The URL can be used to link to this page

3. American Portable Telecom for a Conditional User Permit and Site Plan Review for the Construction of a 135' Telecom Tower, 80 West 78th St. C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 1/15/97 � l C 11ANHASSEN CC DATE: 2/10/97 1 y 2/24/97 CASE #: 96 -6 CUP By: Generous:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conditional use permit request to permit a 135 foot cellular communication tower LOCATION: 80 West 78th Street 3 APPLICANT: American Portable Telecom L 1701 E. 79th Street. Suite 19 1 Minneapolis, MN 55425 (612) 858 -0027 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway and Business Services District ACREAGE: 0.024 acres DENSITY: not applicable ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - BH, vacant, railroad line; R -12, apartments north of railroad S - BH, Highway 5 E - BH, Lotus Lawn & Garden W - BH, vacant WATER AND SEWER: Available to site t i PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is currently occupied by a two -story office building with associated parking lots. The specific location has some shrubs and grasslands. The site is relatively flat with few natural �) amenities. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial P-15--0 °¢ ii, �1ii !!fT,'il11!tt �, 7400 V 0 - a i� �'J�3� o • �f� mob t r • 1igime ' t o CO TA o co de fa te C .� �n v�� • 111011111akitmek ` \,, der Et , F.M2,, 4bLi mum 7 is......... fr,vA.N.i `: ." r:�� ''1 1�� ' a 1.•04 ' . . .© MI � ■■ �^✓ ` V 4 41 14 �t 1 a . I �.LI i° • i e -+ ii .... Ii i i g . # :• co i c i rat Vim- B/ \r, 11 1 11111 1111111 ■ ■Lia,Ell� 111 1111 ,`� r"Iter �❑ i ■I ,I�• � ` .5 , - 11111 IIU� N - 0 1 ''''.%•;,,,,,;•;'' ' Lake nve E ,�: o i 2 !Dr 3 .11 r" 1 OP 1114'14rt' n eaten ', �•� c haahasaea 0 .. . 41•1' =' h� �w� ` _Kin_ i Park i f St H 5 ` C t!! � a� � i t ` i . i / II . `'� IN' v , t ' ; 8100 ms �� gip �� i r , 4: 3; ems^ I ,� 0 �' -1 8 200 �!4 l e vitiri0 . ' -# 8300 Rice Mar h ,.. ,,• Lake p, rk Rice 8400 • ce S usan s -1;�% arsh Lake , • 4i c as 8500 i. co d � p�•i, G + �1l� c - , %. co °) 8600 ,tea _ .. -...1-. 8700 X12 v 't _ ' PR _ 1 8800 man •11111 1 IOW sior! le-irg ' � �aKe (tile g��N American Portable Telecom January 15, 1997 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a 135 foot tall cellular communication galvanized finish, monopole design tower with nine directional antennas. (For reference, the electrical transmission poles located south of Highway 5 near McDonald's are 90 feet tall and the office building is approximately 30 feet tall.) The applicant is proposing the lease of a 50 foot by 50 foot area of the site. Within this area, a 33 foot by 28 foot fenced enclosure is being proposed. The applicant is proposing an eight foot fence, which is permitted within commercial districts, with three strands of barbed wire at the top. City Code requires a separate conditional use permit for the use of barbed wire and another conditional use permit for fences in excess of eight feet (Section 20- 1018). Within the fenced enclosure is the tower and a bridge structure with five foot by three foot by three foot equipment cabinets on top. The applicant proposes to use an all weather gravel surface within the enclosure. While not fully documented by the applicant, staff is unaware of the ability to locate the proposed telecommunication facility on an existing tower or building within the search area. Due to the low building heights in the city and especially along Highway 5, there are minimal opportunities to locate antennas on existing buildings. The site for the proposed telecommunications tower is currently covered by an existing mix of young trees adjoining the adjacent wetland. Directly to the west, there are no trees. A shift of 50 feet to the west would eliminate the need for extensive tree clearing and help reduce visibility of the ground mounted equipment by placing the equipment more directly behind the existing building. As shown on the site survey, the applicant is encroaching upon the drainage and utility easement by five feet. This five feet may not seem to be any more of a problem than an encroachment agreement, but at the site it appears to be not land, but utilized wetland. The construction of this telecommunications tower would require partially filling in a utilized wetland, a practice that is not allowed in Chanhassen unless replacement is done on site. According to ordinance, screening is required for the base equipment and the tower must be designed to blend in with the surrounding area. Applicant has not provided for any landscaping to be installed as part of the project. Screening of the base equipment will be difficult considering the fence surrounding the equipment runs directly along the parking lot. The front will not be able to be screened using vegetation, rather a type of privacy fence or other such architectural features will be needed if reduced visibility is desired. And that is the question, is reduced visibility of the chain link fence, barbed wire, and ground mounted equipment desired? Realistically, no vegetation will be able to hide the fact that the fence and equipment is there. Rather, some vegetation should be planted around the site to stabilize the soil after construction and add to the existing wetland vegetation. American Portable Telecom January 15, 1997 Page 3 Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit/site plan for the wireless telecommunication tower subject to conditions. Most importantly, staff is requiring that this tower be designed and constructed to permit the co- location of another user on the tower. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE City Council reviewed the proposed development at their February 10, 1997 meeting. The Council tabled the item, requesting that the applicant provide additional documentation regarding the search for a tower site. Specifically, the applicant was to address the feasibility of locating the tower on properties to the east of the proposed site, including the water tower in Eden Prairie. The applicant has provided the city with a letter in response to Council's request. In addition, the applicant has advised staff that they have talked with the property owner of the Lyman Lumber property and they refuse to enter into a lease agreement on their property. Staff has advised the applicant to be prepared to discuss their search area for the proposed tower, the service area of the tower, adjacent cell service areas, and the location of other approved towers within their system. The applicant told staff that they are concerned about providing some of the above information in a public format due to the proprietary nature of the information. BACKGROUND In November 1996, the City of Chanhassen adopted Ordinance 259 pertaining to towers and antennas. This ordinance provided criteria for the design and location of wireless telecommunication facilities in the city. The city has been advised by wireless telecommunication companies that this area of the city is a dead zone for current service users. Part of the impetus for revision of the tower and antenna ordinance was this dead zone for wireless telecommunication. The city recently received another application for a conditional use permit for a wireless communication tower on the property immediately to the east of this site. In order to minimize the proliferation of these towers in the city, the ordinance has a co- location requirement as part of the design and approval of these facilities. As a condition of approval for this tower, staff is recommending that the applicant commit to allow for the shared use of the tower. The city has an existing drainage easement over the northerly part of the site. It appears that based on the site plan the site improvements may encroach into the city's easement. It is very important that no filling occur within the city's easement. The easement contains a stormwater pond designated to pretreat stormwater and act as flood control. Filling in this area will reduce the ponds storage and treatment potential. Encroachment into the easement may also impede American Portable Telecom January 15, 1997 Page 4 maintenance of the pond by restricting access. The site improvements may encroach the city's easement as long as no fill is placed in the easement and the applicant and property owner enter into an encroachment agreement with the city which addresses city liability and maintenance issues. FINDINGS When approving a conditional use permit, the city must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20 -232, include the following 12 items: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: The proposed tower should not endanger the public health, safety or welfare of the city. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: The proposed use is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and generally complies with city ordinance requirements. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Finding: The proposed tower complies with city ordinance requirements and is compatible with the character of the area. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: The proposed tower will not be hazardous to existing or planned neighboring uses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: The proposed development is provided with adequate public services. American Portable Telecom January 15, 1997 Page 5 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: The proposed development will not require excessive public services. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Finding: The proposed tower should not create conditions that are detrimental to persons property or the general welfare of the community. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: The proposed development will not interfere with traffic circulation. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The proposed development will not destroy or damage natural, scenic, or historic features. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The proposed tower will be aesthetically compatible with the area. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The proposed development should not depreciate surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: The proposed development will meet standards established for communication towers. The following revision must be made to the plans: • Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation. • The applicant shall document that the tower is designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least one additional user. Towers must be designed to allow for American Portable Telecom January 15, 1997 Page 6 future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights. • A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use shall be submitted to the city. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On January 15, 1995, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed telecommunication tower. The commission voted 4 to 1 to recommend approval of the conditional use and site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Filling within the City's drainage easement shall be prohibited. If the site improvements encroach upon the City's drainage easement, the applicant and property owner shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. The applicant shall escrow $50.00 with the City for drafting and recording of the agreement. 2. Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation. 3. The applicant shall document that the tower is designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least one additional user. Towers must be design to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights. 4. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use shall be submitted to the city. 5. Barbed wire at the top of the fence shall not be permitted. 6. Applicant shall move monopole site to the west to reduce tree removal and visibility of equipment. 