ms. McPherson stated the increase is a full 100. The petitioner when first proposing this project wanted an addition of 60 feet x 75 feet. That would have pushed the lot coverage over 500. The petitioner reduced the size of the project one time in order not to exceed the 50o maximum. Mr. Randers stated his company makes trade show displays. The problem they run into is that they have grown over the years and need more space. As they are constructing the displays, the clients want to see them up. The displays are then packed and shipped. The more displays they get the more space they need. When they put up displays in the existing section of the building, they have to stop production on everything else. If they have assembly work on a job, they need to rent space because they do not have enough room. As far as parking, he is not looking to add employees. They have three sales people who come and go and who '� � PLANNING COI�IlKISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 5 park in the front. They use only one entrance. It is okay with him to take out the sidewalk because they use only one entrance. They have five extra parking spaces and the neighbors park in their spaces now. They do not need more people. They just need more space for what they are now doing. Mr. Sielaff asked if there would be off street parking. Mr. Randers stated the sales representatives park on the street but they come and go during the day. Mr. Sielaff asked Mr. Randers if he owned the building or if he leased the building. Mr. Randers stated he owns the property. He purchased it for extra space and have been there since 1990. He owned a building earlier on 77th and Beech. They sold that and moved two blocks to their present location in 1990. Space is now a problem again. Mr. Sielaff asked if he anticipated growing even more. Mr. Randers stated he didn't want to. He wanted to remain this size. He did not anticipate expanding on this site. Mr. Kuechle asked if the petitioner had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Randers stated no. Mr. Kondrick asked if there was any problem with the landscape requirements. Mr. Randers stated no. There are no trees there now so it would probably look better. Mr. Oquist asked what the door to the south used for. Mr. Randers stated they purchased the building from ICA. They have an office there but never use that door. Mr. Oquist asked, if they say remove all the sidewalk with just a sidewalk along the building and from the door to the street, that would eliminate some of the hard surface. Mr. Randers stated that would probably be easier for them. He thought the doors were there because of the fire marshall. Mr. Saba asked how much more green space this would add. PLANNING CO1��ISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 6 Ms. McPherson stated this would reduced the hard surface by perhaps a few hundred square feet. It is not substantial compared to the size of the addition. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CIIAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED TEE MOTION CARRIED AND TEE PUBLIC BEARING CI�OSED AT 7:50 P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated he would be inclined to recommend approval to the City Council of this request with the five stipulations as outlined. Mr. Oquist stated a recommendation should also include the rearrangement of the sidewalk. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought this was covered by stipulation #3. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist to recommend �..� approval of Special Use Permit, SP #97-04, by Jim Randers, to allow construction of a 3,000 square foot addition, which would bring the total lot coverage of the property to approximately 500, on Lots 24 - 28, Block 1, Onaway, generally located at 7839 Elm Street N.E., with the following stipulations: l. The landscape plan shall be amended as follows: a. Substitute a rubrum maple for the proposed Marshall's ash. b. Add six flowering crabapples or plums; four in front and two in the green area in the rear. c. Add two additional Black Hills Spruce at the front (northwest corner of the bui�ding). 2. The green area on the east side of the addition shall not be converted to hard surface. 3. The sidewalk in front of the building shall be removed as indicated in the drawing "site modifications". 4. The petitioner acknowledges that the site is deficient in parking and future reuse of the building will require a tenant with similar or less parking space demands or r"1 processing a special use permit for off-site parking. � PLANNING COI�IlKISSION NMEETING JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 7 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CAAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIID UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this item on June 23. 3. INFORMATIONAL HEARING REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITES Mr. Hickok stated this is an issue talked about before, and they welcome the opportunity to have audience participation to get a better understanding of what the issues are and ask questions they may have. The telecommunications issue relates to cell phones, digital pagers, satellite dishes, etc. Mr. Hickok showed a video tape which explained the'telecommunications issues. The City Council has passed a moratorium on the construction of towers until December, 1997. Mr. Hickok stated in 1996 the Federal government passed a telecommunications act which eliminated the previous regulatory �.,� boxes, increased competition and removed other regulatory barriers. Towers have been constructed around the nation whether they be monopoles or lattice-work towers. Cities are required to allow towers in their communities. There are two approaches as to where these towers may be located. One method is market driven