3.1, 3.2 . .i ' )-
• CITY OF ELK RIVER
SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION
I, Jon Anderson, Planning Commission Chair, hereby request a special
meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 4,
• 1997, at 6:30 p.m. to be held at the Elk River City Hall Council Chambers.
The purpose of the meeting is to conduct regular business.
In accordance with State Statute, I hereby request the city clerk to post this
notice at least three days prior to the meeting date. I further request the city
clerk to notify each member of the Planning Commission of this special
meeting, in writing, .t least one day before the meeting.
,, / /
III L i 1,/ (,K_______-- .
/ --
Jon Andero ,`' a lining Commission Chair January 31, 1 97
J
...... .... ..............
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that this notice has been posted and that I have served
this notice upon the members of the Planning Commission by mail at least
one day prior to the above-called special Planning Commission meeting.
/
/
/ — .. i #
•andra A. Thackeray, City Cler Date
0
l\ppnowEl
• SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1997
Members Present: Chair Anderson, Commissioners Cote, Kuester, Mesich, Minton and
Sullivan
Members Absent: Commissioner Thompson
Staff Present: Steven B. Ach, City Planner; Scott Harlicker, Assistant Planner;
David Sellergren, City Attorney; Debbie Kleckner, Recording
Secretary
Also Present: Greg Korstad, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, Lindgren, Ltd.; Linda
Whitman, Cellular Realty Consultants; Mike O'Rourke and Jeff
Peterson of
American Portable Telecom (APT)
1. Call Meeting To Order
• Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning
Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Anderson.
2. Consider 2/4/97 Planning Commission Agenda
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 4, 1997 PLANNING
COMMISSION AGENDA. COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
3. American Portable Telecom Request for Zone Change to Antenna Overlay
District, Public Hearing Case No. ZC 96-20
4. American Portable Telecom Request for Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing,
Casey No. CU 96-26
Greg Korstad introduced representatives of APT. Mike O'Rourke explained PCS is
two times the frequency of radio and therefore, does not travel as far or have
the penetration that is necessary. More cells and towers are required for PCS
than lower frequency transmission. Mr. O'Rourke explained the average cost of
a cell site for APT using a monopole design is $350,000, with an annual operating
cost of$30,000. Site cost includes the tower, electronic equipment and
construction. He further explained sites are selected based on proximity of
existing sites, leasibility of selected property, and feasibility of construction. Mr.
O'Rourke indicated co-location would cost approximately $1,200 a month for
the lease, and eliminate $70,000 in tower construction costs for a cost of
• $280,000. He noted it would still be necessary to construct an additional tower
at a cost of $350,000. Commissioner Mesich questioned if the Zimmerman and
Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 4, 1997
Page 2
of the Sherburne County moratorium. Mr. O'Rourke explained the one mile
• difference between the AT&T site and the proposed site would require them to
construct an additional tower to provide coverage up to Zimmerman.
Discussion followed regarding highway and city coverage issues. Mr. O'Rourke
indicated APT's goal is to provide continuous highway coverage and the best
possible "in town" coverage. He agreed two sites would be better than one but
the costs would virtually be double. Constructing one tower in the requested
location would provide the continuous highway and the best possible coverage
in the city. Mr. O'Rourke added that if there were a demand for better "in
building" portable in the city, APT would look at adding sites in the future. In this
case, APT would look at using the water tower off west Highway 10.
Linda Whitman reviewed criteria used in selecting a site and felt all were met by
the Industrial Hardfacing site.
Greg Korstad reviewed summarized APT's compliance with the requests of the
Planning Commission and asked for a recommendation of approval of APT's
requests.
Discussion of the County Road No. 33 towers. APT explained none of the existing
towers can structurally support their equipment. Steve Ach indicated one of the
tower owners has expressed interest in reconstructing his tower in order to provide
co-location possibilities. Costs were discussed for new construction build-outs and
co-location. Antenna co-location on water towers was discussed.
