Based on the context of the Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting and the names of the city staff provided, here is the transcribed meeting with speaker names added. **Note on Planning Commission Members:** The names identified from the dialogue include Chair Kurts, Commissioner Scanland, Commissioner Sandal, Commissioner Hass, Commissioner Schindler, Commissioner Mahal, and Commissioner Puit. *** [0:00] **Chair Kurts:** [Music] I call the March 5th 2025 Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting to order. The first item of business is the approval of the agenda. Any changes from staff? [0:15] **Tim Benetti (Community Development Director):** Madam chair, members of commission, uh, with your approval or permission we would suggest or recommend that we move item 4B, the Planning Commission annual report, down to 7A and then we'll start with, uh, the a short presentation on the report followed by the Apple Valley Bike and ped plan and then review of upcoming schedules. If you would so make that motion. [1:10] **Commissioner Scanland:** So moved. [1:12] **Commissioner Sandal:** Second. [1:13] **Chair Kurts:** Motion made by commissioner scanland second by commissioner sandal. All in favor say I. (I, I, I) Oppose nay. Motion carries. Thank you, thank you. Any changes from the Commissioners? Can I get a move for approval? [1:25] **Commissioner Scanland:** So moved. [1:27] **Commissioner Hass:** Second. [1:28] **Chair Kurts:** Made by commissioner scanland and second by commissioner Hass. All in favor say I. (I, I, I) Oppose nay. Motion carries. Next item of business is the approval of the consent agenda. Consent agenda items are considered routine and will be enacted with a single motion without discussion unless a commissioner or citizen request to have any items separately considered. It will then be moved to the land use action item for consideration. Can I get a motion of approval? [1:55] **Commissioner Scanland:** So moved. [1:57] **Commissioner Hass:** Second. [1:58] **Chair Kurts:** Motion made by commissioner scanland, I believe it was seconded by commissioner Hass. All in favor say I. (I, I, I) Oppose nay. Motion carries. That brings us to number four, the annual business meeting. So for 4A, we are going to be nominating and approving officers. Do I have any nominations? [2:25] **Commissioner Scanland:** Madam chair, I um nominate current chair Kurts for the chair position. [2:35] **Commissioner Hass:** Second. [2:40] **Chair Kurts:** Or any other nominations? [2:45] **Commissioner Scanland:** Madam chair, I nominate um commissioner Schindler for secretary. [3:00] **Chair Kurts:** Any other nominations for secretary? Okay, anybody want to nominate for the vice chair? [3:10] **Commissioner Scanland:** Madam chair, I nominate myself for vice chair position. [3:20] **Chair Kurts:** Are there any other nominations? If not, can I get an approval or yeah, right—or do we vote first? Do we vote first or do we approve it first? [3:30] **Tim Benetti:** We approve right—approve the motion and then you can, uh, enact that as a suite of officers in one motion as well. [3:40] **Chair Kurts:** Can I get approval? [3:43] **Commissioner Mahal:** I would move to approve the nominated slate of officers. [3:45] **Commissioner Scanland:** Okay, second. [3:47] **Chair Kurts:** So the approval was made by commissioner Mahal and second by commissioner scanland. Are there any um other discussions about it? If not, if in favor say I. (I, I) Oppose nay. Motion carries to chair Kurts, Vice chair Scanland, secretary Schindler. Congratulations everyone. Congratulations. That will bring us then to 5B which is our public hearings and our public hearing tonight is the bethl Assemblies of God Church wireless communication Tower and we have Sydney Stroh as the presenter on that. [4:15] **Sydney Stroh (Planner):** Good evening chair Kurts and Commissioners. I will do have to do the open first. We now will open the public hearing for agenda item 5A. The Affidavit of publication for the notice of public hearing is available for inspection in the planning department. Everyone wishing to speak tonight at this public hearing should be sure to fill out the attendance roster. Please include your name and address so that accurate records can be maintained. We will begin the procedure with a brief presentation by City staff followed by a presentation by the petitioner of the hearing. Upon the conclusion of the presentation, City staff will be asked to comment on the proposal's conformance with pertinent regulations and policies. After that, comments will be taken from the general public. Tonight I will be presenting to you the request for a conditional use permit for a wireless—sure—tonight I will be presenting to you a conditional use permit request for a Wireless Communications Tower at bethl assembly's church. I do want to note we did provide an updated resolution to you all. The reason for the update was because we did have the City attorney review the draft resolution. The changes that were made were mainly formatting changes and then a couple of additional clarifications to a few suggested conditions. Specifically, the request is for an 86ft tall Wireless Communications