where telecommunications companies can choose where to locate a tower whether it be on public or private property. Another method is site specific where the sites are identified and parameters set for construction of these towers. Mr. Hickok stated staff prefers the site specific approach and has determined nine possible locations for towers as follows: 1) Well Site #1 on Cheri Lane; 2) a vacant parcel at the end of Cheri Lane; 3) water reservoir site at Lincoln and 51st; 4) Well Site #13 on East River Road; 5) Commons Park near the other utility structures; 6) Community Park adjacent to the industrial district and railroad track; 7) City garage and recycling center complex, 8) the existing water tower on Highway 65; and 9) Edgewater Park north of Mississippi Street. Mr. Oquist stated located on private telecommunications the video indicates there are some towers buildings. Are they owned by the companies and do they rent the space? Mr. Hickok stated yes to both questions. r"1 Mr. Kuechle asked what would happen to those in the City with the new ordinance plan. PLANNING CONIlrlISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 8 Mr. Hickok stated the first choice would be to put them on high topographic locations and on high structures in the community. This would eliminate the need for higher tower structures. We do have provisions currently in the industrial ordinance that says by special use permit these could exist in industrial districts. If on top of a building, though, they would be an accessory to a principle use and�would be accepted. That is why the McGlynn's tower was approved without a special use permit. The St. Paul water tower was approved in the same way. The Highway 65 water tower where they have a cellular array was approved by a lease agreement with the City and the City receives an annual fee for that. The one at Great Northern Industrial Park is the U.S. West Cellular line and was constructed in 1992 with a special use permit. Mr. Oquist asked if there were strategic places these towers needed to be and if eight sites would be enough. Mr. Hickok stated the way staff evaluated from a site specific standpoint is that the consultant has indicated we might see 17 � requests for towers. Of those 17 vendors looking for a site, we could see co-location as a very strong possibility which would eliminate the need for 17 towers and drop the number back considerably. We would allow a number of users to go on one location. Staff is looking at eight sites. Conceivably on those eight sites there could be room for two or three vendors on each monopole. Mr. Sielaff asked what the ordinance would cover. Would it cover site locations or would it indicate what sort of site characteristics would need to exist? Mr. Hickok stated the ordinance would assure that towers are only constructed in the locations that have been selected. Initially, staff would identify a set of sites to be approved. It could be expanded in the future depending on the technology. Initially, it would be the sites that were selected and then set parameters much like the industrial buildings. There would be landscape sta�dards, site location features, etc. Staff would probably on a site-by-site basis determine where the least visible site would be and most sensitive to residential areas. The ordinance would assure that we have the control necessary to say what we want on a specific site. The ordinance has not yet been drafted. The Planning Commission will have an opportunit.y to see that language when it is put together. �"1 Mr. Sielaff asked if the lattice construction would be all�owed. � PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, JIJNE 4, 1997 PAGE 9 Mr. Hickok stated the lattice construction would not be allowed. Mr. Kondrick stated the telecommunications area is one where we have no choice. They want to get coverage in every community across the country. The City has a moratorium in order to provide time to make studies and make sure the towers are located in the right place. Mr. Hickok stated, as staff evaluated the market driven approach, they looked at it and determined this approach is still up for grabs, although staff prefers the site specific approach. The market driven approach would be one of vendors coming in and saying they have selected a site and then going through the required processes. It goes back to an earlier question of what needs to be done in terms of placement. The City has to make a reasonable and realistic effort to accommodate the technology. We have control of where it is located as long as we are reasonable in our approach. We have hired a consultant to determine what kind of demand we will have which is based on the Federal licenses that have been granted. Based on the demand, we can make a reasonable effort to place poles. Each tower has a certain �.,� radius. There may be a tower across the river, for example, that is directed toward the surge tower site on Alden Way. Then another tower in Edgewater Park or Community Park would have to direct their equipment in such a way to make the system work. Hickok stated he believes.they have set a good pattern with these eight locations to make it work and we can determine the locations. Mr. Kondrick stated, with the advances in technology, what about the future whereby they are about to make these more powerful. What is the possibility of a downsize? If we granted ten sites today, what are the chances of there being a need for five sites tomorrow? Mr. Hickok stated this was a concern initially about getting geared up too big and finding out they would need something smaller. The technology has been on the horizon for a long time. In talking to the vendors and our consultant, there is not another similar technology on the horizon at this time. Folks are entering into 20 year leases with the expectation that the