Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustment 07-26-01 X AGENDA ST. CROIX COUNTY NOTICE OF COMMITTEE MEETING TO: Thomas Dorsey, Chairman St. Croix County Board FROM: Julie Speer, Chairman COMMITTEE TITLE: St. Croix County Board of Adjustment DATE: Thursday, July 26 2001 TIME: 8:30 a.m. LOCATION: Government Center, Hudson, Wisconsin CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: ADOPTION OF AGENDA: ACTION ON PREVIOUS MINUTES: DATE OF NEXT MEETING: UNFINISHED BUSINESS: OTHER BUSINESS: Discussion for clarification of Condition #3 of the Emerald Dairy Special Exception Permit OLD BUSINESS: Withdrawal of Special Exception request for Greystone Real Estate to conduct an arts and music festival in the Industrial District. NEW BUSINESS: See Attachment* ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE: POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING: ADJOURNMENT: (agenda not necessarily presented in this order) SUBMITTED BY: St. Croix County Zoning Office DATE: July 17, 2001 COPIES TO: County Board Office County Clerk Committee Members News Media/Notice Board *CAN CELLATIONS/CHANGES/ADDITIONS T PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment has scheduled a public hearing for Thursday, July 26, 2001, at 8:30 a.m. at the Government Center, 1101 Carmichael Road, Hudson, Wisconsin, to consider the following appeals to the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. The Board will view each site in question, after which the Board will deliberate and vote on the appeals. 1. ARTICLE: Item #1 Variance request to the 100-foot property mining line setback to allow mining within a common property line between the Larson and Schiltgen properties pursuant to Ordinance No. 226(89)(F)(d). Beginning at the Southwest Corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 2, T28N, R1 9W; thence North alongthe East line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 700 feet. Item #2 Special Exception request for a permit to operate a non-metallic mining operation pursuant to Section 17.15(6)(g) subject to the provisions of ordinance #226(89) APELLANT: Helen Larsen and Jon Schiltgen LOCATION: Located in the NW'/4 of the NE'/4 and the NE'/4 of the NE'/4 of Section 2, T28N- R19W, Town of Troy ADDRESS: 579 Brummel Road, Hudson, Wisconsin 2. ARTICLE: Special Exception request for a Governmental Use in the Ag/Residential District pursuant to Section 17.15(6)(u). The request is to construct a new town hall and parking lot in the Town of Hammond APELLANT: Town of Hammond/ Ken Peterson, Town Chair LOCATION: Located in the SW'/4 of the S W Section 10,T29N-R17W,Town of Hammond ADDRESS: Off of County Road E, Hammond, Wisconsin 3. ARTICLE: Special Exception request for a permit to operate an excavating business on property zoned Commercial pursuant to Section 17.18(1). The request is to allow Mann Valley Excavating to operate its business from the property and a pre-existing business known as Custom Embedding Company. APPELLANT: Gary Schoettle, owner, Paul Paulson, d.b.a. Mann Valley LLC/ agent. LOCATION: Located in NW '/4 of the NE '/4 , Section 27, T30N-R20W, Town of St. Joseph ADDRESS: 50 County Trunk E, Houlton, Wisconsin 4. ARTICLE: Variance request from a Class "D" highway pursuant to Section 17.64(1)(02. Request is for a 47-foot variance from the 100-foot right-of-way setback to construct an addition onto the existing residence. APPELLANT: Brian J. Parnell LOCATION: Located in the NE '/4 of the SE '/4 of Section 29, T31 N-R19W,Town of Somerset ADDRESS: 398 192nd Avenue, Somerset, Wisconsin 5. ARTICLE: Special Exception request for a Wireless Communications Facility in the Ag/Residential District pursuant to Section 17.85(2). Request is by Sprint PCs to construct a 250-foot lattice Wireless Communication Tower. APPELLANT: Henry and Julie Leucken, Owner/Carlson & Harrington, Agent on behalf of Sprint PCs LOCATION: Located in the SE % of the SE 1/4, Section 6, T30N-R19W, Town of Somerset ADDRESS: 384 Highway 35/64, Somerset, Wisconsin 6. ARTICLE: Special Exception request for a Wireless Communications Facility in the Ag/Residential District pursuant to Section 17.85(2). Request is by American Tower to construct a 300-foot guyed Wireless Communication Tower. APPELLANT: Thomas W. & Linda Weber, Owners/ American Tower Corp., Agent LOCATION: Located in the NW '/4 of the SE '/4, Section 21, T30N-R15W, Town of Glenwood ADDRESS: 1408 300th Street, Glenwood City, Wisconsin. 7. ARTICLE: Special Exception request for a Telecommunications Tower in the Agricultural District. Request is by APT Minneapolis, Inc. to construct a 185-foot monopole telecommunications tower pursuant to Section 17.85(2). APELLANT: APT Minneapolis, Inc./ Owner: William and Opal Haase LOCATION: Located in the SW of the SW '/4, Section 5,T31 N-R19W, Town of Somerset ADDRESS: 324 230th Avenue, Somerset, Wisconsin. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and be heard. Additional information may be obtained from the office of the St. Croix County Zoning Director, Hudson, Wisconsin at (715) 386-4680. Julie Speer, Chairperson St. Croix County Board of Adjustment BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING AND HEARING MINUTES July 26, 2001 (This meeting was recorded by Northwestern Court Reporters) The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Julie Speer at 8:30 a.m. A role call was made. Julie Speer, Tom Rose, Rich Peterson, Nick Golz and Dick King were present. Staff included: Steve Fisher, Zoning Director, Rod Eslinger, Zoning Specialist, and Deb Zimmermann, Administrative Assistant. Chairperson Speer believes this to be a properly noticed meeting. Motion was made by Peterson, second by King to adopt the agenda. Motion carried. The Board set the next meeting date as August 23, 2001. The starting time will be 8:30 a.m. The meeting will be held at the Government Center. Motion by Golz, second by Rose to approve minutes from the June 28th, 2001 meeting with one change on page 8, where Rose voted no, rather than yes in a decision. Change will be made. All in favor. Motion carried. CORPORATION COUNSEL REPORT/ UPDATE ON VIOLATIONS AND LITIGATION Corporation Counsel will be available if needed. OTHER BUSINESS Eslinger explained that this item is for clarification of Condition #3 of the Emerald Dairy Special Exception Permit granted February 22, 2001. An environmental bond was set for the proposed lagoon that is being built on the site. Mr. Vrieze has informed the Zoning Department that the lagoon will not be constructed until next year, and is asking the Board to allow him to wait for the bonding until the lagoon is completed next year. Zoning has received a bond in the amount of $235,000 to cover the existing lagoon. John Vrieze, being duly sworn, told the Board that they cannot get the lagoon done this year and plan to complete sometime next year. He reiterated that there is a bond in place with the zoning office for the existing lagoon. Discussion held. Motion by Rose, second by Golz to allow the applicant to delay the bonding for the lagoon until construction next year. All in favor. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Eslinger told the Board that they have had a request from Greyston Real Estate to withdraw their special exception request from last month for an arts and music festival in the Industrial District. The Board had tabled the matter for more information, and the applicant then asked to withdraw the request. Motion by Peterson, second by King to accept the withdrawal. All in favor. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Speer welcomed everyone in attendance and gave a brief overview of how the Board of Adjustment meeting is conducted. Chairperson Speer stated that the public hearing notice was published correctly and was read into the record as follows: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment has scheduled a public hearing for Thursday, July 26, 2001, at 8:30 a.m. at the Government Center, 1101 Carmichael Road, Hudson, Wisconsin, to consider the following appeals to the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. The Board will view each site in question, after which the Board will deliberate and vote on the appeals. 1. ARTICLE: Item #1 Variance request to the 100-foot property mining line setback to allow mining within a common property line between the Larson and Schiltgen properties pursuant to Ordinance No. 226(89)(F)(d). Beginning at the Southwest Corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 2, T28N, R1 9W; thence North along the East line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 700 feet. Item #2 Special Exception request for a permit to operate a non- metallic mining operation pursuant to Section 17.15(6)(g) subject to the provisions of ordinance #226(89) APELLANT: Helen Larsen and Jon Schiltgen LOCATION: Located in the NW % of the NE'/4 and the NE % of the NE % of Section 2, T28N-R19W, Town of Troy ADDRESS: 579 Brummel Road, Hudson, Wisconsin 2. ARTICLE: Special Exception request for a Governmental Use in the Ag/Residential District pursuant to Section 17.15(6)(u). The request is to construct a new town hall and parking lot in the Town of Hammond APELLANT: Town of Hammond/ Ken Peterson, Town Chair LOCATION: Located in the SW'/ of the S W Section 10,T29N-R17W, Town of Hammond ADDRESS: Off of County Road E, Hammond, Wisconsin 3. ARTICLE: Special Exception request for a permit to operate an excavating business on property zoned Commercial pursuant to Section 17.18(1). The request is to allow Mann Valley Excavating to operate its business from the property and a pre-existing business known as Custom Embedding Company. APPELLANT: Gary Schoettle, owner, Paul Paulson, d.b.a. Mann Valley LLC/ agent. LOCATION: Located in NW '/4 of the NE Section 27, T30N-R20W, Town of St. Joseph ADDRESS: 50 County Trunk E, Houlton, Wisconsin 4. ARTICLE: Variance request from a Class "D" highway pursuant to Section 17.64(1)(d)2. Request is for a 47-foot variance from the 100-foot right-of-way setback to construct an addition onto the existing residence. APPELLANT: Brian J. Parnell LOCATION: Located in the NE'/4 of the SE %of Section 29, T31N-R19W, Town of Somerset ADDRESS: 398192nd Avenue, Somerset, Wisconsin 5. ARTICLE: Special Exception request for a Wireless Communications Facility in the Ag/Residential District pursuant to Section 17.85(2). Request is by Sprint PCS to construct a 250-foot lattice Wireless Communication Tower. APPELLANT: Henry and Julie Leucken, Owner/Carlson & Harrington, Agent on behalf of Sprint PCS LOCATION: Located in the SE % of the SE Section 6, T30N-R19W, Town of Somerset ADDRESS: 384 Highway 35/64, Somerset, Wisconsin 2 6. ARTICLE: Special Exception request for a Wireless Communications Facility in the Ag/Residential District pursuant to Section 17.85(2). Request is by American Tower to construct a 300-foot guyed Wireless Communication Tower. APPELLANT: Thomas W. & Linda Weber, Owners/ American Tower Corp., Agent LOCATION: Located in the NW % of the SE Section 21, T30N-R15W, Town of Glenwood ADDRESS: 1408 300th Street, Glenwood City, Wisconsin. 7. ARTICLE: Special Exception request for a Telecommunications Tower in the Agricultural District. Request is by APT Minneapolis, Inc. to construct a 185-foot monopole telecommunications tower pursuant to Section 17.85(2). APELLANT: APT Minneapolis, Inc] Owner: William and Opal Haase LOCATION: Located in the SW % of the SW '/4, Section 5,T31 N-R19W, Town of Somerset ADDRESS: 324 230"' Avenue, Somerset, Wisconsin. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and be heard. Additional information may be obtained from the office of the St. Croix County Zoning Director, Hudson, Wisconsin at (715) 386-4680. Julie Speer, Chairperson St. Croix County Board of Adjustment Article One: Helen Larsen/ Jon Schiltgen Eslinger explained this request is for a special exception permit and a variance for a non- metallic mining operation, and went over the staff report with the Board. The variance is to allow the applicant to mine through the 100-foot buffer area that runs north and south through the property, as both properties, on either side of the line, will be mined. The special exception permit would be to operate a non-metallic mining operation in the Ag-11 District. This request came to the attention of the Zoning Office in the form of a complaint, and the applicant in working at coming into compliance for the business. They have gone through a rezoning, and are now asking for the permit to operate. The applicant has worked with ACA Engineers on a plan for this operation. The St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department has reviewed the application and has stated some concerns with the project, in a letter sent to the zoning office. The Town of Troy has recommended approval of the project with conditions. The following exhibits were