Loading...
PC 1996 09 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 Chairwoman Man¢ino called the meeting to order at g;00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Man¢ino, Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, Bob Skubi¢, and JeffFarmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; and John Rask, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING ANTENNAS AND TOWERS. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. (Taping of the meeting began at this point in the discussion.) AT&T Representative: ... of AT&T Wireless Services. My home address is 6001... A lot of the things that John said, we are the other licensed cellular carrier in the Twin Cities here. AT&T used to be originally Cellular One, which was then purchased by... Industries, which was then purchased by AT&T Wireless. There are roughly about 90 cell sites in the Twin Cities area that AT&T has. The things that are of concern for AT&T is, well two things. Capacity and coverage. With the coverage... Those are things that are in the sales and marketing area, that's out of my expertise. The areas that was in the area here, the topography is the major concern with the cellular industry. Tall buildings like.., said. There aren't the height of the buildings here in Chanhassen but there are the peaks and valleys, the trees and things like that that cellular cannot go through so there is a unique height for towers that we have. So whether you're... AT&T is more than happy to help work with the City of Chanhassen to answer.., so the City of Chanhassen and the.., will get improved cellular service. Any questions? Joyce: You mentioned something about the unique height. What is it? Is there a like a maximum, minimum height? AT&T Representative: Well the standard in the industry has been.., like a 75 foot height which when you look at tree tops is... 75 feet. There are certain areas and we can get into.., situations here.., where separation between users, you're looking at anywhere between 20 to 25 feet separation vertically between the different users because that way we end up with the frequencies being.., and separation of that. So if you get at the 75 foot, which is the typical height, someone that wants to go locate would then end up having to go at a 50 foot height, which in essence you're into the tree heights and topography of... may not be a suitable site for another user. Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 1996 Joyce: You wouldn't go higher, but you can go lower? AT&T Representative: We'd want to probably go higher at that point so that we could at least allow.., other users to be located on that particular structure. The one thing that it is talked about, and where I come into situations here because I work with the.., engineers. Everything is... where they receive the marketing routes and our engineers receive.., customers of dropped phone calls, the poor reception, with their service and things like that and that has to do with a grid pattern, which is made up where antenna sites are placed and if there is a lacking or a void in the system, you might end up with poor reception, poor service, and then dropped phone calls. So that's where they put together this system from customer complaints and also an enhancement of the system that our engineers are working on a daily basis to improve the system. Mainly with AT&T. There is the coverage situation that we would have.., because they're more popular that the services are becoming and the list of cellular, the more need there is for having to go to capacity. Mancino: Thank you. Douglas Hallen: Good evening. My name is Douglas Hallen with Cellular Realty Advisors. On behalf of our clients, which is American Portable Telecom here in Minnesota. Bloomington. Their offices are located at 1701 East 79th Street, Suite 19, in Bloomington. I really wouldn't be able to add more than the last two gentleman did on the technical aspect of the technology but I would like to mention that this is rather like a balancing act. There are a number of parameters that we looked at and are forced to deal with in determining the best sites and we are interested, as are other communities, in keeping a number of these structures.., to a minimum in any given community. We're dealing with everything, not limited to things like vertical elevations, but topography. The zoning requirements and of course the willingness of landowners to enter into leases to provide the sites for these facilities. It is a regional network. There is a regional grid that is required in order to make the service viable. AT&T was one of two winners in the.., auctions from this particular.., which they share with Sprint. And so the first option that we always look for is the ability to locate on existing towers. Existing buildings. First of all it's cheaper.., to locate on an existing tower.., our preference and our goal is to essentially facilitate it... to come into the community and work with a community. Identify the most suitable sites that will make everybody satisfied. Hopefully that's basically when we come in, we're not trying to force any of these... We just want to work with the community and be helpful and be responsive to the needs of the community and identify the least obtrusive solution. And so that's basically what our role is, and as I said before, I think the technology... Mancino: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Keith Michael: Hi. My name's Keith Michael. I work with Cellular Realty Advisors as well. I'm with Doug. I'm brand new on the job so I'm learning right along