PL 12/03/1997 - 30852�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING CONIlylIS3ION MEETING, DECII�ER 3, 1997
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Savage called the December 3, 1997 Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist,
Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig,
Larry Kuechle
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Anthony Segale, U. S. West Communications
Richard & Candice Weispfenning, 1310 - 69th
Avenue NE, Fridley
....• • • i. . .. . ��!�--_ • 1�
^, OM TION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the
November 19, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. .
IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DLCLARSD THE
MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING TEST AMENDMENT�,
ZTA #97-04. BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY:
To amend Appendix A of Section 205.29 of the Fridley Zoning
Code, to designate seven sites as "Approved Sites" for
telecommunication towers or antennas on existing buildings.
The following properties are currently being considered for
wireless communication facilities:
• Onan Corporation (Tract C, Registered Land Survey No.
114, subject to easements of record.)
• All Temp Storage (Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78,
together with that part of Lot 2 of said Auditor's
Subdivision, lying southerly of I-694, except that part
of said lots lying southwesterly of the following
described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of
the South 660 feet of the West 300 feet of said Lot 1,
thence westerly along the south line of said Lot 1,
60.30 feet to the point of beginning, thence
^ northwesterly to a point on the north line of said
South 660 feet of the West 300 feet, 154.54 feet west
of the northeast corner thereof, thence west along the
^ PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, DECEN�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 2
said north line to a point 101.35 feet east of the
northwest corner of the said South 660 feet of the West
300 feet, thence northwesterly to a point on the west
line of said Lot 2, 710.40 feet northerly of said
northwest corner (as measured along the west line of
said Lot 1 and 2), and there terminating, subject to
easements of record.)
• Agro-K (East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast
1/4 of Section 3, Township 30, Range 24, except the
South 805 feet thereof.)
• FMC Water Tower (Auditor's Subdivision No. 79, being
parts of Lots 7 and 8.)
• Parson's Electric (North 1/2 of Lot 5, as measured
along the east and west lines thereof, and the South
200 feet of the East 363 feet of Lot 6, as measured
along the east and south lines thereof, all in
Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, Anoka County, Minnesota,
subject to easements.)
^ � City-owned property lying between the Burlington
Northern Railroad and Hickory Street, immediately south
of Springbrook Nature Center (The Northerly 135 feet of
that part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4
lying east of Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-
way, subject to easements of record.)
• City-owned right-of-way south of I-694 and adjacent to
Lot 30, Block 10, Hamilton Addition to Mechanicsville.
OM TION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYB, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARI�D THE
MOTION CARRIED AND TH8 P�BLIC I�ARING OP�1' AT 7:33 P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated, in 1996, the Federal government passed an act
which means that communities throughout the nation will now be
seeing telecommunications equipment, towers and facilities
installed in their communities. In the City of Fridley for the
last year we have had a moratorium to study where it is we want
those towers and analyzing the number of towers and sites that
would be necessary. We now have an ordinance that will help to
regulate the performance standards, bring forth the expectations
of the City as telecommunications equipment and facilities are
� installed, and help with the deployment of the equipment. For
those in the telecommunications industry, sites have been selected
^ PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, DECII��ER 3, 1997 PAGE 3
and will be open for their installations.
Mr. Hickok stated, as the ordinance was passed, seven sites were
indicated, including Community Park, the recycling center, the
water tower near Highway 65, Edgewater Park, the water tower at
Commons Park, well house #13 at 51st and East River Road, and the
water tower off Matterhorn Drive. In addition, we have existing
facilities off Alden Way on the St. Paul Waterworks surge tower
along the Mississippi River, on the McGlynn's tower, and south of
I-694 between Aramark and Wick's Furniture.
Mr. Hickok stated the tower you might expect to see on these
selected sites could be a monopole structure with equipment
installed on that monopole. These monopoles are engineered to
withstand winds in excess of 100 miles an hour, to be co-location
facilities, and to provide for additional arrays of equipment. In
some cases, equipment needs to be located in a small building
which is located at the base of the structure.