need for these towers is not going to go away. The technology is very different. Many uses are digital and work best under low power, so the poles being located close together don't need a lot of power to project from one to the next. That also gives the clearest signal. Now we are seeing the large towers or T-1 towers. What we will probably see are T-2 towers which are n smaller but there would be more of them. Receivers may get smaller yet to the point where they may piggyback on existing i� i"1 PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 10 features. Mr. Kondrick asked, of the sites selected, what do the consultants feel will be the tallest tower necessary in this commun�ty. Mr. Hickok stated the City is fortunate enough to have several topographic shifts. The height depends on the site line. If you have one tower on a hill and another in the valley, the lower one will have to be much taller. We are expecting pole heights to be 75 feet at higher levels to 150 feet in lower locations. Mr. Saba asked if there were construction codes for these towers in terms of safety issues. Mr. Hickok stated yes, that is one of the beauties of the monopole technology as staff sees it. Staff toured a factory. The mono- poles with the equipment attached are designed for wind loads of 120 miles per hour (mph). They have been tested in Hurricane Andrew and have not had a failure to date. In Minnesota, the wind load expectations are 80 mph at the high end. The monopole technology observed meets the expectations of our Building staff. Poles will be required to have structural engineering data and certification to assure integrity. Mr. Kondrick stated, because parks are being considered as possible locations, there may be a building constructed at the base of the towers to house electrical, etc. Are we going to be able to insist that the building be of a certain size, of a certain construction material, etc.? Mr. Hickok stated yes. Mr. Sielaff asked if other cities are doing ordinances. Mr. Hickok stated there are some ordinances out there. There is a spectrum of responses to this technology. Bloomington has an ordinance that they are utilizing. White Bear Lake has taken the approach that the towers will be on public land. Those ordinances are available for review. Mr. Kondrick stated Edina is also meeting about this issue. Mr. Sielaff asked if we need to coordinate this with other cities in the area. Mr. Hickok stated their early discussion pointed to a regional approach. It seems that a regional/metro approach would have been � the way to do this. We need to make a reasonable accommodation for the technology. Which tower selected in Fridley would � PI�ANNING COD�IISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 11 probably be determined by how close a vendor's towers are in a bordering community. Mr. Kondrick stated, for example, if Columbia Heights wants to have a pole in this location and ours is there but it is too far away, do you then have to move your pole? Mr. Saba asked, in conjunction with that, if Columbia Heights has a pole and another company wants put in a pole in Fridley, how can we coordinate with Columbia Heights, Blaine, etc. Mr. Hickok stated we have to be reasonable in the number. That is determined based on not having knowledge of where they are going to be in other communities. Mr. Kuechle stated he was not clear as to whether there still would be antenna allowed on private buildings by special use permit. Mr. Hickok stated the ordinance would probably repeal the existing language. Right now, that is frozen by the moratorium. He n thought the City had used up their high sites. Short of the water tower, McGlynn's, and the surge tower, there is not a lot there that has the height necessary. Mr. Oquist asked if staff knew the status of what surrounding communities were doing. Are they in the same situation? Perhaps we should be showing neighboring communities where are sites will be so we don't have a"farm" of antennas. Mr. Hickok stated Columbia Heights and Hilltop have been experiencing construction of towers. In the other communities, there are a number of moratoriums. Ms: McPherson stated, to her knowledge, Coon Rapids enacted a inoratorium about the same time as Fridley. However, Coon Rapids has installed a number of antenna sites. One is to the west of the Northtown Financial Plaza. She thought the moratorium there was for 18 months. Coon Rapids has been realizing they have been issuing permits. They have two towers within 10 or 15 feet of each other�which happened because they did not have a coordinated approach. They are now finding out they have multiple tower sites. Mr. Kondrick asked if the moratoriums would all come due at the end of the year or if the moratoriums were different for different cities. How is the government allowing that? Mr. Hickok stated the Federal government is allowing that and sees � /"�1 � PLANNING CO1�lISSION N�ETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 12 that as reasonable for cities to have time to establish where it is they want and need the technology to go. Mr. Kondrick asked if there was a deadline. Mr. Hickok stated this falls back to what is reasonable. At the point where a City is using this to avoid getting structures, the vendors will probably challenge and the courts will decide. Mr. Grandstrand stated he thought Mr. Hickok had done a pretty good job of illustrating the locations that are appropriate for towers and antennas for telecommunications sites. As he watched the video, everything seemed to be commercial and industrial sites. However, out of the eight sites proposed, two of them are in the heart of residential districts - the Cheri Lane well house and the vacant parcel at the end of Cheri Lane which is a City park. The sites are relatively small sites and are both City properties, but he