with you and I really don't have anything else to add. Mancino: Thank you for coming up and telling us that. I think what I will do is to tell the commission a good way to mn the meeting from now on. We're just going to go ahead and close 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 1996 the public hearing. We'll mm it back to John and go over and present to us the entire ordinance as he has written. We will open the public hearing back up again so that we can then have some discussion on the ordinance as proposed in front of us. May I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing? Joyce moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. John Rask presented the staff report on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code regarding antennas and towers. (There was a tape change during discussion after the stafl~s presentation.) Audience: In most cases there will be another building anyway. The question came up as to the size of the building. We used either a 20 x 24 or 20 x 30 building. We never saw the 12 x 24 to build our stuff'.., but that building, 12 x 24 isn't big enough for us. Now we can, when we have... buildings that are 24 x 24, so you have... I personally would not opt for towers that are.., that substantial of a tower with perhaps no lighting... I operate in the Twin Cities and I can't think of a pole.., rooftops and there's a cement plant that's in Bumsville... water tower... Now we have other types of pole locations... An example is in Bloomington where we have a city.., on top of a pole. The city has had their sign.., tucked back in the comer and they wanted to... In Edina we have the city fire department's communication on top of our pole so... I guess that's all the things I have. Joyce: This whole process is initiated by a customer complaint? Generally? Due to one customer complaint? 1007 1,0007 Audience: One of the things they do for is, I could go to get the customer complaints but it's more than, it has to be a big enough problem and it has to be substantiated by some.., contesting the area complaint. I mean one complaint would not get you to spend about a half million dollars to build a tower based on the tower's radios and the antennas and there is a combined... Joyce: Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Skubic: In your estimation, are you getting some pressure... ? Audience: We only had one site in Chanhassen that we're looking.., another site is going to be built in Chanhassen in the next two years, which is about as far as we plan, so one is the answer. Mancino: In the next two years. Audience: Right. In the next two years. Skubic: The question was how many is it going to take to cover an entire physical area? Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 1996 Audience: ... over the next two years. That's as far as I can predict. If everybody goes to a ... system, you would have to maximize the construction. Right now the technology would require cells.., so what is that? About 4 square miles. So that would be 6 cells, if everybody went to... cell phones. Out of 6, that's a lot better communication than they have now so... and right now the neighborhood cities are providing coverage into Chanhassen. Skubic: Do you see, your estimation is somewhere in the range of 6 to 107 Audience: It can't be 10 under current technology. 10 would be too many. Skubic: It'd be too many? Audience: Yeah. Or my company... Skubic: If you have a multiple provider then you need... Audience: ... so that's another possibility... AT&T Representative: To answer your question.., said there for the next two years. Either the remainder of this year and to have next year, we have no plans to build anything in Chanhassen but there may be... so if the amount of antennas or structures to be built here are limited, from AT&T's standpoint, based upon what requirements AT&T has right now on their system. Mancino: It's based on market penetration... AT&T Representative: Exactly. If technology changes, that would change.., but based upon what.., we'd probably be in the same situation. Probably 6-7 max. The entire city of St. Paul, we've got four sites. Five sites in St. Paul. We've got in Minneapolis, and mainly because of... traffic.., things like that, we've got 100 sites so that's all of Minneapolis. That kind of gives you an idea of the area.., based upon current technology. So a few things here that I want to thank the staff for. I know that this is a...job of trying to get through and put together an ordinance and they've done a lot of work. I know that... A few of the things here that we covered. I know Peter Beck, who is our legal staff} has talked with.., individuals to get their input.., and some of the things there that they had gone through and have on some recommendations had changed some terminology and things like that. I guess one of the things here is like on page 2 here, there's a definition so you've got... I don't know of many people that have towers... In going to page 3, item 2. The height there of 70 feet. We've requested between 75 and 80 feet, mainly because of the heights of trees, topography and things like that as being a minimal. Average tower height that AT&T constructs is probably about 125 to 150 feet in height. That's the average. There are some areas that, when I first started out, when Cellular One started out there was actually like four sites that were actually used in the Twin Cities area and they covered the whole Twin Cities area. And that went to the highest place of the city and like IDS Tower was one of the sites. Well that, because of