Mr. Hickok stated, as the consultant and staff analyzed this
further from a technical and legal perspective, it was made clear
that we should look for further deployment beyond the original
� seven sites. The additional sites include Onan Corporation at
` Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue, All Temp Storage at Main Street
south of I-694, Agro-K at Main Street and 81st Avenue, FMC south
of I-694 on East River Road, Parson's Electric on Main Street
south of 61st Avenue, city-owned property at the southwest corner
of Springbrook Nature Center, and city-owned property south of I-
694 between 5th and 6th Streets.
Mr. Hickok stated the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed
the Springbrook Nature Center option and tabled it for further
discussion. He understands that Jack Kirk, Director of Recreation
and Natural Resources, did ask for opinions to get a sense as to
whether or not that site would be an appropriate site. An
informal consensus of the Parks and Recreation Commission was that
this would not be an appropriate site. The Parks and Recreation
Commission will discuss this at their January meeting.
Mr. Hickok stated staff is asking for a recommendation from the
Planning Commission to amend Appendix A to include six of the
seven additional sites, eliminating the Springbrook Nature Center
site. This item will then go to the City Council on January 5 for
its first reading, and for a second reading on January 26.
Mr. Kondrick stated the Parks and Recreation Commission decided to
table this item because they needed more information. They were
against the tower because of visual concerns. In addition, there
�"'� is a site on 81st and Main Street (Agro-K) which is very close so
they questioned the need for another site in that immediate area.
�
�
�
PLANNING CO1�Il�lISSION MEETING, DECII��ER 3, 1997 PAGE 4
In addition, they questioned why a facility could not be placed on
the NSP towers that are already there. They did not know the
consequences of doing that. They did not want a tower on park
property.
Ms. Savage stated it appears that staff has recommended this site
be eliminated. There are currently seven sitea that have been
approved and staff is saying it is necessary to have seven
additional sites of which we are considering six. Will six sites
be sufficient?
Mr. Hickok stated the technology is changing. The industry is
moving towards microcell technology as opposed to the larger scale
macro technology. As we move forward and see the industry
changing, we will move beyond the 13 sites to a smaller scale,
different looking structures or facilities than what we are seeing
today. For this phase and in order to meet the deployment needs
of the industry, 13 sites are deemed necessary. We do have 13
without the Springbrook site.
Ms. Savage asked if staff had received any additional responses
from any of the site owners since the staff report was written.
Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Nelson, Onan, was interested in the
discussion although he did not know a lot about the industry or
what it meant for their site. One of his concerns was the land
under the guidewires and that land being unusable. Mr. Hickok
explained to him that the City is looking at the monopole which
minimizes the land area of a site. Mr. Nelson attended the City
Council meeting to understand more about the industry. At the
time of that meeting, Mr. Nelson was uncertain as to whether the
corporation was in favor or opposed.
Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Holman, All Temp Storage, wrote to let staff
know that he had no objection and that he hoped they would be
approved so they could negotiate with telecommunications carriers.
Mr. Hickok stated staff did not receive a response from Agro-K.
Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Van Keuren stated the FMC water tower is
U.S. Navy property and would take review by the appropriate
officials. The paperwork has been forwarded to those officials,
and city staff is waiting to hear on that site.
Mr. Hickok stated staff received no response from Parson's
Electric.
Mr. Hickok stated the city-owned site at Springbrook Nature Center
was discussed and this site is recommended to eliminated from
consideration.
�
�
PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, DECEN�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 5
Mr. Hickok stated Ms. Skarrie, owner of an apartment complex south
of the city-owned parcel between 5th and 6th Streets, questioned
the aeathetic impact. She is interested in approaching the City
about a subdivision at a later time for a piece of the southern
edge of this property to allow the appropriate setback for an
existing garage. If Ms. Skarrie's request does come in and
because this is considered as a telecommunications site, the City
would seek to have equipment installed so that, in the event the
Planning Commission or City Council felt it appropriate to
separate that small piece of property, it could be done while
still allowing that telecommunication facility.