Tower at the existing bethl Assemblies of God Church property. I believe it is otherwise known as Beth's Rock Church. The existing site is located just west of Cedar Avenue. The proposed Tower would be located in the South End of the parcel near 143rd Street West. For some background, a similar conditional use permit was approved for the same property in 2017. The previous cell tower was proposed to be located in a large curb island near the center of the property. A conditional use permit lapses if, um, a building permit is never issued, and for this proposed Tower, a building permit was not issued, so therefore it lapsed. The zoning of the property is institutional and a tower is a conditional use allowed in this Zone. There are a number of performance standards that regulate Towers. The performance standards that Towers must adhere to are set out in section 155.34 of city code. The applicant has submitted a memo that includes details on meeting each performance standard. There are three main categories that are reviewed when considering a Communications Tower: collocation requirements, construction requirements, and then general area standards like setbacks and height. The memo and plans provided generally meet all of the requirements set out for Towers. One performance standard that staff has suggested conditions for is related to Clause B8 of section 155.35. This would include requirements related to color, screening, and Landscaping. I will go over these identified areas of concerns as well as the suggested conditions later in the presentation. The submitted site plan shows the tower location, the 30 by 25ft equipment pad area, and the driveway access for the tower. The setbacks for the tower are based on an engineered break point. The submitted documents identify the break point as half of the tower height, or 43 ft. Based on this break point, the required setback to the property lines is a minimum of 64.5 Ft. All property line setbacks are met. There is an additional setback to structures on neighboring properties. The minimum distance based on the break point would be 86 ft. The closest neighboring structure to the proposed Tower would be 153 ft. Additionally, the site plan shows a gravel driveway. I want to note that the gravel material is not a permitted material for a driveway under city code. A condition is included in the draft resolution to require the driveway to be paved. Lastly, the city requires sidewalk installation when development occurs. There is a sidewalk Gap along 143rd Street and we are seeking to fill this Gap. There's a condition provided in this engineering memo that would require a sidewalk installation essentially along the South property line of this site, so basically running from here to here. The proposed Tower is designed to be a monopole with the antennas mounted flush to the tower. This is the preferred design per the tower performance standards. I want to point out a couple of Staff identified concerns regarding the pad area and the ground equipment. The code allows the city to require screening of the base of the tower via landscaping and fencing. The tower is within a wooded area, but as you can see it would be visible from the roadway here along 143rd Street. Staff is suggesting a condition to address this by requiring year-round Landscaping adjacent to 143rd Street. Additionally, the proposed fence is shown as a chain link material. Staff recommends a condition to update the fence to a solid opaque material to further screen the ground equipment. Lastly, the color of the proposed Tower is shown to be a color that would match the church. The church appears to have a couple of colors used throughout the buildings and staff is unsure which color the applicant is referring to. We would like to further review this to ensure that it would blend in with the surrounding wooded area of the proposed site. The recommended draft conditions provided are on the following slides. This is just a reminder to the commission and to the public that the city may only place reasonable conditions that are associated with the required performance standards as described in city code. A bulk of the conditions shown on this slide are more sort of our boiler plate conditions related to conditional use permits as well as a CUP for a tower. I have condition seven here in bold just to note that this is where the requirement for sidewalk installation is included in the resolution. I want to touch on a couple of conditions on this slide that are more site specific for this specific Tower conditional use permit. I've mentioned most if not all these throughout the presentation, but as a summary, we have recommended conditions related to year-round screening, maintenance of existing trees to ensure long-term screening, updating the fencing material, paving of the driveway, and then a condition related to the tower color. I'd be happy to go over any of the specifics of these conditions if there are any questions. Thank you Sydney. We have received a couple of mailed public comments that have been provided to you tonight and will be included as part of the public hearing. The recommended action for tonight would be to open the public hearing, receive