the capacity and coverage that was being done. The coverage was being taken care of. The capacity, once that filled up, we had to come up with something different. I had to come up 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 1996 with other sites so in essence it was taken down off the IDS Tower and there were other smaller sites that were placed around that particular site to pick up the capacity and also the coverage from that one specific site. Well what it did is it took it down from a height down to a lower height. The one thing that we talked about is going to a... height and what you've got here in height.., distance to the base of the tower. The antenna on top of... power lines which serves more than one dwelling and... Well a lot of times here, what it was based upon is these towers, poles.., are I think this is a safety issue.., is that they're manufactured to meet the minimum requirement, which the State requirement is 80 mph.., with at least a half inch of... AT&T engineers their towers to at least stand a 90 mph wind load capacity which in essence, based upon this here, if you're looking at...those being made out of wood. Those poles are going to go a lot sooner than when our two... Safety and environment is one of our concerns but.., we checked with the local authorities on making sure that there isn't any problem... Mancino: I think that's a good comment. I think that we are concerned and I think that's a very good standard for AT&T but other companies may not have that. So it will be something. Aanenson: ... I guess what we're going to come back and put some language in there. We've got their comments and I guess when John went through it, he tried to hit the high points. There's some things we still need to work out but that's an area that we're going to put some leverage in about building code. Certainly we understand what the issue is so maybe we can phrase it different.., to protect public safety, and that's what the language John... and maybe it's just a language change. AT&T Representative: And we understand public safety also. I mean I'm sure that's one of... working together with stafl~ Aanenson: Yeah, and we agree that there just needs to be some language changed. That they should... AT&T Representative: On the setbacks. When we get down into the setbacks on page 3 here. Some of the things there, we're concerned about are from zoning districts. Where we would meet.., where we construct towers, poles, other poles, are usually in rear yards, side yards. I think there's something there that front yards, very rarely. One of the things there that as meeting the front yard setbacks.., and things like that. But side yards and rear yards, mainly is where you place the.., and shelters. To adhere to pieces of property that are going to be utilized for the... here. To take someone's parking lot and to put something within a parking lot, only to meet the required setbacks. They'd believe, the property owner has to come in to get a building permit and has to meet specific parking requirements for their size structure that they have. And if we were to go through and meet specific setbacks and to be placed within a parking area, may in essence take away part of their parking that they need for their building, which in essence could cause them concern based upon what the city requirements would have. So I would say that you should look at of being able to build within the area of the side yard. Look at that side yard setback area.., for placement. Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 1996 Aanenson: I guess our position on that, and I explained that to Peter Beck who is your attorney on this issue, is that ours was an aesthetic, and that's really where it was coming from. I think there's some room for movement on that. What we were concerned about is that in an industrial area, somebody's side yard can be somebody else's front yard. And how do you address that so if we can look at putting some qualifiers in there, I think there's certainly room for that and it's really again.., so someone doesn't have an office warehouse and their office is facing that side. So if we can find some middle ground, we can look at that. I guess certainly we don't want it in the front yard. AT&T Representative: I'd be the one that actually goes out and does the leasing and talks to properly owners. I know what you're talking about there. Those are things there that.., properly owners, we also too look at aesthetics..., try to make something aesthetically pleasing as possible... Try to blend in with the environment. One thing that was in here was a painting requirement that was there. One thing that was brought out is that one of the DOT has gone to a brown color type structure where in certain communities people that have driven the Crosstown and 169, in Eden Prairie. Edina, Minnetonka area. We've got a structure that is built in the northwest comer of that which we felt could blend in with the environment if you paint the poles the same color as the existing light standards that the DOT has put in... and those are things there, from an AT&T standpoint, they want to blend in. They don't want to stand out and those type of things too so I guess the parameters of working along with each individual site and working with staff and the city and that, and those are things that can be brought up at the time that applications are made with the city. What type of color should be best put in there. That has either been a light color blue, a gray or a brown type color which would blend in with the environment so those are some