Mr. Sielaff asked why they should approve those sites which the
owners have not responded.
Mr. Hickok stated the ordinance itself is an overlay zone for the
City. Those properties were involved at the time this overlay was
created. We are looking at a deployment service to the community,
and it impacts these sites. This is their opportunity to come
forward. The owners were duly notified.
Mr. Sielaff asked if no response means the owners have given up
their right to object.
Mr. Hickok stated, if the two owners not responding are not
present and the ordinance passes, the next thing to happen on the
private sites would be private party discussion about location,
building design, etc. With their site being identified, it narrows
the search area for the industry representatives. That means they
can approach these owners about their site.
Mr. Sielaff asked, if these sites are approved, can the owners
object to it later.
Mr. Oquist stated the owners have had an opportunity. They were
notified and there was no response.
Mr. Kuechle stated, if the owner decides they do not want a tower
on their site, they still have the right to say no to the
industry.
Mr. Hickok stated he would presume there will be some negotiations
between the owners and the industry.
Mr. Saba asked if this was a good faith effort by the City to
provide an overlay for sites.
�"'� Mr. Hickok stated this was correct.
� PLANNING CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING, DECII��ER 3, 1997 PAGE 6
Ms. Savage asked if this ends up being a contract that has to be
signed by the City and the property owner.
Mr. Hickok stated there is a contract between the vendor and the
owner. The contract is very much like a special use permit with
its own set of stipulations with performance standards and
characteristics for the site.
Mr. Sielaff asked why the City came out with six additional sites.
Mr. Hickok stated staff was originally looking at co-location and
thought seven sites were appropriate. Staff wanted to make
certain we had deployment or coverage of the City. If asked
whether we had been reasonable in our expectations, we would be
able to respond yes. With only City-owned sites, our legal
advisor said we may be setting ourselves up for a lot of criticism
and debate. With a mix of public and private sites available, it
helps with deployment and heads off a later argument.
Mr. Hickok stated the ordinance talks about special use permit
opportunities in the industrial districts for sites that are not
currently designated. The Planning Commission may see requests
^ coming forward. Staff has tried to determine ahead of time how
much is necessary in terms of land area and site locations. We
also believe it is helpful to the industry because it is easier
for them as well.
Mr. Sielaff asked if it is anticipated that this is the last time
they would amend the ordinance as far as specific locations.
Mr. Hickok stated, with technology changes and more but smaller
sites, he thought the Commission would be revisiting this item
again.
Ms. Modig asked, if we get a response for example from FMC that
indicates they do not want to be considered, would that eliminate
them from the sites and would we then have to designate another
site.
Mr. Hickok stated what may then happen is that well house #13 may
be designed to carry additional facilities in order to provide
coverage for that area.
Ms. Modig asked if the contract for these private sites is between
the carriers and the property owners.
Mr. Hickok stated yes. The performance standards of the City
would apply to those contracts.
�
Mr. Sielaff asked if surrounding cities had ordinances.
� PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, DECII�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 7
Mr. Hickok stated many surrounding communities have moratoriums.
Coon Rapids has permitted towers because towers were not clearly
prohibited, nor described in their ordinance. Hilltop is in a
moratorium. New Brighton is looking at an ordinance.
Mr. Sielaff asked if they were informed about the ordinance for
the City of Fridley. One of the issues is the placement of the
towers near the boundaries which can affect Fridley. Is that
taken into account?
Mr. Hickok stated staff have been in touch with staff in other
communities and share the same concerns about visual impacts, etc.
Unfortunately, we do not have a regional approach. It would have
been better to do it that way, but this is being done
independently. Each City is defining their own parameters.
Mr. Weispfenning stated he came for information on what the
proposed ordinance is like and he had two concerns. First, on the
Onan site, is there language in the ordinance that would have some
limiting power by the City in dealings between telecommunication
companies and the property owners for things like height, density,
placement of the towers, etc.? The Onan site has several acres
�� and he has not heard there is the possibility of uses such as
that. He does not want Onan to become an "antenna farm". Some
discussion had occurred regarding using the transmission towers of
NSP. He understood there was a representative from U.S. West here
and asked their knowledge of using existing towers and supports
for wireless communications.
