10-25-1999 PCM cMINUTES
HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, October 25, 1999
CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M.
The special meeting was called to order by Chair Dean Wood. Other members present were: Vice Chairman Bill Arndt;
Jim Haugen, Jeff Jones, Dave Westlund, and Dean Kirchoff . Absent: Jeff Haag,. Staff members present: Julie
Wischnack, Director of Planning and Zoning; and Richard Schieffer, City Legal Counsel.
2. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY HUTCHINSON
TELPHONE COMPANY TO ERECT A 300 FOOT COMMUNICATION TOWER LOCATED AT 345
MICHIGAN STREET SOUTHEAST
Wischnack explained the meeting that had taken place between the Telephone Company and the neighboring property
owners. Wischnack stated the neighbors had concerns about safety, aesthetics and property values. Walt Clay,
President of the Hutchinson Telephone Company was present. Tom Dahl, General Manager for the Telephone
Company was also present. Dahl spoke about the supporting neighboring property owners who do not object to the
tower being sited on the property. Dahl submitted the letters for the record. Dahl also spoke to Jim Fahey, who was
not opposed to the tower. Dahl explained that the costs of buying land, electrical connections and the added costs of
monopole construction were reasons that the company did not investigate other sites. Dahl explained that Pyrod
Company, the engineers for the tower, had submitted a letter regarding safety issues.
Wood asked if he had any information on ice and the number of times ice issues arise on a tower such as this. Dahl
stated that no specific information on numbers is available, but the tower has been reviewed by the F.A.A. and the
F.C.C. Dahl stated the F.C.C. had approved the tower, although they don't have the final report at this time.
Haugen asked about the previous application and why had the company let the approval run out. Dahl stated they were
busy with other priorities and did not have time to renew the permit. Westlund asked about tower codes. Dahl stated
they would be fencing the guide wires and the building/tower area for safety reasons.
Bernie Knutson, Lynn Card Company, stated he was not in support of a 300' self -supporting tower. Knutson stated that
the company maintains the property well. Knutson stated there has been some reference to legal issues for cities where
the city can not deny certain permits. Knutson explained he had plans to expand to the south of the existing building
and is very concerned about ice issues. Knutson presented a graphics about how a 1 pound ice chunk could drop from
a tower and its landing point. Knutson stated that the approval of the airport (F.A.A.) only means they have posted the
notice, but there has been little research. Knutson was also concerned with the aesthetic qualities of the tower, flashing
lights, and visibility from all areas of the City.
Mike Gavin, an Attorney from Glencoe, provided information about preemption of local ordinances and some court
decisions. Gavin suggested determining the availability of other sites. Gavin was concerned if the airport wanted to
put in a cross runway and the effect this tower would have on that. Gavin also mentioned concerns about emissions
from the transmissions of towers may affect employee recruitment for neighboring businesses.
Clay discussed the fact that other sites were considered, but this was in an industrial area.
Discussion between the applicant and neighboring property owner continued.
Jones asked if the other tower in the area affected the airport. Dave Skar, Chair of the Airports Commission, stated he
is requesting that the F.A.A.'s decision be followed as far as setting heights and distances.
Schieffer stated that zoning codes are not prempted by federal statutes. Schieffer explained that by local ordinance,
a tower exceeding 75 feed requires a conditional use permit. He went to explain the 3 standards for issuing conditional
use permits. Schieffer stated that Minnesota case law states that a conditional use permit are allowed uses, but subject
to certain conditions. Schieffer stated the following are not issues: placing the tower somewhere else; aesthetics — can
not be the only issue, but can be a portion of the consideration; radio transmission waves — it must be found to be a fact;
and property devaluation — must be a proven fact. Schieffer reiterated that the true test is whether the use meets the
criteria.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 25, 1999
Page 2
Jones asked Shieffer if there was not substantial evidence, what should they do? Schieffer stated that was for the
commission to decide. Arndt moved to close the hearing. Jones seconded the motion. Motion carried Ayes 6 NF -
0.
Westlund stated he thinks industrial areas are a better place for these towers. Westlund also stated that the Telephone
Company has based some of their plans on an earlier decision by the City to approve the use. Jones stated his major
concern is safety because he feels it is a potential danger. Jones does not know if it is, statistically, an issue. Haugen
stated that he had dealt with a tower in Alexandria and they had not had an ice problem with a tower located 12-20 feet
from an employee entrance. Haugen also asked the company about other towers they owned and they have not have
safety issues. Haugen stated that there are ice issues in downtown area, trees fall in ice storms, etc. Haugen asked
if the Telephone Company would remove the tower if there were issues. Jones asked if they put their tower in the rural
area could it serve the area. Clay stated, no, if located % mile east.
Kirkoff moved to approve the conditional use permit with staff conditions (1. The tower must be constructed as provided
in the plans; 2. a building permit is required for the footings and foundation of the anchor, tower and building; 3. the
conditional use permit expires 6 months from the date of approval. If the tower has not been construction within that
time period, the owners would be required to reapply for the conditional use permit.) Westlund seconded the motion.
Motion carried Ayes 6 Nays 0.
Jones requested staff review the ordinances regarding communications towers.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Haugen moved to adjourn the meeting. Arndt seconded. Motion carried Ayes 6 Nays 0. Meeting adjourned 7:40 p.m.
2