Welcome to the September 8th, 2025 uh meeting of the Weisetta Planning Commission. My name is Blake Cameron and I'm the chair of the Weisetta Planning Commission. I hereby call this meeting to order. Um first on the agenda tonight is roll call. Director Sharp, could you please call roll? >> Certainly, Chair. Commissioner Vanl >> here. Commissioner Ankeny >> here. >> Commissioner Elg >> here. >> Chair Cameron >> here. Other members of uh planning commission are not present this evening. >> Thank you, Director Sharp. Uh next on the agenda tonight is the approval of tonight's meeting agenda. Um does anyone have any questions or proposed changes to tonight's meeting agenda? Hearing none. Uh may I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner El. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Aneny. Any further discussion? No. Um all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the agenda is approved. Um next on the agenda tonight is the consent agenda. There are three tonight's consent agenda consists of three items. Approval of the meeting minutes from August 18th, 2025. Approval of the planning commission report and recommendation for approval of a shoreland setback variance at 547 Harrington. and recommended approval of preliminary single family house plans for 1400 Holders Lane. Does any commissioner have any questions um comments or wish to pull an item from the consent agenda for further discussion? >> No. >> Perfect. Uh may I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Vanli. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Ankeny. Any further discussion? All those in favor, I >> I >> I >> opposed. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the consent agenda is approved. Next on the agenda um is old business. And seeing there are no items under old business, we'll move right into um the public hearing items. And tonight we have one item uh for public hearing, which is a uh two conditional use permits for 701 Central Avenue North Excel Energy. Uh, first up is a staff presentation. Director Sharp, would you walk us through the staff presentation? Chair, certainly. Thank you for the introduction. As stated, this is a conditional use permit for Excel Energy at 701 Central Avenue North. The location uh is noted on your screen here with prominent features in the area being the loose line trail. The city of Plymouth boundary is also abuing the site and then single family homes often surround the site with Gleason Lake Elementary School across the street to the east. The site is guided for semi-public private use and is appropriate for this type of uh facility. and it is zoned R3 single and two family residential district which does allow a substation by uh ordinance within the R3 zone. Apologies trying to see if downstairs was trying to contact me at all. This is a street view of the application site uh showing that it is a active substation used by Excel. What substations essentially do is take uh electricity from the third party producer and then convert it down for single family use uh and those voltages. The application is for a conditional use permit for a new 123t tall private non-commercial monopole communications device and then a second conditional use permit for enlarging the existing nonconforming substation at the site. uh it is a legal non-conforming substation as currently a conditional use permit would be required for the site but uh this substation likely predates that requirement. Uh the second conditional use permit would only be required if uh and a change to the site plan is made uh such as increasing the intensity with the monopole. Uh the property today already uh the the commission will be familiar with this application because uh they've seen a prior application for a similar request. The property today already has a 100 foot shield pole in this location and previously the applicant had brought forward an application that was withdrawn uh after the planning commission recommended denial for 140 foot tall uh uh communications pole in this location. This application proposes a 123 foot tall in the exact same location as that shield pole which does meet all setbacks. The only requirement for this would be that conditional use permit for the communications facility. The applicant has stated that the purpose of the poll is only for Excel Energy's use and to communicate uh with its customers and their devices at uh within their homes. And the applicant does has a have a presentation that would better explain than what I'm able to uh the full use and desire for uh the communications. Uh the total site area is about 2.14 acres. Uh that is not changing. The location of the monopole, I just want to uh reiterate is not being amended from where the current shield pole is currently located. So it would be a 23 ft increase above the existing 100 foot uh shield pole in that location. This is the site plan. It can be a little bit difficult to see, but if you look in the uh coincidentally it would be almost northwest on the site plan as well. Uh corner, you can see the red location of where the proposed model pole uh and current shield pole is located. I did already note but the uh poll would meet all requirements. So the first uh conditional use permit for this site um states is a requirement because no such structural element may exceed 40 ft in total height without a conditional use permit. As this would increase that existing shield pole that is the legal non-conforming to 123 ft. This requires the uh a um conditional use permit for uh the communication and transmission devices. The second uh I've already described a little bit of previously, but want to make sure that uh I answer any questions for the commission as to why you may not have seen this in the last application. it it was something that uh if brought forward a second conditional use permit would be required because it's essentially amending the existing legal non-conforming use. Uh already noted that setbacks were met but want to be able uh to demonstrate that they are as you can see in all locations they more uh significantly exceed the setback requirements. In terms of graphics, this is probably one of the best that we have to demonstrate how much taller the proposed pole would be and what it would look like. Please note that there is some equipment off on the side of the monopole. So that would be consistent with other uh cellular type devices and the type of mounting systems that you would see on those. Uh however, it is the 23 foot taller than the existing shield pole. One of the items that came up in that prior application uh that the applicant will expound on more but wanted to make sure uh we had in our presentation because it was among their materials is why this location. Uh this graphic serves to as an attempt to try to answer that question that the commission had presented at the last or at the public hearing for the prior application. I'm going to let the applicant really expound on this a little more. I don't want to speak to uh a design feature that I am not qualified to speak to. So, I'll let them explain it. Public hearing notice was sent uh to all properties within 700 uh I'm sorry, it says 500 ft, but I actually know that that was 750 ft um of the property. Uh this is where we uh the same uh radius that we sent out on the prior application as well. We did receive public comments um which was a change from the packet. We did not have any uh public comments when the p packet was published. The commission does have official public comments uh on the table in front of you. We