Mr. Hickok stated he would send Mr. Weispfenning a copy of the
ordinance. The ordinance regulates the height, location,
characteristics about the installation, etc. In putting together
the ordinance, staff worked to try to create a set of standards
that would make the visual impact minimal to adjacent properties.
Maximum height in 125 feet. Onan expressed concerns about
guidewires. In this case, we are talking about a monopole which
minimizes the impact and the land area used.
Mr. Weispfenning asked if technology was used for placement of the
towers. Is one tower capable of being shared in order to minimize
the number of structures and still provide coverage? Is it
possible to have more than one standard on a site?
Mr. Hickok stated co-location or more than one user on a pole does
occur. The idea is that these sites will be used to their fullest
potential to provide coverage for the industry but to avoid an
"antenna farm". The technology is here to consolidate uses. As
� far as having the technology know-how, we did not have the full
capability to analyze this. The City hired the best consultant in
� PLANNING COI�ISSION N�ETING, DECEI�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 8
the industry to analyze the issues and to make sure we are being
realistic in our locations and numbers.
Ms. Savage asked if there would be more than one tower on a site.
Mr. Hickok stated that is possible. Each site has its own
difficulties. There are physical things that make it necessary to
put the structures together and to make them as invisible as
possible. They must be near power, placed where they do not
interfere with traffic circulation or become a detriment to
existing vegetation. Onan, for example, has a large area and one
might assume there is room for many towers. However, when you
consider the parking needs, the existing building footprint, and
small ancillary generator uses, etc., there is not a lot of room
left for these things to happen.
Mr. Oquist stated we have identified 13 sites, and this does not
guarantee there will be a tower on every site. We are trying to
be proactive and identify the sites where we want towers placed.
Without identified sites, vendors can negotiate and place towers
anywhere. Federal law also says we have to make this available.
There is the possibility of putting more than one tower on a site.
^ Ideally, there would be one tower which would be shared. There is
no guarantee of that either. We are trying to be proactive to
identify sites but we don't have a lot of say about how it will be
done. He have tried to get as much control over what happens in
our community regarding these towers as we are allowed. He
thought this was a good ordinance for that reason.
Mr. Weispfenning stated he had not heard what the status is for
the Onan property and the fact that they excavated for
contaminated soil. Is that site a prime location for a tower?
Mr. Hickok stated he would say no. He thought this would be the
least likely location because of the distance from power and the
soil conditions. This area has been far too disturbed. The soil
conditions need to be very good to hold the tower upright.
Mr. Hickok stated, from the original seven site perspective, staff
looked at the ability to have the land area for the structure to
make them work, to be reasonable in our expectations and to
separate uses. We do not have a lot of sites that have that land
area ability and characteristics that they were looking at.
Mr. Segale stated he has worked with staff and the consultant over
the last year. He complimented them on their due diligence.
Regarding Parson's Electric, U.S. West has had some contact with
them, and they have shown an interest. As far as their no
� response to staff, it may just be an oversight. They have looked
in the area and, as you may know, they are in the process of
�...� PLANNING CONIl�SSION MEETING DECII�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 9
building their service now. The two locations U.S. West is
looking at is Parson's Electric and the water tower.
Mr. Segale stated, regarding the transmission facilities, U.S.
West along with other carriers have a master use agreement that
allows them to go on the transmission facilities. U.S. West has
written an individual agreement that says we can go on their
facilities in the metropolitan area. He believed there were 15
locations where they may be placing antenna. When you are up
there, you barely see the antenna and base equipment. We have
been in moratorium for a considerable amount of time. Staff has
done an excellent job. There is room in the future to look at
some of those transmission facilities. They do not fit the need
of U.S. West today. In the future, he would encourage existing
structures like NSP's to be considered.
