HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 09192000 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
102869
BOX: 27
Folder: PL PACKETS 2000-2004
Document: PL PACKET 09192000
CITY OF ST.ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN under the Minnesota Statutes, that the Planning Commission will hold a regular
meeting on Tuesday, September 19, 2000, at 7.00 pm at the City Council Chambers, 3301 Silver Lake Road,
Saint Anthony,Minnesota.
NOTE: The Planning.Commission has received the staff reports,and recommendations, plus supporting
documentation fromthe applicant, through staff for. all items on this agenda. This information was
distributed prior to the meeting date. Individual Commissioners and staff also visit the application sites
during the week prior to meetings. As a result of this preparation, items which appear to be routine will
typically be handled very quickly, and discussion on disputed or questionable items can begin from a
position ofgeneral understanding of the issues.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CONSIDERATION,DISCUSSION,AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
Please notify the Chairman prior to the beginning of any meeting of your desire to speak before the
Commission. Your remarks will be limited to five minutes.
I. PUBLIC INPUT
• The public may speak at this time on any planning and zoning related matters of a general nature. .
However, there will not be any discussion or action by the Commission at this time.
II. MINUTES
1. Approve August 15,2000 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Action requested.
2. City Council's August 22 and September 12, 2000 regular meeting minutes. No action required.
3. Parks Commission's September 11, 2000 regular meeting minutes. No action required.
III. COMMUNICATION FROM CITY COUNCIL
1. None.
IV. REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENTS OR WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATIONS
1. None.
V. NEW APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PUBLIC HEARING. Application for subdivision/ final plat approval. Village North LLP and
Apache Animal Medicine seek to replat their properties into three lots. Action required. (pp. 1-5)
2
VI. POSTPONED APPLICATIONS
• 1. None.
VII. REPORTS,PRESENTATIONS, and/or CONCEPT REVIEWS
1. None.
VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS
1. Establish subcommittee to finalize the draft Antennae Ordinance in preparation for future
Commission and Council consideration. Action requested. (pp. 6-18).
2. Provide a recommendation to Council of whether to pass an Interim Ordinance (Moratorium)
regarding future requests for permits under Section 1160 (Antennas and Towers) of the St.
Anthony Municipal Code. Said Interim Ordinance would be drafted pursuant to the authority
granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, Subd. 4 and would allow the City time to
implement a new Antennae Ordinance. Action requested. (p. 19)
3. Livable Cities Demonstration Account proposal letter, dated August 25, 2000. No action
requested. (p. 20)
IX. COMMISSION INPUT
1. Chair to select a Commissioner as the representative to the upcoming Council Meeting. Action
requested.
• 2. Commissioners' comments.
X. ADJOURNMENT
•
I CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
r3 AUGUST 15, 2000.
4 7:00 p.m.-
5
.m:5 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
6 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pcm., followed by the Pledge-of Allegiance led by Chair
7 Bergstrom.
8 ROLL CALL.
9 Present: Chair Bergstrom; Vice Chair Melsha; Commissioners Tillmann,
10 Hanson, Thomas, Hatch, and Stille.
11 Commissioners absent: None.
12 Also present: Spencer Isom, Assistant City Manager
13
14 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
15 ITEMS:
16 None.
17 I. PUBLIC INPUT.
18 Chair Bergstrom called for input from the audience for items that were not.on the regular agenda.
.19 In this respect, Mr. Scott Tankenoff, Managing Partner of Hillcrest Development, approached the
20 Council. Mr.Tankenoff wished to express sincere appreciation to the Commission for the time spent
21 over the past nine months on the issue of the redevelopment of Apache Plaza, and for the
22 cooperation he and his company has received from the Commission and City Consultants.
23 Chair Bergstrom acknowledged Mr. Tankenoff s remarks and expressed his appreciation for his
24 input.
25 II. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 18,2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
26 MINUTES.
27 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Hanson, to approve the July 18, 2000 Planning Commission
28 Meeting Minutes with the following modification:
29 Page 9, Line 4, add "citizens' " after "such"
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31 Motion by Bergstrom,second by Thomas,to approve the minutes of August 1,2000 special meeting
32 with the following changes:
33 Page 10, Line 25, add"a"after"represents"
34 Page 10, Line 25, replace"high and low"with"highest and best"
•35 Page 5, Line 3, replace `Berg"with"Bergstrom"
36 Page 5, Line 11,replace`Bergman" with"Bergstrom"
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 15, 2000
Page 2
1 Motion carried unanimously.
2 . III. COMMUNICATION FROM CITY COUNCIL.
3 None.
4 IV. REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENTS OR WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATIONS.
5 None.
6 V. NEW APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS.
7 A. Public Hearing Petition for Variance Murphy's Service Center.
8 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. and requested a report from Staff.
9 Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom noted that the applicant, Richard C. Graff, is seeking to re-
10 place the business sign at his Conoco gas station located at 3501 29th Avenue NE. The gas sta-
11 tion is a commercial business located in a L 1 zoning district. The proposed sign exceeds allow-
12 able dimensions for L1 zoning. However, it is within the allowable dimensions had his land
13 been zoned Cl. The land has been used for a gas station since 1958. Mr. Graff has owned the
14 business since 1973 and,therefore, the land is deemed to be "grandfathered." Staff has discussed
15 this issue with City Attorney Soth and it was decided that the conditions supporting a variance do
16 exist.
�17 Isom noted, however, that upon review of the zoning ordinance,his assessment was incorrect,
18 and that it is not a question of the dimension, but rather that type of sign being allowed in the L1
19 district. A pylon sign is allowed in a C district.
20 Bergstrom confirmed that pylon signs are not allowed in a L1 district; however, upon recommen-
21 dation by City Attorney Soth in a previous discussion,the sign would be "grandfathered" in
22 under prior zoning districts.
23 Isom acknowledged that because of the zoning requirements, Mr. Graff was required to appear
24 before the Planning Commission to request a new sign.
25 Mr. Graff relayed to the Commission the same facts that he had presented at the Concept Review
26 at a prior meeting. The current sign was damaged by a truck over Memorial Day weekend, and it
27 has been determined that the sign cannot be repaired.
28 Hanson inquired of Mr. Graff if the new sign would be in the same location as the current sign.
29 Mr. Graff explained the location of the sign,which was essentially the same as it is currently, and
30 detailed the dimensions and structure of the new sign.
31 Hanson inquired if the sign would be lit at all hours. Mr. Graff responded that the sign would be
32 lit up all day and night and there would actually be floodlights towards the sign.
1033 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. and asked for Commission input.
34 Tillmann noted that the new sign looked better than the old sign. The other Commissioners
35 agreed.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 15, 2000
Page 3
•
1 Motion by Thomas, second by Bergstrom to approve the variance of Murphy's Service Center,
2 Inc. (Conoco Gas Station), 3501 29th Avenue, due to the following reasons:
3 -- The damage that was done to the prior sign;
4 -- The property has been"grandfathered"in prior to the existing ordinance.;
5 -- That there would not be any undue hardship caused by the implementation of this
6 variance.
7 -- That a hardship is caused by the current and existing City Ordinance created after
8 the.business was in operation.
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10 Bergstrom reminded Mr. Graff that this issue would be before the City Council at the August 22,
11 2000 meeting for a final determination. He encouraged Mr. Graff to attend the City Council
12 meeting to answer any questions.
13 B. Public Hearing Village North LLP and Apache Animal Medicine Seek to Replat Their
14 Properties into Three Lots.
15 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. and requested a report from Staff.
�6 Assistant City Manager Isom reported that Village North LLP;in which Ken Solie is a Partner,
17 as owner of the Industrial Custom Products building at 2801 37th Avenue NE, and Apache
18 Animal Medicine, P.A. as owner of the Apache Animal Clinic, have applied to replat their
19 properties into three lots. This is in order to expand the size of the lot on which the animal clinic
20 is located, decrease the size of the lot on which the Industrial Custom Products building is
21 located, and create a new lot to the east of the industrial building. The property would be
22 replatted as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Apache Terrace, 2nd Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
23 The action requires submittal of a preliminary and final plat in accordance with Section 1500.03
24 and 1500.04 of the St. Anthony Code of Ordinance.
25 Isom wished to note that the.next two items on the agenda are related to this issue. In that re-
26 spect, City Attorney Soth and Isom have meet with both applicants and Mr. Soth has written
27 comprehensive thoughts to be inclusive of all three issues.
28 Isom noted that Todd Hubmer, WSB & Associates, has been reviewing the issue and invited him
29 to address the Commission. Mr. Hubmer noted that he has been determining if there are any ex-
30 isting utilities on the property of which the City does not have an easement. In this respect, there
31 is a water line that runs on the east-side of Lot 3 (on the plat he presented), and it is WSB's rec-
32 ommendation that the property owner dedicate to the City a 20-Foot utility easement. Also,the
33 applicant should give to the City a 10-foot utility easement centered on the property lines so that
34 the City would have access to the utilities for maintenance.
•35 Bergstrom inquired if Mr. Hubmer had talked to the property owner about the easements, and
36 Mr. Hubmer noted that he had not talked to Mr. Solie on this particular issue,but had consulted
37 with him on others.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 15, 2000
Page 4
1 Stille inquired if there was a reason that the parcel that could be purchased from the railroad by
2 the Animal Clinic was not included. Isom responded that the Animal Clinic does not own the lot
3 at this point. Further, Isom noted that this parcel may be included in the final plat if a purchase
4 agreement goes forth.