comments, and then close the public hearing. We do have the applicant here tonight and then I can stand for any questions as well. Thank you. [12:20] **Chair Kurts:** Okay, thank you Sydney. Commissioners, anybody have questions for Sydney? Commissioner Scanland. [12:30] **Commissioner Scanland:** Madam chair, Sydney, um with the previous approval that we had done back in, I think it was 2017, do you recall what the height of the pole at that time was for that project and color selection that we approved? [12:55] **Sydney Stroh:** Um, I don't recall the color, but I can say that the height was about 84ft. It was just slightly under what the proposed height for this Tower is, which is 86 ft. [13:00] **Commissioner Scanland:** Okay. Um, additionally, is there any—this appears to be a number of existing mature trees—any disruption or removal of trees? [13:08] **Sydney Stroh:** Chair Kurts, commissioner Scanland, the proposed plans do show a slight removal of vegetation in the area, which is why we have included a condition for a tree preservation concept which is required as part of the natural resources management permit. [13:30] **Commissioner Scanland:** Okay, yeah. And if this goes forward, I think it would be might be prudent too to take a look at, with the density of everything and the trees that are existing there, that there's some protective measures that would take place to protect the trees that are going to remain so they're not damaged during the construction. And the other thing I had was for the applicant, so I’ll wait till they do their presentation. [13:58] **Chair Kurts:** Sydney, I just want to echo that. I think the chain link fence is a good idea to be replaced. I think the opaque solid fence will look much better and cover more stuff. And of course, the paved road. Commissioner Puit? [14:20] **Commissioner Puit:** Yeah, um, thank you chair Kurts. Sydney, just curious, it's a short drive to the Tower and I understand there'll be a fence around it. Any consideration of a gate or something to prevent this from being a turnaround in that area? I don't know that it's obligated to have something like that, just curious. Anything to prevent people from kind of turning into that drive? [14:50] **Sydney Stroh:** Chair Kurts, commissioner Puit, I will say I do not believe we have a specific requirement related to that. I do know that this specific driveway is meant only for access related to maintenance and any other, you know, tower construction type use. There may be some sort of signage that could be included and I would have to defer to the applicant to see if that's a possibility. [15:10] **Commissioner Sandal:** Chair Kurts, Sydney, um I echo some of the similar concerns as commissioner Scanland with the trees. It looks, based on the drawings, that they are trying to place it where they have to remove as little as possible of the trees, but I would just like that to be confirmed—that that is what the attempt is, to remove as few trees as possible when that's being done. Thank you. [15:40] **Commissioner Mahal:** Chair Kurts, Sydney, just kind of a follow-up with respect to the tree preservation: does that include replacing trees that may become diseased or damaged? [16:00] **Sydney Stroh:** Chair Kurts, commissioner Mahal, we do have a condition related to maintaining existing trees and then including the additional year-round screening that would be installed as well. I believe the landscaping would be reviewed and we do have a condition in the engineering memo that's related to Natural Resources Department having final approval of the landscaping plan. [16:35] **Commissioner Mahal:** It just wasn't clear to me in the language there that that would include potentially replacing trees that might become diseased or damaged in any way. [16:45] **Sydney Stroh:** The intention of condition number nine would be related to maintaining those existing trees that do provide the screening to the surrounding residential specifically. So, for instance, if one of those trees were to die or fall over, whatever, the intention would be that the property owner shall maintain that so that the screening doesn't go away one day. [17:00] **Commissioner Mahal:** Okay, thank you. [17:05] **Chair Kurts:** Okay, looks like no one else. Can we have the applicant up? [17:15] **Blair (Consultant, Fel Consulting):** Good evening, my name is Blair. I'm with Fel Consulting, and we are the consulting company that works with Verizon through the leasing and the zoning process and finding sites for the tower. So I'll start by just addressing a few of the things we just talked about. The opaque fencing—what we plan to change that to is a composite wood material, so it looks like wood but it doesn't age in the same way that cedar would. Tree removal: we don't plan on removing any mature trees. Often there's trimming that's required, but we don't plan on removing any, doing any significant tree removal. And typically we would install arborvitae or whatever we are directed to in the facing 143rd Street. This site, the intent is to offload capacity from six other sites that are in and around Apple Valley about within a mile to a mile and a half of each direction—North, Southeast, West. So