have them available for any that have questions and they are included in the official public record. I would note uh that they either expressed significant concern about the monopole or uh uh supported denial of the application as presented. The city engineer uh has no comments on this application at this time uh but would review any building permits should an application be re approved. The commission when reviewing a conditional use permit I would like to just remind the commission that conditional uses are a generally permitted use subject to specific criteria. These criteria are set forth in code through performance standards. Uh so these questions are helped are intended to help guide the commission and reviewing those performance standards for the conditional use per permit criteria. So I will go through these uh they are is it compatible with present and future land uses? Would it have a negative effect on the area in which it is located and will the uh conditional use have a positive impact upon existing public services and facilities? The second uh conditional use permit uh has additional criteria as well uh as it is relating to the full land use. These are uh that it uh is consistent with the con comprehensive plan. It is compatible with present and f future uses. Uh it is uh has conformity with all performance standards. the performance uses effect and the uh what the performance proposed use I'm sorry I keep getting stuck in the word performance but the proposed use uses effect would be on the area in which it's proposed and then would it enhance uh public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets and utilities. The next steps with this application because it's the most common question that we get from the public. So we're seeing if this slide can help. Uh it's a little bit new for the commission, but essentially uh the commission would ask questions of staff. The applicant would make their presentation. The commission then would ask questions of the applicant if needed. Uh then the public hearing would be opened where the general public would be able to come forward and state their comments about the case. That is not a question and answer forum. Just want to make sure uh that people understand the purpose of the public hearing. And then there'd be a discussion and a recommendation from the commission made to city council. Uh that application would then move similar to how you saw prior applications on this agenda to the planning commission for a report and recommendation for final uh recommendation. And that would then move on to the city council for either approval or denial uh further review of the application. The action this evening is to open public hearing, take public testimony, and uh for the commission to make a final recommendation uh to bring forward a report and recommendation at the next available planning commission meeting. With that, I stand for any questions. >> Thank you, Director Sharp. Commissioners, any questions for staff? >> I don't have any. >> Perfect. All right. Uh so with that then we will move right into the applicant's presentation. Um thank you staff for your presentation and your time. Um uh please step forward George. Good to see you again. Um please state your name and address for the record and your role on the team. >> Testing. Testing. All right. Good evening everybody. Uh my name is George Wiki. Uh did you say you needed an address? >> Please. >> Uh 414 Nichollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 5541. Um, so as mentioned, I'm George Wiki. I represent XL Energy sighting and land rights department. So my role on the team is to spearhead a lot of the, you know, uh, zoning approvals and a lot of the permitting on that side, uh, land acquisition if necessary, easements, and just in general, anything having to do with the sighting and land rights of our capital assets. Um, I'm also joined this evening by, uh, Michelle Swanson, who is the community, uh, relations manager for this portion of the metro. uh Joe Zenadyat who is the project manager for the PLTE project as well as Wendell Rhymer who is the uh program director for the entire uh PLTE program. Um so as director Sharp gave a pretty good presentation here uh displaying and going over uh a lot about what this project is and what makes it different from our previous presentation or excuse me from our previous application. As mentioned last time we came in with a 140 foot tall proposal uh which after discussion and and feedback was given it was denied and you know based on that that feedback that we had received and the questions that we had heard from members of the public and from you folks we had kind of gone back to the drawing board and re-engineered things and and we found that 123 feet giving the foliage and topography of the area is the minimum needed to achieve the desired coverage to fully cover the west metro. Um, and so as a result of some of these comments, we also decided to prepare the following PowerPoint presentation to go into a little bit more depth of the project, understanding all the benefits, clearing up some of the gaps, and just, you know, making sure that we're all on the same page and painting a complete picture uh for everybody here. So, I'll kind of get started. As Director Sharp mentioned, we're looking to build a 123 foot tall monopole at our Gleon Lake substation here in Weisetta in order to propagate a private long-term evolution network or PLTE network. Um, this network is going to take the communications between our nearly 1.4 million smart meters across the state of Minnesota and move them from the public cellular spectrum uh onto a completely separate frequency that has been leased out by XL Energy for the next 30 years. Um so it's a major security measure. Uh aside from that, this measure is also going to support small business growth or just general business growth with EV charging networks, uh solar and other general system communication devices. This is also a move to enhance the resiliency and the reliability of our overall electrical grid. And I'll have some more details on that here shortly. And then this is also a step to meet a newer recommendation uh on security from the federal energy regulatory commission or fk regarding not only the security of our the physical security of our assets but also the digital security of our network as well. So XL is not the only uh utility company in the country that has been moving towards uh adopting PLTE technology. uh other energy companies around the country have been doing so such as in Atlanta, the St. Louis area, uh the San Diego area, uh Kansas City, um and other metros around Texas. Uh XL Energy also operates in Denver and has been deploying this technology successfully there as well. Um and while that list is growing, there are currently a ton of other companies around the country that are recognizing the benefits of deploying such a network. um and have been, you know, considering implementing this kind of technology uh into their own network. So, it's a a technology that's growing increasingly more popular as the years pass. [Music] So, a bit more of an explanation of how the whole thing works here. On the right, we've got our lovely little neighborhood with the smart meters affixed to each house represented as the little blue dots. Um the smart meters communicate directly with the cellular modems which are affixed to distribution poles and telephone poles around the neighborhood. And then the information is transmitted across Excel's secure PLTE network to our wider network such as our