. Commissioner Sullivan questioned whether or not the monopole could be
painted to blend in with the surroundings. Jeff Peterson explained they have
found the natural weathered color of the galvanized metal blends in best.
The Commissioners discussed the possibility of a moratorium on new towers until
more information is available from other communities faced with requests for
antenna towers. They also discussed Sherburne County's idea for a "master plan"
to identify future antenna sites. Steve Ach explained it appears it would be
difficult for providers to identify potential sites without knowing what the demand
is going to be. Greg Korstad explained it may not be legal for the
communication companies to share information.
Commissioner Cote expressed concern the city's approval of APT's requests may
force other cities such as Zimmerman to feel pressure to approve a specific site,
since it would be the only one holding up APT's plans for continuous coverage to
the north.
Jeff Peterson reviewed maps showing coverage areas using the AT&T site and the
proposed site.
Ken Warner, owner of Industrial Hardfacing, explained the EDA has contacted
him and expressed interest in helping stimulating economic development in the
City of Elk River. Mr. Warner stated he has an economic interest in APT's proposal,
and requested the Planning Commission recommend approval.
Chair Anderson closed the public hearing.
Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 4, 1997
Page 3
• Commissioner Kuester stated she felt denying APT's request would be unfair and
supported both the rezoning and conditional use permit. She felt approving the
request would give the city the advantage of having three co-location sites
available; one on the AT&T site and two with this site. Commissioner Kuester
expressed support for a moratorium, which would give the city time to inventory
possible antenna location sites and investigate options. She stated she did not
want to see Elk River become a "tower city".
Commissioner Minton also felt it would be unfair to force co-location or waiting
until a tower was constructed off County Road No. 33 and agreed with
Commissioner Kuester's comments.
Commissioner Mesich expressed agreement with the other Commissioners. He
had concerns for approving APT's requests and then recommending a
moratorium.
Commissioner Minton felt since a "master plan" does not appear likely, a
moratorium would be appropriate.
Chair Anderson also felt approval of APT's requests may have the effect of forcing
Zimmerman's decision and favored a moratorium to allow time to re-work the
city's ordinance on communication towers.
Commissioner Mesich questioned why there are flashing red and white lights on
the AT&T tower, after they had assured the city there would be no lights. Steve
• Ach indicated this would be investigated. Greg Korstad indicated there would
be no lights on APT's tower.
Commissioner Sullivan favored a moratorium on new towers only and that the
moratorium not affect co-location requests.
Commissioner Cote expressed discomfort approving the request due to the effect
on Zimmerman, but did not feel there was justification for denial of APT's requests.
He also expressed support for a moratorium.
City Attorney Dave Sellergren felt it would be appropriate for the city to place a
moratorium on new rezoning requests for antenna overlays while the city takes
time to review their ordinances. Co-location issues could be excluded from the
moratorium. Dave indicated there are a number of model ordinances available
for the city to review and therefore, the city could move fairly quickly to lift the
moratorium as soon as the ordinance changes were in place.
Commissioner Kuester questioned why staff's recommended conditions varied
from prior recommendations. Scott Harlicker explained the conditions were
taken from Carver County's ordinance. The Commissioners were in agreement
conditions 8 and 9 could be eliminated.
COMMISSIONER MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE REQUEST BY AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM FOR A REZONING OF A PORTION
OF THE INDUSTRIAL HARDFACING PROPERTY TO ANTENNA OVERLAY DISTRICT,
4111 PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. ZC 96-20, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:
Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 4, 1997
Page 4
1. THE REZONING WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PROPERTY UNDER
•
CONSIDERATION.
2. THE REZONING IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES.
3. THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING TO AT IS
NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE CELLULAR PHONE
COVERAGE IN THIS AREA.
COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
COMMISSIONER SULLILVAN MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ANTENNA
TOWER AND EQUIPMENT BUILDINGS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, AND
BASED ON THE FACT THERE WAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST DURING THE
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. THE TOWER BE A MONO POLE DESIGN AND SHALL UTILIZE BUILDING
MATERIALS, COLORS, TEXTURE, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING SO THAT IT
BLENDS IN WITH THE BACKGROUND AND SURROUNDING NATURAL SETTINGS
2. AN AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR CO-LOCATION AND PROMPT REMOVAL OF
UNUSED AND/OR OBSOLETE TOWER BE ATTACHED AND BECOME PART OF THE
PERMIT.