the primary goal is not just to add coverage, but it in fact increases the efficacy of those surrounding six sites. It's like adding another wireless router to your house, very similar to that. And a little bit more history on the 2017 conditional use permit: it's very common in this industry for sites to be entitled, designed, go through the entire process and then get put on hold. So that's what happened in this case. And the church, Bethl Assemblies or Beth's Rock, purchased it from the previous church, so it was at that point that we decided mutually to move it down into the wooded area. And I would be happy to field any questions. [19:00] **Chair Kurts:** Thank you Blair. I have a few questions. First question is just out of curiosity so I can learn about this a little bit: how many towers do you need for good coverage? I mean, like a Verizon tower, within 5 miles, 10 miles for good coverage—what is usually the ratio on that? [19:25] **Blair:** Yeah, so it's a really variable question, and it has to do with what type of service you're using. Just like a call and a text can be several miles, but when you get down to providing fast data and home internet, it can be upwards of a mile depending on how dense the population is. Apple Valley, especially in this area, is very residential, a dense suburban area. So those surrounding six towers I mentioned are not adequately serving the area. So, I know it's not a specific answer to that question, but that's kind of how it's evaluated. [20:11] **Chair Kurts:** No, it's good. It's just that you'd be kind of tired to see so many Towers every mile or something. The other thing is—so Verizon has their own Tower—do other companies like AT&T come in, or is AT&T even there anymore? I don't even know, Sprint or whatever, do they have to have their own separate Tower? [20:30] **Blair:** Yeah, you're referring to what's called colocation, which is when multiple carriers join on one Tower. That's very common; that's actually the first thing that we look at when we're looking for sites. Our last resort is to build a new tower. It's the most expensive way to create the infrastructure you need. So we look first for existing Towers—there's nothing in this area. So that's why we're building a new tower. As part of our application, Verizon committed to allowing other carriers onto their Tower as well. [21:10] **Chair Kurts:** Thank you. Two more questions and I'll be done. I have a couple letters here that concerned citizens sent about exposure—RF exposure. Could you relate on that? [21:20] **Blair:** Yeah, so the FCC is part of Verizon and all the wireless carriers' licenses. They govern the amount of emissions that they can create with their sites. So it's Verizon's job to design their sites to comply with that, which they do—it's well within those emission limits. But the short answer is that's governed by the federal government. So it's not a jurisdictional question, and in terms of specific RF safety, I can't really comment on any definitive information one way or the other. [22:00] **Chair Kurts:** So there is exposure is kind of what you're saying then, or... [22:05] **Blair:** Yeah, everyone's exposed. When you pick up the phone and put it to your head, it's—yeah. Giving any specific data, I try not to get—you know, I'm not knowledgeable enough to do that, I'm not a doctor or researcher. So what I can say is that there's strict and clear guidelines that the federal government gives and that's what they operate within. [22:25] **Chair Kurts:** The last one was just a little bit about the wind and the ice buildup and stuff. Has that ever happened before with a tower, with the 1.5 inches of ice and then the wind of 50 mph? Has it fallen? [22:30] **Blair:** It's extremely rare, especially for a tower of this height. You often see that with larger Towers, especially guide towers that don't have as much steel, but in this situation it's highly unlikely that it would fall. That's why we design it with that break point, because it doesn't fall—it doesn't rip out of the foundation and fall like a tree; it collapses on itself. [23:05] **Chair Kurts:** Thank you. Yeah, I think commissioner Hass, you were first. [23:10] **Commissioner Hass:** Chair Kurts, can you give us some examples or something similar within the area of where a Tower's at that might be in a setting like this? [23:20] **Blair:** Yeah, the one that comes to mind is in a park in Eden Prairie. It's about the same height. I can't remember the name of the park but it's very similar—you know, highly residential area. They picked the only institutional non-residential area kind of like we have done in the location that would work for Verizon. [23:55] **Commissioner Hass:** And are there trees around that one also similar to what you're looking at here? [24:00] **Blair:** That one specifically it's next to like a hockey rink with a warming house so it's kind of made to emulate that warming house. Another actually good example—one that we're building this year—is at the Maple Grove Fire Station, and that also has the flush mounted antennas, very similar to what this design is. [24:15] **Commissioner Hass:** So the trees around this—just make an assumption here—they're probably 