service centers, our power plants uh and our other advanced applications. If you go on a walk around the neighborhood uh in areas where this service is being deployed, you might see something like this on a again a telephone pole or a distribution pole where we have our cellular modem with an access point uh which are both powered by the battery below with communications taking place uh through the antenna up at the uh top of the pole there. So again, one of the biggest questions that we got last time we went through this was what are the benefits for Weisetta area customers specifically. So as I mentioned first, I already talked about some of the security upgrades uh that this this program provides. Um so I can go into a little bit more detail about that. uh the information that's being transmitted over the network. It's it's nothing too, you know, security uh uh critical, nothing like social security numbers or credit card information. It's more so, you know, names, addresses, general uh usage information. So, stuff that Excel customers like you and I would probably want to have kept under lock and key for privacy and peace of mind sake. Um, but aside from the security upgrades, there are also a number of other benefits. uh to this network. The first of which is instant outage notifications. Um as I mentioned, this is part of a process to increase the overall reliability of our electrical grid. And with this network, we are able to have a lot faster notifications of of of outages. And as a result, our crews are able to respond to outage instances a lot more rapidly and get uh affected affected uh homeowners back on the grid uh in a lot more of a timely manner uh than over the current network. Additionally, just in general, this network prioritizes customers, grid management, and resiliency of the network. So, speaking of resiliency, this network is very highly rated in instances of very severe weather. If you guys remember, we had a pretty stormy and rainy uh summer here in Minnesota. And all around the metro, there were plenty of areas where trees fell down, they hit the poles, uh and outages happened all over the metro. So, in this instance where, you know, where there's severe weather and the current public network isn't able to transmit information to us as well, we are able to uh much more easily communicate in events of severe weather. And again with those instant outage notifications, this is going to drastically reduce uh the overall length of outages that customers would experience as well as the risk of outages in general. Um, additionally, uh, this is going to be a huge step forward in increasing the capabilities of our fault spotting network for our distribution network. So currently the way things are kind of set up in the gas and electric distribution side of things if you know there's some kind of problem in that network we usually don't know much about it until it propagates itself in the form of you know an outage or some other inconvenience to customers. But using this technology we're able to see these problems before they cause any issues to customers. So we're able to stop problems before they really even happen. So this is a huge benefit to uh uh this network. Um and additionally just as a redundant backup, we still are going to be keeping a cellular technology uh just to use again as a redundant backup if anything were to happen uh to the PLTE network so we can still keep those instant outage notifications, the fault spotting and the security of the uh smart meter transmission just in case anything were to happen. So, the main point I really want to drive home about this is that to experience this list of benefits here, you got to be within the proximity of a monopole. If the monopole is too far away or the signal isn't strong enough, um, then these benefits just won't be realized. The outage times will stay as they currently are and the fault spotting just won't be there. So, it's essential to be within uh proximity of a, you know, a strategically placed monopole. Moving on to some of the questions that we had received from the previous uh application that we had submitted. The first of which being, you know, why the Gleon Lake substation? You know, we're in a neighborhood, there's homes around. Why don't we build this at the much more appropriate Parker Lake substation over in Plymouth, uh, over by 494? And, you know, those are some good points about it being in an industrial area. And, you know, that initially was our first choice of where we wanted to build this monopole. However, as circumstances have it, there are a number of major upgrades being taken, uh, over at that substation. They're expanding it, uh, building a lot more infrastructure there, including new transmission poles and transformers and the like. Uh, and unfortunately, those upgrades aren't going to be a aren't going to have enough space to accommodate a monopole of of this type. So, as a result, we kind of had to pivot and decided that Gleon Lake here in Weisetta would be an appropriate plan B as a location, largely because of its central location in the west metro. Uh, director Sharp showed a couple of uh, uh, coverage maps that I can go into a little bit more detail about shortly here that show why this monopole is very squarely located uh, amongst the other monopoles that would provide very adequate coverage for not just Weisetta but other communities here in the west metro. Um, additionally another question we received were what are the risks of the pole falling or collapsing? Um along with the other monopoles that we have successfully constructed already, we have been building these with a 20 foot deep uh concrete queson to serve as a foundation for the monopole. And seeing as Minnesota's somewhat famous for not being very prone to natural disaster type events, these things can take a lot of damage. And in the words of the project manager, it would take an act of God to knock one of these over. So they're very sturdy. And you know, as I mentioned, they're very highly rated in events of of of weather. Um, additionally, I kind of wanted to jump back to why this particular substation, again, considering the location within the West Metro. Uh, as far as a plan C goes, it appears that within our network, there aren't any other substations in this portion of the West Metro that are nearly as adequately located. So, if unfortunately, we know we are unable to proceed with with this particular proposal, it might be a while before any part of this section of the West Metro is adequately served by the network. uh and as a result both Weisetta customers as well as customers in other portions of the metro uh might see a significant lag uh before receiving some of the benefits that I had mentioned previously here. Couple other questions I had received. Oops. First of which uh was asked last time was how many or have any other monopoles been approved in residential areas in the state of Minnesota? Last time I incorrectly said no. Actually the answer is yes. We have had a 120 foot tall monopole uh in Midtown Minneapolis. So, similar height to this one. Um but the residential density is a little bit higher in that area as opposed to here. Additionally, within the last month, we managed to get a 140 foot tall monopole approved in the city of Wyoming up in the northeastern corner of the metro. uh that situation or the the area that that substation is located in is pretty similar to this one here where there are a number of single family homes uh on all sides of that substation. Uh and the city council uh did approve that