3. THE TOWER AND EQUIPMENT BUILDING SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN 6
MONTHS OF CESSATION OF OPERATION UNLESS A TIME EXTENSION IS
GRANTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLE USERS OF THIS
TOWER, THIS CONDITION SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL ALL USERS OF
THE TOWER CEASE OPERATIONS FOR 6 MONTHS.
4. THE TOWER SHALL NOT CONTAIN ANY SIGNAGE OR IDENTIFICATION,
INCLUDING LOGOS, EXCEPT AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY STATE AND FEDERAL
REGULATIONS.
5. BUILDING PERMITS SHALL BE APPLIED FOR AND ISSUED BEFORE ANY
CONSTRUCTION IS STARTED.
6. THE APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN FAA APPROVAL AND/OR PROVIDE
DOCUMENTATION THAT FAA APPROVAL IS NOT NEEDED.
7. APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN FCC LICENSE AND APPROVAL AS REQUIRED FOR
VARIOUS COMMUNICATIONS APPLICATIONS. NO INTERFERENCE WITH
LOCAL TELEVISION, RADIO OR OTHER ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS WILL
BE ALLOWED.
8. THE TOWER AND ANTENNAS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY A QUALIFIED AND
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO CONFORM TO THE LATEST
STRUCTURAL STANDARDS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE AND ALL OTHER
APPLICABLE REVIEWING AGENCIES.
•
Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 4, 1997
Page 5
9. THE TOWER AND ANTENNAS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO CONFORM WITH
•
ACCEPTED ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING METHODS AND PRACTICES AND TO
COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.
10. THE TOWER SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF, OR TREATED WITH, CORROSIVE
RESISTANT MATERIAL.
11. THE TOWER SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO ACCOMMODATE
THE APPLICANT'S ANTENNA AND AT LEAST 2 ADDITIONAL USERS
12. THE TOWER SHALL BE ENCLOSED BY A 8 FOOT HIGH FENCE WITH A LOCKED
GATE AND THE BOTTOM OF THE TOWER (MEASURED FROM THE GROUND TO
12 FEET ABOVE GROUND) SHALL BE DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY TO PRECLUDE
UNAUTHORIZED CLIMBING.
13. THE TOWER, ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE
ADEQUATELY INSURED FOR AGAINST INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE
CAUSED BY STRUCTURAL FAILURE OF THE TOWER OR ASSOCIATED
EQUIPMENT.
14. NO PART OF THE TOWER OR ANTENNAS, NOR ANY LINES, CABLES OR BRACES
SHALL AT ANY TIME EXTEND ACROSS OR OVER ANY PART OF A RIGHT-OF-
WAY, PUBLIC STREET, OR SIDEWALK.
15. THE TOWER SHALL NOT BE ILLUMINATED EXCEPT FOR ILLUMINATION
SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OR
• OTHER AUTHORITY.
COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE
CITY COUNCIL INITIATE A MORATORIUM ON REZONINGS FOR ANTENNA OVERLAY
DISTRICTS. COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
5. Adjournment
There being no further business, COMMISSIONER MESICH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING. CHAIR ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0,
The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
)67)- 17('e'4"-
Debbie Kleckner
Recording Secretary
110
MEMORANDUM
ty oflkTO: Planning Commission
River
FROM: Scott Harlicker, Planning Assista s�l
DATE: February 4, 1996
SUBJECT: American Portable Telecom Request
for Rezoning and Conditional Use
Permit, Public Hearing Case No.'s
ZC 96-20 and CU 96-26
At the January 28, 1997 meeting the Commission received an update on the
recent discussions with APT regarding their request for a cellular tower on
the Industrial Hardfacing property. Since APT is requesting that the
Commission take action on their request following the discussion to be held
at the upcoming February 4 meeting, staff would like to outline several
options for the Planning Commission's consideration.
