I'd like to call the man's order for the Nissan Comm Mission Board of Adjustment for Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026. Roll call, please. >> Aaron Baseman, >> Sean Weldon, >> Josh Young, >> Gary Harris, >> Dave Reese,
>> Steven Timberland. Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? >> There are none. Being none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I I opposed. Motion carries. >> Next to approve the meeting minutes for
May 5th, 2026. Are there any corrections or additions to those minutes? >> None. >> Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. >> Make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries.
Next item is an open form. Is there anyone present tonight that like to speak towards something not on the agenda this evening hearing? None. I'll move on. Moving on to public hearings. I'll entertain a motion of the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries. >> All right. First item is conditional use permit application 011-26 seeking a conditional use permit for construction of a freestand freestanding sign inclusive of a dynamic display upon
an existing curb island adjacent to within Smiley Roads right ofway in the highway business zoning district. Subject property is located at 23962 Smiley Road Nisa 56468 P 28230559. Owner applicant uh Andy Schaefer. Andy,
come on up. >> Oh, >> hello. Good evening. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. Um, as stated in that, uh, we're just looking to put up a display sign in the island. Um, I
think I gave you in the packet the all the fancy pictures and stuff. Yeah. Stephen, your staff report. >> Thank you. Uh, so yes, we have a cup here for a dynamic display sign. Um,
that's the main component triggering a cup for this application. Uh, those are processed through that conditional use permit pathway subject to the standards in section 20-478, which I included in my staff report. Um,
some items in those requirements are minimum display duration, um, technical settings on those dynamic display signs as to how bright they are, when they get shut off, um, and things like that. Uh so as long as all of these standards can
comport with the application and from my interpretation it looks like the size of it and all of that fits the requirements um then >> this seems logical to prove the certificate of survey um dated on 1230
of 2024 with revision 42926 depicts the placement of that in that existing curb island. Uh it is on the subject property. However, it's encumbered currently by the uh right ofway for Smiley Road. So, placement is depicted to be within that right of way.
Um I look at that as a pivot on this CU application and an opportunity for this body to operate as a advisory capacity to city council um with conditioning that would protect the city's interest in that right of way. Um so, in my staff report, I did list several conditions.
It looks like eight total so far um that kind of add that protection and um pivot it toward the city council approval in this case. Other than that, happy to field any questions as it relates to it.
>> Y we have any questions? >> We do not >> any questions over here? No, I guess the only question I've got is that and it's it's in the staff report and the letter from Witsouth on fact that the sign is
in the rightway. That's up to city council has to deal with that. Is that correct? >> Yeah. Any dispensing of um authorization within the rightway corridor would be a city council action. >> Yes. >> So that would be a condition of the
conditional use permit. >> Yep. Okay. Number seven says, "Failure to obtain rightaway authorization shall render the CUP null and void as to the proposed sign location within the rightway, and the sign must be relocated to a code compliant location outside the rightway or the CUP amended accordingly.
It' be a two-part action at council is how I would envision it. First to address the CU and then also to address the right-of-way execution of an agreement. Right. No other questions. >> Questions. >> If you'd like to make public comment
regarding this project, please step towards the podium and state your name and address. I guess there's no hearing. None. I'll close public comments. All right. If we have no other questions, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the
condition conditional use permit application 011-26 seeking conditional use permit of for structure of a freestanding sign inclusive of a dynamic display upon and exiting curb island adjacent to within Smiley's Road right ofway in the highway
business district uh subject to subject property 23962 Smiley Road Nisa Minnesota 56468 today P 28230559 uh for Schaers uh of Nisa uh with the facts and findings and conditions set
forth an approval of city council. >> Yeah. Recommend approval versus approve at this body I would say. >> Okay. >> Do we have a second? >> Yeah. Do we have a second? >> Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries.
>> Thank you. >> I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Move. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. All opposed? Motion carries. >> All right. Next item under new business is meets and bounds lot Jethro Carpenter
Northstar Land Company LLC. Kevin. >> Good afternoon. Kevin McCormack, Land Design Solutions, 11821 Lake Trail. Mr. Carpenter is also here with us this evening. Thank you. >> Okay, Stephen.
>> Thank you. So, we do have a split of a parcel proposed here out in Royy's Landing. Um, it' be lot one, block one. Uh, both track A and track B appear to conform to ordinance standards as follows. Tract A being sized of lot area 101,000 ft where 30,000's required.