5 Chair Bergstrom invited Mr. Ken Solie to approach the Commission. Mr. Solie conferred with
6 Mr. Hubmer regarding the plat and easements and then spoke to the Commission.
7 Mr. Solie noted that he was comfortable with the information already presented, and did not have
8 any additional information to report.
9 Isom requested that Mr. Hubmer provide Mr. Solie with the specifics on the easements
10 mentioned above that could be provided to the City. Mr. Solie's representative, Mr. Ogren,noted
11 that there did not appear to be any problems or concerns regarding the easements.
12 Chair Bergstrom called for additional input from the audience as per the Public Hearing.
13 David Ishner, 3644 Edward Street, stated that he had spoken with Mr. Isom prior to the meeting,
14 and stated that he was concerned that in the future there could be a reason to expand the building
i5 of the Apache Animal Hospital. His specific concern was the disposal of deceased animals. He
X16 felt it was appropriate to request that if expansion of the building happens in the future; that a
17 specific design should be implemented so as to shield the disposal of the deceased animals from
18 the public view. Currently, he stated,that he and his wife are exposed to the disposal of the car-
19 cass because the truck to pick up the animals pulls up close to their home. He mentioned that for
20 residents that are sensitive to animals, it is a difficult scenario to witness.
21 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Ishner for his input and attendance at the meeting.
22 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. and requested comments from the Com-
23 missioners.
.24 Thomas confirmed that the discussion was to center around the replatting of this property.
25 Bergstrom noted that the issue seemed rather straightforward and he requested a motion.
26 Motion by Thomas, second by Bergstrom, to approve the proposed plat changes as dated May
27 31, 2000, and to incorporate the two`easement provisions as provided by Mr. Hubmer and as set
28 forth below:
29 --The plat should include a 20-foot utility easement along the east side of Lot 3 over the existing
30 watermain which runs north to south along the east side of Lot 3.
i --A ten-foot utility easement to be centered on the lot lines separating Lots 1 and 2, and the lot
32 line separating Lots 2 and 3.
33 Motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commis'sion Meeting Minutes
August 15, 2000
Page 5
•
1 C. Public hearing. Village North LLP.
2 Chair Bergstorm opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. and requested'a report from Staff.
3 Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom reported that Village North LLP, in which Ken Solie is a
4 partner, as owner of the Industrial Custom Products building at 2801 37th Avenue NE, have re-
5 quested to amend the zoning ordinance so as to require less parking for L1 districts. Mr. Solie
6 has compiled information regarding parking requirements in other cities, and such report shows a
7 comparison of the St. Anthony requirement to the Cities of Arden Hills, Roseville, Minneapolis,
8 New Brighton, and Fridley.
9 City Attorney Soth has expressed his support of Mr. Solie's petition for the reasons stated in.Mr
10 Soth's August 2, 2000 communication.
I 1 Chair Bergstrom asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this issue under the pub-
12 lic hearing, and hearing no response, closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
13 Thomas inquired if the Commission would wish to require the applicant to develop an alternative
14 transportation program, and a discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Isom regarding
5 the suggestion.
16 Bergstrom noted that the suggestion is worthy of exploration but this was not the time to take on
17 such a project, and that the issue should be revisited at another time.
18 Stille noted that the Commission is considering dramatically changing the parking requirements
19 of the entire City, and the site in question could employ up to 200 employees. He was
20 concerned that if limited parking is provided, then the City opens up the possibility of having
21 cars line the street.
22 Bergstrom asked for input from Isom. Isom said the ordinance would be changing citywide;
23 however, Soth has done the analysis and did not feel that the number of parking spaces for this
24 issue would prevent a problem for the City.
25 Bergstrom noted his reluctance to change the parking regulations as there wasn't a precedence to
26 follow. Mr. Solie interjected that he did not feel that he was creating a difficult situation with
27 this issue due to the fact that many of the surrounding cities have adopted similar regulations to
28 which he is asking.
29 Thomas stated he would be more comfortable with the parking plan if an alternative transporta-
30 tion plan could be developed(such as public transportation). Mr. Solie stated that typically in
31 this situation,because the property is leased, the restriction could be cumbersome.
02 Bergstrom noted that City Attorney Soth has placed a recommendation on this issue, as well as
33 the Assistant City Manager, and that the Commission needed to move forward on this issue as
34 all of the information and research has been presented.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 15, 2000
Page 6
•
1 Stille noted his objection to the parking issue and stated that he was not comfortable with the re-
t sults of a potential regulation change and the long-term effects of such change.
3 Thomas noted that'possiblythis issue should be studied further by the Commission and decided
4 at a later time. Stille inquired if the City Attorney could re-study the parking-to-tenant ratio.
5 Isom noted that the Commission's option was to table this issue;however,he did not feel there
6 would be any negative impacts for the City on the existing or future industrial areas based on
7 these new standards.
8 Tillmann noted that she would tend to'agree with Stille.
9 Bergstrom noted that the issue in question could be a good idea;however,there was not a com-
10 fortable level amongst the Commissioners regarding the issue. Additionally, he noted that part of
11 his job as Commission Chair was to bring issues to a vote and typically issues are not tabled.
12 Thomas noted that from a planning and public policy prospective,the Commission was consider-
13 ing making a change based upon Mr. Solie's private interest. However, from a planning prospec-
14 tive, the Commission should be making the change so that it reflects the City's best interests and
1.5 the public's best interests:
16 Bergstrom noted that the Planning Commission needed to rely on the City Staff and City
17 Attorney that have researched the issue and made recommendations to the Commission.
18 Thomas commented that he continues to feel that this is not a public policy driven issue, and that
19 the Planning Commission is being reactive. Again, he stated that whenever changes in public
20 policy are considered,that alternative public transportation needed to offer. He would like to re-
21 quest that owners of properties be required to develop alternative transportation plans.
22 Melsha noted that he was uncomfortable with requiring such a plan because he was unsure how it
23 could be implemented, enforced or approved.' Thomas stated that the enforcement would be
24 similar to the conditions placed on conditional use permits. He suggested that the issue be table
25 for another month to flush out some of the concerns and questions.
26 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Melsha, to approve the petition for zoning ordinance as pre-
27 sented in a memorandum from Staff dated August 9 with the following conditions and for the
28 following reasons:
29 --Change the square footage mentioned in the plan from 1,000 square feet,to 800 square feet;
30 --The petition is approved based on the recommendations of City Staff and City Attorney;
31 --The petition is approved based on discussions with applicant; . -
•32 --The petition is approved with the understanding that the Planning Commission will visit in the
33 near future the issue of including alternative transportation in the appropriate place in the
34 ordinance under"parking."
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 15, 2000
Page 7
•
1 Voting on the Motion: Bergstrom, Melsha, Tillmann, Hanson, Thomas,Hatch and Stille voted aye.
2 Stille voted nay.
3 The Motion Carried.
4 Bergstrom-noted that this issue would be before the City Council meeting on August 22, 2000, "
5 and he encouraged Mr. Solie to be in attendance to answer questions and concerns.
6 Tillmann noted that many of the questions the Planning Commission has raised at this meeting
7 were likely to be raised at the City Council meeting.
8 D. Public Hearing. Apache Animal Medicine Seeks To Rezone A Portion Of 2801 37th
9 Avenue Ne From Ll To C.
10 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 8:44 p.m., and requested a report from Staff. As-
11 sistant City Manager Isom reported that Apache Animal Medicine, owner of Apache Animal
12 Clinic, are purchasing some land from the railroad and from Village North LLP,to add to their
13 property. Presently, the railroad property is unzoned and the Village North parcel is zoned L1.
14 The petition is a request to have the above-referenced parcels and their existing property all
15 zoned to C. The placement of the building on the zoning map is incorrect and shows the existing
16 property at L 1. Isom directed the Commission's attention to page 80 of the agenda packets to
�7 discuss the error.'
18 Isom continued by stating that Staff recommends approval of the petition, and noted City Attor-
19 ney Soth's August 2, 2000 communication to the Planning Commission which sets forth his
20 thoughts regarding the subject.
21 Mr. Ogren, Ken Solie's representative, reviewed the plans in detail with the Commission and
22 noted the specific color plans and any specific design changes since the Concept Review.
23 Bergstrom inquired if there had been a design change for the disposal of dead animals as raised
24 by Mr. Ishner previously in the meeting. Mt. Ogren acknowledged that the disposal would occur
25 at the back of the building and would be shielded from public view.
26 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. and requested input from the Commis-
27 sioners.
28 Thomas noted his approval of the plan. Isom noted that the ordinance would be drafted in such a
29 way that the rezoning would be contingent upon the approval of the subdivision.
30 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Melsha, to approve the petition for rezoning for Apache Animal
31 Clinic as presented in the agenda packets of August 15,2000,with the following findings:
1032 -- The proposed zoning is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan;
33 -- The use is consistent with the uses allowed in the current zoning code;
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 15, 2000
Page 8
1 -- The proposed project is contingent on the rezoning and will be a benefit to the citizens
2 and
3 would add to the City's tax base;
.4 -- There would not be any_detrimental impacts to nearby properties;
5 -- The project would be contingent upon the successful closing and incorporation of the
6 railroad property into this parcel in the final plat;
7 -- That there is a recording of the final plat that is consistent with the preliminary plat.
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9 Bergstrom noted that this issue would be before the City Council on August 22, 2000, and he
10 recommended that the applicants be present at that meeting to answer questions.