uh last month. Um additionally, I know that there were some concerns about property values as a result of this construction. Uh and there was a study that was provided the last time. So, I took a really deep dive into this study and cross referenced it amongst some of the other sources that it cites and just based on the context of what we are trying to build here and what the studies we're looking at in particular, it's not really a very good comparison. If you want me to go into more detail, feel free to ask. I've I've got plenty to say about that. Um but as it stands just uh uh it's my professional opinion that the study doesn't really uh correlate very similarly at all to what we've been proposing here. As mentioned uh and as shown by director sharp we've got a number of uh coverage maps to kind of show what this network might look like. So, here is a standalone coverage map of what the network would look like if we are allowed to proceed with a 123 ft tall monopole at the Gleon Lake substation. As you can see, it covers the west metro quite nicely with Minnitonka, Plymouth, Weisetta areas all nicely covered in that nice pink shade. Um, if we move along to what we kind of have right now, the existing network as it's being constructed, uh, you can see that right now there's a pretty sizable gap in the west metro. Uh, this area is completely unserved. Um, and so when you put the images together and everything works in harmony, you have a nice complete network with the entire metro, at least this side of the metro being covered uh very nicely uh by our network with all residents in in in this region of the state and all those smart meter communications being connected. Um so at this height again this is kind of the minimum that we can build it at to achieve this desired result and a full uh connected network uh with everything you know acting appropriately. Um, additionally too, you know, if the network is too large, uh, you stand to see interference when you start to get, you know, the monopoles, uh, the networks kind of intertwining too much and the, uh, the the other monoples also being included in the same network. That can kind of, uh, influence some some interference. So, 123 ft gives us the following picture here. um with all of the other monoples that have thus far been approved uh elsewhere in the uh in the state. Uh last time too I think someone mentioned that they wanted to see a coverage map with kind of a heat map here showing signal strength. Uh obviously as you can see as you start to move closer to the monopole the signal does become stronger uh and thus a little bit more reliable. Uh so having it here in Weisetta would be peak for you know reliability and resiliency uh purposes. Um, last time too, folks wanted to see uh, I believe some photo simulations of what this monopole might look like. So, we had our engineers take some photos along Third Avenue in Plymouth Harmony Court in Weisetta as well as along the Loose Line Trail to kind of give more of an idea of what this might look like. First image we have here is from Third Avenue North. This is from one of the houses that are a little bit closer to the substation. As you can see, the existing uh lightning rod kind of comes up from the um the living room here of the house. I think that's the living room. Um with the new monopole being slightly taller. So, let everyone kind of take a look at the before and after. Next image here is also from Third Avenue North. The existing lightning rods a little hard to see there on the left, but it's just to the right of that little distribution pole kind of peeking up in between the two bushes. on the right. As you can see, the monopol, it's a little bit more visible. It sticks up above the trees, but it doesn't take too much of the visual real estate. It occupies a similar amount of space visually as the existing distribution pole uh that exists on the left side. Moving along here, this one's from Harmony Court. This image was taken in front of the home that is the closest to the monopole. So, this is the area where the biggest difference would be seen. Um the existing lightning rod exists just through the chimney uh in the center of the image and the new monopole is on the right. As you can see it is larger but again this is where the biggest difference would be witnessed. Next we've got another image here from Harmony Court. This is towards the west side of the road as Harmony starts to bend to the south. The existing lightning rod is pretty squarely hidden behind the trees. Uh but the new monopole does peak up just a little bit there, but again it doesn't occupy uh an absolutely egregious amount of uh of visual real estate. So there's another comparison. Finally, here we've got an image from the Loose Line Trail. This was taken over on Central. The existing lightning rod might be a little hard to see. I don't know if there's a laser on this, but uh Oh, there is. Oops. Well, I I maybe I won't mess with that. Anyway, the existing lightning rod kind of exists in between the two uh rust colored uh transmission poles towards the right side of the photo here with the new uh monopole being visible in that same spot. Um considering the existing infrastructure already at the substation, it resembles it in, you know, many aesthetic qualities. So, um, had those five images there just for for digestion purposes and seeing kind of what things might look like. As a result, that uh that covers the presentation that we've prepared this evening. Uh, I can stand for questions. >> Thank you, George. Uh, commissioners, questions for the applicant. >> Yeah. Could you go back to the the picture where you have the um all of the different uh the coverage map where all of the All the pink. Yes, that. So, are the rest of these built? >> A number of them are built. Uh, the one in Prior, that one has been constructed. The Eden Prairie one has been constructed. Uh, I'm trying to see here. Creek has been built. Elm Creek is under construction currently. Uh, and then all these other ones have have also been approved. So, those ones are also going through the building permit process and are due to be approved and constructed by the end of the year. because one of the questions I had was um the height uh is uh significantly more than uh the R3 allows and and certainly even more than the 100 foot pole that's there now. >> Um uh is there an impact? Has it been modeled if these were actually tall? If the other ones that hadn't been built were taller in order to be able to do a better coverage with a shorter pole at Gleason. >> Sure. So 140 ft has generally been the the recommendation reported by our engineers. Again, it does take into account uh uh the the foliage and the elevation of of the the sites around it. Um, additionally too, uh Joe, do you think you have anything else to to maybe add to this as far as as as modeling goes? I know you were a little more involved in that process. Uh Joe Zenati XL Energy 414 Nickland Avenue uh 55 401 right >> 401 >> 401 um so as far as the height goes um all the other through our our propagation studies and things like that which are done during architect you know engineering process um we found that 140 ft is desirable for this network based on our terrain the foil We get thick foilage obviously in the metro areas. You get outside the metro area where there's not as much voilage. You can reduce your height a little bit. In this scenario, we were able to take this pole down to 123 ft because some of the other poles being at 140 ft, we can adjust their antennas to bleed into some of the Wadzetta area, but we still can't get into it fully. So we can get a little bit of the area, some of the outer area that the 123 ft pole in at Gleon Lake wouldn't be able to see. So the the 123 ft pole will get some of that inner area and then some of these other uh areas that are already approved, they'll kind of bleed into some of the outlying areas. If that helps answer your question. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> No, go ahead. So following on Joe's question, all these have been approved and they're so only the Gleon Lake would be residential. Every single other one of these because I don't see Wyoming and the other one you said are commercial or not residential. Am I correct in saying that >> the Wyoming one wasn't added on this one because that network won't be really affecting the Weisetta area. Uh but that one has been approved and was approved in a residential area in a similar it's a similar characteristic to uh uh the neighborhood here at the Gleon Lake substation. >> Um I I have one other question if we can go to the visuals the mockups of what it looks like with the poles is so the pole on the left this one is just a straight pole. Do we need this basket on it as well? The basket is the antennas that propagate the network. Otherwise, it would just be a taller lightning rod. >> How how big is that? Because it's I mean, it's interesting visually, but I also kind of want to understand because some some cell towers you see uh as you go through are are quite big and some of them are are smaller. So, I'm just trying to understand how big it is and how likely it would be that over time that would change. So the platform itself that you're referring to is about 12 feet long uh on each triangular side. So you only got three sides or they're about 12 feet long. We are only going to have one antenna on each side. Uh most of your cell towers you'll have multiple on each side of that. We only have one. So because of this network and what we're doing, we don't have to have that many antennas. So, it's a much smaller form factor. The platform itself is very similar, but the antennas we have far less. >> Thank you. Uh, last time when you came through here, you actually had uh a picture, if I remember correctly, that showed uh what the coverage area looked like at 100 ft and and one that what it looked like at 140 ft. So I guess my question is you're requesting 123 feet, but what would what would happen if it was 100 foot instead of 123T? Is that even a reasonable thing for you guys to consider? >> Sure. So as the height increases or decreases, obviously the network coverage would significantly change. Um once we get up to 140 obviously that was what we had kind of desired but as we decrease to 123 feet that was the height considering the height and the location of the other monopoles within the network 123 ft was determined as the absolute minimum that we would be able to build to adequately fill in the gaps left by those other moniples. So if we were to go shorter uh we would have to build more elsewhere. Um and then at the same time if we only just built a 100 feet here uh there would be significant service gaps in the Weisetta and the you know Minnotonka Plymouth area. So 123 foot is determined by our architects as the absolute bare minimum that we can use to adequately fill out those gaps uh and not leave any customers in the city here uh without the benefits that we described. So, so to follow up on that, have you looked at another option if we left ours at 100 and you looked at one in Minnotonka at 100? >> I mean, I know it's more probably costs more and but >> so based on our studies that we have done, our architect, our architect has done uh we have found that 100 feet just doesn't work in this area. It won't work. We can't. We would have to It would basically be eliminated eliminated at that point and we'd have to go outside of the area to try to find a place. We haven't found anything in the area. We just don't have any uh substations or anywhere to build that would be adequate to fill this area. So 100 ft just doesn't do us any good. It it pretty much gives us zero coverage. Just maybe a few square blocks and that's it. Um, so question for you. You may or may not know the answer. Um, how high is the pole at Eden Prairie? >> Oh, that one's 140 ft. >> That one's 140. >> Prairie. >> Yes. >> Cuz I So I I went You can >> because you can see you can see it when you're headed down on 494. It just kind of >> um it's big and right, it sticks out. So I think that'd be one of my concerns, right? even at 123 ft is is it's big and sticks out. But I think my other comment would be um George, one of the thing one of the things you said was um you don't have room at Parker's Lake, but I pulled up the um property information and so you've got 2.14 acres at Cleon Lake and you've got 13.36 acres at Parker at Parker's Lake. And so I find it hard to believe that there you can't find room. You can find room on two acres to put a pole, but you can't find room on 13 acres to put a pole. >> Sure. Uh the 13 acres, I'm assuming that accounts for all of the land outside of the substation as well with >> the part the parcel itself is 13.36 acres. >> Yeah. Yeah. So within our substations, it's not exactly our call as far as the security goes. Uh these kinds of infrastructure improvements, they have to be located within our fenced area. uh we can't just place this, you know, elsewhere outside in the driveway. Uh you know, Excel Energy security team is is very adamant that this kind of infrastructure has to be placed exclusively within uh sites and substations that meet our fencing and and and uh general security requirements. So, you know, if we could build it outside of the fenced area, we definitely would have taken that into more consideration, but just because of XL Energy security standards and the existing upgrades that are going to be taking place at uh the Parker Lake substation, uh we just weren't able to accommodate it in that location. If if if we were able to and we were able to put it in there after the improvements, it we wouldn't be speaking here this evening. >> A comment more than a question. Uh given what you've just said that there are going to be a number of uh renovations or uh new construction going on there, it would seem to me you could include expanding the fence and including the security perimeter of that space um given the land uh area that you have. So that's not really cutting it for me. But >> you have anything to say, Joe? I mean, well, I'm not involved directly on that project either. >> Yeah. So, our initial conversations with our engineering teams, electrical engineering teams internally, um that's the footprint's not going to change. We only have some what you see inside our fence is all we have. Um because of that significant buildout and there's a lot happening and it's not just above ground, it's below ground as well. There's a lot there whether it's distribution, things like that. So, there's just no adequate space for us based on their recommendation. So they they basically told us we're not Gleon Lake. We're not going to build that sub out, but this one is just got too much expansion and where all that expansion is going was the ideal spot for us to build the pole and they said we can't stop what we're doing. So that's that's why it's it looks like it's big, but there's a lot of stuff that's going to go inside that stuff very soon. Okay. Anyone else questions for the applicant? >> One last question and I I know I brought this up last time um as well. If if uh if this