Tract B is at 61,000 to that requirement. Uh for lot width, they both appear to exceed the 100 uh foot lot width minimum. And for buildable area, they also exceed that figure for 12,000 being the minimum at 37,900
for track A and 35,987 for tract B. Um that's what I have for that lot size analysis in in regards to this lot split. Okay.
Have any questions for Kevin? >> Well, I'm not >> all the ordinances are met on the split, correct? >> Yep. As far as lot sizes and stuff, uh I think it's possibly worth noting that the shoreline of this parent parcel has a bluff that would be property line to
property line for proposed tract A. So utilization of a walkway down that would have to be ran on its own separate timeline for a staircase go down through that bluff zone through a troll and old permit and meet those standards. Otherwise for the split I see no uh real
other things of note there's site suitabilities uh for primary and alternate septic locations for each um so largely compliant. Okay. So, we'll need a a motion for the lot split and then we'll move on and do a
motion for the boundary line adjustment, too. So, we'll need a motion for this one. If we have no other questions, I'll entertain a motion. Make a motion. that we approve the uh the lot split,
meet and balance lot split of u or u lot one block one of or block two of rise lot one of block one of rise landing as as presented in the staff report and according to the
conditions that are stated therein. Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Next is meets and bounds boundary line adjustment. >> Stephen.
>> Thank you. So, this application is pertaining to lot two block one and lot one block two of the same plat Royce Landing. Um, this one's a little bit more complicated. Um, this one would typically be an administrative process to do a boundary line adjustment between
two lots of record. Um, however, the location of this um, split and what it is involving also involves a easemented area dedicated to the city of Nisah through the plotting process for a potential future road. Um, so the survey
that we see here depicts that shift between this line, I'm going to call it C5 because that's just a call out that's nearby it. That is the existing uh lot line between the northerly parcel and the southerntherly parcel. That
shaded area called out as tract D is that portion that would be transferring from the southerntherly lot to the northerly lot. uh as that shift occurs. So also too is proposed to have the roadway easement moved as well. Uh so this would be a city council action
again as it pertains to um those areas that the city is holding in trust. Uh and so this would be a recommendation capacity to city council. Um I have structured into this lot split the same analysis for lot size minimums. uh both of the resultant tracks appearing to
meet the lot area, lot width, and buildable area requirements of their respective lake classifications um and structured some conditions to protect the city in regards to the um moving of the easement. And it should
also be noted that part of tract C is an alternative access corridor or on the original plat for those lots in block two lot 1 through 4 being the beneficiaries of it. Um you also see a
proposed trail easement in your packet depicting the new corridor that would be for that access portion. Um it would be my recommendation that in condition number three uh that there's a
acknowledgment that the of the two easements that the city's roadway easement should take precedence and supersede the trail. Um, so I've stated in that conditioning that in the event that the city utilizes its roadway easement outlined in condition number
two, the trail relocation, if deemed necessary by the city engineer, must meet the satisfaction of the city engineer and such relocation shall occur at the expense of the homeowners association for this plat. um what that would do and my interpretation is if the city decides 10
years from now, 20 years from now that we want to put a road there and we go out to find a trail in the center of the corridor that we'd be putting our road that um we have the ability to execute our needs. >> Yep. So those are all part of the
conditions then those >> are the potential conditions. >> Those are the four potential conditions. Um, we got a email from Dave Reese, our city engineer, earlier that asks a couple questions of the applicant
and um, number one was, will the existing trail that has been constructed on the current trail easement be relocated to the proposed trail easement? To me, that's a yes or no. Is it is the proposed trail easement following the corridor of the trail that's already
there? uh for the most part uh down around that curve area uh it falls out of it. So, we would probably want to move that within the new corridor >> um as well. And that comes right down to
Dave's question on number two. Um the existing easement left provisions uh during the platting process to extinguish that easement. Same thing would most definitely apply here. Uh get the get the trail where it's supposed to. city holds top priority to that
easement. If the road ever went in, this trail easement would be extinguished and it then becomes public way of course. Okay. And I think that uh question number three, if the city decides to construct a public roadway on the proposed 66 foot
wide public easement alignment, will the private trail easement that is also located remain intact or be vacated. Sounds like that your answer. >> I think you're right on that one, Dave. For sure. Just like the plat. It needs to be extinguished otherwise it just hangs there.
>> True. And for question four, the question of what properties are the benefiting parties to the trail easement. Um it's staff's interpretation that that came from the plat approval that that's an alternative access for those lots one through four, block two.
