11-26-1996 PC MIN
.
.
.
&fWfJrmwEm
MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1996
Members Present:
Chair Thompson, Commissioners Minton, Sullivan, Tacheny,
Kuester, Mesich and Anderson
Members Absent:
None
Staff Present:
Steven B. Ach, City Planner; Scott Harlicker, Assistant Planner;
Terry Maurer, City Engineer; Paul Steinman, EDA Executive
Director; Debbie Kleckner, Recording Secretary
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning
Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Thompson.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 26, 1996
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. COMMISSIONER TACHENY SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
3.
Gbhsl2leF11/26/96FH8I1nihcl@ol'-l"lmiSSioHConsentAdeHda
COMMISSIONER TACHENY MOVED APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 26, 1996,
PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AGENDA AS FOLLOWS:
3.1. JOHN HITCHCOCK REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT (ISLAND VIEW 4TH
ADDITION), CASE NO. P 96-10 - POSTPONED INDEFINITELY
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 22, 1996, MINUTES.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
...............-.... ------...."'.................---.----------.--.......................----.---......."..------........."".------.-.........----.-....,','..,..............._.,-.-.'.".-..,.........
..
5~ ......Plon'1lndG6mmissionRebreserHdtlve..fd..Attendl.211.61CJg.C)t1v.C60hcil.Meefind
Commissioner T acheny will attend the December 16, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
Page 2
.
6.1.
Review of T.LF. Plan for T.LF. District No. 16
staff report by Paul Steinman. The Planning Commission is asked to determine if
the T.LF. District No. 16 is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City of Elk River.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 16 TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF
ELK RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. COMMISSION SULLIVAN SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
...---........"...................................................................------........".............-.-----....."'.......-...--.-----...............'....
.6i2........... ......~~~f81.~~G~a&tdfi~;~l8~~6~[:~~t~~;..~~...~u~~_~1.~g~r9te...9...tvtBtqr............
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO POSTPONE HOLIDAY COMPANIES'
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. CU 96-25,
TO THE DECEMBER 19, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSION
MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. COMMISSIONER
SULLIVAN SUGGESTED THIS ITEM BE DISCUSSED AT THE DECEMBER WORKSHOP.
.
Staff report by Scott Harlicker. American Portable Telecom is requesting a zone
change to Antenna Overlay District (AT) and a conditional use permit for a
wireless communication antenna tower and equipment buildings on property
leased from Industrial Hardfacing. American Portable Telecom plans to
construct a 165 foot tall self supporting lattice tower on which they will mount 9
directional antennas. Scott reviewed adjacent land issues and suggested that
consideration be given to constructing a mono pole painted to blend in with
the background. Staff feels the applicant needs to provide further information
to support the need for an antenna in this location, how it fits in with their long
range coverage plan, and also, why they could not collocate on the AT & T
tower to the south. Scott reviewed the performance standards for the Antenna
Tower Overlay district. Staff recommends more information be provided before
the Planning Commission makes a determination on this application.
Chair Thompson opened the public hearing. There being no comments from
the public, Chair Thompson closed the public hearing.
The applicant was not present to address questions and concerns raised by staff
and the Planning Commission. A member of the audience informed the
Planning Commission the applicant was planning to attend the meeting and it
appears they are late. It was the consensus of the Commissioners to consider
the requests after item 6.7.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
Page 3
.
Staff report by Steve Ach. Good Value Homes is requesting to subdivide 38
acres located in the northwest corner of Proctor Road and 193rd A venue into 79
single family lots. The density is approximately 2.3 units per acre with lots ranging
in size from 10,000 square feet up to 39,000 square feet. Steve discussed issues in
the staff report to the Planning Commission dated 11/26/96, such as streets,
pedestrian circulation, lot depths, and grading. Steve noted that given the
changes being recommended to the plat, the Planning Commission may wish to
postpone action on the plat.
Discussion followed regarding the existing home within the proposed plat. Steve
suggested that if the home remains a front yard setback variance may be
necessary.
Commissioner Kuester felt there was not a good east-to-west pedestrian and
traffic flow through the plat, which will be affected if 193rd is closed.
.