of the things there. Vegetation, which was talked about. Some of the things there. Landscaping. Some of the landscaping. AT&T is not opposed to doing landscaping. We do put landscaping in because we want to be a good neighbor also and so when that is going through, I think it's to be restrictive on how much landscaping is going to be placed on a site, I think it could be on an individual basis based upon each applicant that comes in. What is abutting that particular area. Wood zones and things like that. Some of the things to address within a residential areas, like within parks, churches and things like that. We have, I know AT&T or Soft Touch has placed towers within park areas where the type of structure. The shelter itselfi we have the different types of exteriors that we blend in with the particular zone that it's within. That particular structure may be a brick siding or whatever is in that area and we try to blend in with all of them. Or some kind of a roof design that is put on. I know that at one site that we've done, where we are is in the Minneapolis area. A structure was constructed to conform with another particular type shelters that are in the area. It blended in with them so we became a good neighbor with that particular area and I can see that being the same thing within Chanhassen also so. I think some of the things that...has talked about here. Insurance coverage. Things like that. Landowners are.., comes standard and we're putting those in our leases and working with the properly owners in doing that. So I don't see that as an exception for us to be required to do that also. That's something that's being done with the properly owners already. Abandoning towers. As was spoken previously. AT&T has roughly 90 locations within the Twin Cities here. They have never, ever abandoned the tower. They may have relocated from one area to another, like from the IDS Tower to the ground unit. They did not leave their structures up on top of the roof of the IDS. We do have a landlord at that time and if we believe that, from the landlord's 6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 1996 properly, we are responsible for that situation. So those things I think are kind of covered within the lease agreement with the properly owner and so abandonment of towers to the city, from AT&T's standpoint, and probably from the.., standpoint, probably will never happen. If we leave and take our equipment and go to another place, and I can put that there so that's one thing there. Just a couple other things here. The co-location requirement. Where it was talked about the, I think the amount of co-location that AT&T has done is very limited only because being one of the two carriers that are licensed within the area here, it tums out, ifI may, just a little bit talk about how each system is put together and what our requirements, what our need for a particular is and has been at times been different than what Soft Touch has been. Where we need to put a tower for meeting our capacity and coverage, may be different than what Soft Touch's have been, and it has been. Each grid pattern that goes through, when one tower goes up, that then is built around that particular tower. Each system is built in relationship to that. And at times there, there may be something that tends to have a tendency and could work together but has some of the areas that talked about have had a co-location but they have not been on a tower, but have been on an existing structure. A water tower or an existing building or things like that... The radius there, the one mile radius to look at, is a little restrictive because usually when I'm given a search circle to find a particular area, I might be looking in a particular area that covers maybe a block or two blocks in size. So to look within a mile radius, I wouldn't be able to, ifI had to go through that and say okay.., circle and ifI had to look within a radius and say here's another site over here, it wouldn't necessarily prove to be an acceptable site for AT&T. And that would be proven through our engineering to substantiate what one site would do in relationship to what our requirements are for that particular site. So I'm just saying a one mile radius for a search there is a little bit restrictive from our standpoint. And I think there's other things here that have been covered already with staff and I'll let someone else come up and talk on those so, if there are any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. AT&T Representative: Oh, one thing too. Our building sizes that we do put in are, the minimum is 12 x 24 in size. We normally have a 12 x 28 and that is what is to house our equipment and I don't see them getting any larger but yet, they've been pretty much standard.., in size. That is our standard building. Aanenson: If I could just add to that too. I was also told that they generally, there's a driveway for maintenance and a parking stall so... is our understanding. Doug Hallen: Thank you. Yes, Doug Hallen with APT. I also would like to commend staff for the professional way they've presented this draft ordinance. There's language that appears in there, it seems to be well thought out and generally responsive... I just had four points I'd like to go through quickly, which are of concern, like I say to our client, and one of which is to repeat one of the previous comments regarding the side yard setbacks. This appears on page 4. Item number 4. Top of page. Our only comment there would be, it would be very helpful if the City would basically consider allowing construction of these