>> That is also correct. Correct. I have no further questions but here for analysis or comment as >> did that address everything Dave did you >> okay any other questions from the group here >> do not
>> okay I'll entertain a motion >> move to recommend to the that the council move ahead with approval for lot line adjustment application 013-26 for Northstar Land Company LLC. Uh again, according to the staff report,
the discussions uh that we had here at the meeting and the conditions, the potential conditions that are listed. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor?
>> I All those opposed? Motion carries. >> Thank you very much. All right. Next item is chapter 20 communications tower regulations. I think I have a some individuals here that like to speak on that. Sure.
>> Um, good evening. My name is Paula West. I live at 25839 Trailside Run in Nysa. And um my friend Roger Landers and I were the uh appellants to the cell tower
um variances that were um appealed. And in the course of that it was we felt that it was important to look at our current self uh tower ordinance and see if there's ways that we can improve it to make a win-win situation for the
community and for the residents. And so we have done that. And in your packet, we um have uh put together a couple of recommendations for you on changes to uh chapter or section 20, article 4,
division 4, communication towers, and Roger is going to summarize the values of that. Ha, he thought he was going to get out of that. So, um, so we hope that, you know, you'll take this under consideration as a amendment to the the ordinance and it
would make it easier for, uh, a cell tower company to, uh, position a cell tower in the community, uh, not necessarily be restricted to just city land and some other, uh, benefits as well. So
>> you can tag them in. I don't Stephen, we I just might want to add I thought Stephen might summarize it since he included it in the packet, but >> Roger and I did meet with Stephen um uh after the last planning commission meeting and before this meeting to go
over this and and he was very much in agreement I think with uh what we've proposed and so he can speak to that. But um Roger has a few more >> good evening planning commission. I'm Ron Gerlanders living on Edna Lake Road
for the last 38 years. So anyhow, um let's uh I I'll briefly summarize. Let's go with the very first one that we we uh would like you you consider and that's section 20-419 and that's the location where several
towers are to be placed. As you know, in the city of Nesa, there's only one uh classification district classification they can be put in, and that's that's public recreation. And that's very limited. Uh we we feel because we would
like for you to consider opening it up to to to other uh uh to to other classifications. And I believe if you you look at that uh that list there, I I think it's very appropriate. We are following the uh the Crowing County
model. Crowing County believes that that cell towers can also be placed on private property as well as public and that's what we're opening up for Niswalk. Let's uh but still the the the the property owner would would have to
uh agree with with a a tower company to put it on their property. All we're saying is let's open it up to to some other places that that we could we can do it rather than just a public location and and those are identified u on the u
uh on our recommendations. Um and we I might add too that um under this um um suggestion the highway business um corridor too is another possibility. As we know, the city owns
land on 371, and when that land is reszoned, that would be another possible area to to put a cell tower. There's uh been a lot of technology improvements, and when we appeal the the variances, we
did a lot of research on what is possible and what the technology is out there and and virtually in four or five years, satellites are going to be the way that cell tower cell coverage is provided. So cell towers may may be on their way out. Um but um also once that
land is reszoned then it could be out there and there and they certainly with different technology uses of different technology they could provide the coverage. We hope that would reach the downtown area where there uh is um uh lacking in coverage right now.
Okay, let's take a look at the second uh option that we would like you to consider and that is setbacks. And this is a a specific setback that our ordinance doesn't address and that's the the fall zone setback. That means the the height of the tower when it if it
would happen to fall plus 10 ft. Again, that's in that's a very common language that's in the the Crowing County uh ordinance as well as the Briner and Baxters. And I'm sure it's just I don't I don't know how uh uh the city missed this, but this this is a fairly common
standard that's in in all tower ordinance. So we would would like to see uh that and and uh that that's also been uh simply put in the uh uh the um the paragraph that that's I I don't have
that paragraph in front >> right here >> in front of me but it's uh it's it's in red. The fall zone is what we're looking at. And the other comment there is just a personal comment I made um when I gave this information to Stephen, but I
personally live within 500 ft of the tower that was proposed here. And I don't I think 500 ft from a residential area is still uh not enough because if you cighted it a,000 ft, a tower that
was proposed 190 ft would have still been objectionable to residents in the area. So, one of the reasons why we are um suggesting different zones is to to get it away from residential areas and yet be able to provide coverage that's needed.
