04-25-16 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 25, 2016
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
April 25, 2016. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka,
Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily
Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Cera was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
April 11, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to approve
the April 11, 2016, minutes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 6100 Olson Memorial
Highway —Verizon Wireless — CU-147
Applicant: Rob Viera, Buell Consulting c/o Verizon Wireless
Address: 6100 Olson Memorial Highway
Purpose: To allow for an 80' monopole with an equipment platform in the
Industrial Zoning District.
Goellner referred to a location map and explained the applicant's request to build an 80'
tall monopole and associated electrical equipment in an Industrial Zoning District at 6100
Olson Memorial Highway because the other co-location options in the area would not
provide the level of service they need. She stated that the monopole would be placed in
the rear yard of the property near transmission lines, other industrial buildings, and
railroads. She noted that there will also be fencing and additional landscaping installed.
Goellner discussed the applicant's demonstrated need for the proposed tower and stated
that the proposed new monopole will help offload communication traffic from other nearby
Verizon towers, and will provide space for two additional carriers. She added that the
applicant will also be going before the Board of Zoning Appeals to request variances from
the setback requirements.
Baker asked who would own the monopole. Goellner said she didn't know and suggested
he ask the applicant. Baker questioned if Verizon would be required to rent space on the
monopole to their competitors. Goellner said the Zoning Code requires co-location on
telecommunication towers.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 25, 2016
Page 2
Blum said he noticed there are some other poles located on this site and questioned what
they are used for. Goellner said she doesn't recall there being any other towers located
on this site and discussed some of the other towers located nearby. Blum asked how this
proposed tower compares to the one located on the Room and Board property. Goellner
said they are very similar.
Blum asked if there are any requirements regarding masking of the towers. Goellner said
there aren't specific requirements regarding masking but there are requirements
regarding the color of towers, the design of ground structures, lighting, and signage.
Waldhauser asked if there is any revenue to the City with these types of monopoles.
Goellner said the only revenue she is aware of is from the Conditional Use Permit
application fee and the Building Permit fee.
Johnson questioned if the City has any standards for assessments for certifications
regarding the electromagnetic spectrum. Goellner said the City would look to the federal
regulations for that information.
Kluchka asked if the Barlow research tower located to the east of this site is still active.
Goellner said yes.
Segelbaum asked about the Code requirements regarding fencing and screening.
Goellner explained that the Code states that all telecommunications towers and related
building facilities shall be landscaped and screed with natural vegetation to lessen the
visual impact. She added that the applicant will also be installing an 8-foot tall fence to
help with screening and security.
Baker asked if the Crown Tower located nearby is required to provide additional capacity.
Goellner said yes, however that tower doesn't provide the service that Verizon is
requiring.
Rob Viera, Buell Consulting, representing Verizon Wireless, stated that engineers give
him maps of a limited search area in which to locate a tower. He said they always look to
co-locate on an existing tower first, but they were unable to do so in this case.
Segelbaum questioned why this area was recommended. Viera stated that the towers in
this area are over capacity now so they are trying to put some of the traffic from those
towers onto this proposed new tower. He said they are also trying to improve coverage in
this area.
Kluchka asked if more towers like the one being proposed will be proposed in the future.
Viera said no, and explained that in the future they will have smaller antennas on light
poles, etc. and not new towers.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 25, 2016
Page 3
Baker asked Viera who would own the tower. Viera said Verizon will own it. Baker asked
if Verizon is obligated to share the tower with other providers. Viera said
telecommunication companies share towers all the time.
Waldhauser referred to the coverage maps and asked how various areas are served.
Viera said all the areas shown on the maps have service, it is just not as good and there
are more dropped calls and slower download speeds.
Goellner asked Viera if all carriers measure their level of service the same way. Viera said
he's sure they are all quite similar.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Waldhauser said the location seems reasonable, the tower will benefit local businesses, it
won't be detrimental to residential properties and the applicant is meeting all the
requirements. Segelbaum and Kluchka agreed. Blum also agreed and said he is
surprised that the fees are so small. Goellner said the building permit fee is based on the
value of the construction.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #147 to allow for a cell tower at 6100
Olson Memorial Highway subject to the following findings and conditions:
Findinas:
1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: The applicant has demonstrated that
the options to co-locate this telecommunications tower with existing towers will not
adequately serve the area of concern.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The location of this proposed
telecommunications tower is consistent with the Industrial designation of this
property on the General Land Use Plan Map. The proposal is also consistent with
Section 11.71 of City Code, which requires that a tower be placed in a visually
unobtrusive location and that the proposal include landscaping and screening.
3. Effect on Property Values: Staff does not anticipate that the proposed
telecommunications tower would have a positive or negative impact on the
surrounding property values.
4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips generated by the proposed
telecommunications tower will not have a negative impact on traffic in the area.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed
telecommunications tower will not have a negative effect on population or building
density.
6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an
increase in noise levels.
7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed telecommunications tower is
not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 25, 2016
Page 4
8. Impact of Pests: The proposed telecommunications tower is not anticipated to
attract pests.
9. Visual Impact: The proposed telecommunications tower will be located in the rear
yard of a property used for Industrial purposes. It is a visually unobtrusive location
near transmission lines, railroads, and industrial buildings. It is located as far from
residential properties and prominent roads as possible. The applicant must abide
by all regulations regarding fencing, screening, outdoor lighting, outdoor storage,
and all other telecommunication tower regulations as stated in the Golden Valley
City Code.
10.Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other
negative effects from the proposed telecommunications tower.
Conditions:
1. The plans by submitted by Verizon Wireless on March 24, 2016, shall become a
part of this approval.
2. The height of the telecommunications tower shall not exceed 80 feet.
3. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall approve any necessary setback variances
before a building permit is issued. If the setback variances are not granted, the
applicant shall locate the monopole in a similar location to the location in the site
plans submitted (in the rear yard of the property), it must meet minimum setback
requirements, and an updated site plan shall be submitted to the City.
4. If additional cell carriers utilize this monopole, the operator and/or owner shall
inform City Staff. The authorized representative for any additional cell carrier shall
agree in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use and sign
the Conditional Use Permit agreeing to requirements set therein.
5. If the monopole is abandoned or unused, it, along with any associated facilities,
shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless
a time extension is approved by City Council.
6. All regulations found in Section 11.71 of City Code: Telecommunications Towers
and Antennas shall be met prior to the issuance of a building permit and
maintained at all times for the duration of the Conditional Use Permit.
7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances,
regulations, or laws with authority over this development.
8. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
--Short Recess--
3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Baker gave an update on the March 22, 2016, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
Goellner stated that the applicant for the variance request at 221 Sunnyridge Lane has
withdrawn her application.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 25, 2016
Page 5
Baker gave an update on the last light rail meeting he attended. Goellner noted that the
preferred intersection design at the Golden Valley Road Station is a signalized
intersection rather than a roundabout.
Segelbaum asked if there is going to be additional Comprehensive Plan Update training.
Goellner stated that there will be a kick-off meeting in September.
4. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report
No report was given.
5. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 pm.
�
John Kluc Secretary Li a Wittman, Administrative Assistant