11 VII. REPORTS,PRESENTATIONS AND/OR CONCEPT REVIEWS.
12 1. Presentation. Todd Hubmer, WSB, reg lighting along 29th Avenue.
13 Chair Bergstrom noted that Todd Hubmer would present the lighting results of the 29th Avenue
14 street lighting issue.
15 Mr. Hubmer directed the Commission's attention to a memorandum dated August 11, 2000
16 which depicted,the lighting survey results.
17 Such memo noted that 27 surveys were completed at the VillageFest celebration, and he noted
18 the results of that survey. At the VillageFest, the most votes were given to the "Lantern" style of
19 decorative fixture, and the "Shoebox" styles were the most popular under Classic Fixtures.
20 The survey that was completed at the Public Forum noted again that the "Lantern" style received
21 the most votes under Decorative Lighting, and the "Shoebox" received the most votes under
22 Classic Fixtures. The preferred choice of color was black. .
23 Mr. Hubmer noted that some of the streets are state-aid streets and some MSA funds would be
24 available. However, the City might consider assessing the residents the balance due between the
25 standard lighting paid for the MSA funds, and the cost of the chosen lighting..
26 Mr. Hubmer said it might be a good exercise as well to find out what it would
27 cost to have underground cables and then publish that information in the local newspaper. Cur-
28 rently, he stated,the City has overhead utilities, but he noted that many residents have expressed
29 the desire to have underground utilities.
30 Thomas noted that the overhead utilities are aging and that would be a factor to consider.
31 Mr. Hubmer stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to recommend a decision to the
•32 City Council.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 15, 2000
Page 9
•
1 Tillmann noted that someone had pointed out to her that the Lantern style is the chosen style of
2 many neighborhoods in Minneapolis. She had remembered that the Commission was hoping to
3 set St. Anthony apart from other communities.
4 Bergstrom asked for a consensus from the Commission. Hatch confirmed that the decision
5 would set a standard for all of the streets.
6 Discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners and Mr. Hubmer about the benefits of the
7 Vernon style of lighting as opposed to the Lantern.
8 Jim Higgins, 2712 St. Anthony Boulevard, spoke to the Commission regarding the choice of
9 street lighting. He stated that he has heard in presentations that the Vernon is a more efficient
10 light, although more expensive. Additionally,he noted that he felt there were other issues in-
11 volved that individuals did not know at VillageFest, and he encouraged the Commission to con-
12 sider other options than those that received the most votes at VillageFest. He stated that Mr.
13 Hubmer had originally chosen the Vernon style due to the more efficient lighting.
14 Melsha added that he noted that some residents may have felt that they just had to pick a style,
15 and would not be opposed to a different style if chosen by the Commission.
106 Stille noted that he did not have a problem with going forward with the Vernon style.
17 Bergstrom summarized that the Commission would recommend the Vernon style as a decorative
18 fixture and the shoebox fixture as the classic fixture, with black poles.
19 Bergstrom thanked Mr. Hubmer for his assistance and cooperation with the Planning Commis-
20 sion.
21 VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS.
22 1. New Draft Antennae Ordinance.
23 Chair Bergstrom asked for a report from Staff. Assistant City Manager Isom noted that he was
24 provided with a copy of Shoreview's antennae ordinance, and had acquired-some ordinances
25 from other cities. He pulled out what he thought were the most significant of the ordinances, and
26 asked for direction from the Planning Commission with regard to developing a new antennae or-
27 dinance for the City.
28 Bergstrom reviewed with Isom the parts of each ordinance that he was in favor of and preferred
29 language for a new ordinance. Bergstrom would recommend that if Isom could pair the Dublin
30 ordinance down, or to modify the Shoreview ordinance to include the table on page 117 of the
31 Commission's agenda packets.
�2 Hatch mentioned that there were certain limitations to the FCC Act,but that there was something
33 in the ordinance that would steer the City towards the goals that it would like to achieve.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 15, 2000
Page 10
•
1 IX. COMMISSION INPUT.
2 1. Chair to select a Commissioner as the representative to the upcoming Council meeting.
3 Bergstrom noted that he was planning on attending the meeting on August 22, 2000.
4 2. Commissioners' comments.
5 Tillmann thanked Dick Horst of Hardware Hank for loaning a truck to the Planning Commission
6 for the VillageFest parade.
7 Hanson wanted to wish Mr. Tankenoff luck with the voting on the redevelopment of Apache
8 Plaza project which would occur at the City Council meeting on August 22. Hanson noted the
9 particular objections of one Councilmember about the project, and he encouraged the other
10 Councilmembers to defend the Hillcrest Project and move forward with the renovation that the
11 Planning Commission and City Council have worked so hard to achieve over the past nine
12 months.
13 Thomas noted that the antennae ordinance is a good exercise in being proactive in planning. He
14 hoped that the Commission could continue to update ordinances.
15 Melsha also wanted to wish Mr. Tankenoff luck in the upcoming vote on August 22, 2000, and
6 he wanted to note his support for the Hillcrest Development project.
17 Bergstrom recognized that the Hillcrest project has been made a very attractive project for the
18 City, and he would like to compliment the Planning Commission for the diligence proven at the
19 special Commission meeting on August 1, 2000. He noted that the meeting was an emotional
20 and difficult meeting, and he was proud that the Commission worked hard to delve into the issue
21 and make an appropriate and informed recommendation to the City Council.
22 Hatch commented on the antennae recommendation, and wondered if it could tie in with the
23 transportation issue. Additionally, on another issue, Hatch has noticed the condition of the fenc-
24 ing by Lowry Grove, and wondered if there wasanything the Commission could do to make that
25 more attractive. Bergstrom noted his belief that is a private fence, and located on the City's right
26 of way.
27 Bergstrom deferred to Isom for an answer on the fencing. Isom stated that he would review this
28 issue with the Public Works Director.
29 Stille noted that at VillageFest,Hennepin Parks had a booth next to the Planning Commission.
30 He stated that he was provided with a letter from Hennepin Parks directing interest towards the
31 Salvation Army property. He reviewed the letter and noted it was an interesting point.
32Isom remarked that he had now been involved with the Planning Commission for five months
03 and noted that the Commission had grown inexperience and expertise just since the time that he
34 had been attending the meetings.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 15, 2000
Page 11
1 X. ADJOURNMENT.
2 Motion by Tillmann, second by Stille, to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
3 Motion carried unanimously.
4 Respectfully submitted,
5 Sue Selseth
6 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
•
I CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
•2 PARKS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
3 September 11, 2000
4 7:00 p.m.
5 I. CALL TO ORDER.
6 Chair Jindra called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and welcomed everyone in attendance.
7 H. ROLL CALL.
8 Present: Chair Carol Jindra, Commissioners Julie Gebhardt, Colleen
9 Hallada, Doug Koehntop (arrived 7:20 p.m.).
10
11 Absent: Dan Ganley, Jan Jenson, George Wagner.
12
13 Also Present: Public Works Director Jay Hartman, Representative from Commu-
14 nity Services Diane Skrivseth; School Board Representative
15 Denise Dunn (arrived 8:45 p.m), Representative from Sports
16 Boosters George Zurbey, City Council Liaison Brian Thuesen.
17
18 III. APPROVE_AUGUST 14,2000 PARKS.COMMISSION MINUTES.
�
9 Motion by Gebhardt, second by Hallada, to approve the August 14, 2000 Parks Commission
20 Meeting Minutes with the following change:
21 Page 4, Line 6, change "August" to "September"
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23 IV. DISCUSS CENTRAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT ITEMS and PRESENTATION TO
24 THE SCHOOL BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL FOR SEPTEMBER 26,2000.
25 Bob Kost, BRW, asked Chair Jindra about the comments that were received from the residents at
26 VillageFest. Jindra noted that many interesting comments were obtained at VillageFest however,
27 the comment cards have since been misplaced, and Staff is continuing to search for them. Jindra
28 relayed some of the comments that she specifically remembered to Mr. Kost.
29 Mr. Kost stated that in terms of making a presentation to the City Council, it would be beneficial
30 to have some of the comments available. Jindra mentioned that the wading pool was a concern
31 with some residents, as far as having it too deep as a safety concern. The depth of the pool was
32 discussed, and Mr. Hartman mentioned that the pool is regulated by an agency, yet is unattended
33 as far as a lifeguard. It was decided amongst the Commissioners to have the same depth as the
34 pool was prior to the renovation.
03 35 Jindra inquired if the bids for the pavilion can be separated from the.bid of the entire park in
6 order to obtain the type of pavilion for which the Commission is searching. Mr. Kost said that
37 as the final design is developed,the pavilion could be modified. Jindra mentioned that other
Parks Commission Meeting Minutes
September 11, 2000
Page 2
1 cities have contracted with architects that have designed pavilions that are attractive and would
2 fit the city's needs. Mr. Kost noted that if the Commission wished for a specific pavilion design,
3 it would be workable. However,he wants to make those modifications prior to the bid process.
4 He further stated that if the pavilion design began to increase in cost with the modifications, then
5 the project could be separated from the rest of the Park and could be bid on at a later time.
6 In response to a question from Jindra, Mr. Kost said the problem the Commission ran into at
7 Water Tower Park was that the City shopped outside of the contractor and asked for certain
8 manufacturers or companies. However, if the contractor does not have a specific contract with
9 those companies or manufacturers, and if one of those defaults, then the Contractor doesn't have
10 the resources available to enforce the contract with those companies or manufacturers.