would guess the sites are 100 feet square. They are located adjacent to homes. If you consider the fact that putting in a 75 foot to 150 foot high tower 50 to 100 feet from his back door he feels a bit concerned about having that kind of a structure that close and located within a residential area. He is curious that two of the sites are located in residential areas. Perhaps the commission could respond to those issues. Mr. Kondrick asked how to get the coverage needed in the area where needed. Mr. Hickok stated, in all cases, these are City owned properties. We believe we have the best control over the maintenance of the towers and what happens to the towers on our property. Staff had a GIS map made that showed every piece of public property throughout the City. Staff went through every one of those pieces and asked if the site was big enough, its proximity to other things, etc. These two sites are in an area where we don't have a lot of land area but need coverage. There�are some small parks. If they contain a playground or activity area, it may not be appropriate as a site. The land area on the site behind Target is wooded and contains a park. It contains a small building for hockey storage. It is a wooded site and has the possibility of putting that base in the wooded area which would mitigate eye level site from the ground and still fill a void in that area. It is not in the midst of a playground and has some natural cover. The well site is in the same area. It is an open site that does not have another activity besides the well. It could accommodate a combination well building and equipment building for the tower. It does have land area and it does not have a contradictory uses. Mr. Kondrick asked if there was commercial property in that area. � PLANNING COIrIl�lISSION MEETING, JUNE 9, 1997 PAGE 13 Mr. Hickok stated the site is along I-694 and the commercial area is further to the east. This site is surrounded by residential, but it is not unusual to see that. This is a technology that has been determined to be safe by all Federal standards. It is so safe that the Federal government has said that cities will not be responsible for and should not be involved in trying to regulate health concerns. In many cases, the wattage is equivalent to a 100 watt light bulb for each user. The signal is clear because of the low power. Cellular is about three times that. Technology runs in different bands. That is another thing the Federal government insures. Mr. Kondrick stated they had talked about the equipment building that needs to be at the base of the tower to house the electronics. We need to have a vehicle access to get to the building for work and/or maintenance. That is another consideration. Putting a tower in a park is a major concern. They do not want to upset the nature of activities in parks. He did not know how that would be arrived at. He did not think there were any harmful effects. n Mr. Oquist asked if staff had given consideration to putting a tower across I-694 at the Lake Pointe site. Mr. Hickok stated there is great potential that once a building is there that would work. There is a master plan approved for Lake Pointe. It could work on top of a building but a free standing structure is contrary to the master plan. Mr. Oquist stated it could be incorporated into the master plan. He thought that should be given consideration because it is not in a park or residential area. It is an open area. It may be a good alternative to these two sites. Mr. Grandstrand stated he understood Lake Pointe was a large area and the development for that area was a large commercial building. It is surrounded by public roadways. There is an area to the east of the immediate site for the building between Lake Pointe Drive and the ramp to I-694 that is a prime site. It is a smaller area. It is not an aesthetic issue and may be appropriate for consideration. Mr. Saba stated he thought this would be preferable to residential. Mr. Noutsby stated he was a lifetime resident on Madison Street. �"1 He and his family moved there before Target. The City Council minutes from back then indicate the City Council made a verbal ,� � PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 14 commitment to the property owners there that they would dedicate the area behind Target as a park to be a buffer zone for Target. He does not want trees taken down or damage done to the wildlife or the buffer. He asked if staff had taken that into consideration. This is a park and the City has the right to build what they want on a public park. He does not want the City to build a commercial building. Mr. Saba stated it is not something we want to build. The problem is that the telecommunication act as passed by Congress took away the right from the city to say no. We have two choices. We can either let the telecommunications companies decide where they want to go or we can preselect sites. The Planning Commission and staff feel that preselection of sites is in the best interest so we can get input and take that input in deciding the final locations. This is excellent input. He would prefer to stay away from residential area. Mr. Noutsby stated in their neighborhood they don't need a tower. As far as no health risk, he has heard that too many times in his lifetime. At the time of the Korean War, they were sprayed with DDT and told it was perfectly safe. When the major power lines were installed, they said it would not hurt anyone but they found out later it was harmful. This may be the same. He hopes they are right and that people will feel no effects in 20 years. He felt it should be kept away from the neighborhoods. Ms. Charchenko stated she lived next to the well site on Cheri Lane. She would just as soon not have it there. This is a residential area. The Lake Pointe site would be perfect. She lives right next