is the um if this is the best and only place, uh have you considered the um the shielding that you can do that kind of makes it looks like a massive pine tree or something like that so that the visually doesn't quite impact the neighborhood as much. >> You want to talk about the the shielding camouflage? >> Yeah, you know what I'm talking about, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There's uh we we've seen that uh shielding is is really especially when it comes with RF or cellular technology there the architects tend to steer away from that because it can also harm the signal and so it creates uh a lot of interference for us. There are some examples out there uh manufacturers have built like you said uh a pole that looks like a tree although it's it's still a pole and in this case it's still going to be 123 feet. So you're going to have 123t tall tree looking type uh pole but they work. Um they're not very readily available. Uh they're very expensive uh because of that because they are kind of a a different style. Um, but they're just not recommended a lot of times for cellular use because they do there is some shielding does cause some interference there. So, >> thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you gentlemen. Appreciate the time. >> Yeah. >> Um, I'd like to turn to the public hearing now. Um, before we again begin, a couple just a couple comments about the public hearing. Um the public hearing is a time for us as a commission um to listen to you the public um on your thoughts um and perspectives and input on the requests that we're considering tonight. Um it's an important part of the process um that allows um all of you to contribute to the community um and add your perspectives. Um so any questions um asked during the public hearing will be held till the end um and address may be addressed by staff at that point and if we need to go back to the applicant we can do that too. Um, so with that said, um, I now open the public hearing. Um, if you wish to speak, um, please come forward to the podium. Um, state your name and address for the record. Um, and let us know if you are connected to the applicant in any way. >> Hello. Thank you, uh, Patrick Mandilly. I live in Hawthorne Ponds. Uh, and appreciate the time you're giving us tonight. >> Patrick, what's your State your address, please. >> Oh, um, 300 Narcissist Lane. >> Thank you. >> You know, I sincerely appreciate all that Excel does. I think we all do. You guys do a great job in most instances and, you know, we rely on your electricity. In instances like this though, I think it's really important for you as a governing body to, you know, understand really what's going on. Um to consider moving this a quarter of a mile to Parker's Lake or whatever it is, a third of a mile. Uh with the um reasons they've given why it can't be done just astound me. Here we are in the middle of a neighborhood with a school across the street. Can't be more than 200 feet. These residences to the south, our residences to the north and the west. Put this squarely in the middle of a city zone, a residential zone. I'm guessing that if they take the compass and put it where it would be most effective, this is probably why they entered it there. But again, the conser the the amount of space, industrial space that is just down the street seems like an adequate space for them to put this pole. even if they go to 140 ft to compensate for that quarter of a mile. Um, so I don't think they've really given a good reason behind that and commissioners, you've pointed that out to us before too. So the issue of real estate value I think is important. Um, they talked about taking this the article that was submitted at the last presentation and dissecting that. There are many articles and points of view on real estate value and I think it's it is important in this case. There are many homes in this area that I think when a prospect it's well first of all travels down 101 and sees the congestion in this substate site which has been added to and added to and added and now they want to add more to it. I think it's really it it really impacts the real estate values within the city of Weisetta, but also the city of Plymouth and and the pe the impact on the people that are there. So, um, while I suspect you can dissect and critique any anyone's point of view on this, I I think common sense would say that, um, a reduction in real estate value, especially with 120 23 foot pole, is is going to be there. Um, I just have a couple more points. Um um one factor that hasn't been mentioned is the health and safety impact from this construction. Placed so close to the people that live there, so close to the children that may not live across the street, but they spend a lot of time in that school. And I'm guessing lowering this pole from 140 ft to 123 feet is only going to exacerbate the health and safety impact of the people that live in that area. It seems like it makes some common sense. So, um, please consider that. Uh I know there's a lot of disputed articles about radio frequency radiation. It you know it's encountered all over the place. Uh but it's real. There have been substantiated documents and studies that address this. Um there are different points of view about it. But I I'll leave you with one thought and it's one that's kind of haunted me since the last presentation. And that is while we understand what this radiation can do today and I think there is an impact on people that live so close now we're lowering this pole by 17 ft the impact logically has to be greater. But when we think back in uh the short history that we have when products have been approved and introduced into pro into the marketplace and then proven to be harmful that's something I think you as a governing body need to consider. A couple of examples are tobacco, asbestous, lead, formaldahhide, PAS. These are things that were understood, I'm guessing, and scientists stood up and said, "These are safe products that as time and technology changes and as I'm guessing more radiation comes off that pole, as perhaps they add more antennas to them, um that that's an impact. We can't predict it, but we can be wise in terms of where we place this pole." So, I leave you with those comments. Thank you, Patrick. Hello everyone. Gil Stasart 660 Harmony Circle in Weisella. I'm not going to take you through my boring long story from last time because you you heard the what I had to say then but uh I took a screenshot of what you have to answer today and two of the three uh uh points I think there's an easy answer to. So the first one is I want to also echo that we are very pleased with the service Excel Energy provides us. I actually don't have any issues when we have um uh when we lose power or anything like that. So this summer was a perfect example. We lost power many times in our mini circle, but the team was there responding really quickly and getting us back with electricity within a couple hours every time with the current technology that they use. So while I understand it might be a little bit faster, I don't see an issue with what we have today. So uh thank you for doing that and keeping us uh uh on the network whenever possible. uh when it looks at uh the proposal. So would this proposal have a negative effect on the area which is the question number two you are asked to answer today. I do I will echo what was said property value I mean when you looked at the picture that they add up with this 12 foot I don't know how to describe it but wide uh antenna at the top you're basically looking at a