John Peterson, president of Good Value Homes, explained the process he has
gone through to develop the site; reviewing the ordinance, meeting with staff
and the expenditure of $14,000 in engineering fees to date. Mr. Peterson stated
he understood it was the city's desire to connect the Lafayette Woods plat and
Cherrywood Hills via Highland Road. Based on this information, the plat was
drawn and a purchase agreement was made with Mrs. Florence Jacobs.
Peterson noted the most serious constraint of the plat is the grade change to the
north which they must deal with in order to make to required road connection.
If it is the Planning Commission's desire to make changes to the plat such as
increasing the lot depths, saving trees and relocating roads, they will be forced
to start over in their negotiations with the property owner. He explained that
developers rely on the ordinance when laying out a plat and do not want to
ask for variances.
Discussion followed regarding the grade changes in the wooded areas. Mr.
Peterson felt the only way to preserve a significant number trees on the north
boundary is to leave the entire northeast area alone as a wild area. Discussion
followed regarding oak wilt in the area.
Mr. Peterson stated he would not consider taking down the Jacobs home, as it
was very significant. He felt it would not be a problem for the home to fit in with
the new development surrounding it. Mr. Peterson stated that if the plat were
approved before a decision was made regarding 193rd, the lots to the south
would not be platted until a later date. He stated he would talk with the
property owners to the south to see if there was a possibility of incorporating a
portion of their property into the plat.
Chair Thompson opened the public hearing.
.
Greg Carton, 156th Street, Zimmerman, stated he is part-owner of property south
of 193rd. He expressed his concern that if he were to develop his property there
would be no access if 193rd were vacated. Also, he was concerned that the
drainage from the development will affect his property.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
Page 4
.
Dave Anderson, 14845 County Road 30, Park and Recreation Commission
representative, asked that the lot lines of Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 4, be adjusted
so that they are not in the right of way of 193rd, as shown on the proposed plat.
Dave suggested a sidewalk along some of the southerly lots connecting the cui
de sacs be considered. A neighbor on 193rd and Proctor has also suggested a
sidewalk be considered along Proctor. Dave felt that if 193rd Avenue remained,
a trail could also be accommodated with a 66 ft. wide right-of-way. He
expressed support for a tree preservation ordinance to deal with this issue when
reviewing plats. Dave felt a 20 ft. wide trail would be adequate to connect Rush
Court to 193rd.
Lois Carton, 19231 Proctor Road, expressed concern for the drainage impact of
this plat.
Mary Beth Dunn, 19388 Oxford Street, asked if residents on Highland would be
forced to hook up to city sewer and water, with the development of this plat.
Terry Maurer explained that Elk River Utilities has plans to extend a watermain to
connect the northeast area with the northwest area. It was his understanding
that the watermain would be put in without hooking up residents along
Highland, but if water problems arose in the future, it would be possible to hook
up. Ms. Dunn questioned the range of the value of homes proposed for this plat.
Mr. Peterson explained the homes would not be in the same range as Lafayette
Woods which has more amenities, and felt the range would be from $130,000 to
$210,000.
.
There being no further comments from the public, Chair Thompson closed the
public hearing.
Discussion followed regarding tree preservation, the oak wilt area and grading.
Whether or not 193rd A venue should be vacated and the affect on the
proposed plat was discussed, as well as traffic and pedestrian issues. Terry
Maurer felt it would be best to work with the County to address traffic issues
associated with County Road No. 1 and Proctor, rather than trying to solve the
problems by rerouting internal residential streets.
It was the consensus of the Commissioners that the following issues need to be
addressed before taking action on the proposed Cherrywood Hills plat:
. Status of 193rd A venue
. Tree preservation
. Traffic circulation
. Sidewalk along Proctor (who pays)
. Rush Street - utilities, transportation/pedestrian connection with Lafayette
Woods
. Lot depths/grading issues
John Peterson of Good Value Homes agreed that postponing this item for the
1/28/97 meeting would allow time to work through the outstanding issue.
.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION POSTPONE THE
REQUEST BY GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, PUBLIC
HEARING CASE NO. P 95-13, UNTIL THE JANUARY 28, 1997, PLANNING
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
Page 5
.
COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
Staff report by Steve Ach. The City of Elk River is requesting to subdivide 115
acres located in the southeast corner of 165th Avenue and Jarvis Street. into 6
rural single family lots and 1 large outlot that will be used for the development of
ballfields. The City purchased the property for developing the northerly portion
of Outlot A into recreational fields and using the southern half for the spreading
of sludge from the city treatment facility. It was proposed that development of
the fields be funded by the sale of the residential lots. Four of the lots are slightly
larger than 3 acres in size, one 7.5 acre lot and one lot is 15.22 acres. The
western lot line on Lot 6 should be adjusted to follow the ditch. Steve reviewed
information as presented in the staff report to the Planning Commission
regarding wetland mitigation and the development of the residential lots. The
Park & Recreation Commission has recommended that the purchase and
development of Outlot A will satisfy the park dedication requirements for the
plat. It is proposed to develop the residential lots from east to west. so that if in
the future there is a need for the western lots for expanding the ballfields, there
would be land available adjacent to the existing complex.
Discussion followed regarding the buildable area of the lots.
.
Chair Thompson opened the public hearing.
Dave Anderson, 14845 County Road 30, Park & Recreation Commissioner,
suggested the plat be considered for a cluster development. with some sort of
pedestrian pathway access. Commissioner Sullivan suggested that the intent of
clustering was to preserve open space, which this plat already has done.
Members of the Commission discussed the clustering concept and it was the
consensus of the Commissioners to favor the plat as presented.
Mary Elveru, 9943 165th Avenue, stated she owns 40 acres north of the
proposed plat. She expressed concern for the increased traffic which will be
generated by the ballfields, and also, the speed of vehicles currently traveling
on 165th. Ms. Elveru stated there currently are no speed zone signs posted on
165th. She questioned which board or commission will be involved in naming of
the fields. The Commission informed her the Park and Recreation will address
naming the fields. Ms. Elveru expressed concern that the entrance to the
ballfields be planned so that it will not line up with her driveway. Steve Ach
indicated on the plat where the access is planned as well as a possible second
access onto 1 65th. Ms. Elveru felt the second access would be close to her
existing driveway.
There being no further comments from the public, Chair Thompson closed the
public hearing.
.
Terry Maurer explained the speeding issue needs to be addressed by Mn/Dot
through a request for a speed study. A member of the audience stated she was
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
Page 6
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
.
7.
aware a speed study has already been ordered and she was told a speed study
would take 1 - 3 years to complete.
Steve Ach suggested adding a condition that the wetland mitigation on Lot 6
be completed before the sale of the lot.
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER'S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
FOR PARKVIEW ADDITION (FORMER CASS PROPERTY), PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO
P 96-12, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
THE WESTERLY LOT LINE OF LOT 6 BE ADJUSTED TO COINCIDE WITH THE
DITCH THAT BISECTS THE LOT.
SHARED DRIVEWAYS BE UTILIZED WHEREVER POSSIBLE TO MINIMIZE THE
ACCESS POINTS ONTO 165TH AVENUE.
APPROPRIATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS BE INCORPORATED AS
PART OF THE PLAT.
A DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT BE PREPARED AND INCLUDED ALONG WITH THE
SALE OF EACH PARCEL.
APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT FEES BE PAID AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, PERCOLATION TEST AND SOIL
BORINGS BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE BUILDING
ELEVATIONS.
WETLAND MITIGATION ON LOT 6 BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE SALE OF THE
LOT.
COMMISSIONER TACHENY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
............"............"......................",."......................................"",.""..............--.--.......".....""'.....------..................---..---..----.,..........."'......
6.7.@ItM9f~lkBiy~r~~~P~~tf9f([)'r~jI"191"l9$~rr1~ncirr1~l1tR~~9r~it19Hqtels/K&9t$lsH
cmq~~st~Wfqpt#g~@9r1C1iti6l"loltJ$~$inJh€!c:3[)istri9t,pqbliyH~~ril1fl(:pg~#N9.
OA96H6<
.
Staff report by Scott Harlicker. The City of Elk River is requesting an amendment
to the zoning ordinance to establish hotels/motels and class I restaurants as
conditional uses in the C3 (Highway Commercial) zoning district. Currently,
these uses only require staff review prior to issuance of a building permit. Issues
are listed as permitted uses and as traffic, screening, noise and odors can
impact nearby adjacent residential areas and may best be addressed through
the conditional use permit process. Staff recommends approval of the
ordinance amendment.
Chair Thompson opened the public hearing.
Paul Bell, 17323 Highway 10, owner of the Bridgeman's Restaurant, expressed his
opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment, stating it would restrict his
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
Page 7
.
ability to remodel or expand his business, and that it unfairly singles out specific
businesses.