introduced: Exhibit 1: Staff report Exhibit 2: Application and narrative, with photographs Exhibit 3: Copy of engineered plan Exhibit 4: Letter from adjacent property owner in opposition of request Exhibit 5: Letter from the Land and Water Conservation Dept Exhibit 6: Map defining boundaries of operation Exhibit 7: Correspondence from the Town of Troy Exhibit 8: Copy of bank reference letter. (It was noted that a letter of credit is needed) 3 Jack Larson and Jon Schiltgen, being duly sworn, explained the proposed mining operation. They plan to remove the sand from the hill on the property, and then farm the land once the mining is completed. Mel McElwain, being duly sworn, is an adjoining neighbor to the property. He asked that the Board look at placing conditions on the permit, if approved. Some of the conditions suggested were: Hours of operation to be Monday through Friday, and not on Saturdays, a berm should be installed, the tracking pad to be nearer to the road than where it is proposed, the property should be gated during non-working hours, and a reclamation bond put in place. McElwain also suggested that the permit be allowed for 10 years, and not be allowed to be subdivided. Staff added that the property is Ag-II, and allows for only one home per 20 acres. They added that bonding is required for mining operations, and also added that new pits must follow State Administrative Code N.R. 135. The Board will view the site. Article Two: Town of Hammond Eslinger told the Board that this request is for a special exception permit to allow the applicant to construct a town hall and future park in the Town of Hammond. He explained that all governmental uses must have a special exception permit. The town has submitted professionally engineered plans by Architectural Design Group, and have been working with the Land and Water Conservation Department on this project. The following Exhibits were introduced: Exhibit 1: Staff report Exhibit 2: Copy of application with narrative and attachments with site diagram Exhibit 3: Land and Water Conservation review Exhibit 4: Plans addressing Land and Water Conservation review Ken Peterson, being duly sworn, is the Hammond Town Chairman. He gave a brief history of the Town of Hammond, and stated that they have never had their own town hall. The town supports this request and feel it is important to have this new hall. A park is planned for the future on this property, as well. The Board will view the site. Article Three: Paul Paulson Eslinger told the Board that this request is for a special exception to operate an excavating business on a commercial site in Houlton. All uses on a commercial site require a special exception permit. Eslinger went over the staff report, stating that there is a single-family structure on the site and an existing business by the name of Custom Embedding. Paulson wants to locate his excavating business, Mann Valley Contracting, on the site, and plans to locate a small office in one of the existing buildings. Ninety - five percent of all operations are done away from the site. The hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and possibly an occasional Saturday. The access to the property is off of County Trunk E. The surrounding property is zoned residential and commercial The Town of St. Joseph has some concerns with the application, and has not give approval of the request. According to the ordinance, the town must give favorable approval of the request in order for the Board to render a decision. The following exhibits were introduced: Exhibit 1: Staff report Exhibit 2: Application and narrative including maps and photos of the site. 4 Exhibit 3: Letter from the Town of St. Joseph Exhibit 4: Map showing the alternate driveway location. Paul Paulson, being duly sworn, is the applicant. He selected this site as he believed it to be a good site for his business, and safe for his trucks to travel on. He went over the concerns stated in the letter from the Town of St. Joseph, and believes he has addressed most of the issues. There have been some questions raised by the zoning office with regard to the residential and commercial lots next to each other. Paulson is waiting for the final word from zoning on this. He plans to put an office at the site, and would install a septic system for his employees. The property is well screened, and Paulson believes it is an ideal location for his business, and he has no plans to expand his business. The Board will view the site. Article Four: Brian Parnell Eslinger told the Board that this is a request for a 47-foot variance to the setback requirements from a Class D road right-of-way to add on to the existing home. Eslinger went over the staff report. In 1989 the Board granted a variance to the applicant to allow him to construct a home on the lot. At that time, the variance was needed as the land was located in the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway District, and the home would not meet the bluffline setbacks, if it was not moved closer to the road. Since that time, this property has been taken out of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway area, but due to the structure meeting the bluffline setbacks at the time, the home now needs a variance in order to add onto the home. Eslinger added that there are no scenic easements on the property. The Town of Somerset supports the variance request. The following exhibits were introduced: Exhibit 1: Staff report Exhibit 2: Application with narrative and site plans Exhibit 3: Septic report Exhibit 4: Letter from the Dept. of Natural Resources Brian Parnell, being duly sworn, is the owner of the property. He said that Eslinger covered everything in his presentation and the staff report, and he is asking for approval from the Board to add onto his home. The current home is 26'x36' and the detached garage is 24'x36'. Tony Anderson, being duly sworn, is with the National Park Service. He stated for the record that no scenic easements were bought on this property, and it was thought that the property was under County and DNR jurisdiction. It is important to them that the area is protected. The Board will view the site. The Board recessed from 9:55 a.m. to 10:10 a.m. Article Five: Sprint PCS/ Luecken Eslinger said that this request is for a special exception to construct a 250-foot tower in the Ag/Residential District. The property is located one-half mile east of the St. Croix River