40 maybe 50 foot or better? [24:20] **Blair:** Yeah, probably between 30 and 50 foot maybe. [24:22] **Commissioner Hass:** So the tower is going to be another 30 ft above that? [24:24] **Blair:** Yeah. [24:25] **Commissioner Hass:** So it is screened quite a bit. That's one of the advantages of this location over the parking lot. Okay, good. Thank you. [24:45] **Commissioner Puit:** Yeah, thank you Chair Kurts. Quick question: it sounds like you may have answered this, or maybe you didn't provide the answer, but I just want to be a little more specific. So my understanding is FCC sets emission limits. What are those limits and how are they measured? You know, is it microwatts per square centimeter and what are the expected emissions for this Tower? [25:10] **Blair:** Yeah, I don't have that specific information with me. We can provide that as a supplement, certainly. All I can say is that they regulate it at the federal level and so they follow those guidelines. [25:25] **Commissioner Puit:** Okay, so I guess we'll have follow up on that. [25:30] **Blair:** Yeah, we can definitely provide that certainly. Thank you. [25:35] **Commissioner Scanland:** Chair Kurts, I have a couple of questions here. The first is: what other options or locations did you consider besides this location? [25:50] **Blair:** Yeah, so like I said there's six surrounding sites within a mile and a half, so you really have to be very pinpointed. You can't go even a quarter mile one way or the other; it really can affect the efficacy of the Tower. So you know, we look first for collocations as we mentioned, and then the ordinance actually requires us to exclude any options within a half mile of where we're proposing. So in this case there's no Towers within that half mile radius. We looked at buildings—there's nothing over four stories, and I think the only four-story building has a pitched roof which precludes any antennas for the most part. [26:40] **Commissioner Scanland:** The other question I had was with the FAA Lighting on top. Will that be required? [26:50] **Blair:** It's not required here, no. The FAA rule of thumb is 200 ft. Anything 200 feet and above requires it, with the only exceptions being if you're really near an airport or a flight path. [27:15] **Commissioner Scanland:** Okay, because it was referenced in the drawing and that's why I was going to ask the question about shielding. Then you had mentioned with the previous question that you had these additional locations with similar design aspects to what you're going to be doing here. Is that something then you can provide some photos of for the next time? [27:40] **Blair:** Yeah, absolutely. [27:45] **Commissioner Scanland:** And going back to my question about other locations, to the south of this location it becomes more commercial versus residential. What about options in that direction? [27:55] **Blair:** Yeah, there's an existing site—and you may know it better than me—it's about a mile south on Cedar Avenue and the next street... essentially we can't go in that area, it would be too close. [28:15] **Commissioner Scanland:** I think it would be helpful not just for us but for the general public to have a better understanding of your site location—maybe have something simple just to plot out where the existing ones are in your rationale for selecting this site more visually. [28:35] **Blair:** Yeah, we can present narrative to that. [28:38] **Commissioner Scanland:** That would be, I think, real helpful. Thank you. [28:40] **Commissioner Mahal:** Chair Kurts, I'd like to just one or two follow-up questions to commissioner Puit's questions with respect to the emissions and the concerns about them that have been raised by the emails and the letter. I understand that it's a federal issue established by the FCC. The question I have is: are there ongoing tests or monitoring of the emissions? I would imagine that the equipment itself has some sort of specification with regard to what those emissions might be, but does that change over time as the equipment is used, as the equipment ages, and is there any requirement to monitor the emissions, especially relative to residences or human occupation or proximity? [29:50] **Blair:** Sure. So the specific monitoring process I would have to bring as a supplement next time. It's continually adjusted as new technology comes out. 5G is different than 4G which is different than 3G etc. So they do use different antennas—you'll see them change on the towers, they look a little bit different now. So the FCC does readjust every time these new technologies come out. Verizon and the various companies have to purchase new Spectrum, which is new frequencies, essentially lanes on the highway of wireless technology that they can operate in. So at that point, it would be my guess that they review their emission guidelines. [30:50] **Commissioner Mahal:** Okay. And so just with respect to this being an FCC issue, the emissions are part of the considerations that the FCC would consider in determining whether to approve a license at any location? [31:00] **Blair:** Exactly. It is a site-specific permit review. They kind of buy the lane—think of it as like the whole country is on a big highway, so they