11 The turf at the Parks and the fields was discussed, and Jindra noted that eventually,the Commis-
12 sion will need to talk to the City Council about either increasing the Public Works Department in
13 order to assist in maintaining the turf,.or hire a separate maintenance organization to maintain the
14 turf s of the fields. In short,the Commission would be interested in having one organization
15 maintain the entire Central Park.
•i6 Koehntop noted that he would like for the Sports Boosters to look into a maintenance plan for the
7 Park and the fields. Jindra asked for this issue to be presented during the Sports Boosters report.
18 Mr. Kost continued with his report on the Park, and noted that he and Augie Wong, BRW, would
19 be present at the Board meeting to assist the Park with the Central Park presentation.
20 The joint meeting with the Council will be on September 26, 2000 at 6:00 p.m., with the City
21 Council meeting following thereafter.
22 Mr. Kost presented a Central Park m' plementation Plan for the Commissioners to review and
23 went over some of the key issues to present to the Council. Additionally, he reviewed the light-
24 ing that is currently proposed for the fields. Potential lighting and the types of poles used for the
25 . lights were discussed. Zurbey stated that if there will be changes to the dollars for the budget
26 presented earlier, that the Commission should be made aware of those changes immediately and
27 prior to the meeting with the Council. Mr. Kost noted that all of the figures presented at recent
28 handouts are current figures and those numbers were reviewed with Mr. Kost and the Commis-
29 sion.
30 City Council Liaison Brian Thuesen noted that all of the figures needed to be accounted for prior
31 the presentation to the City Council. Mr. Kost said that current figures will be presented and it
32 will be made clear that the budget has varied from month to month since the beginning of the
33project because the plans have continued to change, so any prior documents received by any of
04 the City Councilmembers should be ignored and only up-to-date figures considered.
Parks Commission Meeting Minutes
September 11, 2000
t Page 3
1 Jindra noted to Mr. Kost that the VillageFest celebration is typically held on the blacktop parking
2 . lot, and spills over into the green area of Central Park. She inquired if Central Park would be.
3 available at all for VillageFest next year. Mr:Kost noted that Central Park would be closed dur-
4 ing that time, but it could be possible for the project to work around a celebration in the parking
5 lot. It might be a necessity to relocate the VillageFest celebration for the year 2001, but that is-
6 sue would be revisited as the Park's plans are finalized.
7 Discussion ensued about the grading that is planned for the Park and the drainage issues once the
8 grading is completed. Mr. Kost felt confident that the grading plan he has in mind will be less
9 expensive than hauling away the extra dirt, and will in actuality benefit the portions of the Park
10 that are not currently draining well.
11 Mr. Hartman distributed to the Commissioners the most recent list of construction costs which
12 was dated July 12, 2000. However,the aggressive skate park cost was still listed on those fig-
13 ures, and Mr. Hartman asked Augie Wong to revise the list of July 12 to delete the skate park and
14 any associated lighting. Mr. Wong stated that he would revise the list to accurately reflect all
15 costs.
6 Mr. Kost reviewed for the Commission possibilities for surfacing of the playground area. Mr.
17 kost suggested that a lighter surface, such as brown, tan or yellow is used because of the heat
18 that is generated by a darker surface. Additionally, he suggested that more trees be planted in
19 that area to assist in alleviating the heat that could be absorbed by the play surface.
20 Gebhardt said that she would consider eliminating the play area of the Park because of the
21 significant cost of the equipment. Brian Thuesen noted that the area would be used and the
22 question would have to be asked if the play equipment would be an important feature of the Park,
23 particularly for use in conjunction'with the wading pool.
24 Gebhardt stated that she felt the pool area and shelter neededto be re-done, but she was unsure
25 about the play area. Mr. Kost pointed out that the play area has been in the plans for several
26 years and it would be advisable to contact the neighbors in the area of the play equipment and
27 find out their feelings before considering eliminating any play areas.
28 Jindra noted that she has heard from many residents that they are excited about the play areas.
29 Hartman stated that he remembered the Commission had planned on presenting the entire plan all
30 at once, and if phasing needed to be implemented,then the Commission could have a back up
31 plan in that respect. Mr. Kost noted that at that time,the Commission would need to come to an
32 agreement about a backup plan.
03 Mr. Kost suggested to the Commission to ask the Council what the limit is for the Park budget,
34 and then, if need be,to return and come up with a different phasing plan.
Parks Commission Meeting Minutes
September 11, 2000
• Page 4
1 Thuesen suggested that he would prefer, as a Councilmember, to receive the highest figure for
2 the project first'so that he could explore other options at that time if necessary, and approve the
3 project if it is within the realm of the Council.
4 Jindra stated that from the School's prospective,the Commission is not planning on changing the
5 stadium. She mentioned that the Commission would need to present to the Council the benefits
6 that the changes to the Park will have for the School.
7 Hartman suggested that the project should be shown as how it is divided between the School and
8 the City, and those figures should be made available. However, he will discuss this with City
9 Manager Michael Morrison and decide the best way to present the project and the associated
10 costs.
11 Diane Skrivseth inquired of Brian:Thuesen if he felt that the Council and the School Board were
12 communicating well and on a positive basis. Thuesen noted that, personally,he has felt that the
13 communication and ambiance between the Council and the School Board has been of a positive
14 nature; however,he made it clear that he was only able to speak for himself and would not
15 answer for the other Councilmembers.
106 Jindra thanked Mr. Kost and Mr. Wong for their attendance and input at the Commission's meet-
17 ing. They agreed to meet at 5:00 p.m. on September 26 to review the proposal for Central Park
18 prior to the joint meeting. Mr. Kost and Mr. Wong mentioned that they would need to depart
19 that meeting by 7:00 p.m.
20 Jindra asked the Commission to discuss the new skateboard park. Gebhardt and Thuesen both
21 mentioned that they have heard positive comments about the park and that the kids in the com-
22 munity seemed to really enjoy the park.
23 Mr. Hartman said that park has been busy since the inception, and that there was some problems
24 with parking to begin with. Most of those problems have been alleviated.
25 Additionally, Mr. Hartman noted that the signs for the park have been made, and Koehntop pro- .
26 moted staying with the current language for the signs and not to light the skateboard park until it
27 was determined lights were needed. ..
28 Mr. Hartman said that there is a legal opinion coming from the League of Minnesota Cities and
29 from the manufacturer and installer of the equipment stating that it is a Tier 1 park. It has come
30 to his attention that bikes are not allowed on a Tier 1 skatepark because of a safety issue. Bikes
31 are much faster and the park is not monitored.
02 Thuesen thought that it would be a good idea to clearly state that only rollerblades and skate-
33 boards are allowed.
Parks Commission Meeting Minutes
September 11, 2000
• Page 5
1 Additionally, Mr. Hartman noted that there would be benches placed around the outside of the
2 skateboard park for spectators.
3 Jindra thought it would be a good idea to invite the police to a Parks Commission meeting and
4 review security measures for the surrounding parks. Thuesen agreed and believed that the Police
5 already patrol those areas, but it would be a positive way to review current and future procedures.
6 It was decided to post the signs that Mr. Hartman had made up and presented and if further issues
7 needed to be added, they could be added to the signs at that time.
8 Jindra mentioned that she had been in contact with a company that would come to the City and
9 plan a type of grand opening and have prizes and hoopla for the new skateboard park. Different
10 weekends in September were discussed to have this event, as well as a weekday evening.
11 Monday, September 25, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. was determined to be the date to have the grand
12 opening event for the skateboard park, depending on the availability of the company that will
13 host the festivities. Jindra will check with the company and if they are available,then the event
14 will be held on September 25, 2000.
05 Jindra invited comments from the Commissioners about an article she had written for a local
16 newsletter. The Commissioners offered comments and suggestions.
17 It was discussed that Sports Boosters might have some funds left over at the end of the year and
18 in that respect, it was decided that Mr.Hartman would make a formal written request to the
19 Sports Boosters for specific allocation of some of those funds.
20 V. REPORTS
21 A. Community Services.
22 Diane Skrivseth reported on the shuffleboard question. She had been asked by the Commission
23 to research the possibility of having shuffleboard at the Parks. She was not able to find anyone
24 who had any knowledge of the sport, and called five stores,-.plus some local Target, Kmart, etc.
25 stores,who did not carry the equipment.
26 Mr. Hartman noted that he had seen that equipment and it was possible to obtain the equipment.
27 Jindra noted that this issue will be tabled until a later date.
28 B. School Board
29 Denise Dunn reported that the bleachers were installed before the first home game. Additionally,
30 Barry Kenzie presented an overview of possible financial scenarios and the Board is reviewing
41 1 all options.
32 C. Snorts Boosters.
Parks Commission Meeting Minutes
September 11, 2000
• Page 6
1 George Zurbey reported that at the last meeting it was discussed about closing the Stonehouse.
2 He believes that information came from people who are in contact with the City Council. The
3 president of Sports Boosters was asked to give a presentation about where the funds are going
4 from the Sports Boosters. His concern is that the Parks Commission is looking for funds from
5 the Sports Boosters, and if the Stonehouse were closed,then funds would not be available.
6 Thuesen noted that he is not aware of any discussions that the Stonehouse would be closing. He
7 elaborated more on his thoughts relating to this issue.
8 Zurbey relayed to the Commission the different projects that Sports Boosters is involved in con-
9 tributing funds.
10 Zurbey also noted that typically there are extra funds available at the end of the year and by law,
11 those funds must be allocated by the end of the year, and Sports Boosters would take written re-
12 quests. Mr. Hartman will go through a list and provide a written request to the Sports Boosters.