door to this site and does not think it is a good idea. Mr. Britven stated he lives near Commons Park. Is the installation going to go on the water tower in that location? Mr. Hickok stated it is possible and that is consider. Water tower applications are very certain. The City would go back to the Park Commission before doing anything in a park. something they would common. It is not & Recreation Mr. Britven asked if these are strictly relay systems or are these bases. Mr. Hickok stated their understanding is that these would be relays and not bases. The closest example of a base is the Arden Hills site that has buildings at the base which serves as a base that sends out signals to the secondary towers. If he understands the question correctly, it is whether or not we will have a �.,� PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, JUN� 4, 1997 PAGE 15 similar impact on base station is a here. Only those building. the land. He thought what they would see on a large building(s). They are looking at towers tower sites that have cellular will have a Mr. Britven stated, when these are constructed, he thought they need to consider the maximum wattage. These emit radiation. It would be interesting to see if you could regulate the power per unit area in milliwatts by the different vendors throughout the poles. He does not have cable TV. Would this interfere with the regular TV channels? Mr. Hickok stated their understanding is that it runs on different bands completely and will not interfere with the other bands. Mr. Britven's previous points are clearly spelled out in the Federal regulations that cities cannot control power and interference. That is controlled by the Federal government. Mr. Oquist stated he would expect that, if there is interference, they are going to have to put some filters out there. Mr. Britven stated, with these poles and multiple vendors, he n thought the city should have some sort of regulation on maximum wattage if you get multiple vendors on a particular pole. He asked staff to explain more about the wattage. Mr. Hickok stated there are a number of pieces of literature that are available either from the industry itself or from third parties that have done separate analysis of this issue. This particular piece of information is from the Personal Communications Industry Association which talks about structural components of the towers, the frequency or EMF, etc. Under the EMF, it states that many wireless services operate at a low power level. For instance, cellular and PCS transmitters operate at 100 watts or less. Paging transmitters and two-way radio antenna seldom operate at power levels higher than 100 watts. On multi- use towers, the systems that operate at higher power levels are usually located towards the top of the structure and the lower powered cellular and PCS transmitters are located toward the bottom. With three vendors on a tower, we might see a wattage that would be approximately 1500 watts. Likely, we would see a mix of cellular at 300 watts, pagers at 500 watts, and PCS applications at 100 watts. With a height of 150 feet, it would be reasonable to expect three vendors on a pole. Mr. Grandstrand stated his first concern was aesthetics. With the latest discussion he is having another concern which is the � introduction of commercial traffic into a residential area. If we have one or two towers and have vendors that have to access those , � PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 16 areas with some frequency, he thought that would introduce into the picture commercial traffic on residential streets. They have a unique neighborhood with children playing in the yards so that brings in another issue to consider. For those that are not familiar with the neighborhood, this is a rather isolated area. It is bound on the west by 7th, Madison on the east, and three cross streets - 53rd, 54th, and Cheri Lane. There is one way in and one way out. The infrastructure is there for residential traffic, but if you start a�.ding to it he did not know how much commercial traffic could be supported. Mr. Kondrick stated he thought the service vehicle would be a van. He did not think they are talking about a lot of trucks back and forth. Mr. Grandstrand stated, as far as frequency, that may be more of an issue. He did not know who made the decision to construct the sports storage facility. That building in itself has introduced so much more traffic in that area. They will see people there once a month, and they will see vehicles come in there by the dozen. Everyone that has children in a sports program is serviced by that facility and will come in one car after another for a � period of an hour to an hour and a half. People will turn around in the driveways. The children have come in, swung on trees and broken limbs. These are things that are out of place with the neighborhood. It is just another item to bring in traffic that does not have business in the neighborhood. Ms. Amundson stated her question was about safety concerns. When she goes into the bank, there is a sign asking people no to use cell phones. Mr. Hickok stated the same is true on airplanes. Where there is any chance that this would interfere with a security system or flight/safety systems, you will be asked to turn it off. On this technology, you have more power in your hands than on the pole itself. This is an issue that is very clear in the FCC regulations about how the tower is structured and what kind of impacts this power will have on the surrounding area. It is negligible. Mr. Saba stated he works in the network industry. The big problem is getting oscillator chips which generate the signals. That signal may interfere with the security systems in a bank or on an airline. Ms. McPherson stated it may not be a case of the actual electronic ,� technology although she