facilities in the side yards of industrial projects and we're also sensitive to the issues that were talked about before and we'd be able to work with that as far as relationships with front yards and side yards. Secondly, the bottom of 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 1996 page 5. Tower location. Item 1. The only thing there is it's within the one mile search radius. We would ask that we be waived of the requirement to study structures or buildings which are 70 feet or lower within that one mile radius because those would not be, those would not qualify in any case as potential opportunities for us to locate a facility. We're only looking on 70 feet or larger. Because of the reasons which have been discussed. Thirdly, page 9, at the bottom. Something, I'd like to enter into the record... The FAA requests obtaining a letter of approval. While we understand the rationale, we are, our experience has shown that in practice, getting an actual letter from the FAA on these facilities is virtually impossible. They simply do not have the staff to respond to the needs of these providers on every single site. And they will not be able to provide us with these letters so that will become a hardship for us. May I suggest however, that the language be modified to simply say that all required facilities will be consistent with any applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. Aanenson: We've already agreed to that. We understand that. Doug Hallen: Finally, this backs up to page 3. Item 2(b) at the top of the page. We would request if possible to modify the language slightly on the height restriction so that it would read, shall not exceed one foot for each 2 feet the tower sets back from residential structure, rather than property if possible. Our feeling there is that setting back 2 to 1 from residential property will severely impact our choice of sites. By the time that standard is applied, we're looking at quite a large commercial piece of property and we feel... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Mancino: So you can take down some notes on this. Craig. Peterson: I know a sport that good. Mancino: Well let me just highlight some of the notes that I have and some of the different issues that were raised. One was certainly on utility buildings. Whether there should be a cap or... cap and side. Should we discuss that a little bit more in this ordinance. Not only compatibility with materials used in the adjacent properties but also on size of the buildings. I think your question was answered on the wood pole versus metal. That they would not be using wood, or Soft Touch wouldn't be. Abandonment of tower. That right now no towers have been abandoned that may be something that we would want to have something in the ordinance about. There was discussion on side and front yards in IOPs and in OI districts. Whether we could be a little flexible there with the side yards. Landscaping request was that there would be no landscaping requirement in parking lots. And some flexibility around landscaping. And of course their height request for instead of 70 feet, going up to a minimum of 75 to 80 feet. And also a concern about the existing setbacks of the underlying zoning districts. And lastly what I have is, the co-location in the search circles. Whether they could, whether the one mile radius was too inflexible. So those are the major issues that I have along with some that I think John and Kate already answered about FAA, which I think we had handled and that was what I had down. That's all. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 1996 Peterson: Thank you. As it relates to the size of the building, I think there's a non-consistency there that I'd feel safe in putting a cap on the size because those technology.., materials and hardware is certainly going to be increased and maybe downsize so I think that would be a good idea. I feel pretty strongly about the abandonment. Abandonment of the towers, even though nobody has abandoned them yet. Also going back to the use of the word technology. Clearly technology will change 10 to 15, 20 years from now and use satellites perhaps but I think it's something that we have to address and we might as well be proactive and address it now. The side yard issue, I'm not as concerned about the side yard issue. Certainly the IOP area also is more important than the residential. I'm comfortable in... staff to try to find a way to mitigate that negative impact. I think that can be done. Landscaping, I had a little bit of a struggle with. There's proven times that landscaping isn't going to be appropriate and inappropriate so I think some way we can.., options that's been a requirement that.., not having landscaping would certainly be... I'm comfortable with the height going up to 80 feet. I think that's a reasonable flexibility. The setback issue is more of a touchy one I think. I think I've heard from staff that there's flexibility there to possibly put language in that will... Co-locations. I think I heard clearly and can take heart to the example of size of the tower. If they co-locate on a single metal tower. I don't think I'd want to, I think my tendency would be to have a smaller tower and perhaps more of them than the larger ones that are more onerous to the environment as far as aesthetically at least. I'm biased towards that versus forcing them to put lwo on... tower. I think maybe use the language such that they cohabitant of sort on metal towers... It was also talked about the innermodulation study. I can't remember if staff concurred with that or