own this specific spectrum that operates within all of their sites. [31:40] **Commissioner Mahal:** That makes sense. I just wanted to make sure that as it's an FCC issue, the issues regarding the emissions coming from cell towers would be part of the FCC's consideration in determining whether or not to approve. [31:50] **Blair:** Exactly. And that's why you don't find them anymore in Municipal ordinances, because City attorneys are aware that that's not something that is within the municipal purview; it's been litigated out in that way. [31:58] **Commissioner Mahal:** Thank you. [32:00] **Chair Kurts:** Okay, thank you very much. So at this time, I will ask for the public comments. Please come up to the podium to speak and address all comments and questions to the Chair. Please, when you enter or come up to the podium, state your name and your address. [33:00] **Rich McCabe:** Bear with me here a second. My name is Rich McCabe and I live at 14365 Glendevon Drive. If you could put up the screen again here? Do you want to see the site plan? Yes please, actually the picture of the... yes right there. As I heard the gentleman speak, the prior permit that was approved, the Tower was here. Now it's here. As I said in my address, I live right here and I'm here to speak against the tower because I don't believe it really should be anywhere close to a residential area. You have a Town Home Association here, you've got a Town Home Association there, you've got rental buildings here, you've got condominiums, you have a daycare center here and here with children. I'd like to read portions of a letter to the editor that I wrote and was published last Friday. This Tower will be next to a town home Community where I live along with 67 other families. There are many other people living in private homes, rental condominiums, co-ops, child care centers in the residential area north and west of the tower. The health risks of such a tower are well known especially for children. Some communities prohibit Towers near schools. In just looking on the internet, I find that many times a community will prohibit a tower next to a school and I have a whole list of them here. Sherborn, Massachusetts: no wireless antenna within 3,000 ft of a school, within 1,500 ft of homes. Copake, New York: no Wireless facilities may be within 1,500 feet from homes, schools, churches or other buildings containing dwelling units. Bedford, New Hampshire: no Wireless antennas within 750 ft of the nearest residential zoned property. I could read more, but I think that tells the case. This Tower too, they say 86 ft tall—I heard it was 90 ft with another extension—it will be seen for miles and I think it will devastate the home value of people in the town home area. Many of these residents are elderly and they depend on their home value for their next phase of living. I really can't see why the church would actually put the Tower—move it from the parking lot into this residential area. I'm concerned about people climbing the tower. I have a question too regarding the trees: has the people involved discussed this with the gas company? There's a gas line running right here, and I believe that picture was an old picture because the gas line company took down all these trees a year ago. So that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. [38:25] **Chair Kurts:** Thank you very much. We will get back with you on those questions. Unless Blair—you don't have to come up now—but do you know why there was a change of location on that church? Why don't you come on up? [38:40] **Blair:** The church has redevelopment plans related to the building on the very south side to move it, expand it, and move it to the West, so it would conflict with their plans. [39:00] **Chair Kurts:** Okay. Can you address whether or not it's 86 ft or 90? He's referring to an extension. [39:08] **Blair:** He’s referring to a lightning rod, so it's a small 4-foot metal piece that extends, and then there's a grounding system. [39:15] **Chair Kurts:** Thank you. Generally we don't answer the questions the night of, so sorry to put you on the spot. [39:30] **Blair:** Do you want me to address any of the other ones? [39:35] **Chair Kurts:** No, I think we'll get back with you on the rest of them. Thank you. Anyone else? [40:00] **Scott Narison:** Madam chair, Commissioners, thanks for the chance to speak. I guess I'm a representative of the other Town Home Association. My name is Scott Narison, I live at 14239 Glen Cove Trail. I'm in that stretch of town homes with the paler roofs just west of Bethl. I represent myself and 25 other homes in that Association on the board. I share Rich's concern about the pipeline—I forget who manages it in the current day, we always call it the Magellan pipeline, and it does run right between Panak Fourth, my Association, and Panak Shores, Rich’s. I haven't heard engineering assurances that everyone has been involved and taken care of the issues there. The height of the Tower does seem to be a concern for us who live that close to it. About twice the height of the tower will seem to be above the tree level that we can see from our homes, and to the extent that's an eyesore and could reduce property values, it's