7. A formal landscaping plan must be submitted before it goes to City Council." The one dissenting vote was due to a desire that additional graphic materials should have been presented so that the city could better visualize the impact of the proposal. To that end, staff has requested that the applicant provide a photocomposite image of the tower behind the office building. (Staff believes that from a distance there will be minimal additional visual impact of the American Portable Telecom January 15, 1997 Page 7 tower due to the location of the electric transmission lines within the Highway 5 corridor and moving the tower to the west will reduce visual perception of the tower because of the building.) The applicant has submitted a revised plan that addresses several of the conditions of the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves conditional use permit 96 -6 for a personal communication service (PCS) wireless telecommunication facility, including site plan, prepared by Fluor Daniel, Inc., dated 9/13/96, revised 1/29/97, approval for a 135 foot monopole tower and associated equipment, at 80 West 78th Street for American Portable Telecom subject to the following conditions: 1. Filling within the City's drainage easement shall be prohibited. If the site improvements encroach upon the City's drainage easement, the applicant and property owner shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City, and the applicant shall escrow $50.00 with the City for drafting and recording of the agreement. 2. Barbed wire at the top of the fence shall not be permitted." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Letter from Douglas C. Cowan to the Planning Commission dated 11/25/96 3. Statement of Compliance with 12 General Standards for Conditional Use Permits 4. Letter from Steven M. Krohn, P.E. to APT - Minneapolis dated 11/25/96 5. Letter from Scott Peters to Robert Generous dated 12/19/96 6. William Covington, "Wireless Word," Planning vol. 62 no. 11 (December 1996): 8 -12 7. Letter from Michelle Johnson to Robert Generous dated 1/27/97 8. Letter of Intent for co- location prepared by American Portable Telecom 9. Planning Commission minutes for 1/15/97 10. Letter from Michelle Johnson to the Mayor and Members of Council dated 2/18/97 11. City Council Minutes of 2/10/97 12. Reduced Site Plan CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION * 7"e l l //' f J r (� , ti : � ! PPLICANT: American Portable Telecom OWNER: C.. � Z - 1, :DDRESS: 1701 E. 79th St., Suite 19 ADDRESS: S 9 C L 7 /CE r Minneapolis, MN 55425 ()sr 1a-- Ina-0, FL 31 SU t ELEPHONE (Day time) 612 -858 -0027 TELEPHONE: "7 7 - S - 5 Agent: Douglas Cowan, AICP — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit XX Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW /Easements Interim Use Permit _ Variance Non - conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development _ Zoning Appeal — Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review MC Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP /Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $800 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. - Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract .TOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. • PROJECT NAME Proposed Wireless PCS antenna tower LOCATION 80 West 78th Street, Chanhassen, MN LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract "A" and "B ", Registered Land Survey No. 59, • Files of Registrar of Titles. Carver Crnrnry. M1nne.nra TOTAL ACREAGE +/- 3 acres WETLANDS PRESENT YES XX NO PRESENT ZONING "BH" Highway and Business Services REQUESTED ZONING (no change) PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION COMMERCIAL REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION (no change) REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Conditional use approval is required by Ordinance No. 259 for Commercial Tower in BH District This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all informatio and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Plannin Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A writte notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that 1 am responsible for complying wit all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whor the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (eith: copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to mak this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I furth: understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to ar authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information 1 have submitted are true and correct to the best my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearir requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 d extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional revie extensions are approved by the applicant. /' . X /-- 2 s -� >� 'Signature • ;•••1i nt - r Date SignaV Wee Owner Date / oe Application Received on f S/ / Fee Paid $�� Receipt No. 6 338 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meetin 0 not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. �I, Minnesota Department of Transportation ( Metropolitan Division ov Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 December 19, 1996 r. ^n n Robert Generous , City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Robert Generous: Subject: American Portable Telecom: Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review Public Hearing Notice Review PH96 -01 North Side of West 78th Street, 1/4 Mile East of TH 101 Chanhassen, Carver County CS 1002 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed your request for comment regarding a Conditional Use Permit for a telecommunications tower at 80 West 78th Street. We have no major concerns regarding the application. However, we would like to take this opportunity to remind the applicant of certain stipulations regarding development of property adjacent to Mn/DOT right of way. • A Mn/DOT access permit is required for access to or across state highways or rights of way, including Mn/DOT owned frontage roads. A change in the intensity or type of use of an existing entrance also requires a permit. • A iviniDO T stormwater drainage permit is required for any change in rate of runoff to trunk highway right of way, or any alteration of trunk highway stormwater drainage systems. • Any other use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way, including but not limited to grading, utility work, and landscaping, also requires a permit. The permit necessary depends on the nature of the proposed work. • If property adjacent to Mn/DOT right of way is to be platted, the preliminary plat must be submitted to us for review, along with a site plan and grading and drainage plans if prepared. An equal opportunity employer Robert Generous December 19, 1996 page two Copies of proposed plats and site plans may be sent to Sherry Narusiewicz, Local Government Liaison Supervisor, at the above address. Questions regarding permit applications may be directed to Bill Warden of our Permits Unit at 582 -1443. If you have any questions about this public notice review, please contact me at 582 -1654. Sincerely, • S cott Peters Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison i 8 Planning December 1996 Wireless World ,».