Approval
• The Planning Commission could recommend approval of their request for the
rezoning to antenna overlay district based on the following:
1. The rezoning would not adversely affect the property under
consideration.
2. The rezoning is compatible with surrounding land uses.
3. The applicant has shown that the proposed rezoning to AT is necessary
in order to provide effective cellular phone coverage in this area.
The Commission could also recommend approval of the conditional use
permit based on the standard found in Section 900.42 of the zoning code and
with the following conditions:
1. The tower be a mono pole design and shall utilize building materials,
colors, texture, screening and landscaping so that it blends in with the
background and surrounding natural settings
2. An agreement providing for co-location and prompt removal of unused
and/or obsolete tower be attached and become part of the permit.
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425
Memo to the Planning Commission Page 2
February 4, 1997
3. The tower and equipment building shall be removed within 6 months
• of cessation of operation unless a time extension is granted by the City
Council. In the case of multiple users of this tower, this condition shall
not become effective until all users of the tower cease operations for 6
months.
4. The tower shall not contain any signage or identification, including
logos, except as may be required by State and Federal regulations.
5. Building permits shall be applied for and issued before any
construction is started.
6. The applicant must obtain FAA approval and/or provide
documentation that FAA approval is not needed.
7. Applicant must obtain FCC license and approval as required for
various communications applications. No interference with local
television, radio or other electronic communications will be allowed.
8. Applicant must submit proof of Workers Compensation insurance.
9. The permit will be subject to annual review.
• 10. The tower and antennas shall be certified by a qualified and licensed
professional engineer to conform to the latest structural standards of
the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable reviewing
agencies.
11. The tower and antennas shall be designed to conform with accepted
electrical engineering methods and practices and to comply with the
provisions of the National Electrical Code.
12. The tower shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant
material.
13. The tower shall be designed and constructed to accommodate the
applicant's antenna and at least 2 additional users
14. The tower shall be enclosed by a 8 foot high fence with a locked gate
and the bottom of the tower (measured from the ground to 12 feet
above ground) shall be designed in such a way to preclude
unauthorized climbing.
•
s:\planning\scott\cu9626re.doc
Memo to the Planning Commission Page 3
February 4, 1997
III
15. The tower, antennas and associated equipment•shall be adequately
insured for against injury or property damage caused by structural
failure of the tower or associated equipment.
16. No part of the tower or antennas, nor any lines, cables or braces shall
at any time extend across or over any part of a right-of-way, public
street, or sidewalk.
17. The tower shall not be illuminated except for illumination specifically
required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authority.
Moratorium
The Commission could also consider a moratorium on new towers. The
moratorium could be drafted in such a way that co-location on existing
towers or replacement of existing towers would not be affected. A moratorium
would allow time to accomplish the following:
• It would allow the City time to assess the impact of the PSC industry and
cellular towers on the City and develop a strategy to address any concerns
and issues that were identified.
• • It would allow time to review the zoning code's requirements and
regulations regarding antenna towers and amend it as needed.
• It would allow time to have discussions with PCS venders that might be
planning to locate towers in the city and begin to come up with an overall
or long range plan for the placement of cellular towers within the city.
• It would allow time to meet with Sherburne County, Wright County and
other municipalities in the region and develop a cooperative regional
strategy or plan to accommodate future requests for cellular tower
construction.
Denial
The Planning Commission could recommend denial of the request for a
rezoning to Antenna Overlay District based on a findings that:
1. The rezoning is not compatible with the surrounding land uses and
include specific supporting reasons as to why it is not compatible.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated that off site impacts such as
• lighting, electrical interference and visual impacts will not be
s:\planning\s cott\cu9626re.doc
Memo to the Planning Commission Page 4
February 4, 1997
minimized and list specific supporting reasons as to why the impacts
• are not minimal.