a concern. One thing I did not see in the presentation was any kind of eye-level view that might try to represent what this will look like. It seems like an architect or engineer could offer a little more detailed view of what we'll see. And Blair did not answer whether someone ever comes out into the site and verifies that a tower is performing according to the restrictions. I didn't hear a clear answer that we will verify that it is operating below the limits of what the FCC says is safe. Finally, my final concern is just wondering what the construction of this will look like, how long it will take, and whether it all happens from the 143rd Street side. If there is any involvement with these neighboring associations, I would like to hear it. Thank you for your consideration. [43:00] **Chair Kurts:** Thank you. We'll follow up with those. Anyone else like to speak? [43:15] **Jim Peterson:** Madam chair, Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Jim Peterson and I live at 14378 Pennock Avenue. It's roughly two blocks from where the Tower would be built, less as the crow flies. I would echo the comments of my friend and neighbor Rich McCabe. There are townhomes, apartments, condominiums, a co-op building within a very close proximity. Rich quoted several statutes from other cities where this would be prohibited based on its proximity to residential units. At 86 ft high, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to see it when I'm sitting out on my deck, and I would hope that you can find a better, less intrusive spot for it. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. [44:50] **Chair Kurts:** Thank you sir. Any others? There are no further comments. Got a follow-up question for Sydney? [45:10] **Commissioner Scanland:** Madam chair, Sydney, I had a couple additional questions here. One is that we as a city have a number of limitations when it comes to cell phone towers and what we can push back on. If we could have more of a narrative on that to help the citizens have a better understanding of what we're dealing with here as a commission, because our hands are tied somewhat in terms of what the federal government directs us in doing this. The other is if we can have some renderings to give more perspective of the tower height in relation to the neighborhood. Then, if you could have a discussion with the applicant if there's any additional option for the tower to be put on the property other than the closer proximity to the residential area—could it be moved North a bit? I know we're dealing with fall radiuses, and it makes it difficult in the narrow area that they have to work within. Those are the three additional questions I had. [46:50] **Sydney Stroh:** Thank you Chair Kurts and commissioner Scanland. We will look at all these questions and comments and we can bring back answers at a future meeting. [47:00] **Chair Kurts:** Thank you Sydney. So if there are no further comments, I will close this public hearing. It is the policy of the Planning Commission not to act on an item on the same night as its public hearing. The Planning Commission will weigh all comments and information received tonight in its deliberations at future meetings. This item will continue to appear on future Planning Commission agendas until a recommendation on the petition can be forwarded to city council. Thank you. Okay, it brings us to land use and action items, which there are none tonight. So it brings us to other business, and that is Tim Benetti. [48:00] **Tim Benetti (Community Development Director):** Good evening, Madam chair, members of commission. It's with great pleasure that every year during our annual meeting we present to you our annual report for 2024. We have some good information for you, hope you had a good chance to look at it in our packet. I'm going to go through it very quickly here for the audience sake. Just to remind you who your names are—this is your current commissioner list for 2024 and 2025. We did welcome Mr. Douglas in early 2024 and we've also reappointed Mr. Mahal, Mr. Puit, and Mr. Scanland. So apologize for getting names mixed up, but we are happy to have you. Congratulations to the slate of officers we elected tonight. We had 40 applications over the last year. We had comp plan amendments, zoning ordinance amendments, conditional use permits, site plan interviews, etc. Our keys to Apple Valley's Vision again are listed in our current 2040 plan. This map is also critical to our planning for this area around Orchard Place—this is a conceptual plan subject to a revision request by the landowners, Rockport. A reminder: we started off the year with a request from Starbucks at the corner of Cedar Avenue and 147. They approved an amended CUP to relocate their order board sign to give more spacing leeway for the drive-up window. Our newest Les Schwab Tires—good news, I believe we are about ready to issue a permit on them in the Orchard Place area. Initially they wanted a bunch of bays facing out, but our ordinance requires that in the RB Zone you can only have two bays or two doors. They put those on the backside, so the servicing is all indoors and the noise should be very well mitigated. Chick-fil-A: we approved the variance