in the Town of Somerset. The application has been forwarded to Jeff Nelson, County Tower Consultant, and he has not yet completed his report. The staff has some concerns with the application and Eslinger went over these concerns in the staff report. Some concerns are the visual impacts from the St. Croix River and applicant has not 5 shown justification to why co-location is not possible on an existing tower. The Town has not sent a response . The following exhibits were introduced: Exhibit 1: Staff report Exhibit 2: Letter from Paul Harrington outlining request. Exhibit 3: Application with attachments and narrative Exhibit 4: Map showing design of tower Exhibit 5: Letter dated June 6, 2001 from engineering firm of Sabre Communications Corp. with design criteria for tower. Exhibit 6: Landowner Acknowledgement letter from Leuckens Exhibit 7: Copy of liability insurance Exhibit 8: Letter from Sprint including propagation maps Exhibit 9: Photo simulations of proposed tower Exhibit 10: Letter from Kelly R. Davis in opposition of tower Exhibit 11: Letter from Evan Rice, Attorney for Sprint Paul Harrington, being duly sworn, is representing the applicant. He stated that the 250- foot tower is necessary to obtain the coverage needed in this area, due to the topography. They have an FCC license to put towers in this area. They have looked at other options, and found this to be the best one. The reason for the lattice type tower is that this type of tower is the best for co-location and the most structurally sound. He pointed out that the ordinance asks for towers to be constructed to allow for co-location. He is aware that there is a new tower ordinance being proposed for St. Croix County, but that has not been approved yet, so this application is under the current ordinance requirements. Alex Dietrich, being duly sworn, is the RF Engineer for Spring PCS. He handed out propagation maps to the Board for their review, and the maps were labeled Exhibit 12. Dietrich went over the maps with the Board, pointing out different sites and coverage areas. Discussion was held. It was explained that in order for Sprint to meet the requirements of their FCC license, they must cover this area completely, and not leave areas where calls would be dropped. They did take into consideration the realignment of Highway 35. Bob Pierce, being duly sworn, is representing the Town of Somerset. He handed out a map showing other towers in the area for the Board to review and this was labeled as Exhibit 13. Pierce stated that it has been frustrating for the town, as they have a problem with getting information from the tower companies. They feel they are not being completely informed, and therefore, have a difficult time making decisions. He suggested that a conference be set up with Jeff Nelson, the towns, county, and Riverway groups to talk about some of these issues, and talk to the tower applicants, to try to resolve some of these issues up front and alleviate some of the frustrations. Tony Anderson, previously sworn, is the Superintendent of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. He went over the background and history of the Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic Rivers Act passed in 1968. There has been approximately 33 million dollars spent on the land acquisition program that was put into place, to protect the river. He strongly believes the scenic area needs to be protected, and asked the Board not to move hastily in their decision. He agreed with Pierce that a joint meeting is a good idea. He believes that it is necessary to work with the tower companies to allow towers in the area, while still protecting the Riverway. 6 4 1 1 Paul Roulandt, being duly sworn, is with the National Park Service, and stated that they struggle with this issue, recognizing that technology is important, but believe the Riverway needs to be protected. He entered the following exhibits: Exhibit 14: Letter from the National Park Service Exhibit 15: View Shed map Roulandt went over the view-shed map with the Board, stating that the proposed tower would be visible from the St. Croix River. Joe Schneider, being duly sworn, is a communications expert with the National Park Service. He handed out Exhibit 16 to the Board, and explained that there is new technology out there where one antenna can hold two providers. He would like to suggest to the tower companies to work together to decide where the best site is to locate towers. The following citizens spoke in opposition of the request: Eileen Sixton, Leo Durand, Miles Wittig, Pat Sneider, and Nancy Nelson. They stated the following concerns: View pollution in the Riverway, hazards to habitat and wildlife, would like smaller towers that blend in with the area (stealth), loss of tourism, excessive height, look at putting in the Village of Houlton or Somerset, tower companies should answer questions completely and not be vague about their intentions. The following exhibits were introduced: Exhibit 17: Multiple articles on towers and their dangers Exhibit 18: Towers and their deadly hazard to birds The Board will view the site. American Tower/ Thomas and Linda Weber Eslinger explained that this is a request for a 300-foot guyed wireless communication tower in the Town of Glenwood. He went over the staff report with the Board. The tower would serve the Highway 28 corridor and surrounding area, including the Village of Glenwood City. The Town of Glenwood has requested approval of the application. The following exhibits were introduced: Exhibit 1: Staff report Exhibit 2: Application and narrative Exhibit 3: Letter dated June 13, 2001 from American Tower Exhibit 4: Correspondence from several agencies Exhibit 5: Letter of intent for four additional carriers Exhibit 6: Facility plan showing existing sites within the St. Croix County area Exhibit 7: Lease agreement with landowner Exhibit 8: Tower construction standards Exhibit 9: Site plan and location. Exhibit 10: Propagation maps Exhibit 11: St. Croix County tower Exhibit 12: Photographs Exhibit 13: Photos of Stealth towers Mark Holm, being duly sworn, is representing American Tower. He explained that his company builds the towers, and then finds companies to co-locate on the towers. He went over the process involved, and explained the propagation maps with the Board. 