The Planning Commission could recommend denial of the request for a
conditional use permit based on a finding that it is not in conformance with
the standards found in Section 900.42 of the zoning code and list specific
supporting reasons as to why the applicant does not comply with those
standards.
111
•
s:\planning\scott\cu9626re.doc
1701 E.79th Street, 25e 19
CELLULAR
Bloomington,MNN5 554425
(612) 858-0000
• REALTY (612) 854-4105 Fax
ADVISORS, INC.
4 February 1997
City of Elk River
Planning Commission
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit and
Antenna Overlay Zone for
Proposed PCS Wireless Telephone Tower Facility
by American Portable Telecom(APT)
on property known as Industrial Hardfacing: 18489 Twin Lakes Road
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The site chosen by American Portable Telecom for its Elk River tower is located east of Highway
169 directly adjacent to County Road 13. The site has a land use and zoning designation of"Light
Industrial". The current use of the property is light industrial; "Industrial Hardfacing". Zoning districts
• to the north and south are "R1C" - single family residential, but the area is currently undeveloped.
The zoning district to the west is"PUD"-planned unit development, but the actual uses are a mix of
single family residential, multi-family residential and commercial. The zoning district to the east is"I-
1"-light industrial.
The subject site was previously zoned R1C, but was rezoned to I-1 by the City of Elk River in
November of 1996. The rezoning was initiated by the City of Elk River Planning Department in an
effort to bring the zoning into compliance with the industrial use on the site.
American Portable Telecom cites several reasons the subject site is ideal for a communication
tower from a planning perspective:
1.) Industrial sites are generally the first choice for the erection of new communication towers when
possible. "Industrial" is the most applicable zoning jurisdiction because the uses allowed on the
industrial sites are typically compatible with a tower.
2.) APT has planned for the tower to be on the eastern side of the property which is the side that
abuts another light industrial zoned district. The tower should continue to be compatible with
future industrial uses to the east. In addition, there are buffer areas between the proposed
tower and the existing residential area to the west. Additional buffers are possible to the north,
east and south.
3.) To rezone the property, the proposed use must meet certain compatibility criteria set forth in the
Elk River zoning code. In order to review the compatibility of a communication tower, one must
review the possible uses allowed under the zoning district currently in place for the subject site.
Some of those permitted uses include:
Offices, warehouses, research/design facilities, wholesale business, medical, dental, and
• optical labs, and light manufacturing.
Conditional uses allowed in the I-1 zoning district include:
Outdoor storage areas, recycling processing center, bottling and distribution center, mini-
storage,water sewage treatment plant, auto repair shop, grain and feed elevators, sexually
oriented land uses, broadcasting studios and facilities and truck and implement sales.
When consideration is given to the possible uses allowed under the I-1 zoning district, it is
obvious that a myriad of uses could be located on the subject site which create traffic, noise,
• and odor. Conversely, a tower located on this site would not create traffic since the on site
service per month is approximately two visits. No noise is generated by this use and no odor
emitts from a communication tower.
Therefore, APT is convinced that the subject site is a superb location for a communications tower in
the City of Elk River from a planning perspective.
Finally, a review was made of the efforts of AT&T to locate in the City of Elk River. AT&T presented
a conditional use application for its proposed tower location near Highway 169. Further information
was requested by the planning staff to understand the necessity of the location suggested by AT&T.
The additional information was forwarded to the City by the applicant. The applicant then appeared
before the planning commission with a recommendation of approval from the planning staff. The
issues were briefly discussed. The application was then recommended for approval to the City
Council. Discussion at the City Council was also brief and the application was approved for the
conditional use permit.
American Portable Telecom respectfully requests that this planning information is added to the
record for our application for a communication tower in the City of Elk River.
Sincerely,
CELLULAR REALTY ADVISORS, INC.for American Portable Telecom
Zegeeet �, '�/l�amaii
Linda D.Whitman, APA, RLA
II/
Zoning Manager
cc. Peter Coyle, Esq.,Law Offices of Larkin, Hoffman
Mike O'Rourke,APT
Jeff Peterson,APT
Richard Buckley, CRA