There being no further comments from the public, Chair Thompson closed the
public hearing.
Steve Ach explained that no conditional use permit review would be required
for internal remodeling of a restaurant, but it would be required for an addition.
Mr. Bell argued that restaurant owners are already required to comply with state
building and health codes and the conditional use permit is unnecessary.
Commissioner Mesich expressed his concern that the city would be putting a
barrier up for sit-down restaurants that would like to locate here.
Steve Ach explained that there may be issues associated with a restaurant
having live entertainment and a liquor license that could have a significant
impact on a neighborhood which could be addressed through the conditional
use permit process.
Mr. Bell questioned why only the C3 district was chosen and not the other
commercial districts. Scott Harlicker noted that currently hotels/motels and class
I restaurants are allowed as a conditional use in the C4, a permitted use in the
Cl and C3, and not allowed at all in the C-2 (office district) zoning district.
.
Commissioner Minton suggested the ordinance amendment apply to the Cl
district as well. Commissioner Sullivan questioned why hotels and motels are
included in the proposed amendment. Steve Ach explained there may be
issues such as density, hours of operation and again traffic. Since in most of the
C3 areas, there is no buffer zone, there may be a need for special conditions to
lessen or at least review the impact to neighboring residential zoned property,
which could be accomplished through a conditional use permit.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER'S REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ESTABLISHING HOTELS/MOTELS AND CLASS I RESTAURANTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE
IN THE C3 AND C1 ZONING DISTRICTS, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. OA 96-16.
COMMISSIONER TACHENY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED 3-4.
COMMISSIONERS ANDERSON, MESICH, SULLIVAN AND KUESTER OPPOSED.
6~3. ..........AAAert3dH...p8rtdB@.telecoAAReguest.f8rRez8hlh~..t8AT(ArltehHdO"erldvl.
.. ...[)istrt8f,puBli8RedtlHdCdseNo.ZG96..2a_DiscussioH28Htihlled. ..... ............................
.
Scott reviewed concerns of the city regarding the coverage maps, why co-
location on the AT&T tower is not possible, the impact on neighboring residential
property, and why a mono pole is not being considered. Scott noted to the
applicant that their letters were not received in time to include in the Planning
Commission I s packets and were distributed tonight.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
Page 8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
Linda Whitman, 1701 E. 79th street, Suite 19, Bloomington, MN, was present
representing American Portable Telecom (APT). Ms. Whitman provided
background information regarding the company. APT provides PCS (personal
communication system) wireless communication, different from cellular. which
allows video interfacing and two-way messaging. Their FCC license is in what is
called the "B" block and Sprint is in the "A" block. The difference between
cellular and PCS is that PCS requires a lower antenna height because of the
lower power output and the antennas must be closer together. PCS towers can
also accommodate more users. This location is needed in order to fulfill their
coverage needs in Elk River, for both in-building penetration and on the
highways. Factors were taken into consideration in picking the site which cause
interference such as trees, buildings and topography. Ms. Whitman responded
to staff's concerns as follows:
The oak tree on site will not need to be removed
The existing access to the site is adequate
Industrial zoning is ideal for antenna location, no traffic will be generated, no
noise, no use nuisance associated with the antenna
A mono-pole is not available at this time. APT would like to use lattice tower
and can guarantee a co-locator at this time.
The tower is design to topple on itself
APT has a license from the FCC and they will send a copy with the building
permit application
All the necessary information will be supplied which complies with the
Uniform Building Code
An 8 ft. high fence will be provided as requested
There will be no lighting unless the city requires security lighting
APT's FCC license restricts any electrical interference
There are no health or safety issues associated with the tower
steve Ramberg, RF (radio frequency) engineer, indicated the design and tower
location site was chosen due to the proximity of downtown Elk River and the
curving of Highway 169 and Highway 10. Ramberg explained the "link budget"
restricts the height of the tower. Losses occur in the cable that runs up the
tower, and the higher the frequency the lower the tower requirement. PCS
operates at a frequency band of 1950 - 1960 MHz. Cellular companies
construct higher towers because they operate at 800 MHz and do not have the
loss which the PCS would have. Mr. Ramberg explained that tower location is
also more critical for the PCS than for cellular, and the one mile difference
between the proposed site and the AT&T site would greatly affect their
coverage. Mr. Ramberg noted there are terrain issues associated with location
of the tower, such as the hill to the north. The antenna site in Dayton is already
under construction. Cellular can construct a very tall tower and add an omni
tower which gives a circular pattern of wide range coverage. PCS must be very
directional and is limited to choice of sites due to the highway locations. Mr.
