Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-14-1997PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 14, 1997 PRESENT: BOB BRADLEY, ANNE HEIDEMAN, CHRIS CROSBY, PENNY ELSENPETER, FRANK MIGNONE, SUSIE MACKAY, CAROLYN SMITH, AND BRUCE WORKMAN. ALSO PRESENT, PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR LOREN KOHNEN AND PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON. ABSENT: DECKER VELIE Chairperson Penny Elsenpeter called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 1. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 1996 MOVED BY ANNE HEIDEMAN AND SECONDED BY FRANK MIGNONE TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED. 2. NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS/CITY OF MEDINA - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ANTENNA TOWER - 3574 PINTO DRIVE - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:36 P.M. Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission explaining the application. He also put up overheads of the site and the tower. There was some discussion of the potential of the existing water tower coming down sometime in the future and at that time, AirTouch Cellular, who's antennas are located on top of the water tower, would then co -locate their antennas on this new tower. There was also discussion on why the tower was being planned for this location. Bill Buell, representing Nextel, explained that the telecommunications act that the President signed in February, 1996 said that local zoning could not block these systems, but would have some control over where they were placed. Larry Hicks, property owner in the area, said that he could not believe that the City would even entertain the idea of a tower in this location. He said that the City is so concerned and so careful what business owners do in the area and the fact that Medina has already made the news with the ugliest tower around, this new tower certainly would not help matters and wouldn't be any better looking. Carolyn Smith said that she is concerned with the set -backs of the tower and the fact that we have always required the set -back to be 1'/z times the height of the tower and she did not want to see us do anything different here. She also wanted to know the setbacks from the buildings in the area. L. Kohnen explained that there are no ordinance that requires the 1'/2 times setback for towers but it is something that we have always put in as a condition in the conditional use permits, the reason being that it was required in the types of antennas that were 1 going up in case of collapse. He explained that this tower is designed to fall within itself, fold over, instead of a total collapse. C. Smith mentioned that Medina is tough on businesses with zoning etc. She also wanted to know about Hennepin County's facility. They had talked about towers, why this couldn't be there and couldn't they use the same tower? L. Kohnen said that this system was different than what they would need. B. Buell gave some history on the licensing on the different types of systems, done through the lottery system or auctions by the FCC. He said that in 1983 they gave away two cellular licenses by lottery and at that time they were predicting 2 million users by the year 2000. He said currently there are about 40 million users and the demand has filled up the channels. Since then smaller areas have been auctioned off and there will be another auction soon for smaller areas. He said there are cellular systems, PCS, smaller PCS and ESMR. He said that Nextel was ESMR which stands for Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio. He then went on to say why towers are put were they are: he said there has to be a grid of towers to make use of channel re -use, in other words if channel A is used on one tower, it can be re -used on another tower in the same grid. Therefore there can be shorter towers to make use of the signals. He said the grid in this area falls on the water tower and that also the closeness to the highway makes it a desirable location. The tower is then in an area where a good share of the users are. L. Hicks said he felt that this would have a negative effect on the businesses owners in the Industrial area. He said again that the other tower made news of being the ugliest tower around. He said that a lot of people have a lot of money invested in the area. He felt that there had to be a better location than in the middle of an industrial area. B. Buell said that you will usually find towers in commercial/industrial areas. L. Kohnen said that the current antennas on top of the water tower could have been on the Rolling Green Golf Course property. Frank Mignone asked if there would be any lights on this tower or any guy wires. B. Buell said no. He explained that towers over 200' in height are required to have both daytime and night lights. B. Bradley said if we cannot avoid having towers in the city then the commercial and industrial areas is the place for them to be. He also said that in this location where there is already a tower there that will eventually come down, this is the place for it to be. F. Mignone wanted to