13 Zurbey noted that aerating the football field was discussed at an earlier time, and gave Mr.
14 Hartman the name of a person to call to get that accomplished.
•15 Jindra questioned why the aerating would be done.if the field would be torn up for the redevel-
16 opment of Central Park. That issue was discussed.
17 Jindra mentioned that the Hennepin County Regional Parks Association would like to attend a
18 Parks Commission Meeting to discuss the Salvation Army property. It was decided to have the
19 Hennepin County Regional Parks Association at a meeting in November.
20 Jindra suggested that the shelter and lighting at Silver Point Park should be a key issue at next
21 month's meeting.
22 Gebhardt went back to the issue of shuffleboard, and noted that the cost of the equipment is
23 placed at nearly $1.0,000 on the cost sheet distributed by BRW. It was decided to leave the shuf
24 fleboard on the cost estimate for the time being, and will be further evaluated after the meeting
25 with the Council.
26 Zurbey said there is some property on the West Side of Herbergers that looks like it would be a
27 good size for a soccer field. He saidthe property has been sitting there for along time, and he
28 wondered who is the owner of the property. It was discussed that there is a possibility that the
29 City could lease that property. Jindra asked if Mr. Hartman could find out who owned the prop-
30 erty and if there were any options available.
1 VII. OTHER BUSINESS.
32 None.
Parks Commission Meeting Minutes
September 11, 2000
• Page 7
1 VIII. ADJOURNMENT.
2 Motion by Hallada, second by Gebhardt,to.adjourn the meeting at 9:34 p.m.
3 Respectfully submitted,
4 Sue Selseth
5 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 9/13/00 MEETING DATE: 9/19/00
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Assistant City Manager Isom �-
RE: Subcommittee to Review the Draft Antenna Ordinance.
The Planning Commission has expressed its dissatisfaction with the existing Antennae Ordinance. Staff received
direction from the Planning Commission at the August 2000 meeting and have drafted a new Antenna Ordinance.
Staff believes that the Planning Commission,via a subcommittee,should conduct a more thorough review of the
ordinance prior to submission to the entire body. Therefore,staff requests that the Commission establish such
a subcommittee.
Cc: City Clerk Kroeplin
•
7
City of St. Anthony
Ordinance 2000-
An ordinance amending the Codified Ordinance of the City of St.Anthony.to adopt new regulations that are consistent with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 governing wireless telecommunications facilities in the City of St Anthony and repealing several sections of the
city code which are no longer applicable.
WHEREAS, increasing competition in the telecommunications industry,especially in the market for wireless
telecommunications services, is increasing the demand for antenna sites on Towers and other Antenna Support Structures
necessary for providing wireless service;and
WHEREAS,the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves the authority of the City to regulate the placement,construction
and modification of Towers, Support Structures and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities and to protect the health,safety
and welfare of the public;and
WHEREAS,consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996,a prohibition on the placement of Towers and Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities in certain areas of the City,as provided in this Ordinance,will not prohibit any person from
providing wireless telecommunications services in violation of the Act;and
WHEREAS,the City desires to maintain a high character of community development,to protect and preserve property,to
promote the stability of property values,and to protect real estate from impairment of destruction value for the general
community welfare by regulating the location of Towers within the City.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of St. Anthony, State of Minnesota, of the
elected members concurring that;
•
SECTION I. PURPOSE
A. The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate the placement,construction and modification of Towers and Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public,while at the same time
not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the
City.
SECTION II. CITY OBJECTIVES
The following are the City's objectives:
A. To comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to include any of the follow-on rule making and/or rule
interpretations by the appropriate state and federal agencies and/or courts.
B. To work pro-actively with the various wireless telecommunications service providers to ensure rapid and reliable
deployment of their services/technologies,while minimizing negative impacts on the City.
C. To direct the location of Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the City.
D. To make available appropriate City owned property and structures for wireless telecommunications facilities.
E. To minimize adverse visual impacts of Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities through careful design,
siting,landscaping,and innovative camouflaging techniques.
F. To promote and encourage shared use/co-locations of Towers and Antenna Support Structures as a primary option
., rather than construction of additional single-use Towers.
G. To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties caused by Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities by
ensuring such structures are soundly and carefully designed,constructed,modified,maintained and removed.
8
H. To the greatest extent feasible,ensure that Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities are compatible and .
surrounding land uses.
I. To the greatest extent feasible,ensure that proposed Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities are designed
in harmony with natural settings and in a manner consistent with current development patterns.
J. To protect the community from inappropriately placed Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities and the
general proliferation of such structures
SECTION III.APPLICABILITY
A. All towers, Antenna Support Structures and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,any portion of which are located
within the City, are subject to this Ordinance.
B. Except as provided in this Ordinance,any use being made of a pre-existing Tower or Antenna Support Structure on
the effective date of this Ordinance(herein"Nonconforming Structures")shall be allowed to continue,even if in
conflict with the terms of this Ordinance. All re-construction or modifications to a Non-conforming Structure being
undertaken,shall be required to conform with this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this Ordinance,the following terms,phrases,words,and their derivation shall have the meaning given
herein. when consistent with the context,words used in the present tense also include the future tense;works in the plural
number include the singular number,and words in the singular number include the plural number. All capitalized terms used
in the definition of any other term shall have their meaning as otherwise defined in this Section. The words"shall"and"will"
are mandatoryand-"may"is permissive. Words not defined shall be given their common and ordinary meaning:
• "Alternative Tower Structure"means man-made trees, clock towers,bell steeples,light poles, and similar alternative-design
mounting structures that camouflage or conceal the presence of antennas or towers.
"Antenna"means any exterior transmitting or receiving device mounted on a tower building or structure and used in
communications that radiate or capture electromagnetic waves,digital signals,analog signals,radio frequencies(excluding
radar signals),wireless telecommunications signals.
"Antenna Support Structure"means any building or other structure other than a Tower which can be used for location of
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
"Applicant"means any Person that applies for a conditional use permit,letter certifying zoning compliance or other
approval/permits pursuant to Sections VI and VII of this Ordinance.
"Analications"means the process by which an Applicant submits a request and indicates a desire to be granted approval of an
antenna and/or tower under the provisions of this Ordinance. An Applications includes all written documentation,verbal
statements and representations,in whatever form or forum,made by an Applicant to the City concerning such a request.
"Cit 'means the City of St. Anthony,a municipal corporation,in the State of Minnesota,acting by and through its City
Council.
"Code"means the Code of Ordinances of the City.
"Co-location'means the use of a wireless telecommunications facility by more than one wireless telecommunications provider.
"Conditional Use"means a use,although often desirable,which will more intensely affect the surrounding area in which it is
located that the permitted uses of such zoning districts. A conditional use is allowed in zoning district through a permit granted
by the Planning and Zoning Commission after a public hears.
"Council"means the City Council.
9
Page 3
• "Emer en 'means a reasonably unforeseen occurrence with a potential to endanger personal safety or health or cause
substantial damage to property,that calls for immediate action.
"En sneer'means any engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota.
"Equipment Shelter and/or Cabinet"means_ the structure in which the electronic receiving and relay equipment fora Wireless
Telecommunications Facility is housed.
"FAA'means the Federal Aviation Administrations,and any legally appointed,designated or elected agent or successor.
"FCC: means the Federal Communications Commission and any legally appointed,designated or elected agent or successor.
"Height or Above Ground Level (AGLY' means,when referring to a tower or other structure,the distance measured from the
finished grade at the base of the tower/structure to the highest point on the tower or other structure,including
the base pad and any antenna.
"Macrocell" means the lines that connect a provider's towers/cell sites to one or more cellular telephone switching offices,
and/or long distance providers,or the public switched telephone network.
"Monopole" means a support structure constructed of a single, self-supporting hollow metal tube securely anchored to a
foundation.
"Multi-use Tower"means a self supporting lattice,guyed or monopole structure constructed from grade which supports more
than one Wireless Telecommunications Facility.
"Oen Space"means land devoted to conservation or recreational purposes and/or land designated by a municipality to remain
undeveloped(may be specified on.a land use map).
• "Person"is any person,firm,partnership,association,corporation,company,or other legal entity,private or public,whether
for profit or not-for-profit.
"Pre-existing Towers and Pre-existing Antennas"means any tower or antenna for which a building permit or conditional use
permit
has been properly issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance,including permitted towers or antennas that have not yet
been constructed so long as such approval is current and not expired.
"Tower"means any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas
for telephone,radio and similar communication purposes including self-supporting lattice towers,guyed towers,or monopole
towers. The term includes radio and television transmission towers,microwave towers,common-carrier towers,wireless
telecommunications towers,alternative tower structures,and the like. The term includes the structure and any support thereto.
"Viewshed"means the area surrounding a Wireless Telecommunications Facility.or Antenna Support Structure,within which
the Facilityor Structure is visible from off site.
"Wireless Telecommunications Facilities"means any cables,wires,lines,wave guides,antenna,microwave dishes and any
other equipment or facilities associated with a the transmission or reception of communications as authorized by the FCC
which a Person seeks to locate or has installed upon a tower or Antenna Support Structure. However,the term Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities shall not include.