>> Okay. The uh the third recommendation we're uh we're uh um supporting is the um going with a monopole structure rather than the lattice uh triangle or
quad quad angle uh tower. uh our ordinance only uh our ordinance identifies these towers should only be placed at 150 ft and a monopole can certainly handle that and if you look at the the monopole designs now they're pretty sleek they're more vis visually
attractive uh and I think that uh we we should consider uh only adopting uh if we if we approve a monopole uh structure Anything else to add to that?
>> Okay. So, th those are the three that are in uh section 20 of the uh of the land use ordinance. The other one actually falls in um in um well, I guess it it is in section 20,
but it's it's in the 20- uh 656. That's in the appeals section. Now I'm realizing the plan commission does not get involved with appeals and u but we feel there should be a more definite
process when appeals do happen uh with with land use ordinances that it it it appeared to Paul and I that it was very cumbersome uh when we got to the uh to the council with the appeals that there
wasn't really a a structure uh that that was uh that was identified for for not only us but also to the to the council members. In fact, I can recall that one of the council members had had the have the city attorney kind
of kind of review how these appeal. So, it's not something you do often, but we feel that uh that our planner can very easily uh uh come up with a process to to handle these types of appeal. Maybe Stephen, you you want to address that a
little bit? >> Sure. >> Um yeah, so in regards to the variance appeal process, it is structured under that section 20- uh 656 subp part J um for variances. There's other appeal language in our ordinance such as that
for conditional use permits. So should be noted that if we clarify it here, we also clarify it elsewhere where such language might exist in the ordinance and I can certainly facilitate that if we engage in a revision scope project.
Um, as far as the appeal process, I could certainly draft up like a a diagram showing, you know, what this looks like, step one, step two, step three, and things like that. That would mainly be an administrative thing in my in my interpretation. It certainly could
be codified into ordinance language, but that might not necessarily be uh 100% necessary. Once it's codified, then you have to go through that public hearing component to even adjust a letter to it. So, um my recommendation for paving out a
smooth appeal process would probably be an administrative capacity, not necessarily an ordinance amendment related item. Um definitely something that I can do at the pleasure of the planning commission or city council. So, um,
outside of that, >> that's all right. I I think that's, uh, that's very well rewarded. And the one of the frustrations we had, uh, this was when we got to the appeal, this was strung out over, uh, maybe three council
meetings. We we uh, tabled it. Um, >> got tabled for two months, if I remember, >> two months. And and so it it we so we had to to to deal with a rather uh lengthy process of just not only of just not having um one meeting to deal with
but two or three others and we had the uh uh Verizon involved and and you know they they weren't here one and we you know we had to make sure that they were uh involved with it. So I I think a more definite appeal process should be
identified. Well, and and one thing that we discussed, Stephen, was that as a a a person making an appeal request, it was very confusing. We didn't know when the pee a hearing was going to happen. How much time do we have? Uh and again, it's
because that the process was not well defined. But one of the things we discussed was if you if administratively Stephen developed a a uh appeal form, the process could be listed on that form. So it was very clear to the appellant exactly what that process
would be. >> Any questions for us? >> Um I guess when you were talking about the appeal process, I understand where you're coming from, but is do we as a body can we make those adjustments or is that city council that has to make those adjustments?
>> I think that would mainly be a policy driven thing from city council as to what that should look like. Um, if it's especially if it's not something that's codified in chapter 20, land use and development. Um, if it was language that you were looking to adopt until the chapter, then it would be before you guys as to what do you think about the
language specifically. Um, acknowledging that the policy directive might be coming from a the higher level of city council there. Um, so certainly something that moving forward from this new business item for you guys could be discussed at the city council level. I
do have, not to try to pivot or anything, but we rapidfired through some of the first items on this like location, setbacks, and self-supporting structure. I do have some feedback if you'd like to hear it >> about those things. >> Yeah.