7 The nearest tower to this site belongs to St. Croix County. Holm explained that to obtain adequate coverage in this area, a 300-foot tower is needed. It would be very difficult to get the coverage needed with a 200-foot tower. Calvin Fogelman, being duly sworn, has been in this industry for 17 years. He said that tower companies are very specific about where a tower is located to achieve the greatest amount of coverage with one tower. The towers are designed at a height that will adequately cover the area, and will meet the needs of the carriers. In order to allow for several carriers, this type of tower is needed, as a monopole tower is not good for co- location of several carriers. The nearby county tower is a guyed tower, as well. The lights used on the towers are designed so that planes can see the lights, but has less of an impact on residents than most tower lights. Verizon plans to co-locate on this tower, and hopes to have other companies co-locate. They have gotten approval from the Town of Glenwood, with the town stating that they would rather have one tall tower than several smaller ones. A question was raised on the difference between coverage of a 200-foot tower and 300-foot tower. Fogelman explained that with a 300-foot tower, most of the Glenwood City area would be covered. With a 200-foot tower, several areas along Highway 128 and Glenwood City would not be covered. In the radio frequency tests that were done to determine coverage area, it showed that the 300-foot tower is needed. Tom Weber, being duly sworn, is the owner of the property. He is in favor of the request, as the cell phone service is not very good in their area, and people want to have better service. The closest neighbor is over % mile away. Weber added that they have been very good to work with. Chad Behrendt, being duly sworn, is an adjacent property owner. He is not really against the tower, but would like to see another location chosen. The tower would be directly in the view of their front porch. Holm told the Board that they would be willing to work with the neighbors in the area. The Board recessed from 12:40 p.m. to 1:40 p.m. APT/ Hasse Tower Fisher gave the background on this application stating that it had been tabled by the Board in September of 2000 as there were several outstanding issues. This issue was on the agenda for the June 28th meeting, and the applicant asked that it be postponed until today's meeting. The request is for a 185-foot telecommunications tower in the Ag District in the Town of Somerset. The following exhibits were introduced: Exhibit 1: June 28th Staff report. Exhibit 2: October 2, 2000 letter from zoning to Greg Korstad, Attorney for APT Exhibit 3: Town of Somerset Zoning Map Exhibit 4: U.S. Court of Appeals Case Exhibit 5: U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals case Exhibit 6: Letter from Jeff Nelson, County Telecommunications Tower Expert Exhibit 7: E-mail from Bob Pierce, Town of Somerset, expressing concerns Exhibit 8: Letter from DNR Exhibit 9: E-mail from Minnesota/Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission Exhibit 10: St. Croix River Association Letter Exhibit 11: Letter from City of Marine on St. Croix Exhibit 12: Letter from U.S. Dept. of Interior Exhibit 13: Copy of Master Plan for The St. Croix Valley Exhibit 14: Letter from Jeff Nelson 8 4 Exhibit 15: Tower Power article Exhibit 16: E-mail from Jeff Nelson Exhibit 17: Letter from Clarence Nelson Exhibit 18: Letter of objection from Diane Moser Exhibit 19: Response from Greg Korstad to zoning letter, including engineering report, photos and site information, along with various other attachments. Exhibit 20: St. Croix County VoiceStream tower sites Exhibit 21: VoiceStream response to Jeff Nelson letter. Exhibit 22: View shed map Greg Korstad, being duly sworn, is the Attorney for APT/ VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. He believes there are three points the Board should look at: 1) current ordinance standards, 2) history up to this point, 3) response to the Board's concerns/alternatives. Korstad stated that VoiceStream has looked at other options, but have not come up with a better area for the tower. He further stated that they comply with FCC regulations, and will be receiving a permit from the FCC in the near future. The permit has been delayed, as they allowed the National Park Service a chance to respond to the application. He said they have received a letter from the Minnesota and Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officers, and both have stated there would be no historical or adverse impact with this site. Korstad continued going over the concerns of the Board, stating that due to the fact that towers are not allowed in the Riverway, their RF engineer has stated that the tower has to be at least 185-feet, or would not provide adequate coverage. It was suggested to have smaller towers, and more of them, but that still leaves a problem for coverage, due to topography. He believes that all issues have been addressed to the best of their capability, and believes they meet all the requirements of the current ordinance. Tony Anderson, previously sworn, reiterated the investment that has been made in the St. Croix Riverway. He agrees there is a conflict with towers in the Riverway, but believe there are alternatives. Jill Medland, being duly sworn, is a Planning and Compliant Specialist with the National Park Service. They were late with their objections to the FCC, but were unaware that an Environmental Assessment had been filed by VoiceStream. Medland further stated that they have spoken with Mr. Korstad about using stealth towers, closer to the river, but have not gotten a response. They would be willing to work with VoiceStream on this. Paul Roulandt, being previously sworn, agrees with Medland that they are willing to work with tower companies on stealth towers, and locating them closer to the river. He also expressed that companies should consider using creative designs with their towers and showed the Board some alternate designs for towers (Labeled as Exhibit 23). A copy of the coverage map for the area was handed out and labeled as Exhibit 24. Several citizens, Jack Warren, Charles W. Arneson, Nancy Nelson, were sworn in and voiced the following concerns/ideas: Would like to see stealth towers and have tower companies work with the National Park Service, need to look at the visual impact to the river, disagree with state historical societies on impacts, impact to wildlife habitat, they believe the Board has discretion in this case. Exhibit 25 was introduced as a picture of a crane test taken in this area. Steve Ramberg, being duly sworn, is the Senior RF Engineer for VoiceStream. He explained that the map given to them by the National Park Service is for the Stillwater area, not this site. He added that the customers needs also should be considered. He 9 does not believe stealth towers would work, as the foliage and topography would interfere. The public hearing was closed at 3:20 p.m. The Board recessed to visit the sites and will reconvene tomorrow, July 27th, to render decisions Decisions The Board reconvened at 8:35 a.m. on July 27th to render decisions Article One:Helen Larsen/Jon Schiltgen A motion was made by Golz, second by King to approve the request for a special exception permit to operate a non-metallic mining business based on the following findings: 1. The use is allowed in the Ag-I I District with a special exception permit. 