� ._m +..P".]i •Y+Sm' «. •L.»1. ^v "vhC:K...vS 1 f"�° •tfl LRA S t ` . I i n...a =d Telecommunications government local • i- ` _ « « res onse— -I— _ is at a crossroads. :i * _.p v*°., _ ` : v- -r:-...,..t.:.-.1.4e,. : '�7171 "iiiiiMig FR 'T' Y P l i ''' r � By William Covington ,• ( Y r;�g y C ompanies hoping to succeed _ in the highly competitive ---4- ' � ' �^ F communications arena must " ` have good relations with lo- L 1 cal governments. It's the lo- l a £ cal governments, after all that supply . .. s _ t_ ■ r the franchises and permits needed to deliver cellular and paging services and ... 4 .; cs ' 4 + ^ . other communications products. So far, those relations have been pretty ing, the lat- buildings, on billboards, atop wooden good. Local governments want the ben- est innovation is narrowband messaging. utility poles, and on metal poles. Lattice efits that new forms of communication This service allows customers to acknowl- towers are considered a last resort. can bring, and wireless service providers edge a page by pressing a button on their understand that cities and towns must pagers. Soon they will be able to receive On the ground exercise some control over what comes short text messages as well. Several considerations determine where into the community. The challenge is to Wireless communications typically re- cell sites are placed. The first is that the keep things on an even keel at a time of quire three components: a device (tele- site must be close enough to the caller to rapid growth in the telecommunications phone, pager, or portable computer); a receive the signal generated by a half - industry. cell site /radio link; and a switching of- watt portable phone. The second consid- A sign of that growth is the auctions fice. Every major metropolitan area has eration is that cell sites must be located held on August 26 by the Federal Com- one or more switching offices, where far enough apart to eliminate cross -talk. munications Commission. On that date, calls from cell sites are processed. The The third is interference. Tall buildings the FCC began the second in a series of calls are then sent out through the tele- and large bodies of water, for instance, auctions that will allow more companies phone system. When a wireless customer can distort a signal, precluding high - quality to offer wireless communication services. calls another wireless telephone, the service. switching office locates the cell site dos- Finally, according to the industry, good How it works est to the party being called and connects service requires that there be at least one The term wireless communications re- that caller via that cell site. Over 90 cell site in every neighborhood, normally fers to a family of communication de- percent of all wireless communications within every six to eight square miles vices that can send and receive messages still start or end on a traditional tele- depending upon terrain and number of instantly —by voice in the case of cellular phone system (called "wireline" in the customers. telephones or alphanumerically in the business). Wireless communications companies case of pagers. Soon, too, computer users When a call is made, the device seeks can share cell sites. They cannot, how - will be able to send and receive data via out a radio link, also known as a cell site. ever, share the radio equipment that sends wireless modems. Radio links capture the signal, process it and receives calls and information. Should One of the newer forms of wireless (verifying that the caller is a legitimate two carriers share a site, normally 10 feet voice communication is the personal com- customer), and send it on. Most cell sites of space must separate the antennas be- munications service. PCS is similar to a include one or more antennas, a struc- longing to each company. As the number cellular phone but operates at different ture to support them, and a building to of customers increases, so must the num- radio frequencies and requires twice as house radio and computer equipment. ber of cell sites. However, the additional many communications facilities. In pag- Cell sites can be located on the roofs of sites typically are smaller and easier to i 9 i ' To make cell sites less obtrustive -and more I politically acceptable -some firms are choosing stealth locations. Can you find the a device on this building? See page 12 for the answer. i ow I 1 _ '— =...: -d a = s r 11-11-1-05-T metropolitan areas may seek permission 1 `-- �`�!'_� - - t - ' to build 15 to 50 facilities a year } " r r 9 The new PCS licensees and the new ; W ert paging providers are also seeking sites, • ��.� and so are the growing numbers of com - panies offering data communications and _ - similar services. However messaging and r,'' r ' S data delivery services typically can use • - , much smaller sites and often share exist- • ,' ing facilities with cellular or PCS provid- if . ' ers. The winners of the C bloc auctions _ 7 it_.,, i ;41 _ (companies like Next Wave and Wireless - PCS) are just now beginning to make an _ - appearance. Like the PCS license hold - " a_'a -!