>> Um, so location, we have a couple different things that are kind of nuanced going on here. Um, we have the public and recreation district. That's the current zoning designation of which we'll entertain a CU for communication tower. The suggestion is to open up for
highway business district and open space residential. Um I want to hone in on that open space residential category for just a second as it is a residential district. um section 20-420, which is the second part of their recommendation,
is to um possibly increase the residential zone setback of 500 ft. Um if we wanted to move forward with open space residential allowances, we would want to really hone in on that setback um for
residentially zoned parcels to say perhaps that open space residential is excluded from that because that's now a district we put a a tower in. Um so that's one little nuance thing that I would look at uh polishing up if we did open up and go through a revision scope
of this is how do we clarify that? How do we harmonize the intent of residential separation from also allowing it in a residential district? Um, I could do that administratively in that school provision. Um, the
self-supporting structure requirement, our ordinance does current currently require that it is self-supporting. We do not allow guide towers um with guide wires that go off in three different directions. Um, our ordinance does recommend
a it says should utilize an open framework or monopole configuration. So that monopole element is in there, but we also allow for open framework. So food for thought on if we wanted to be very exclusive on what type of tower and wanted to really limit it just the
monopole versus that open framework as well. Um, but again the the main separation there is the guide towers in my interpretation. So other than that, happy to field thoughts, foster your discussion.
>> So just just because I'm somewhat new to this whole tower thing, but >> so were we not allowing it on private property before? >> Correct. >> No, it's only on >> city property. >> Uh I'll read the section here. I'll put
it on the screen for you. Section 20-419. Uh tower is prohibited in central business district and encouraged on certain city property. Uh it says tower shall not be located on any non cityowned residentially zoned or central business district zoned parcel of
property within the city. First preference for sighting tower should be given to the city-owned parcel of property currently containing the municipal sewer ponds. That's the the language within our ordinance that says um just public and recreation in harmony with our land use charter that puts it
as a conditional use only in that district but also prohibited elsewhere. Um and we already have a tower down near the uh municipal sewer ponds. I think we exhausted that in previous conversations and a little bit through the appeal. Um,
so I think what the individuals here before us today are asking is, hey, that seems pretty restrictive. Can we open it up? Should we go to residential right away or do we want to open it up to other ones? What's the what's the pulse on loosening the reigns a little bit if
we wanted to? Is kind of how I'm zooming out and looking at this comprehensively. So, >> and I also would like to see that the central business district is expanded beyond it what it's currently considered to include where the fireh hall is and
the community center and uh because right now it's not considered um central business district, but in all essence it really is. Um you know, we've got the the uh uh heritage right across the street. um the village, the pioneer
village. I mean, that's all part of the central business district. So, just trying to prevent what happened before. We're not against cell towers. We just want to make sure that they're appropriately placed.
>> I think that that's a zoning map um concerned primarily potentially, if I understand you correctly, maybe looking at reszoning that. Um, one thing that I would note is that the city of Nisa and the Department of Natural Resources, both land owners within uh the city of
Nisa, have followed a pathway to zone all of those holdings to that public and recreation designation. Um, so this that potential of reszoning the fire hall, reszoning the community center might
veer from that trajectory in consistency. But just a side note as it relates to that, >> we before you um ask any specific questions um on the second page there's some additional suggestions. Um these
were taken from the Crowing County ordinance. Um and they're kind of minor but yet I think um important. Um the first one um Crowing County 43.2 two um
is uh about applicability. >> Yeah. You know, first off, Stephen, did you did you make any comments on on these seven that that we um that we identified? >> I have not yet. No.
>> Okay. So, again, they are uh they're minor, but we feel that likely they are supplementation and and the fact that they are in the Crowing County uh tower ordinance and after all we are we
consider uh the Crowing County model uh for all of our land use. We kind of look after them. We just feel like that these uh these seven uh these seven should also be considered and I and maybe Stephen you you need to take a maybe a
closer look at these or to to see if they will fit in or if there any duplications. Well, so I'm scanning our ordinance on the on the other screen here as it relates to a couple of them. Applicability that basically says that it's unlawful to act without prior approval from the department or the
city. I think we have that in our ordinance. It's just elsewhere under the administration and enforcement sections. Um general standards and signage um add the requirement that the owner's name, telephone number, um all of that type of stuff be posted on the gate. I don't believe that that's in our
communication tower ordinance. I do think that that would be something that could be wise. say there's a problem that that a passerby identifies, can they identify the owner and let them know sooner after obviously calling emergency services, but um that would be something that might be a prudent
introduction. >> This is not on the tower itself. This is on the any out any any u buildings accessory buildings that they put that's fenced in. That's what we're talking about. >> Yeah, I think that that's logical and reasonable. Um, it's just a simple
requirement that you advertise who this belongs to and who to contact in the in an event of something. >> How about three, the lighting of accessory building. Is that >> is that >> I think we might have some type of stuff in here. Let's go to section 20-4.