2. Conditions address the concerns of the Land and Water Conservation Dept. 3. The Town of Troy recommended approval. 4. The reclamation plan has been designed by a professional engineer. 5. The business serves a public need. 6. The spirit and intent of the ordinance will be met by granting the request. With the following conditions: 1. Mining project is to proceed according to plans presented. Any expansion beyond this legal boundary shall require a new special exception permit. 2. The applicant shall satisfy all of the Land and Water Conservation Department's (LWCD) concerns prior to commencing this mining operation. LWCD must review and approve the revised plans. 3. Site reclamation shall proceed according to the approved plan by the Land and Water Conservation Department. 4. The applicant must submit a reclamation bond for $50,000.00 to the Zoning Office prior to commencing this mining operation. 5. The applicant must furnish an annual certificate of insurance providing at least $1,000,000.00 coverage under a comprehensive general liability form or its equivalent from a reputable insurance carrier licensed to do business in Wisconsin. 6. All access points must be gated with steel (cattle) gates and locked during non- operation hours. 7. All truck hauling must use the haul road to County Road U as shown on the plan. 8. The applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the mining operation to the Department of Natural Resources, to comply with NR 216 provisions. 9. Operator/applicant shall comply with all of the general requirements and conditions listed in the non-metallic mining & reclamation ordinance (Ordinance # 226 (89) (unless varied per conditions). 10. Applicant is responsible for dust abatement during the duration of the permit. 11. Hours of operation shall not exceed 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m., Monday-Friday. The applicant may submit a written request for extended hours to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. 12. Permit includes temporary placement of equipment necessary to conduct the mining operation. 13. The disposal of solid waste is prohibited at this site. 14. Any change (or addition) in use, or expansion of the non-metallic mining project shall require review and approval by the Zoning Administrator and in some circumstances through the Special Exception approval process, where applicable, as stated in the ordinance. 15. This special exception is valid for a period of 5 years and expires July 2006. Applicant must either fully reclaim the site in this time frame or reapply for a new 10 special exception permit. The applicant is to contact the Zoning Office six (6) months prior to permit expiration, so that reclamation or permit renewal is complete by the expiration date. 16. Accepting this decision means that the applicant has read, understands, and agrees to all conditions of this decision. The following vote was taken to approve: Rose, yes; Peterson, yes; King, yes; Golz, yes; Chairperson Speer, yes. Motion carried. A motion was made by Rose, second by Peterson to approve the variance request to allow the applicant to mine through the 100-foot property mining line setback based on the following findings: 1. Based on testimony given, the two joint owners are in agreement to the variance request and both properties will be mined. 2. The variance will allow for the reclamation plan to be contiguous between the two properties. 3. The reclamation plans have been designed by a professional engineer. 4. The Town of Troy recommends approval of the request. 5. The spirit and intent of the ordinance will be met by approving the variance. The following vote was taken to approve: King, yes; Golz, yes; Peterson, yes; Rose, yes; Chairperson Speer, yes. Motion carried. Article Two: Town of Hammond A motion was made by Rose, second by Golz to approve the applicant's request for a special exception for a permit to construct a town hall in the Ag/Residential District based on the following findings: 1. The Town of Hammond approves of the request. 2. The Town of Hammond citizens are in favor of the use and the proposed location. 3. The plans for the request have been designed by a professional engineer. 4. Approval of the request would serve a public need. 5. The spirit and intent of the ordinance will be met by granting the request . With the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall follow the engineered plans as submitted and approved. 2. This approval allows the Town of Hammond to construct the Town Hall and parking area. 3. The applicant shall secure all proper permits for construction of the project. 4. Any proposed lighting is to be illuminated downward to eliminate light pollution onto neighboring properties. Box lighting is preferred. Parking • The applicant shall provide a dust free surface for the parking lot area. A plan identifying the dust free surface shall be submitted to the Zoning Office for approval prior to commencing construction. • Applicant to maintain a minimum of one parking space for each seven (7) seats. • Public Parks and playgrounds shall provide one space each four (4) persons designed to be accommodated. 5. The applicant shall have one (1) year from the issuance of the Special Exception permit to act on the Special Exception permit. Failure to commence business operation in this period shall result in the expiration of this Special Exception permit. If the Special Exception permit expires, the applicant will be required to 11 • secure a new Special Exception permit before commencing the business operation. 