- , t,...,_" ers, they will need to build an entire s network, with the number of sites de- f °' s— - = - - pending on the type of technology used _ "=° "- --- '` T ° - F Y f and the degree to which they can "co- -, - . - n . g locate" with other providers. Many wire - � ; x less companies also use "stealthing" tech- - - >- )1 "7"" " ,, niques (hiding facilities on rooftops or elsewhere) to effectively conceal sites. locate on rooftops or conceal in other trum to allow at least two new service Local governments can probably use their ways. providers in every market. The service to experiences with PCSs, which typically be offered was referred to as PCS or request permits for 50 to 100 facilities a Going once personal communications services. The year, as a guide to determine how many Back in 1981, the Federal Communica- auctions were completed in March 1995 facilities a C bloc carrier might seek. tions Commission published a report on and raised over $7 billion. implications for economic development Yet another auction was held earlier In a hurry of the then very new cellular telephone this year, this time to encourage at least A wireless company typically spends be- technology. After a series of hearings, one more nationwide provider. About tween $250,000 and $700,000 to get a cell the commission invited providers to ap- $10 billion was raised by auctioning off site up and running. Those A and B bloc ply for licenses to provide cellular ser- what is known as C bloc spectrum. Then, providers that received their licenses in vices in 306 metropolitan service areas on August 26, the D and E bloc auctions the 1980s have actually built their sys- and 428 rural areas. were initiated. They are expected to be tems three times: first to serve customers So many companies applied that the completed by the end of this month. with three -watt car phones, then to ac- FCC decided simply to assign local tele- No one is certain how the successful commodate half -watt portables, and fi- phone companies enough radio spectrum bidders will make use of this additional nally to convert analog cellular systems 113 bloc spectrum) to offer cellular com- radio frequency. Auction winners with to more efficient digital technology. munications in their own areas. A lottery licenses may simply enhance their cur- Now come the successful PCS and C was set up to allow non - telephone com- rent systems by providing ancillary ser- bloc bidders, and the soon-to-be- deter- panies to compete for the remaining A vices, or they may offer dramatic new mined winners of the D and E bloc spec - bloc spectrum. By the end of 1984, nearly communications services. In any case, it trum. All these companies have a tre- every major metropolitan area in the U.S. is likely that the D and E bloc offerings mendous monetary obligation to the federal had been assigned to a carrier. In 1989, will result in a need for more cellular government and to banks. In addition, similar lotteries were held for the rural towers. stiff industry competition is forcing com - areas. As a result of all this activity, local panies to lower access charges and fees The cellular lotteries exceeded all ex- governments have been approached by for each minute of use -their two main pectations. Original estimates predicted already operating providers who are seek- sources of revenue. fewer than a million subscribers by 2000. ing to expand their coverage area or to As a result, wireless service providers But by 1990, the cellular industry had supplement service where existing ca- will be in a hurry to get construction attracted over 10 million customers. Im- pacity is exhausted. At a time when sub- permits, and they will resist schemes for pressed by this success, the FCC in 1994 scriber lists are growing by over 30 per- imposing taxes, auctioning off access to decided to auction off enough radio spec- cent a year, incumbent carriers in major public property, and other assessments. 10 Planning December 1996 Given that situation, my advice to lo- can seek from the permit applicant. cal governments is to get a handle on the Regular communication with the car - key elements of the Telecommunications riers serving a community is also essen- Act of 1996, which lays out the ground tial. At least once a year every locality rules for industry and local government should invite the telecommunications car- in the area of land -use law. riers serving the area to a regular meet- ing. Use this time to review the contents . -.- , 7' *A =vt� „ 4 , What is required of permit applications. Place special em- � t s ;, The law creates a presumption that needed phasis on the type of information that is 4 ifs„ . wireless facilities can be sited in a com- expected from the applicants. Identify � r � : , munity. Flat refusals to grant permit ap- the parts of the application that can be 4 � X plications are no longer allowed. The law left blank, which must be filled out, and c ra :, , '' ' - also requires that requests for permis- under what conditions an application will �''' - -,* s . 1 sion to build must be acted on promptly. be rejected as incomplete. Also, ask ser- '.':= '^` _ 't' : It forbids regulations from favoring one vice providers where they may want to � , ; ♦ , 1 f «� sort of wireless service provider over build facilities in the next year x 0 •x another. And it prohibits local govern-. Increasingly telecommunications com- ; a• - -• '" .1 „ c ,mow „ •; ments from regulating radio frequency panies are teaming up with local govern- }mom -'� ▪ a emissions. A federal standard has been ments to sponsor regional wireless semi- d r li ' • set in this area and demonstrated compli- nars. These educational forums usually ` s A 3 > ,1 t ; ance with that standard is all a locality last a full day and bring together local t. 4 lt'l -. - • 4 What the Wireless Revolution Means t this moment, thousands of t ‘� R ` , °', itiliL r \�' ti 1' ,`Y,: w/,, t '`r site acquisition representatives ; n ' , , , r , ' , , • t , are standing at planning counters . `,�+ � r l i r , „� L' 1 • , f „ ° ' " Ii 4, 1 , ryw eve here in the U.S., demand- ,} j t "\ �� ♦If 1 , 1. �, ,'1' , .ti ,, ,, . i ' , lei I x ing permits -now. In most com- , �•� . ,N,. f • ' -'�� r l k■lf d ' I ` I4.t•'r, i �, munities, however, there is no plan for � ° , .0 z, ,, F '' � •' i' ; ifi accommodating the sites over the long k t} y 1„t, 1. 