>> I think the purpose of this is really just to ensure that there isn't any visual pollution, nighttime pollution um going on from the tower. Of course, there is height requirements in terms of lighting, but >> yeah, >> this is not necessarily for the tower
itself, but for >> accessory building. >> Mhm. So, we do have um section 20-420 subp part five, a lighting requirement, no illumination of towers be allowed. This is more so in my mind, the lighting at top the tower. Um those that are
larger than 200 ft, they have that FAA requirement stepping in. Um, there could be something that's introduced under that particular subp part that talks about accessory structure signage or lighting rather and the illumination on them perhaps being downcast as opposed
to just illumination, >> sconces, things of that nature. >> Um, but I think the principal thing might be downcast lighting as opposed to outcast and upcast. >> How about the next one? The the site plan drawing the scale. Do we have
anything? I I couldn't seem to find anything in our Again, this is in Pro County, >> right? As it relates to communication towers, one of the submission requirements for that is a certificate of survey. Um, and those certificates of
survey are bound to be to scale. So >> the the fifth one um well actually it's an FFA requirement that they uh have to meet those those requirements. Um, I guess when we were appealing it, this
this doesn't refer to this, but in terms of safety standards, the um what's the department? The federal >> FAA uh >> which which one
>> for uh safety? Well, it's not OSHA, but >> FCC. >> Yes, the FCC. Okay. Um they have there the safety standards that were submitted with the variance application were from
1999 and those uh v those standards have been um uh they've been updated over 20 times and they didn't apply to 5G and today we have 5G which has uh different um
radiation standards. So, um I don't think we need anything in the ordinance about that because they have to meet um that's really a federal issue that they have >> uh that they're not enforcing that. >> Well, and the city has adopted by reference that section of the
telecommunication act of 1996 um under section 20-418 subp part B. It says the city adopts by reference section 704 of the telecommunications act 1996 etc. to the extent applicable within the city. So what I think what
Paul is saying is we don't administer or enforce the federal requirements and those upper limits and stuff. Um but under question five here I think your ask is to codify a requirement that a copy get given to the city
>> an updated copy >> current copy. Yeah. and and there was a lot of concern about the radiation with a um an assisted living facility 33 feet from where that tower was going to be placed. >> Should be noted that that same
telecommunication act prohibits municipalities, cities, counties, uh planning and zoning determinations to be made on the basis of human health hazards. They just simply have to operate within those thresholds set by the FCC.
>> Okay. Number six is the leasing agreement. Um so we realize the current ordinance that the leasing agreement is between like Verizon and and uh and and um the city.
So if we were to if a private property owner gets involved um I I guess I'm not sure if this you're going to have to help us out here. uh Stephen if this really relates to uh the city's uh
jurisdiction or not and is this in in the uh current ordinance? >> My interpretation to that is in essence it is because right now we require that it's only on city owned property. So a lease agreement would have to come before the city at some point. Um, where
I would draw a cautionary line in the sand is what interest does the city want to partake in handling civil elements such as a lease between a land owner and somebody that is the grantee of that lease on private property. Um, could
potentially be a slippery slope that we're standing upon. >> Well, all I'm saying it's it's in the county ordinance. Well, the land owner would would have to um have a lease agreement with the >> with the company, but the city would you'd have to provide a conditional use
permit for that activity. >> And it does say demonstrating a good faith effort to lease or purchase space. Um so, some type of statement saying that they tried getting their antenna located on another existing tower is essentially
what that means. Um, if we were to adopt that same language into our ordinance, um, says the applicant shall submit proof in the form of a signed affidavit demonstrating a good faith effort to lease or purchase space on an adjacent existing tower
facility. That adjacent existing tower facility, in my opinion, is important because it's it's almost like mitigation under the wetland conservation act. before you get a replacement plan uh to build a driveway or build a house in a wetland um you have to show that you're
minimizing that and go through what's called sequencing. So um did you try to colllocate an antenna on Verizon's tower if we were talking to AT&T or vice versa? Um we certainly could look at adopting that. I think that that would
be a policy thing for you guys to hammer out whether that's something that we want to have as a submission requirement for these applications and then uh ratified that through council and similarly I can work on red lining language like that into an ordinance and we can go through the public hearing in
the proper fashion. So, if that's something that we want to consider throwing in there, >> you asking uh >> I'm just stating. >> Okay. >> Y >> the recommendation.