1. Any satellite earth station antenna two meters in diameter or less and six feet in height or less which are located in
an area zoned industrial or commercial;
2. Any satellite earth station antenna one meter in diameter or less and six feet in height or less,regardless of zoning
• category;
3. Antennas used by amateur radio operators less than six feet in height.
10
SECTION V. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities shall be treated as permitted uses subject to administrative approval,or
conditional uses in a variety of zoning districts contingent upon a number of requirements being met. These criteria
are in place in a attempt to minimize adverse health,safety,public welfare or visual impacts through co-location,
siting,design and construction,while upholding the intent of Section I
1. The City's intent is to provide incentives for Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers that seek to
further the City's following priorities:
a. Co-locate on/with other existing towers/structures/facilities or locate on existing structures(public
or private.
b. Design new towers for multiple users,wherever possible.
C. Locate towers in the least obtrusive manner given present and evolving technology.
2. The following table summarizes the City's zones and priorities with the required process:
a b c d
District Co-location on New Multi-User New Tower Single Alternative Tower
Existing Antenna Tower(public or Use Structure*
Support Structures or Private Property) (Public or Private)
Towers(Public or
Private
All Residential Districts Administrative Conditional Conditional Use Administrative*
• Use
Commercial Districts Administrative Conditional Use Conditional Use Administrative*
Industrial Districts Administrative Administrative Conditional Use Administrative*
Planned Non- Administrative Conditional Use Conditional Use Administrative*
Residential Districts
* The goal ofAlternative Tower Structures is to camouflage the lower/antenna installations. If it is the
determination of the Zoning A dministrator that this essential criterion has not been met, then the applicant
may pursue approval by the Board ofAdjustments and Appeals. (See Section 1665.05)
B. The following requirements apply to all Wireless Telecommunications Facilities regardless of the zoning district in
which they are to be located. These general standards are to be supplemented with the specific regulations for
nonresidential and residential districts as set forth in Section V herein.
1. Inventory of Existing Sites. Each applicant for an antenna and/or tower shall provide to the City an inventory of its
existing towers,antennas,or sites planned and/or approved for towers or antennas,that are either within the
jurisdiction of St. Anthony or within two miles of the border thereof,including specific information about the
locations,height,and design of each tower. The City may share such information with other applicants applying for
administrative approvals or conditional use permits under this ordinance or other organizations seeking to locate
antennas within the jurisdiction of St. Anthony provided,however,that the City is not,by sharing such information,in
any way representing or warranting that such sites are available or suitable.
2. Towers. Towers and antennas shall meet the following requirements:
• a. Tower Color and Finish. Towers shall either maintain a non-contrasting-gray or similar color or have a
galvanized steel finish unless otherwise required by the City or any applicable standards of the FAA or
MNDOT.
b. Compatible Design. At a tower site,the design of the buildings and related structures shall use materials,
colors,textures,and screening so as to be aesthetically and architecturally compatible with the surrounding
environment,as approved by the City
C. Antenna Color. If an antenna is installed on a structure other than a tower,the antenna and supporting
electrical and mechanical equipment must be a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with,
the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and related equipment as visually unobtrusive
as possible, as determined by the city.
d. Lot Size and Setback. For purposes of determining whether the installation of a tower or antenna complies
with district development regulations,a minimum setback of 100 feet from all property lines shall apply.
The dimensions of the entire lot shall control,even though the antennas or towers may be located on lease
parcels within such lot.
3. Fencing. Any fencing shall comply with the City's code.
4. Landscaping. Buffer plantings shall be located on the site as deemed appropriate by the city and in accordance with
the city's landscape code.
5. Lighting. Towers and antennas shall not be artificially lighted,unless required by the FAA or other applicable
authority. If lighting is required,the lighting alternative and design chosen must cause the least disturbance to the
surrounding views.
6. State or Federal Requirements. All towers must meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FAA,the
FCC,and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate towers and antennas. If
such standards and regulations are changed,then the owners of the towers and antennas governed by this ordinance
shall bring such towers and antennas into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six(6)
months of the effective date of such standards and regulations,unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by
the controlling state of federal agency. Failure to bring towers and antennas into compliance with such revised
• standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the tower or antenna at the owner's expense.
7. Building Codes: Safety Standards. To ensure the structural integrity of towers,the owner of a tower shall ensure that
it is maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable state or local building codes and the.applicable
standards for towers that are published by the Electronics Industries Association,as amended from time to time. If,
upon inspection,the City concludes that a tower fails to comply with such codes and.standards and constitutes a
danger to persons or property,then upon notice being provided to the owner of the tower,the owner shall have thirty
(30)days to bring such tower into compliance with such standards. Failure to bring such tower into compliance
within said thirty(30)days shall constitute grounds for the removal of the tower or antenna at the owner's expense.
8. Non Essential Services. Towers and antennas shall be regulated and permitted pursuant to this ordinance and shall
not be regulated or permitted as essential services, public utilities or private utilities.
License to Operate. Owners and or operators of towers or antennas shall submit copies of all franchises,certifications,
licenses,and permits required by law for the design,construction,location and operation of wireless communications
in St.Anthony. Owners and/or operators shall be required to maintain same and to provide evidence of renewal or
extension thereof when granted.
9. Public Notice. Public notices shall be given in accordance with the City Zoning Code.
11. Signs. No signs shall be allowed on an antenna or tower. A sign shall be posted indicating the emergency contact
phone number. Ant identification signage shall be in accordance with the City sign code.
12. Multiple Antenna/Tower Plan. St. Anthony encourages the owners of towers and antennas to submit a single
application for approval of multiple towers and/or antenna sites.
13. Building Permits. The installation of any tower or antenna shall require the compliance with all local building
regulations. No installations shall be allowed,without securing all applicable building permit
12
14. Historic Register/District. Any application to locate a Wireless Telecommunications Facility on a building or
structure that is listed on a historic register,or is in a historic district,shall be subject to review by the City's Planning
Commission in addition to any other required review processes.
•
15. Underground Equipment Shelters. Underground equipment shelters will be required where appropriate screening of
shelter cannot be accomplished.
16. Accommodation. The City encourages all towers to be constructed or reconstructed'to accommodate multiple users.
17. Maximum Height. No Tower,including antenna shall exceed 110 feet as measured from grade at the base of the
tower.
SECTION VL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
A. General. The following provisions shall govern the issuance of administrative approvals for towers and antennas.
1. All Towers and Wireless Communications Facilities will require a"letter certifying zoning compliance"and
applicable building permits prior to installation.
2. Each applicant for administrative approval shall apply for a letter certifying zoning compliance and provide
the information to address Sections VII.B.1. through VII.B.6 of this ordinance. The applicant shall pay a
non-refundable fee as established by the city's annual Fee Ordinance to reimburse the City for the costs of
reviewing the applications. Said fee will be the same as for a"Conditional Use"Permit.
3. The application shall be reviewed for administrative approval to determine if the proposed use complies with
Section VI of this ordinance as well as all applicable requirements of the underlying zoning district. It is
understood that any underlying height restrictions shall not apply.
® 4. In all cases,the City will approve or deny such application within sixty(60)days of receipt. If the City fails
to respond within said sixty(60)days, then the application shall be deemed to be approved.
5. In connection with any application for a letter certifying zoning compliance,in order to encourage co-
location,the City may allow the reconstruction of an existing tower not to exceed the maximum heights in
accordance with Section VI.B.3.
6. If a letter certifying zoning compliance in connection with an administrative review is denied,the applicant
shall be entitled to file an appeal within 20 days after the decision. The appeal shall be filed with Board of
Adjustments and Appeals,specifying the grounds,in conformance with Section 1665.05.
B. Facilities Subject to Administrative Approval. The following uses maybe approved by the City after an
administrative review has been conducted. Approval following the administrative review shall constitute issuance of
a letter certifying zoning compliance. Information consistent with Section VII B below should be submitted to
accompany the application for a letter certifying zoning compliance.
1. Locating antenna on existing building or other antenna support structure,public or private.Any antenna
intended to be attached to a structure other than a tower may be approved as an accessory use to any
commercial, industrial,professional,office,institutional,or similar structure,provided:
(a) The antenna is designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.
(b) The antenna does not extend more than twenty(20)feet above the highest point of the supporting
structure;
(c) The antenna complies with all applicable FCC and FAA regulations;
(d) The antenna complies with all applicable building codes;and
(e) Any additional equipment is fully screened and located in compliance with the underlying zoning
district requirements.
13
2. Co-locating antennas on an existing or reconstructed towers,public or private. The City may approve an
antenna which is to be located on an existing or reconstructed tower. This furthers the goal of minimizing
• the adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation of towers. Co-location of antennas by more than
one carrier on existing towers shall take precedence over the construction of new towers,provided such co-
location is accomplished in a manner consistent with the following.
a) A tower which is modified or reconstructed to accommodate the cb-location of an additional
antenna shall be designed to be consistent with the existing tower and to be as unobtrusive as
possible.
b) Height.
(i) An existing tower may be modified or rebuilt to a taller height,not to exceed 110 feet,to .
accommodate the co-location of additional antenna or in accordance as follows:
(A) For two users,up to one hundred-thirty(90)feet in height;
(B) For three users,up to one hundred-fifty(100)feet in height;
(C) For four or more users,up to two hundred(110)feet in height
(ii) The additional height shall not require an additional setback from the property lines,
provided the tower meets the minimum setback requirements(100 feet);
C) On-site Location
(i) A tower which is being rebuilt to accommodate the co-location of additional antennae may
be relocated on site as long as it meets the minimum setback requirement.
• (ii) After the tower is built to accommodate co-location,only one tower may remain on site.
d) The antenna complies with all applicable FCC and FAA regulations;
e) The antenna complies with all applicable building codes; and
f) Any additional equipment is fully screened and located in compliance with the underlying zoning
district requirements.