Ramberg stated he has run the coordinates and done analysis which shows they
will not be able to connect up with Zimmerman, provide continuous coverage,
cover Elk River and connect with the site in Dayton, using the AT&T tower. When
asked about the green area to the south shown on the coverage maps,
Ramberg stated they plan to locate on an existing tower in Monticello. Scott
Harlicker stated it appears there is still a large gap in coverage. Ramberg
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
Page 9
.
explained that issue will need to be addressed in the "optimization phase".
Commissioner Tacheny asked what the range would be for the tower. Ramberg
stated it depends on factors called "clutter" such as foliage and buildings.
Discussion followed regarding range and the affect of topography between Elk
River and Monticello, and Elk River and Zimmerman, as well as pole height. Mr.
Ramberg stated he is not aware of any tower over 165 ft. in height and that
towers in urban areas are much shorter. Commissioner Anderson stated he did
not see a great deal of difference between the coverage maps using the AT&T
mono-pole and the proposed lattice tower.
Discussion followed regarding using a tower on the water tower along Highway
169. Jeff Peterson, structural engineer, explained the structure of the water tower
is merely a "skin" and would not structurally support their equipment. He noted
the tower which was constructed on a water tower in Medina was tied to the
legs of the water tower and is aesthetically very unappealing. Commissioner
Tacheny asked what is the size of a lattice tower versus a mono-pole. Mr.
Peterson explained the feet of a lattice tower are approximately 15 feet apart
and has a 4 foot base at the top. A mono-pole is a solid, tapered pipe structure
and a 165 ft. pole would be approximately 6 feet in diameter at the base.
Peterson stated a lattice tower could accommodate 2 other users and a mono-
pole could accommodate 1 additional user.
.
Ms. Whitman reiterated that if they co-located on the AT&T tower, they would
likely still need an additional site and may not be as good as the proposed
location which is already zoned industrial. Also, their tower could
accommodate 2 additional users.
Scott questioned whether co-location would be possible with Sprint. Linda
Whitman indicated any of the other competitors could co-locate on the
proposed pole.
Linda Whitman explained the process APT follows to locate a tower. Site
acquisition specialists examine a search ring which has been determined by
their RF (radio frequency) engineers, looking for buildings and existing towers. RF
then makes a determination whether or not these sites will work. If none of the
possibilities will work, they then look for ground-build sites.
Commissioner Anderson questioned if American Portable were allowed to co-
locate on the AT&T tower, could they physically locate on the tower. Ms.
Whitman stated they could physically be on the tower but they would not get
the coverage they need, based on their market study. Steve Ramberg, RF
engineer, indicated they cannot provide continuous coverage to both their
customers traveling along the highways and inside buildings in downtown Elk
River from the AT&T site. Commissioner Anderson expressed his concern that the
City will be faced with multiple requests from other competitors to build towers in
Elk River and the citys their intent is to have as few of these towers as necessary.
.
When asked if the Zimmerman and Monticello towers have been constructed,
the applicants stated they plan to co-locate on two towers that are going up in
Monticello and the Zimmerman site is now going through the zoning process.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
Page 10
.
Mr. Ramberg noted they have a tower north of Zimmerman and are currently
involved in the site acquisition process for service up to Mille Lacs Lake. There
are no further plans for expansion other than adding additional antennas to
existing towers. Members of the Commission expressed concern that there
appears to be no coverage in the northwest quadrant of the city and there will
be a demand since the residential development is shifting that direction. The
Commission indicated they wish to minimize the number of these towers as
much as possible. steve Ach questioned why APT could not co-locate on the
A T&T tower and then build an additional tower north of Elk River, if needed. Ms.
Whitman stated there will be an opportunity for other users to co-locate on the
tower they are proposing, eliminating additional towers. She added they can
meet there coverage requirements on the proposed site but would not be able
to do so on the AT&T site. Ms. Whitman stated she felt the proposed location is
ideal with regard to traffic, noise, and lighting, since the site is zoned light
industrial.