not. I think that concludes my comments. Mancino: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: I'm not going to add much to what Craig said. I really had the sense that staff could modify what they said today, given what they heard from the different experts that were here. The representatives here tonight. Really nothing to add. I think we can go up to 80 feet, and again I'm just going to echo all of what Craig said. My only big concern. I don't have a solution for the one mile radius option. I kind of like that but I heard some contrary points to that, which were kind of reasonable. I don't have a direction. I don't know how to handle that. And Kate mentioned my only big concern, and that is putting something like this next to a residential neighborhood. I just don't ever want to be in a position where the neighbors come in and say they don't want that there. Because the language will probably allow that and I don't think the industry would even, you know they're going to search for those easy solution things but I just don't want to be put in a situation where this is the only spot. But I haven't thought of ways to get us out of that so that's it. So again I really heard staff talking in terms of listening to some of the experts or the representatives here tonight and I think they can come up with a revised ordinance pretty easily. Mancino: I'm interpreting you're saying that you want to keep the, one of the questions that was brought up tonight was that the setback from the property to be, let's see. What was it? On page 3, 2(b). You want to make sure that the antenna height or that the antenna is far enough away from the property line, not the residential structure. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 1996 Conrad: Yes. Mancino: So you would not change it to residential structure but keep it to residential properly line? Conrad: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Bob. Skubic: I agree with what Craig and Ladd have already said. I think staff did a great job of... Just a couple comments. I'm in agreement with... The co-location versus size.., the right thing to do with that. Certainly the smaller towers.., are attractive to. More attractive than the larger towers.., so I hope that staff will give some consideration to that. I do feel strongly that we should include something in there regarding abandonment. Seeing that we get.., so I'd like to see something regarding abandonment. And one other item that I don't know if staff concurred with was the liability issue. I'm comfortable with.., so that's all I have to say. Mancino: Kevin. Joyce: Basically echoing most of what's been said. Just overall, number one. Staff has done a great job with this and it's hard to pin point this type of business. The industry is evolving so quickly and it's so new to us so it's difficult to really put parameters on any of this stuff2 The fellows that are here are certainly from reputable companies and my concern is when we don't have reputable companies coming in. Some fly by night or something like that. Particularly when we have a Federal mandate of putting these things up and I could possibly see us having our hands fled. Someone else comes in and do whatever they want so I mean some of this stuff can be serious at a point. I don't know when, if ever it will happen but I'd have to say that things like this, abandonment. I agree with. I think it has to be looked at. Thank you for looking at the size of the utility building. I don't know if that's going to become an issue. I think we should make considerations for that. As far as the side yard setbacks, and this seems to me to be kind of a case by case item anyhow so I can live with that. The co-location, I would agree. I would consider smaller than bigger ones. But I am concerned about this residential issue. That's one thing that would concern me about anything that's been said tonight. Number one, I would definitely agree with Ladd saying that it would go with the properly line. And I trust the staff would just really seriously look at that. I don't know 2 to 1, I can't visualize it. It's more like on our field trip, I almost wish we could have looked at 2 to 1 and how big that would be or if that really is a hardship. But I totally agree with Ladd. I never want, I know AT&T isn't going to come up here, and Air Touch and these fellows, but who knows who would come up in front of us and say, this is the only place we can put it and you know, we have to put it here. I would have a real problem doing that so I would like to look at that very seriously. Almost to the point of considering keeping it the way it is. That's about all I have to say. Mancino: Jefl~ Farmakes: I have nothing to argue with what's been said. Good report. Those are my comments. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 1996 Mancino: Thank you. Good report. Lots of details in here. The only thing that I would differ from at all from what anyone else has said is that I would keep the height, the maximum height in residential properties at 70 feet and then let the City Council determine if there should be a variance from that. Aanenson: There's two ways of looking at it. You can say 70 and demonstrate that... Mancino: The trees are in the way or topography so that would be my only difference than what other people said. May I have a motion please? Conrad: I would move that the Planning Commission table the draft ordinance pertaining to the wireless telecommunication towers and facilities to incorporate the comments of the Planning Commission. Mancino: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Mancino: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Any questions from? Conrad moved, Fannakes seconded that the Planning Commission to table action on the draft ordinance amendment pertaining to Wireless Teleconununication Towers and Facilities to incorporate the conunents from the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Audience: Madam Chair, I know that the public hearing is over but I forgot something. Mancino: Oh, you want to come up and say it now? Audience: If I could just ask one question with respect to abandonment. The Code already provides for condemnation of other abandoned pieces and this is a growing city so you haven't had to deal with some of the problems that other cities have had with buildings being walked away from and that sort of thing and I am struggling with the reason why the commission feels that there's something special about this, about a cell tower or halfa dozen cell towers over any other abandoned use that might be... Mancino: I'm not sure it's over any other abandoned use but I think that we want to make it clear and be very proactive how we do feel about the antenna and towers in this ordinance. In this part of the ordinance. Audience: Okay. I guess my concern was over the suggestion that there be some security or some bond or why would we... 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 1996 Aanenson: I think we're getting into two issues. You're right. It's in the Code. We have within one year if something's been abandoned they have to be vacated. The issue we're talking about, which we're still in the gray area on, is if you have co-location in the tower or if the technology changes and the height comes down and we've got the excess antenna, what do you do with that? That is more... Audience: We agree with the way you.., and we typically remove the extra tower anyway so it's not. Joyce: I mentioned about the security, but if they're comfortable with it, that's fine. I just brought it up as a suggestion. Aanenson: There is no policy.., it's the excess. Mancino: Glad you asked it and glad we answered it. Thank you. That's it. OLD BUSINESS. Aanenson: I just wanted to let you know I administratively approved an expansion to the West Junior High... What they're doing is putting in a small entrance, a canopy... Dave looked at that. They're not changing any grading, drainage patterns or anything like that so... Conference area two, science rooms, computer lab, another conference room. This is just actually.., than actually expanding the cafeteria so it's... Again we did look to see what, if any vegetation... Mancino: Thank you. Do you need us to do anything? Aanenson: No, I just wanted to let you know. If you see activity happening up there. Mancino: Would you just make sure that they pick up all their debris because it does seem to pack, find it's way to the property to the south of the Middle School. Lots of it. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 4, 1996 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: Thank you. St. Hubert's site plan was approved with the recommendation that the soccer field be moved up unless it was demonstrated that it could not be placed up there. Again that's contingent upon final plat of the Villages which will be occurring Monday, the 23rd. Chuck's Grinding, which is an industrial user out in Chan Business Center was approved. The Schmieg variance request for the lot subdivision of one lot 14,000 square foot was denied. CSM, which is on the comer of TH 5 and Dell Road, was approved. The color wasn't the exact same as it was approved on the previous two buildings. They approved the final plat for Melody Hill. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 1996 That's all I have. Excuse me, the Council did interview the one Planning Commission candidate so that's on for hopefully appointment and hopefully the day after we'll have a new Planning Commissioner. Mancino: On Monday night? This coming Monday night? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: Thank you. ONGOING ITEMS: Mancino: Ongoing items? Anything? Aanenson: No. Just to let you know on your next agenda, there will be during the Bluff Creek hearing. I noticed it as a public hearing but it won't be a public hearing. What I want to do is give an opportunity for you to ask questions of what we discussed last time. Maybe in a little more detail and then I want to spend some time going through how staff came up with the proposed recommendation for the land uses. Proposed land uses. Get your feedback and then take that and any modifications you may have and go meet with the property owners. Give them a chance to comment before we have a public hearing. So the public hearing will probably be in a month or so but I want to get your feedback before we meet with them and Mark Koegler... Mancino: Excuse me, who is Mark Koegler? Aanenson: With Hoisington-Koegler. He worked on the last, the 1991 comp plan update so he's got.., so he has a pretty good knowledge of the city and the comments... And then we'll be taking that through the process. And also Abra-Goodyear is on for the next meeting. They want to do some air conditioners.., and if John can squeeze in, we spent a lot of time on the tower. If he can change that and put that back on too... I appreciate starting and everybody coming in early tonight. Mancino: Any open discussion on any issues that the commissioners would like to bring up? Okay, can I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? Fannakes moved, Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 13