3. Locating a new multi-use tower or antenna,including the placement of additional buildings or other
supporting equipment used in connection with said tower or antenna,on a industrial site. The City may
approve a new tower or antenna on an industrial site where other less obtrusive measures are not feasible.
With a goal toward minimizing the adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation of towers,co-
location of several carriers will be required. New towers and antennae shall be consistent with the following:
a) Height
(i) For two users,up to one hundred-thirty(90)feet in height;
(ii) For three users,up to one hundred-fifty.(100)feet in height;
(iii) For four or more users,up to two hundred(110)feet in height.
b) Towers must be set back a minimum distance of 100 from any adjoining lot line;
C) Guys and accessory buildings must satisfy the minimum zoning district setback requirement;
• d) The antenna complies with all applicable FCC and FAA regulations;
e) The antenna complies with all applicable building codes;and
•soz►s suoTlellslstn pus suoTleool`sluualuw oduospni ogpods 2umogs veld adeospuul y T
'momiI;t`(s)lamol 29sTxo agl;o lolelado/slaumo ail pue(s)slamol 2ullsrxo DID JO uoTlorulsuoo •
;o W4 ag14nuopT oslu llsgs lusogdds ail, 'dew s uo umogs oq llugs •I •g'A uoTloaS of luensmd
pollnugns saps 2upsTxa;o tiolumin all uT paquosap slamol lallo woi;aouelsTp uoilmdas zql a
-Suodold luTluapTsol lsaleou all pue lamol pasodold ail uaamlaq oouelsTp 31ouglos 3U 'p
'(olquogdde p)Iaoled pascal pue lour lualud ail;o uoilduosop Lugo-I o
•aouuuTplo
s.p tp!m aouuTldwoo ssosse of,Usssaoau uoTleuuo;uT lailo pue 2uTilled `,Cgdel2odo1`samlonris
ioglo,(ue pus lamol pasodold ail;o s2uTmeip uoTlenala`sauTl,(uadold wol;s)loeglas `ss000u;o
sumtu pasodold shmproj luaoufpu`(soq!judToTunw lagio of luaoe fpe uagnn 2urpnl3uT)2uTuoz pue
sosn puel luooefpe°2umoz puu sasn puul alis-uo`lamol pasodold aql;o 1g2Tag puu ad,(1'suoTleool
all 2uTleorpM Slismlo(laa;0S slenba lour ouo uull ssal lou)uuld alis pauoTsuaurrp puu Palms y q
•uuo;uoTluoTlddu olaldwoo s
:uopMUO;uT 2uTmoI103
Dip lnugns llugs lamol s lo;asn luuoTlTpuoo a lo;slueotldde oouuuTplp 2utuoZ agl lapun suoTlsotldds
lnwad asn lsuopTpuoo to asn IsuoTlTpuoo lo;pannbal uopeuuoluT,Cue of uoTlTppu ul pannbal uoTlewlo3uI T
-slamos 'g
-suoTluogddu ail 2uTmomol;o slsoo ail lo;,GTD oql asingwTal of aouuuTplo aa;lunuuu s.f4T0 ail Xq
pagsTlqulsa su aa;olgspun;al-uou u puu uoTloaS sTg1 uT paquosap uoTieuuo;uT ail 1"gns lluls 1umildde uy. 's
•laaui2ua lsumssa;oid pasuaoTl u,(q pogTuao oq 1pqs •
`lsoTiloala to`luoTuugoaw'I!A!3 10gl3gA%slTwgns luum ddu oql lugl amluu 2uuaaw2ua.uu;o.uoTlmwo;ut,(uy b
•saTuadold 2uTuiofpu uo lamol pasodold oql;o loa;;a as13nps,(us azTIUMRU
of,Uessaoau On suoTlTpuo3 gons lugs sopnlouoo Xpoq ail lualxa ail of suoTlTpuoo asodwi Sew`olgeogdds
su`sluaddy pus luowlsnfpy;o pluog to uoTssTwwoD 2uTuuuld ail`!uuad asn luuoTl►puoo a 2uTlue2 uI £
uoTloaS snp uT pagTpow su ldaoxo opoD,(1T0 ag130 SO•9991 10 b0'9991 uotloaS
;o sluawalTnboi puu salnp000id alp of loofgns oq llugs uoTloaS sTil lapun asn leuoptpuoo lo;suorleoTlddy Z
euualue ue;o luawaoeld ag1 to lamol a;o uoponilsuoo agp lo;palmbal aq llugs lrwuad asn IsuoTlTpuoo
scall`aoueuTplo SR;O IA uoTloaS lapun lenoidde aA►luslsTunupe of loafgns lou sT uuualuu to lamol alp il T
:sluaddy puu 1uawlsnfpy;o pluog pus uo►ssTunuoo 2uTuoZ puu 21111mid
oql,(q seuualue to siamol lo;slnwad asn luuoTlTpuoo;o aouunssT ail UlDA02 llegs suoTsTnold 2utmolloi OU Iraau30 y
SNOIlt��l�ddb�11W213d 3Sf1 IVNOI11aNO3 11A N01133S
•aoueuTplo SRP JO IIA uOTloaS
lad`asn luuop!puoo lo;uoTlsoTldde uu;o 2uTIg ail g1Tm paaoold uagl,(ew luumIddu ai,I, 'pa►uap aq llegs
aouL,gdwoo 2muoz 2uL(;Tuoo lallal u`pa2egnowuo to pasTn2stp Algeuosual uaaq lou anuq son. q q pasodold
ag1IUM 1olunsTuTurpy 2uiuoZ ail;o uoTluunwalap ag1 sT 1!•j •sapTlToe;gons o nouluo of spollaw
anTlenouuT;o asn ail pue,Clmua2tq oftnooua o1 sT alaq Mnoafgo ags Cuadad orlgnd uo paluool aq of
sammongs gons lo;pambal aq osle llegs iogmmw XiTD agl,Cq lenolddy •aoueuTplo supjo II Pur I suOTloaS
ui glioj las.sle02 all g1Tm,(puuo;uoo uu st alis ag1 popTAold`,Cuadold alenud uo omlonils lamol aATluulalle
uu;o uojleool oql anoldds Cuw lolerisTunupy 2uTuoZ agZ amloculs lamol anTlswalls,Cue 2uTlsooZ y •
'slu3walTnba11ou1sTp
--=---)z 2utXllapun ag1 tpyA oouuTldwoo uT p pmol puu pouaalos (Ilnj sT luowdmba lsuoTlcppe,(uy
�i
15
g. Method of fencing, if any, including height,material, style, and color and,if applicable,the niruiuu
of camouflage and illuminations.
sh. A description of compliance with Sections V.A.,V.B. 1-17,VIII(b)(4),and all applicable federal,
state or local laws.
i. A notarized statement by the applicant as to whether construction of the tower will accommodate
collocation of additional antennas for future users..
j. Identification of the entities providing the backhaul network for the tower(s)described in the
application and other wireless telecommunications sites owned or operated by the applicant in the
municipality.
k. A description of the suitability of the use of existing towers,other structures or alternative
technology not requiring the use of towers or structures to provide the services to be provided
through the use of the proposed new tower.
2. Factors Considered in-Granting Conditional Use Permits for Towers. In additional to any standards for
consideration of conditional use permit applications pursuant to the St. Anthony Zoning Ordinance,the
Planning and Zoning Commission or Board of Zoning Appeals shall consider the following factors in
determining whether to application should be approved. The Commission(Board)may waive or reduce the
burden on the applicant of one or more of these criteria if it determines that the goals of this ordinance are
better served thereby:
a. Height of the proposed tower;
b. Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries;
C. Nature of uses on adjacent and,nearby properties;
• d. Surrounding topography;
e. Surrounding tree coverage and foliage;
f. Design of the tower,with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of
reducing eliminating visual obtrusiveness;
g. Proposed ingress and egress;and
h. Availability of suitable existing towers, other structures,or alternative technologies not requiring the
use of towers or structures,as discussed in Section VII.B.3 of this ordinance.
3. Availability of Suitable Existing Towers,Other Structures,or Alternative Technology. New towers shall be
approved only when other preferable alternatives are not available. No new tower shall be permitted unless
the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commission or Board that no existing tower,
structure or alternative technology is available to fill the communication requirements. An applicant shall
submit information requested by the Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment and Appeals related to
the availability of suitable existing towers other structures or alternative technology. Evidence submitted to
demonstrate that no existing tower, structure or alternative technology can accommodate the applicant's
proposed antenna may consist of any of the following:
a. No existing towers or structures are located within the specific geographic limits,which met applicants
engineering requirements.
b. Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient height to meet applicant's engineering requirements,
and have insufficient structural strength to support applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment.
c. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause frequency interference with the antenna on the existing
towers or structures,or the antenna on the existing towers or structures would cause interference with the
applicant's proposed antenna.
16
d. The fee,costs,or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share an existing tower or'
structure or to adapt an existing tower or structure for sharing are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new
• tower development are presumed to be unreasonable.
e. The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures
unsuitable.
f. The applicant demonstrates that an alternative technology that does not require the use of towers or .
structures,such as a cable microcell network using multiple low-powered transmitters/receivers attached
to a wireline system,is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or antenna
development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable.
g. The applicant provides documentation that other tower owners were contacted in writing in pursuit of
the provisions(of Section VII.B.3 a through g)above.