>> And the the last one is um just factors to consider in granting a C conditional use permit. We do have language that relates to this and don't know if there's anything in here that's not included. Visual obtrusiveness, although
there is um a statement in the current ordinance about being visually uh not um um obtrusive. >> Yeah, I could look at Crowing County specific performance standards into parts A through K um cross analyze them
to our existing language and neighboring municipalities and try to synthesize that. Again, if we move forward with rolling this into the next phase of ordinance revisions, I would certainly go through all of these motions. >> Okay, Dave. >> Well, thank you very much for
considering these um suggestions to >> hopefully be a win-win for the community and and for the residents of Nisa. >> Thanks for your work on it. Awesome. >> Can I have a couple questions? Go
>> ahead. >> Um, just to to summarize the process here, I think what uh Miss West and Mr. Landers has done is uh of credit to you. It's a they're all good suggestions and
and uh this process should be you know we we did bypass it in our in our chapter 20 ordinances the tow the revising the tower chapters. Um,
can I uh I fully agree that appealing or u streamlining the appeal process probably should is is would would be a part of it necessity. Um allowing the towers on private property I also think that
that's should should be considered. And um so far as design on these poles and monopoles, I I would have no problem at all trying to see the city of Niswah limited limit our towers to monopole
design. um just the design or the what goes into the process for those the uh because of what they are without any guywires and the and the type of structure the foundation that's underground that holds those things is is grossly oversized compared to the
weight of the pole you know to for counterbalance so um that you talk about fall zones and I think that's been necessary over the years especially with regular towers that are are triangular in in nature. And with guywires, they
they could fall. Uh but the new monopole designs are made so that they have what's called a fold to them. If they were overweight and they got in high winds on the top, they don't fall over. They actually fold. They're designed to kind of fold up so they drop in place.
>> Um and and so they're much safer design than than what regular ones would be. So, I mean, some of that should could all should all be taken into account. I think the other thing with with the other tower being downtown uh next to the fire department, the the fire
department was going to be a benefactor of this poll, you know, for their radio use >> and it didn't one of the meet
when when Just >> they made a comment about a generator like whether we would be sharing a generator. I do recall something about that collocation of antenna is a requirement. >> Repeater came up like a repeater. >> They were going to use the poll for a repeater.
>> I think I think that was taken off like they couldn't use the repeater. >> Okay. Okay. Strike that. And then I guess after the discussion that was we've had tonight, where do we go from here? Do you you going to draft a >> um
>> is your office going to draft a proposed ordinance and for language for it and come back so for discussion or >> Well, at your pleasure, I would draft a memo. If you recommend um initiation of staff review of language comparing to
Crowing County, harmonizing and synthesizing these proposed changes from Roger and Paula. I could bring that to city council and say, "Hey, these are the minutes from the planning commission board of adjustment in response to um Roger and Land or Roger and Paula's um
proposed summary. Um then that would greenlight me then to start actioning some language changes, redlinining in our ordinance that would actuate those. Um we would go through that same review process as we did for the chapter 20 stuff. Um once we have close to a final
document, they bring it back to city council. Let's start the public hearing, bring it back through you guys and we can start that. Um whether it's on its own independent pathway or if there's other stuff that's been identified that we want to tie into that almost like
this is a part of a phase, we could do it either way. So um how urgent? Well, you guys tell me. Um it's busy season right now, so permitting is in full swing. Um typically ordinance revision
um timelines would be better suited for the winter months for planning and getting that through, but I could start actioning a simple focused ordinance change such as this yet the summer if it's an independent thing. So options
are yours and I would uh just bring forward from this meeting to city council and that they're June just an agenda item saying hey we discussed this um Paula and Roger you're more than welcome to come to that too if you if you want to do you is that your request of us is to kick it to council next
month or this month rather >> one thing we don't know >> they're off mic They should be on. >> Yeah. Sorry. >> Yeah. >> I don't know that there's urgency to do this, but what we don't know is what if
anybody has talked to Verizon since the appeal. >> Steven has not talked to him. Maggie, have you talked to them? >> We don't know what their intention is. Um I so in in terms of that, you know, in
case they do decide to come back, which I personally doubt they will, but um in case they decide to come back that, you know, we we have this process started at least, I think would be good and then there could be urgency to pass it through if necessary. >> Well, they're not the only company
either. So if companies all a sudden come knocking on the door. >> Well, >> we we went through this. So I would hate to see that we're not prepared for the next time if >> right >> AT&T doesn't have AT&T in this area don't seem to have as much difficulty
um with um cell coverage as Verizon. And I, like I said, I live within 500 ft of here and if I go outside of my house where I have internet, I cannot make a phone call 500 ft from here. So, and and calls get dropped all the time. So,
Verizon is the main the main problem with cell coverage here. >> Well, if you want to use the term urgency, I guess that improving the reception in the downtown area is really what this is all about. And it's it's not an urgent thing where it has to be fixed overnight.