has noticed more and more places are asking people to turn off their phones. It may be just a ^ PLANNING CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 17 situation of the bank trying to create a quiet space to.work with clients. It may not be a health risk but it may be an issue of consideration. Ms. Amundson asked what is happening with New Brighton and other cities. Is anyone challenging this? Ms. McPherson stated she did not know what New Brighton was doing. She will check. Mr. Hickok stated they were seeing a broad spectrum of responses. Roseville is getting a number of towers and they seem to be doing a good job of regulating where they are going. Shoreview and some of the other communities have taken a closer look. They have had some experience with radio towers of a different type that is causing them to slow down and take a look. A moratorium is a popular response to the FCC regulations. At the time staff asked the City Council to consider a moratorium, Washington County was about the only other moratorium staff was aware of. Since then Coon Rapids and some other communities also have a moratorium. Ms. Amundson stated she thought they should look at other cities and what they are doing. Ms. Grandstrand stated, if these forums continue, more of the people in the areas where these are planned should be notified. Persons within 350 feet are notified. She thought the whole area should be notified rather than just those within 350 feet. Mr. Saba stated a notice is placed in the newspaper. Ms. Grandstrand stated it is different if the notice is received at your home. Like an advertisement, if you put it in different forms, more people will see it. Mr. Noutsby stated from the comments from the people we don't want this in our neighborhood. What can we do to stop it? He thought it should be going into a commercial area. He does not care if it needs to be higher. They don't need anything more in their neighborhood. That small area is their buffer from Target and commercial. There in not much left for them. Mr. Kondrick stated these comments will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Mr. Hickok stated they are cognizant of putting towers in residential areas. As an example, there are three points south of ,--� I-694 that have been chosen. Al1 of this has been done in a way that it takes the City, lays out the geographic area, and tries to � PLANNING CO1�Il��IISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 18 find locations that match the technology and match the reasonableness test we have to pass. Folks from the area of Lincoln and 51st probably would also say they did not want this in a residential area. We cannot avoid residential areas. While this is information gathering, he did want to point out that we are at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to being reasonable in our coverage expectations so we are considering areas we may not have considered before but that have location features that are necessary. It is not a contradictory use as they see it. The screening would have to be taken into consideration. If it determined that a park is an appropriate location, the Park & Recreation Commission has asked that it come back to them and that they take a specific look at it. It will be an elaborate review process before a tower is placed in a park. We may not be able to assure people we can keep them out of residential areas. Mr. Grandstrand thanked the staff and Planning Commission for the opportunity to express their opinions and share their thoughts. Ms. McPherson stated she checked to see what other communities are doing. Staff have talked with Mounds View, Richfield, Brooklyn Center, New Brighton, Cr�astal, and Brooklyn Park. New Brighton �� has adopted a zoning ordinance amendment. It appears they have gone through the process. Based on their matrix, towers are allowed in commercial and industrial districts, in park areas, and it appears that single family districts are considered. It does not appear that they are processing special use permits, but they do have some strict standards on height, setbacks, support buildings, etc. Mr. Sielaff stated he would like to see some close scrutiny by us on what other cities are doing. We have control over what we do here. He is concerned about what other cities are doing. If other cities put towers in commercial areas close to our boundaries, it could be close to our residential areas. He thought that could impact Fridley. Mr. Oquist stated, if another community does that, we cannot stop it or do anything about it. He thought we needed to be aware of it. He thought the communities in this area need to form a committee to say this is what we are doing and coordinate those efforts. He thought they could have some control through coordination. 4. 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOALS & OBJECTIVES Ms. McPherson stated this item is the presentation by Ms. Dacy as ,� made b�fore the City Council. That was to have been a video taped . presentation. Unfortunately, the videotape is on loan to one of PLANNING COND!�IISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 19 � the Councilmembers. This item will be presented at the June 18 meeting. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 23, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of April 23, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COAM�lISSION MEETING OF MAY 5, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of May 5, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, AI�L VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE JUNE 4, 1997, PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:08 P.M. Respectfully submitted, C i cc� Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary � i�`1 � � S I G N— IN S H E E T PLANNING COMMISSION.MEETING, 'Wednesday,_ June 4., 1997 ,