4 ' ! s . � ,, ' % � haul. ''�lti { elt t, ` . p ,,, f 1 ,/ , ) �� Both city and county governments typi- , v ,� ` j r ' ` ' t , f, � t!t 11 k j . k, r , I t - � cally categorize personal wireless facili- } l r .,' t r � ., 1 1. 'r "1 ` ;1` - I ties as special or conditional uses. Yet , ,lug ' ' 4.,,'.1/4.;),. ; `'' ' � - L- i it }t 1 ' they often rely on outdated radio trans- l ; . , � 1,, • 1 IVrt { 1 , � 'i, i • mission and satellite dish zoning prov + ' , : '1' 1 ,tri i ,. - lions to regulate them. } 1 (' 1` 1 ? " { But some communities have instituted �f yv�' , lip ,, }� � }, � .l mu review procedures. Under , 1,t Y` ' y ,' ' . some of these procedures, residential zones + ' 1 /r �, ‘',';' t • get one approach, commercial and indus- , . y I; [�yi1 t } • :NI. : i trial zones another; monopoles require ' ti l 9 9 a F l, .7n { ., review wh mounts 50 feet and less are o , , .. .... , ' , '. - la,,, ti } e' permitted administratively. 1, ^1 ' i ,t'i. u, , ' , • • -- t ` 1'i ' • ' ■ The advantage to a zoning ordinance a. i ' i , ,('y` i, 1 'ti ' ' T : ; � `' ' • approach is that each cell site is dealt ' , • A . .i ? ''1 ?r \ i .,,. ;low,. '*'N - \ \ with consistently and uniformly. The dis= ti j + ' �' ; i , ' , ` 'N' 1 • advantage is that the jurisdiction deals i J � ti' ; a : ' -. T. ........ l' • ;,7 i r Y • :. ■ 4 . 1 with cell sites one at a time. As a. result, - r �• , ' ' ; � ` ' :' . ,.., ' = fC 1 1 c wireless carriers are asking for' an`dlocal = x 8 .' I '' 1, _ 1 ' ati ` r a , 7 , n • governm are approving, vast s a ! : • �'. i • • , i �: ; ' . k . ' , ' .. ..-• ' \ , j- , it .. \ on a site -by -site basis. k . ,. , € i.• • r r f , . • > • t ', h - t a • 1 y ; `� 7 1. Some cities and counties—knowing 1-• , • } 1 \' `, ' ,, • ' 1 t they are running out of good cell sites- ' < " ` E review applications in bulk. San Diego * "7 _. , , r " • " � 7' ., ' 7 ,- • �"" . for example, requires annual submissions some communities lease public Iand- including water tanks —to 3 "- S i of all cell sites from each carrier. Many wireless carriers. Local governments using that approach have control 4 jurisdictions also encourage or require over cell sites, but they also open themselves up to potential lawsuits co 7',,,,i,,, . - . �" i '' ,t..:; ' ,? w ' , s - � San Francisco has a book of guidelines the best guidelines don't provide the cer- _fact that s o m e communities are leasing - for planning commissioners touse in tainty of a good plan. .`a ' "'; '1`-7" public land -water tanks, parkland, 7 , reviewing cell site applications. But even The situation is complicated by the of- way -to wireless earners. Leasing public - 11 government officials, community lead- ers, industry representatives, and other Total U.S. Digital Cellular Subscribers interested parties. The topics include wire- less communications; the types of facili- = ties needed; the method used to select 1992 - w possible sites; how the permitting pro - t - . 7993 8 cess works; and health issues and prop - '� d „In erty values. AT &T Wireless Services has ` t;” ' - ; 1994 p held such gatherings in Boston, New York, 4 4 � Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and sev- !IIP: a" 199s eral other jurisdictions. /�� *< Local governments should also review . 2000 3a.000 i:f.- their land -use legislation to be sure that it 4 coincides with the provisions of the tele- A. 0 5,000 10.000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 communications act. Other elements that ti . ri jurisdictions should consider are: use by * *•gs . right in industrial and commercial zones; t t1 A segment of a map in a hypothetical city (left( shows where a hearing process for residential areas; *: �. S ,,1 M cell sites might be placed if none of the 10 carriers will co- specific, as opposed to qualitative, re l ocate. Above: The number of people using cellular devices is f p p g view standards; fixed time frames for . _ 1 expected to explode within the next few years. permit processing; and separation of the land solves two problems: Local govern - applications. A more stringent review has not required permits for tower con - ments can choose the best locations for would be required for properties not iden- struction. In Pennsylvania, the state court wireless facilities, and applicants can get tified in the master plan. A two -step ap- of appeals denied Bell Atlantic Mobile in and out of thepermitting process quickly. ` proach has the advantage of assuring Systems' claim that a 150 -foot cellular New companies have popped up to mar - public input at an early stage. Because it tower was an essential service that should ket these public lands and to direct the requires a map, it is also the only ap- be permitted as of right:. carriers to "easy" city and county sites. proach that ensures some degree of cer- The courts are a bellwether of what's The problem is that the wireless firms tainty. ahead for planners. It's clear that plan - often insist on an exclusive arrangement Given all the options, I would say that ning is needed. So is a factual record and with the community, in effect tying up the wireless master plan is the tool of a review process. '.; •Pa access to public land —and exposing the choice. At this writing, only a few cities ; Ted Kreines, AICP , community to potential legal challenges. and counties are exploring the master ' Further, private landowners may object plan approach, so there is no model to Kreines is p resident of Kreines & Kreines in to the competition from a public body. follow. But carriers are bound to tire of: _ Tiburon, ..0 alifornia. The firm specializes in An alternative approach is to require the ad hoc approach of siting one cell wireless planning all cell sites to be located on land owned facility at a time. I predict that they will or leased by the jurisdiction. Ringwood, soon request the certainty that comes - New Jersey, is trying that, although it has with a wireless master plan. Terms of Art •° onlythreepubliclyownedsitesthatqualify. The courts are also pointing the way. , ' The suburban Passaic County commu- There have been four important court Applicants The people and compa- nity has also offered to lease land from cases on wireless planning so far, and nies that apply for personal