garden shed on top of the existing pole because that's 12t by 12t. So, uh, I don't happen to live in that house, but, uh, I would think that if that person is trying, actually, that house just sold. I'm sure that the new owner would probably lose a 100,000 or more if that poll was in their backyard next. Uh, so I do think that there's a big difference between the current poll and the one that's being proposed just because of the magnitude of the top of it. And then would it have a positive impact which is the first question we asking you to answer on the existing public service and facilities. Uh to me I see the positive impact for Excel Energy being able to communicate to their equipment faster but I don't see any positive impact that would happen to me and my neighbors. So I think that the potential uh loss of value for our property and and impact to the people just looking at it. I mean we already have enough of a mess to look at. If we have one more thing to uh to look at, I think that's more impactful than the benefits we could get from it. So, uh I would recommend not approving it if I were in your shoes, but uh that that was the couple points I wanted to raise tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Gil. Director Sharp, do we have any uh online questions? >> Not at this time, Chair. >> Okay. Anyone else? All right. Uh well, then I am going to close the public hearing um and bring it back to the commission for discussion. >> Uh commissioners, do you have any uh questions for staff or the applicant? >> Yeah, Alex, I have one question. So, he was talking about the fact that there's one 12-oot array going on this pole today. Uh, would they have the right to do whatever they wanted at the top of that pole or would they have to come back if they wanted to add a second array, a third array, uh, change it to bigger, smaller, whatever? >> Uh, Chair Cameron, Commissioner Vanl, that would depend upon the nature of a approval condition. So conditions could be added that would require future planning commission review or require significant amendment as an adjustment by staff to go uh back before a planning commission or amendment review as well. So there could be conditions added that would limit the amount of uh facilities that could be added to this and would likely be suggested. >> Thank you. Anyone else questions for the applicant staff? >> All right. >> Uh discussion amongst the commissioners. >> Uh I I I know you were more technical than I was looking at the at the maps, but I actually drove by the site. Um uh and uh I understand that I certainly don't have line of sight to all of the things they plan to do there, but there's there's a ton of room. Um and I don't think the I don't think the uh the current uh uh fenced in area goes all the way to the uh edge of the property. I think it's actually uh inside the perimeter of of the property. Um >> are you talking about 701 or Parker Lake? >> Talk about Parker's Lake. >> Parker's Lake. Yeah. And so, um, my my inclination is that, um, uh, this might be the centermost point, um, uh, and therefore the most efficient point, but I think there may be opportunities if the right hand talks to the left hand, uh, within Excel, uh, to look at possibilities of of moving the the security perimeter in order to get this in place. Um, I also, uh, think that if this is not approved, um, there's got to be, if they call this plan B, there's got to be a plan C. They're not going to give up on the fact that they're going to be putting smart makers on a, uh, on a private network. Um, and that, and that plan C might very well, uh, change some of the, uh, some of the conditions today over at Parker's Lake. Yeah, I think you know like um Jill kind of mentioned it, right? But the three questions, right? Is it one of you know one of them is is it compatible with past or with present and future use? And I would say I mean my personal perspective is um it's really not compatible with present use and I don't see future use of the area changing. It's a highly residential area with a school, right? There's no um there's nothing really industrial anywhere in that area other than the substation and which does obviously provide a service. Um but you know I I think in their in George's presentation right he referenced they've been deploying smart meters since 2022. Um and they're getting along just fine with the technology that they have. I understand there are some concerns about security but you know again there's no mandate around this right this is something that they want to do not that they have to do um and you know from a negative impact perspective I think 100% right like some of those visualizations right I look at I look at those pictures and I think about like the charm of Weisetta and if you're coming down 101 that's the first thing you see that's not charming right it's it's ugly you know and I I saw saw that um you know, one of my comments was I went down and saw that tower down in Eden Prairie and you like it sticks out like a sore thumb down Eden Prairie and I suspect even though it'd be 20 37 feet lower right at 123 um versus 160 it would still stick out like a sore thumb um in in Weisetta. So um in terms of like the third question of positive impact on existing public services and facilities um I think you know, again, right, they've been the smart meters have been out since 2022. Um, is there is it going to change the impact that they're having? I think it move it allows them to move their communications off the public network to a private network, but in terms of um does it have any other positive impact? I I think that's kind of debatable personally. So, I think that's where I come down on this. I think a very it very different having uh the 100 foot pole today that's just a lightning rod. Your eyes not drawn to it. Uh but you get uh a taller pole with a with a an array hanging on top of it. Uh it's a very different thing. >> Yeah. And that rod is like skinny at the top versus the >> you know this pole would be have a lot more um you know just be bigger in diameter. Well, and even when George was showing the poles and he was showing he couldn't, you know, it was hard to locate it in the existing one and it was not hard to find it in the new one every time. He said, "Well, if you look back between that and then >> I had no trouble finding it with the proposed >> Alex, could you put the pink uh coverage map back up?" >> I can bring up the one from their presentation. Yes, that's >> uh just the one with the chair or with the hole or all of them? >> Uh this is this is the one. >> Okay. >> So, I'm assuming the uh Gleon Lake that we're talking about is the four boxes in the center. No, the one that says >> right here says >> Oh, it's this one. Oh, sorry. Okay. Yeah. Um, and okay, I'm good. But I will make some comments. Um, I suspect that this location uh is ideal uh because they have an existing structure there and uh it will be the least expensive approach to accomplishing their goal here. However, the Parker Lake site is uh very close and will give them uh similar if not identical and probably even better coverage because there'll be less overlap on on the east side. Um, well, maybe not the case, but very similar coverage. Um, given the um updates that they're going to make at that site, it just uh makes sense that they could work this into that project that's going to be taking place. Um, so I would encourage them to keep s considering that. Perhaps it will cost more. Um, but it overall will be the better option for everybody involved. Um, I think this is an