4. Setbacks. The following setback requirements shall apply to all towers for which a conditional use permit is
required;provided,however,that the Planning Commission may reduce the standard setback requirements if
the goals of the ordinance would be better served thereby:
a. Towers must be set back a minimum distance of 100 feet from any adjoining lot line.
b. Guysand accessory buildings must satisfy the minimum zoning district setback requirements.
5. Fencing. Any fencing shall comply with the City's code. However,that the Planning Commission or Board
of Adjustment and Appeals may waive such requirements,as it deems appropriate.
6. Landscaping. The following requirements shall govern the landscaping surrounding towers from which a
conditional use permit is required;provided,however,that the Planning Commission may waive such
• requirements if the goals of this ordinance would be better served thereby.
a. Tower facilities shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the view
of the tower compound as determined by the Planning Commission.
b. In locations where the visual impact of the tower would be minimal,the landscaping requirement
may be reduced or waived.
C. Existing mature tree growth and natural land forms on the site shall be preserved to the maximum
extent possible. In some cases,such as towers sited on large,wooded lots,natural growth around
the property perimeter is sufficient buffer.
SECTION VIII.BUILDINGS OR OTHER EQUIPMENT STORAGE
A. Antennas Mounted on Structures or Rooftops. The equipment cabinet or structure used in association with antennas
shall comply with all applicable building codes. Additionally,such equipment shall be sited and designed to mhnirnize
its visual impact and be screened to its full height.
B. Antennas Mounted on Utility Poles or Light Poles. The equipment cabinet or structure used in association with
antenna shell be located in accordance with the following.
1. In residential districts,the equipment cabinet or structure must be located behind the required building line
and at least 30 feet from all lot lines. The cabinet/structure shall be designed to minimize its visual impact
and shall be screened to it full height with evergreen material. Plants at installation shall be a minimum of
three feet in height.
• 2. In commercial or industrial districts the equipment cabinet or structures shall be located at least 15 feet from
all lot lines. The structure or cabinet shall be screened by an evergreen material with an ultimate height of
eight(8)feet and a planted height of at least three feet.
17
C. Antenna Located on Towers. The related unmanned equipment structure shall not exceed the maximum height
allowed in the district,and shall be located and screened in accordance with the zoning district requirements in which
located.
D. Equipment Siting Requirements. The requirements of Section VIII A through C above may be modified by the
Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment and Appeals as applicable to encourage collocation.
SECTION IX.ABANDONMENT OF TOWER
All providers utilizing towers shall notify the City in writing of any Tower facility locate in the City whose use will be
discontinued and of the date this use will cease. If the use of the facility is discontinued for 180 days,a designated
local official may declare the facility to be abandoned. (This excludes any dormancy period between construction and
the initial use of the facility.) The facility" owner/operator will receive written notice from the City and be instructed
to either reactivate the facility's use within 180 days, or dismantle and remove the facility. If reactivation or
dismantling does not occur within that period,the City will remove that facility or cause it to be removed and assess
the costs to the owner/operator. In the case of a multi-use tower,this provision does not become effective until all
users cease use of the tower. However,the City may cause the abandoned portions of systems on the multi-use tower
to be removed in accordance with this provision.
A. The City must provide the Tower owner three(3) months notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Planning
Commission before initiating action to remove the facility. After such notice has been provided,the City shall have
the authority to initiate proceedings either to acquire the Tower and any appurtenances attached thereto at the then fair
market value,or in the alternative,to order the demolition of the Tower and all appurtenances.
B. The City shall provide the Tower owner with the right to a public hearing before the Planning Commission,which
public hearing shall follow the three(3)month notice required in Paragraph.B. All interested parties shall be allowed
an opportunity to be heard at the public hearing.
•. C. After a public hearing is.held pursuant to Section C,the Planning Commission may order the acquisition or
demolition of the Tower. The City may require Licensee to pay for all expenses necessary to acquire or demolish the
Tower.
SECTION X. NONCONFORMING USES
A. Conforming Use. Towers that are constructed,and antennas that are installed, in accordance with the provisions of
this ordinance shall be deemed to constitute the conforming uses or structures. This shall be the case even when such
new facilities are being added to a non-conforming installation.
B. Pre-existing Towers. Pre-existing towers shall be allowed to continue their usage as they presently exist. Routine
maintenance(including replacement with a new tower of like construction and height serving the same purpose)shall
be permitted on such pre-existing towers. A replacement tower must be constructed within 180 days of removal of the
initial facility. New construction other than routine maintenance on a pre-existing tower shall comply with the
requirements of this ordinance.
C. Rebuilding Damaged or Destroyed Nonconforming Towers or Antennas. Notwithstanding Section X,.bona fide
nonconforming towers or antennas that are damaged or destroyed may be rebuilt without having to first obtain
administrative approval or a conditional use permit. The type, height,and location of the tower onsite shall be of the
same type and intensity as the original facility approved. Building permits to rebuild the facility shall comply with the
then applicable building codes and shall be obtained within 180 days from the date the facility is damaged or
destroyed. If not permit is obtained or if said permit expires,the tower or antenna shall be deemed abandoned as
specified in Section IX.
• SECTION XI. NON-WAIVER
A. Non-Waiver. Nothing in this Ordinance shall preclude the City from exercising any right or remedy it may have in
law or equity to enforce the terms and conditions of this Ordinance.
l
SECTION XII. SEVERABILITY
• A. If any provision of this Ordinance or the Application of any provision of this Ordinance to any person is,to any
extent,held invalid or unenforceable by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction,the remainder of this Ordinance and the
application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such holding. In case of such
an event,this Ordinance and all if its remaining provisions shall,in all other respects,continue to be effective. In the .
event the law invalidating such and Ordinance provision is subsequently repealed,rescinded,amended or is otherwise
changed so that the provision which had previously been held invalid or unenforceable, no longer conflicts with the
laws,rules or regulations then in effect, the previously invalid or unenforceable provision shall return to full force and
effect.
SECTION XIII. CONDITIONAL USE SECTIONS
A. If any provision of this Ordinance or the Application of any provision of this Ordinance to any person is,to any
extent,held invalid or unenforceable by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction,the remainder of this Ordinance and the
application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such holding. In case of such
an event,this Ordinance and all if its remaining provisions shall, in all other respects,continue to be effective. In the
event the law invalidating such and Ordinance provision is subsequently repealed,rescinded,amended or is otherwise
changed so that the provision which had previously been held invalid or unenforceable, no longer conflicts with the
laws,rules or regulations then in effect, the previously invalid or unenforceable provision shall return to full force and
effect.
SECTION XII. CONDITIONAL USE SECTIONS
A. The existing Code Sections 1615, 1616, 1620, 1625, 1630, 1635,and 1640 shall be amended to include"wireless
communications facilities"as conditional uses in all applicable Districts.
SECTION XIV. REPEALER
A. Section 1160 shall be repealed by this ordinance. Any additional ordinances or parts thereof in conflict with the
provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION XV. EFFECTIVE DATE
A. This Ordinance shall go in to effect on the earliest date permitted by law.
Passed this day of 2000
Mayor—Presiding Officer
Initiated by: Planning Commission
City Manager
ATTEST: I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance were posted in the City of St. Anthony in accordance with the
Minnesota State Statute
• City Clerk, St. Anthony,Minnesota.
I, City Clerk,hereby-certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Ordinance duly
adopted by the Council of the City of St. Anthony,Minnesota,on the day of
19
MEMORANDUM -
DATE: 9/13/00 MEETING DATE: 9/19/00
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Assistant City Manager Isom
RE: Moratorium on Permits for Antennas and Towers.
During the July and August Planning Commission meetings, passage of a moratorium on new
construction/erection of Antennas and Towers was discussed. As the Commissioners are aware,you have begun
the process of replacing/amending the City's Antenna Ordinance. By passing an interim ordinance/moratorium,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, Subd. 4, you will afford yourselves an opportunity to
adequately review the existing ordinance and replacelamend said ordinance thus ensuring the health,safety,and
welfare of the citizenry of St. Anthony.
Staff recommends the Commission discuss this matter and make a motion to recommend,to Council,the passage
of an interim ordinance/moratorium for Antennas and Towers. Action requested.
Cc: City Clerk Kroeplin
•
G e,11
/ 20
AA Metropolitan Council
Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
August 25, 2000
Spencer Isom
City of St. Anthony
Assistant to the City Administrator
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony MN 55418
Dear Mr. Isom:
I am pleased to inform you that the City of St. Anthony is invited to submit a Phase 2
Livable Communities Demonstration Account proposal for the St. Anthony Village
Northwest Redevelopment project. Phase 2 applications are due by 5:00 p.m. on Friday,
September 22, 2000.
Your proposal is one of 16 invited to submit a Phase 2 proposal in the predevelopment
category (category E). The total dollar request for the Phase 1 proposals in this category,
limited to $150,000 with a.1:l match,is approximately$1.79 million.The Livable
Communities Advisory Committee, in reviewing these proposals against the criteria,
found merit in all of them and wants to review them in more detail in Phase 2.
Included with this letter are Phase 2 application materials. If you have.questions about
the process, please contact me at 651/602-1385 or Barbara Engstrom at 651/602-1633.
The Advisory Committee has worked diligently to evaluate all proposals submitted, and
will continue to ensure a fair review process through to the conclusion of Phase 2 of the
application process. Good luck to you as you continue with Phase 2.
incerely,
oanne Barron
•
V AL1B RARY\COMN1UND VU.CDA1082100Phese2lcr.doc
230 East Fifth Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1626 (651)602-1000 Fax 602-1550 TDD/TIY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 602-1888