But it is but it is a problem that that and technology just like uh like she was talking about earlier may very well >> change you know it see technology is changing so fast that yeah >> five years from now or even two one year
from now you never know what you know with Starlink maybe what everybody's living off of you know the only happening fast. Yeah, sorry. The only urgency I would see is if if by passing it to where we could go to where a private we could go into the private
market with these, it might help them identify before they come in. >> Sure. >> The need for a variance might not be as high for sure. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Well, at minimum, my recommendation would be to bring this to city council um at their next meeting. Just an agenda item saying, "Hey, we talked about it.
We started discussion. Um is this something that we want to do?" and let them maybe decide the urgency to it. At that same meeting, we would have our city attorney in attendance to kind of opine on well this these are my thoughts this month. Um where then city council
could direct next steps of them. So >> yeah, my two cents I would recommend that that we bring it to the council meeting here. >> Is that a motion? >> That's a motion. Second.
any Do you have any additional comments? I mean, >> no. I just Yeah. No, I just It just surprises me that we I guess I never realized it that we didn't allow it in the private sector where I came from around the Princeton, Oak River, Zimmer, the Burman area. Everybody had them on. I mean, that's It was actually like
winning the lottery if someone Yeah. >> put a cell tower on your property. It was like, "Please pick me." >> Well, I think there's there'd be additional concern about setbacks if we're doing it on private property. I'll just give you an example. So on our on our lake, they had something similar
with a cell tower and everybody hated it and it's 2 miles away, but and everybody's field of view on the sunset, it's right in the center on the whole western shore. So they still talk about it. I mean, everyone despises it because of that reason. So even if it's this far
away, there's ways to complain about it. That's all I'm saying, >> right? No, I agree. >> There are better looking towers now, though. >> There is. >> They look like trees. There's one on over by >> lake guide wires light flashing two flight I mean >> I can't imagine anything worse than
that. >> Well >> or if that cap comes off then I heard it's really something like if the >> Oh yeah. >> The cap over the light bulb itself comes off blows off falls off. >> Oh yeah. Great. Yeah.
>> So okay. Yeah. Well, I have a a a motion in a second to >> forward this on to city council. >> Wait. >> All those in favor? >> I I >> All those opposed? Motion carries. >> Okay. Get down the road.
>> Yeah. >> Uh next one is old business none city planners report. >> Thank you. >> Uh so as I mentioned we are in full swing for the business season. Um getting a lot of septic designs. um and compliance inspections through the winter window season that we just
endured. Um thank goodness summer's here. Um and so business is good in the permitting department. Um we did have that ordinance amendment follow through uh to city council where it was approved and published to the Pine Lakes Echo on May 27th. So that is complete and those
ordinance revisions are in effect. um already had the benefit of a couple permits that were um a little bit more flexible in regards to that because of those changes. So I think that that is a good indication as well. Um not in my city planner report.
I was um provided a notion of a donation for a clock tower clock and bell tower uh to the city of Nisa by current city council member Zan. And um so this planning commission might have a
application before it at some point here if that donation comes to fruition. So I just wanted to put an early plug in that we might see something like that come forward. Um early design concepts indicate that and potential location it might have
potentially depending on the location of variance application or maybe even a CUP. But, um, I think it's an exciting thing, could be a a landmark for downtown. So, we're just kind of early on that topic, but Councilman Zan wanted
me to bring that before you guys just under my city planner report and say that that might be on the horizon here. >> Shades of Back to the Future. >> Yeah. >> Where would it where where's the proposal to >> uh kind of in the heart of the town
here? um close to downtown where it can be viewed. It's a four-faced tower. Um >> cool. >> And so, you know, wherever you're at downtown, if you hear the bells chiming and cell phone location. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Right on the cell tower location. Huh. >> Oh, no. Maybe with an antenna on top. >> Okay. Yeah. Any additional comments, questions? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I oppose. Motion carries. Meeting is journed. Who made the original motion? >> Make it good. No,
>> it's all good. All right. There we go.