Commissioner Anderson questioned how many sites are owned and how many
are co-located. Ms. Whitman explained that she was not sure, but that of the 8
cellular sites, 4 are roof top sites, 3 ground-builts, all which are co-locates and 1 is
an identified co-locator.
Commissioner Kuester questioned the financial arrangement which is made to
co-locate. Ms. Whitman explained typically, APT trades sites with another user,
such as Sprint. Commissioner Mesich questioned why they could not co-locate
on one of the communication towers to the north.
.
Commissioner Anderson questioned whether or not it made a difference if they
worked with AT&T or Sprint. Ms. Whitman indicated it did not make a difference.
Jeff Peterson stated they currently have leases in place with Sprint and NexTel.
Mr. Peterson stated APT has made numerous requests to AT&T to co-locate on
their existing sites since February and just received their first response yesterday
(November 25, 1996), informing them of the process. Mr. Peterson explained if
they could work out an agreement with AT&T and it would meet there coverage
needs, that would be the route they would take. Mr. Peterson further explained
that given the fact APT is a direct competitor and would be offering a better
service, it would be unlikely AT&T would respond in the necessary time frame.
Commissioner Anderson indicated it appears to be a competitive issue and a
partnership issue of AT&T versus Sprint. Mr. Peterson stated that is part of the issue
but there is also a coverage issue since the AT&T tower site does not meet their
requirements and would require an additional tower. Mr. Ramberg stated that
he selected the site from an engineering standpoint based on coverage. He
stated he did check out the northern area where there are existing towers but
did not feel he could provide the in-building penetration level needed for
coverage in the city. Commissioner Minton questioned whether the coverage
could be achieved by using the AT&T site and a tower in the northern area. Mr.
Ramberg stated he was given the assignment for one tower location, not two.
Ms. Whitman asked that the item be continued to further investigate this
possibility.
.
Commissioner Mesich felt language should be included in the ordinance
regarding conditional use permits for these towers, stating applicants shall not
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
Page 11
deny co-location. Ms. Whitman stated she is aware of other cities' ordinances
which have a requirement for co-location and an applicant must be able to
meet specific criteria to be able to deny co-location. Ms. Whitman explained
that AT&T has provided them a 12 page application to be considered for co-
location, along with a $1,000 application fee. She felt it is unfair AT&T is able to
delay responding to their requests for months and should be required to
respond within a specified time frame.
Commissioner Anderson explained that the Commission is sensitive to APT's
concerns but they do not wish to be forced into making a decision because
AT&T is not being timely with a response. He explained they have a responsibility
to the City of Elk River to assure there will not be 50 of these towers scattered
throughout the city. Ms. Whitman stated she felt the city also has a responsibility
to address co-location requirements through their code so that it can be done
in a timely fashion. Ms. Whitman indicated that a company should be able to
respond within 2 weeks to a request for co-location. The information needed is
whether the tower can physically and structurally support their equipment and if
they can be the height their RF requires. Ms. Whitman asked that the City discuss
the $1,000 application fee with AT&T when discussing the cooperation issue with
them. She added that the City of Bloomington requires a signed statement that
an applicant will cooperate in co-location whenever possible.
Steve Ramberg provided information on "RSA" boundaries and how coverage
can be restricted. Steve also explained the difference between analog wireless
and digital transmission. He noted the PCS (personal communication system)
digital transmission has no static since it is total synthesis of the voice.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION POSTPONE THE
REQUESTS BY AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM FOR REZONING AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO.'S ZC 96-20 AND CU 96-26,
UNTIL THE DECEMBER 19, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SO THAT
INFORMATION CAN BE OBTAINED REGARDING COVERAGE AT THE AT&T SITE,
POSSIBLY AN ADDITIONAL SITE TO THE NORTH, AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE
ANY OTHER POSSIBLE SITE LOCATIONS. COMMISSIONER TACHENY SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
Commissioner Kuester asked that this item be discussed at the December 10,
1996, Planning Commission workshop agenda.
There being no further business, COMMISSIONER TACHENY MOVED TO ADJOURN
THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 11: 1 0 p.m.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
Page 12
R~nCtfUII~ SUb*,~ _ .: _. _ )
AJ):e-/;-Jce : r[~
Debbie Kleckner
Recording Secretary