6. Any minor changes (or additions) in expansion of the project, including the changes to the designed plans, signage, lighting, grading, and parking, shall require review and approval by the Zoning Director. Any major change and/or addition to the originally approved plan will go through the Special Exception approval process, where applicable, as stated in the ordinance. 7. Accepting this decision means that the applicant has read, understands, and agrees to all conditions of this decision. The following vote was taken to approve: Peterson, yes; Golz, yes; Rose, yes; King, yes; Chairperson Speer, yes. All in favor. Motion carried. Article Three: Paul Paulson Motion by Golz, second by Rose to table the request for a special exception permit to operate an excavating business in a Commercial District for the following reason: 1. The Board of Adjustment requests that all of the issues raised in a letter dated July 11, 2001 by the Town of St. Joseph be resolved before a decision is made by the Board. The following vote was taken to table: Peterson, yes; King, yes; Rose, yes; Golz, yes; Chairperson Speer, yes. Motion carried. Article Four: Brian J. Parnell Motion by Rose, second by Golz to deny the variance request for a 47-foot variance from a Class D road based on the following findings: 1. This is a self imposed hardship. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 2. Granting of the variance would increase the non-conformity of the structure. The following vote was taken to deny: Peterson, no; Golz, yes; Rose, yes; King, no; Chairperson Speer, yes. Motion carried on a 3-2 vote. Article Five: Sprint PCS/ Luecken Tower Motion by Rose, second by Speer to table the request for a special exception permit for a telecommunications tower in the Ag/Residential District for the following reasons: 1. Before making a decision, the Board requests to review the findings of the: • County's tower consultant, Jeff Nelson, and; • The town's recommendation 2. The applicant must address the staff concerns listed in the staff report (listed below). • Applicant to provide visual impact demonstration/simulation with mock-ups and photo simulations showing impact this tower will have on adjacent properties and specifically impacts the 250 ft. tower, located approximately one half mile from the St. Croix River, will have as viewed from the Lower St. Croix Riverway. These requirements are consistent with 17.87 (4) (d) (1). • The applicant is encouraged to re-design the facility (or multiple facilities) in conjunction with the proposed language of the WCSF ordinance. • If unwilling to re-design the facility in concert with the "proposed" language, then efforts must be made to lessen the visual impact this tower will have on the Lower St. Croix River. Applicant to consider stealth technology, and explore other alternatives to lessen visual impact. This application appears to 12 be a standard tower build-out in a very scenic area. In any event monopoles are preferred "standard" towers and must be used unless alternative "standard" towers are adequately justified - see 17.83 (9). • Applicant must clearly justify why co-location is or is not possible on the 130 ft. APT tower, 1,000 foot Park Board Casting Tower, and the 199 ft. tower located at the Martell Well Drilling property (these towers are located in the vicinity of the proposed tower site) - see 17.86 (3). • Applicant must indicate how the tower meets the purpose of Section 17.80 (3) of the St. Croix County Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance. "Minimize the adverse visual effects of wireless communication facilities through careful siting and design standards". 3. The Board requests that the applicant rename ("in layman terms") or clearly identify and label all tower sites on the propagation maps. Board members and staff were confused when the RF engineer reviewed the propagation maps during the public hearing. Using numbers and letters to identify each site created confusion among the board members and staff. The following vote was taken to table: Rose, yes; Golz, yes; Peterson, yes; King, yes; Chairperson Speer, yes. All in favor. Motion carried. American Tower/ Thomas and Linda Weber Tower Motion by Rose, second by Golz to table the request for a telecommunications tower in the Ag/Residential District based for the following reasons: 1. Before making a decision, the Board requests to review the findings of the County's tower consultant, Jeff Nelson. The committee requests an opinion from Jeff Nelson comparing the 200-foot tower height versus the 300-foot tower and why the 200-foot tower does or does not meet the coverage objectives required by Verizon Wireless. 2. Applicant is to provide more information on co-location on the County owned tower. The applicant is to provide documentation that supports why co-location is or is not possible on the County tower. 3. The Board requests that the applicant look at a 200-foot monopole design at this site. The following vote was taken to table: Peterson, yes; King, yes; Golz, yes; Rose, yes; Chairperson Speer, yes. All in favor. Motion carried. APT, VoiceStream/ Haase Tower Motion by Rose, second by Golz to deny the application for a 185 -foot monopole telecommunications tower in the Ag/Residential District based on the following findings: 1. The 185 -foot cell tower would be visible from the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. 2. The applicant has not adequately researched or brought forth information on an alternative site or multiple alternative sites to lessen the visual impact on the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. 3. The National Park Service (NPS) has provided testimony stating that they would work with the applicant to explore and develop stealth sites within NPS riverway areas. 