wireless fa- private landowners seeking a cell site there are sure to be many more. Earlier cilities:tsite acquisition representatives, - and then to sublease the site to a wireless this year, a federal court upheld a six lawyers, cell site builders, landowners, carrier. month moratorium imposed by the city and others. `Be aware that some appli- A wireless master plan is another way of Medina, Washington. Sprint Spectrum cants seek approval of cell sites and then to go. The town of Windsor, Connecticut, had asked for a preliminary injunction to sell or lease them to the carriers or land- is considering the preparation of such a override the moratorium, which Medina owners they represent; = ; , , plan for the area between Hartford and argued it needed to give it time to plan for , , Carriers Companies licensed by the Bradley International Airport. Also, the cell sites. But another federal court ; up- . FCC; to build personal wireless facilities Mid - America Regional Council, which held the contention of BellSouth Mobil - and ` operate personal wireless services. encompasses eight counties and 114 mu- ity that Gwinnett County, Georgia, had There are also unlicensed carriers. nicipalities in two states around Kansas not presented sufficient evidence to sup Personal wireless facilities Described Ci hl, begun a has be n two-phase that port its denial of a permit. W in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 P process P could lead to a regional wireless master Meanwhile, a group of residents in as facilities for the personal provision rovision of plan. Franklin County, Texas, won a tempo , wireless services The master plan approach involves two rary injunction against construction of a Personal wireless services Commer- steps. The first is to approve the areas multicarrier tower, which they argued cial mobile services, unlicensed wireless where cell facilities could be located. The would impair their quality of life and services, and common carrier wireless second step is to review individual site diminish property values. Franklin County exchange access services. 12 Planning December 1996 location. Local governments like tions. Use your regular annual meeting the idea because it reduces . site with the cellular companies as an oppor- :- t , proliferation, and industry likes tunity to register potential permit appli- ; ;: it because construction and op- cants. Every time a permit is sought, the erating costs are reduced. There registered parties could be informed and ' = are some drawbacks, however. invited to contact the applicant to discuss r"°" For one thing, co- location cre- sharing the facility. ates larger sites. The more carri- A final suggestion: Look to the future. :M; o ers sharing a facility, the bigger Ask industry representatives to share their ni \ _44% Kamm* ©' (and potentially more intrusive) expectations of what's ahead in the way Q it will be. Also, permit review of services, carriers, and concerns. time may increase dramatically, a. 0 and the extra height of the facil- William Covington is land -use and environ- 11/ ,,,,I mental policy counsel to AT &T Wireless Ser- it can push the application into /�y 1 vices in Kirkland, Washington. He was for - ,�Ot't a more stringent review category. merly director of right -of -way permitting for FM �: Finally, established cellular car- King County, Washington. Imam �'� riers may have reasonable con - 14443444, Yams . "P"0 I �� cerns about revenue, operations, low r.n.y W! CAW, a nd liability when a new carrier 1 tin ��c., wra Y - ri 0 w1 is added to an exist - • i ing site. /'",°n"" r, � „ • 4 For local govern t r x ^ ` s, �� r i! ments seeking to r � . r r l CV So ar e - , r a Imo, rare make co- location an . , - �' ` attractive option for . K _ �' ► C•• P " a d 1 Kr e ines & sines_ . • es a J2 ° � Z.1: ,i4 ' wireless p roviders , e ~a �A t �_� �� letter caned * Upda Con r „ IMIr r , ry I have three sugges h 415. 435 -1522 or I _ .r »- 5 tions. ' '•, . � e esg te@worldnet att.net. ~} / lk t" First provide in- - ' "' 1 , 1 "'"" ,, ,t t „ t Ne 44 . 0 -1 eaomm ffic l \I.. � centives to co- locat- �debook�forlocal officia ' • �� ing parties. Assure qv 4 the carriers that the ., ' b�10 APA - Wei BcSok$ ti �i 4 . ; ` at $24 95 fo , l; $2 9 f � , I time needed to re- , • , er � �. = e k' is slab dart o f an view a co location x . _ f; tto npackefoaee ularCotnatunica Ow aft web* request and the rules ,.rx., <,• ' m r ` °= g involved will not " • ` . .4 .. ' r e pared by et - viv Planning W a the p a cket , `which is free ° . An example of co-location, showing greatly exceed those + ' a a• ails several different services that can be ' S" 1 C is aV ApA �O r,;,.. ago accommodated at different heights on Second, consider giv- . t for single applicant. . m 9 ,; � ,, ' x -' N In A il! Chi < one tower. • .P mY'"`� 7�" ';' , ,,`, "`' ing the co- locators t = =.t , tnmumcaho • actIittes access to municipal public hearing and the actual vote on ro ert speeding up per- oA ss o p at i on . d last.t tha p g P P Y+ P g P P a r k` ` d issob 14 11 4 • • vernmn approval. mit processing, perhaps even , i _ .< e rs ts t a e _'" •• s .� . . � . 1 1 AG s home" lowering application fees. - ,. Getting together Third, take advantage of t f _- ' g totsendach Local legislation should also include pro- the fact that local govern- r :, 1 r `` �- visions for co- location —the sharing of ment is the central clearing- �' , 111,.. oe • e " '� ' o Co m e facilities. Everyone seems to want co- house for all permit applica- , • - . t r t - , 4• • • • • • .•I ..,4e'444' a ? r h •- _ ° y . gyp. Y h;. , 4 • rTy li t 1.1�• ••• ..N•1 •• .., � 1 •-y t -7. -.. _ 4..«.w A .LT: 9 r: ,_ . a � hY � 4 �f 4 - � : r R t. 11 1 W O . 1 1 l 1 1 • 1 � r. I M w }s. fx-.vn+a «. .a ✓.� -- '.1 � : :17.....4..+w%.w Y4 tiu31.A¢+' '' (' �� RT 4 N[ ryH�k , .... 1 • xfi_ = I� c 6 lF µwy. x•- n '�' i 1 1 „.'.,,it?' `v',r' Fd! 1 r, `. o' , ,:' , s ,l t 1 � t. b t•H. '*.i.„l .. � + S ,...4..„.