Mr. Kuechle asked, with the current technology, what kind of
spacing is required.
Mr. Segale stated this depends on the density of population and
traffic flow. U.S. West is looking at a little different strategy
than phone carriers. They are looking at it as also residential
,.� service. For the area of Fridley, they are looking at
approximately 1 to 1.5 miles apart. In the country, the spacing
may be 5 miles apart.
Mr. Kuechle asked if Mr. Segale saw this as staying the same for
PCS.
Mr. Segale stated U.S. West is now providing PCS technology.
TION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICT VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIID �iND THE P'UBLIC I�ARING CLOSSD AT 8:14 P.M.
Ms. Savage stated she thought it was clear that six sites are
being considered. The seventh site at Springbrook Nature Center
is being eliminated from consideration.
OM TION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend
approval of a Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #97-04, by the City of
Fridley, to amend Appendix A of Section 205.29 of the Fridley
Zoning Code, to designate six sites as "Approved Sites" for
telecommunication towers or antennas on existing buildinge. The
following properties are currently being considered for wireless
communication facilities:
• Onan Corporation (Tract C, Registered Land Survey No.
��
��
PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, DECII�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 10
114, subject to easements of record.)
• All Temp Storage (Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78,
together with that part of Lot 2 of said Auditor's
Subdivision, lying southerly of I-694, except that part
of said lots lying southwesterly of the following
described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of
the South 660 feet of the West 300 feet of said Lot 1,
thence westerly along the south line of said Lot 1,
60.30 feet to the point of beginning, thence
northwesterly to a point on the north line of said
South 660 feet of the West 300 feet, 154.54 feet west
of the northeast corner thereof, thence west along the
said north line to a point 101.35 feet east of the
northwest corner of the said South 660 feet of the West
300 feet, thence northwesterly to a point on the west
line of said Lot 2, 710.40 feet northerly of said
northwest corner (as measured along the west line of
said Lot 1 and 2), and there terminating, subject to
easements of record.)
��
Agro-K (East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast
1/4 of Section 3, Township 30, Range 24, except the
South 805 feet thereof.)
FMC Water Tower (Auditor's Subdivision No. 79, being
parts of Lots 7 and 8.)
• Parson's Electric (North 1/2 of Lot 5, as measured
along the east and west lines thereof, and the South
200 feet of the East 363 feet of Lot 6, as measured
along the east and south lines thereof, all in
Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, Anoka County, Minnesota,
subject to easements.)
• City-owned right-of-way south of I-694 and adjacent to
Lot 30, Block 10, Hamilton Addition to Mechanicsville.
IIPON A VOICL VOTL, ALL VOTING AYL, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNAWIMOIISLY.
2. APPROVE PROPOSED 1998 MEETING DATES
OM TION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the 1998
meeting dates as follows:
January 7 July 1
January 21 July 15
,^ February 4 August 5
February 18 August 19
�
�
�
�� PLANNING CO�SSION MEETING, DECII��ER 3, 1997 PAGE 11
March 4
March 18
April 1
April 15
May 6
May 20
June 3
June 17
September 2
September 16
October 7
October 21
November 4
November 18
December 2
December 16
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIID 'aNArTIMO'USLY .
3. OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Hickok stated Ms. McPherson has accepted a position as city
planner with the City of South St. Paul. Her last day with the
City of Fridley is December 5.
The Planning Commission commended Ms. McPherson for her years of
service with the City and with the Planning Commission, and wished
her well in her new position.
ADJOURNMENT
OM TION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the
meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYL, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THS DisC�LR 3, 1997, PLANNING CONII�RISSION
MEBTING ADJOURNBD AT 8:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�. � � •�
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
�"�
�
�
Name and Address
�C
CITY OF FRIDLEY
SIGN-IN SHEET
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 3, 1997
Agenda Item of Interest
� � ��z l � /3/� ����� �P ,� � /�«��ur���s �����
�� �0 dj
���'/�%iv 1 �
:
���