4. The board agrees with the following observations highlighted in the staff report: 13 ' • The applicants have not adequately responded to item #4 in the staff letter dated October 2, 2000. #4. Applicant to provide a detailed plan that lessens the visual impact of this proposed tower to the adjacent area known as the "Lower St. Croix National and Scenic Riverway" and to adjacent historical areas. Applicant to provide pictorial renderings of their proposal. This has been referred to as "stealth" concealment. Th applicants have not modified the original tower design, nor have they provided substantial information regarding alternative stealth designs (modification of this site or consideration of less conspicuous multiple sites). • The applicants have not adequately responded to item #5 in the staff letter dated October 2, 2000. #5. Applicant to provide information on alternative sites with explanations of why they do or do not work for their intended purpose. The Board specifically requested that a plan be prepared (with a narrative, map and mock-up) that shows more towers at lesser heights to lessen the visual impact on this national scenic area. It is unclear; to what extent other sites were actually considered/investigated/analyzed. Alternative mock- up plans have not been provided. • Section 17.80 (3) of the St. Croix County Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance states as one of its purpose statements " "Minimize the adverse visual effects of wireless communication facilities through careful siting and design standards". Of any area in St. Croix County, the Lower St. Croix Riverway andriverway valley is one of the most scenic areas in the region. This region requires careful wireless communication service facility siting and design to minimize adverse visual effects. Staff agrees with the opinion of the cell tower consultant in the letter dated September 27, 2000 which states: "it is our opinion that the APTNoiceStream monopoly proposed for the Haase property is a "standard" design which does not attempt to minimize (conceal) the adverse visual effects to the St. Croix Riverway District or the adjacent historic preservation areas such as those found in Marine on the St. Croix. We further believe that via alternative placement and design efforts APTNoiceStream coverage objectives could be satisfied in a fashion which has a lower visual impact upon the St. Croix Riverway District". Extraordinary scenic qualities require extraordinary consideration for proposed wireless communication service facilities. • While it appears a gap in cellular coverage exists, the county board of adjustment must decide if the application (and associated design) is appropriate considering its location. • The following is a brief except taken from a recent publication: Protecting Scenic Resources While Providing for Wireless Communication Facilities. A Master Plan for the St. Croix River Valley. St. Croix Wireless Communication Service Group, March 2001. 14 Introduction The St. Croix River Valley is home to breathtaking vistas and open spaces that are treasured by residents and visitors from around the region. Despite its close proximity to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, the Valley has retained a strong regional identity and character. The majestic scenery around the St. Croix River is one of the things that makes the Valley so special. Multi-tiered bluffs rise to as much as two hundred feet above water within two miles of the river and four- to eight-mile views are common from the upper tiers. The St. Croix serves as an important corridor for migratory birds and many species depend on natural areas in the Valley for nesting habitat. Towns in the Valley retain their historic "small town" character and many areas are suitable for historic protection. Formal historic districts are located in the Minnesota towns of Afton, Marine on St. Croix, Stillwater and Taylors Falls and the Wisconsin town of Osceola. Historic structures and other unique cultural sites abound throughout the valley within and outside these districts. The interspersion of natural areas, historic towns and small farms create a distinctive cultural landscape in the Valley. People are drawn here to live, work and play and there is a growing need to serve the population with state-of-the-art communication services, including wireless technology. As the wireless telecommunication industry expands through the Valley, local residents and governments are working to balance the desire for wireless service with the need to protect the Valley's scenic and regional values. Home of a Wild and Scenic Riverway At the heart of the Valley lies the St. Croix River, a waterway renowned for its natural beauty as it winds from Upper St. Croix Lake to its confluence with the Mississippi River. In 1968 the upper portion of the river, from its headwaters to St. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls was designated for protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542, as amended). The Upper St. Croix and its major tributary, the Namekagon, were among the eight original rivers to receive protection under the Act. Soon after, the lower section of the river from St. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls to Prescott/Point Douglas was designated under the Act. In total, the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway is 252 miles long. It is managed by the National Park Service in partnership with State and local agencies. The lower 52-mile stretch is known as the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (Lower Riverway). It is the border between the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota. It fronts five counties: Washington and Chisago in Minnesota and Pierce, St. Croix and Polk in Wisconsin. This Master Plan focuses on the area around the Lower Riverway, and may be useful for municipalities along the Upper Riverway that are facing new telecommunication facility proposals. The Master Plan does not apply generally to the rest of Wisconsin and Minnesota. 5. This tower and this location had tremendous public and agency opposition. 6. Of any area in St. Croix County, the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway and riverway valley is one of the most scenic areas in the region. This region requires careful wireless communication service facility siting and design to minimize adverse visual effects. This proposal does not minimize adverse visual effects. 7. The record will indicate the various concerns that the public and agencies had with this application. The various concerns are found in the public testimony and the exhibits brought forth by the public and governmental agencies. 15 The following vote was taken to deny. Rose, yes; Golz, yes; Peterson, no; King, no; Chairperson Speer, yes. Motion carried on a 3-2 vote. Chairperson Speer adjourned the meeting at 9:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted: Ricfi Peterson, Secretary Debbie Zimmer a , Recording Secretary 16