know what happens of Nextel abandons their tower. B. Buell said that in the agreement between the City and Nextel, it says that if Nextel goes we take all our equipment with us. 2 P. Elsenpeter wanted to know how many co -users there would be. B. Buell said that there can be a total of 4 users on the tower that use the same waves that we do. He said that they must overbuild in strength and that there are safety factors in the steel. Bruce Workman asked about liability insurance. B. Buell said yes, they would have a one million dollar policy plus an umbrella. B. Workman said he thought it should be 10 million and Bill said that would be way out of norm. B. Workman said that would be used up very quickly in case of an accident. There was additional discussion of the design of the tower and it's capability of falling within itself. B. Buell said that he has seen in Florida where the winds exceeded 100 mph and the towers had fallen within themselves. C. Smith said she is concerned about the safety factor and also questioned the liability. C. Crosby said that the Federal law said that our zoning laws are meaningless and they supercede us. C. Smith said she felt there was better places for this, with better setbacks. P. Elsenpeter reminded everyone that our council had put a moratorium on the placing of towers anyplace other than public property. We can mention to the city council that they need to re -look at this and also stress that they look closely at the liability. B. Workman said he would like to see the liability policy looked at by someone other than the city and Nextel. B. Buell mentioned that cities are immune to certain law suits. He said that Nextel retains ownership of the tower and our city attorney must be aware of what to look at in the policy. He also mentioned that the League of Cities has looked at issues like this closely. Chuck Johnson, head of construction for Nextel, said that these towers are relatively new and they do require that we over design. He said that the only way the bottom half would fall is if the water tower next to it fell over on it. He said that in Minnesota they are required to build in an ice factor. He said the only time he has seen a self supporting tower fail was in Cedar Rapids, Iowa during a tornado and it was the cement 3 that failed, not the tower. It was built in 1948 and the tornado took the cement out of the ground. C. Smith said that she does not like to see rules changed. C. Crosby stated that he had a client who sells roof top space to communication companies for towers on 7-11 stores and Mobil stations. B. Bradley said that our job is to develop a conditional use permit for Nextel. A. Heideman asked what "future site" meant on the blueprint? B. Buell put up an overhead of the site and explained that the areas marked "future site" meant future sites for equipment buildings for other companies who might co -locate on the tower. He said that some use a small building and some use a radio cabinet. P. Elsenpeter wanted to know how far from the property line the "future sites" were. L. Kohnen said that 20' is required and they all met that. The public hearing was closed. MOVED BY ANNE HEIDEMAN AND SECONDED BY FRANK MIGNONE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The tower setbacks to adjacent buildings as listed in Loren's memo are noted. 2. A minimum 8' chain link fence must be placed around the tower and building. 3. The tower must be designed to inhibit unauthorized climbing. 4. No metal exterior allowed on building. 5. Landscaping must be planted to screen the building, the design which is to be approved by staff. 6. Exterior lighting must be designed and installed so that the globe is recessed and enclosed on all sides except the bottom and no light is cast directly on any other property. 7 An agreement must be finalized between Nextel and the City before any construction begins. This agreement shall include an evaluation of the City's and Nextel's liability for adequate insurance coverage. This coverage must be carried by an admitted carrier in Minnesota. 8. Any site improvements regarding the tower, building, fence, or access roads must be constructed by Nextel. 9. Any site drainage must be repaired by Nextel at the direction of the Public Works Director and any alteration to the existing drainage must be approved by the Public Works Director. 4 10. Any interference to lawfully operated electric, radio, television, computer or other cell phone transmissions must be corrected by Nextel to the satisfaction of the City. 11. Nextel will be responsible for moving any utilities buried or above ground. 12. Agreements must be reached between the City and any future users to co -locate on Nextel's tower. There was additional discussion of lighting on the tower (none) and location of this tower and others in the area. MOTION PASSED. Penny Elsenpeter reminded the applicant that they should have some insurance information ready when they came to the council meeting next week. MOVED BY CHRIS CROSBY AND SECONDED BY BRUCE WORKMAN TO ADJOURN. MOTION PASSED. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Planning & Zoning Assistant Date 5