economic issue more than anything. And um, they can make it happen if they really want to. I will say I do I do fully agree and and respect the desire for um taking it off the public networks. I think that will provide greater security. Um you know, we all want the the better coverage and and uh potentially better um response times. Uh, but I think they have other options that can work just as well and have uh less negative impact on the surrounding area. >> So, it sounds like we have some alignment. >> Um, anyone want to make a motion? Um, I can make a motion. See if I get it right. After considering the items outlined in this report, holding the public hearing on the application, and discussing the requests of the application, the planning commission directs the staff to prepare a draft commission report and recommendation with appropriate findings reflecting a um >> denial. >> Denial, yes, of the application for adoption at the next planning commission meeting. That's it. >> I second. >> Thank you, Commissioner How. So, uh, just for clarity, I think what I heard you say is it was a motion to, um, direct staff to to prepare report and recommendation with appropriate findings reflecting a recommendation of denial on the application. >> Correct. >> Okay. And thank you for your second, Commissioner Anthony. Any discussion? Vote. All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. The eyes have it. And the motion passes and the uh report uh planning commissioner report and recommendation. >> Can I add one other thing? >> Not about this, not about the vote. Can I just say one thing before they all leave? >> Sure. >> Thank you so much for your presentation and we understand what you're trying to do and I suspect you'll come back again. We'd love it if you could look at a nonresidential area. I think it would be much more palatable for everybody if you could find a non-residential area to put it in. >> Thank you. >> Go to Plymouth. >> Thank you. Thank you everybody. Um so we're going to finish this up. Um so the uh the report and recommendation will be on the consent agenda at the next meeting um in two weeks. Um so next on the agenda then is um other items. >> Um >> Director Sharp. >> Thank you. Uh if there will be a little bit more discussion, feel free to have that out in the lobby. Uh we're just going to wrap up the agenda. Uh other items, uh I'm going to be ordering the uh training uh manuals or books for you here in the near future. So you can expect that as an item to come and pick up at the next uh planning commission or the one following depending upon schedules. Uh so I'll have that available. That'll be a a uh good but dry read for you. I do want to remind you uh that that is a uh document that is intended for a wide array of cities. So uh do be aware that there will be some specific things for villages or larger communities that may not apply or may not be as applicable for our community. In terms of uh recent developments and where the status of those items are at, um Wells Fargo will be uh is making good progress. Uh they will not be wrapping up prior to winter. uh so that they are hoping to get the essential shell of the building completed before winter and they are making progress on that. If we get an early winter in Minnesota that may may not be possible for the entirety of the building but you will see areas of that building enclosed and then the work moved to interior. Uh similar case with uh 641 lake. They are looking at getting that building enclosed before winter as much as possible. Uh that way sidewalks can be open. Uh things of that nature can be closed up. Everybody's aware that that's going to be the goal for just about every project we're seeing right now. Clap Park is well on schedule to being able to be able to um be open for skating season of this year. Uh as that's one of the city's largest projects. There are items that are needing to be reviewed uh as we are opening up an existing park building and using it for conversion to a uh more year-round facility. So, there could be updates for you with that as that proceeds forward, but at this time, nothing to share. And if there are other specific developments that the planning commission would like to know about, uh, welcome to answer any questions that I'm able to. Uh, planning commission meeting schedule would be the next item that I go on to if there are no commit, uh, questions from the commission. Seeing no questions, uh, next planning commission meeting is September 22nd. Right now, this is the only item, but we will need you there for consent, so it should be a short meeting. Perhaps that'll be a MUN night after uh if the commission would like to. Uh, but it should be a pretty short meeting for you. We do have items scheduled for the first meeting in October. The next uh planning commission meet or city council meeting is tomorrow night and then the city council meeting after that is uh September 23rd. With that, no other further updates. >> Thank you, Director Sharp. >> Oh, Commissioner H. >> Can we just get a quick update on the Lamborghini site? I I I haven't kept up on what the council has done. Um so, if you could share. >> Certainly. Uh, Chair Cameron, Commissioner Elg, uh, the city council motion to approve that PUD uh, preliminary PUD concept. So, that does not convey any form of actual approval for the project. They have not resubmitted since that time. They did hear pretty loud and clear that they're trying to fit a large number of things on that site by keeping the current malberries. Um the uh Walzard themselves spoke and noted that they were are looking at seeing whether that can be negotiated at all uh to at least change the scope or nature of that agreement. Um it had been a condition of the sale of the property when Waler purchased it that they get to remain. So that's a private transaction the city really doesn't have a lot of additional information on. Um, so wouldn't want to comment any further upon that piece. They have called and spoke with me on a couple of occasions asking about what the next steps of the application are. So I think that there is an inclination to try to move forward, but at this time we've heard no schedule or have anything definitive. Uh, as soon as we do, we would put that out on the website, notify the planning commission, and take a our standard schedule of bringing it forward to you. Well, I counted a lot of Lamborghinis going down Weisetta Boulevard this past weekend, so there is an appetite for them in this city. >> And and and did I read correctly in the U uh city council u minutes that the moment of asking for another extension of their current >> chair? Yes. Moments asked for an extension of their current approval. This is the first extension to this approval. >> Okay. Uh, as a reminder, the prior approvals actually did not work anymore for them. They needed to meet new state requirements. And so, this is the first extension of this approval. And a condition was added by city council that they become current with all uh required billings before the end of October in order for that extension to be continued for another year. Any additional questions? Sorry. >> Cool. All right. >> Okay. >> Anything else? May I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Alex. Second. >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Anthony. Discussion. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed. The motion passes. Uh the meeting is and the meeting the September 8th 2025 meeting uh meeting of the wise planning commission is adjourned. I can speak. >> Oh goodness.