for an overhead canopy protection system. Ham Shaka 42: some of you probably enjoyed some of that roasted sweet corn that they provide every summer; this was an interim use permit. Recently you just approved the new McDonald's restaurant right next to Health Partners. Also under review is the Apple Valley Technology Park. This is still in review with our staff; we had a lot of comments and concerns in the February 5th meeting and we hope to bring that back. Very proud of this project: Fire Station Number Two. This was a transformation—a new 30,000 square foot station completed by August 2024. Our Police Operation Support Facility on the west side across from Eastview High School is a 25,000 square foot building for fleet storage and offices; construction began in mid-2024 and is nearing completion this year. It will be a great reliever for the staff crammed here at City Hall. We approved the final plat for the expansion of Echo Park Elementary School. Also, big projects at Apple Valley High School and Eastview High School Activity Centers—87,000 square foot additions. Redwood Park: we just approved a 5,500 square foot activity center with a swimming pool. Kelly Park: basically a redo with a new pavilion, splash pad, stage, and green room. Orchard Place Apartments: you reviewed a sketch plan of this four-story 128-unit market-rate apartment and approved the comp plan amendment to change land use from commercial to high density residential. Our permit activity: we had four new buildings under commercial industrial and issued 10 major construction permits with nearly $12 million in valuation. We also had 20 new single-family homes and 20 new townhomes, primarily in the Eagle Point subdivision. Over 1,800 permits in residential additions and alterations totaling $34 million in reinvestment. Economic Development: in August 2024 staff submitted for a Redevelopment Investment Grant (RIG Grant) for a water utility plan study at Time Square Mall. We also received two grants for environmental assessments of our Gaslight and A66 sites—which came up with nothing, which is what we’re always hopeful for. Our "Open to Business" program handles or helps entrepreneurs and new startups. Natalie Mosher is our great consultant; over 80% of the total hours she logged in Dakota County were towards Apple Valley. Of the 33 businesses served, 70% were BIPOC owned and 51% were women-owned. Lastly, for other staffing news: we have closed our applications for our Planner One and City Planner positions. We hope to start interviews next week. Sadly to report, after 30 years of service, former City Planner Cathy Boatman retired. We had a great party and Cathy was very humbled by the Apple Award and the key to the city. We promoted Alex Sharp to that planner position and then he left, so that's why we're in the pickle we are now. Here's a great picture of our staff: Raquel, Sydney, Mary, Alex, and Briana. This is a great team and we're going to build on it again. With that, by simple motion, you can approve the report. [1:05:45] **Chair Kurts:** Great job to the city staff and the commissioners for working on all that. Do I have a motion? [1:06:00] **Commissioner Schindler:** So moved. [1:06:05] **Commissioner Scanland:** Second. [1:06:10] **Chair Kurts:** Motion carries. Did you want to leave before you gave the Apple Valley Bike plan? You’re going to take this one? Of course you are. [1:06:39] **Sydney Stroh:** Good evening Madam chair, members of the Planning Commission. Tonight I just wanted to give a brief update on our Apple Valley Bike and Pedestrian Plan update. We have received a grant to complete an update to our bike and ped plan from the Statewide Health Improvement Partnership, which is managed by Dakota County. Our original plan was created in 2010, so it's been quite a few years and we like to revisit that. Our city consultant, HKGi, is helping us write the plan update. We have a task force assembled with our Chair and one of our Commissioners to participate with other key staff members to help review and guide the update. We’ve workshopped this mission statement: the Bike Ped Plan update will serve as a tool for the city of Apple Valley to continue to enhance ability, safety, health, and quality of life for its residents. Regarding the schedule, we are on an accelerated timeline; this project needs to be completed by the end of May. Community engagement will be extended to the end of March. If you’ve received your City Spring newsletter, it has a link to a survey on recreational use of trails and sidewalks. Our next public appearance will be at the Home and Garden Show on April 12th. We’re looking to complete this plan update by the end of May. That's all I have for you. [1:11:00] **Tim Benetti:** Madam chair, your next meeting will be Wednesday, March 19th, followed by Wednesday, April 2nd. Council meetings are March 13th and 27th respectively. I have no further updates. [1:11:15] **Chair Kurts:** Move we adjourn? [1:11:17] **Commissioner Schindler:** So moved. [1:11:18] **Commissioner Scanland:** Second. [1:11:19] **Chair Kurts:** Motion made by commissioner Schindler and second by commissioner scanland. All in favor say I. (I, I) Oppose nay. This meeting is adjourned. [Music]