-;� ' ,, "77 i- - The answer to the question on page 9. CELLULAR 1701 E. 79th Street, Suite 19 5 Bloomington, MN 55425 (612) 858 -0000 R EALTY (612) 854 -4105 Fax ADVISORS, INC. 23 January 1997 Mr. Robert Generous Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Conditional Use Permit Application for Proposed Wireless Telecommunication Facility located at 80 West 78 Street in Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear Mr. Generous: Since Doug Cowan will be transferring to another assignment before the end of January, I will be your new contact for the remainder of the processing of this application. I am sorry we did not have the opportunity to meet at the Planning Commission last week but I look forward to working with you to complete this process. In response to the comments of Staff and the Planning Commission members, enclosed please find additional documentation relating to this application. That documentation includes a letter of intent for co- location signed by American Portable Telecom, one additional copy of drawings submitted with the application which show the structural design of the tower and indicate that it is capable of supporting at least one additional user, and a revised site plan which incorporates the changes discussed. Those changes include movement of the site to the west to better screen the tower behind the existing building and reduce the necessity of tree removal, reconfiguration of the site so that it does not encroach upon any city easements, the removal of the barbed wire from the top of the eight foot fence surrounding the tower, and a landscape plan showing how the equipment may be screened from view. Thank you for your continued help in this process. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 858 -0090. Sincerely, 4, 4 Michelle Johnson Zoning Coordinator, Cellular Realty Advisors, Inc. on behalf of APT 858 -0090 (work), 854 -4105 (fax) I APT A M E R I C A N P O R T A B L E T E L E C O M A TD5 COMPANY 1701 E. 79th Street Suite 19 Minneapolis, MN 55425 612 -858 -0000 Fax 612 - 851 -9103 January 16, 1997 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Letter of Intent for Proposed PCS Telecommunications Site at Property located at 80 W. 78 Street, Chanhassen, Minnesota To whom it may concern: This letter is to inform you that the tower owner, American Portable Telecom, Inc. and its successors will allow the shared use of the tower at the above location as long as the co -user will agree to pay a reasonable charge for shared use, and the tower is stucturally capable of accommodating the proposed additional equipment. Thank you, AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM, INC. , 4 c__,, .., ) / 7- ,, , , 4 ., ) ,,.., , By: ,_ .i C - _,_e Title: r . ` Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Peterson: Is there a second to that? Joyce: I'll second that. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit #96 -5 for a 150 foot telecommunications tower and an 8 foot chain link fence as shown on the site plan received December 11, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan before it goes to the City Council. 2. The tower shall comply with requirements in ARTICLE XXX. TOWERS AND ANTENNAS of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The tower shall have a galvanized finish. 4. There shall be no artificial lighting or signage. 5. The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of building permit application showing the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co- located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas. A description of the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated should also be provided. 6. There shall be no barbed wire on the fence and the top of the fence shall be changed to look finished. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 135' TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER TO BE LOCATED AT 80 WEST 78 STREET. Public Present: Name Address Gary Goll 1455 Park Road Jason Funk 2900 Lone Oak Parkway, Eagan 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Terrie Thurmer 7625 Metro Blvd., Edina Doug Cowan 1701 East 79 Street, Bloomington Michelle Johnson, APT 1701 East 79` Street, Bloomington Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff. Joyce: There was no need for notification on this to anybody? There was no one within 500 feet I take it, because I didn't see any. Generous: It was notified. I just didn't, I forgot to attach that. Joyce: The only concern I have is looking at some of the residential areas that I know aren't 500 feet away and that's our policy to just, it concerns me that someone's going to look up in the air one of these days and see that thing and not know why it's up there. I don't know how, I don't have any direction on that but it's obviously, it's an issue. I mean you know. Aanenson: You're right. You're right. There's 20 names that were identified. Property owners. Joyce: Okay. Conrad: Is it staff's feeling that this is not a visual issue at this location? It was a lot easier accepting a tower in an industrial area. Now we're in a commercial, residential, very easily seen from TH 101 and TH 5. Do we have so much pollution, visual pollution there already that the position is this ain't going to make any difference. Aanenson: The eastern end of the city was the, was what triggered the whole ordinance amendment. We knew that area was deficient. Providers have been, have identified this area as deficient as far as service. That's what kind of forced us to provide a mechanism for a tower being placed. We felt visually that this was probably the best, as far as aesthetic. We didn't want it right on the entryway to the City. It's interesting to know, we went back and we were looking at the high tension power lines that went through the city 10 years ago and there was a lot of discussion about the visual impacts. The negative side is we kind of lose, after a while we just get used to that negative pollution, which is kind of bad. We certainly don't want to encourage them but it's try to look at, but the building in front. Hopefully that would take away, the professional office building in front. Some of the impacts of it. Setting it back instead of having it right on the corner of TH 5 and Dell Road. But certainly it's something we look at every time it comes in. Is this probably the best location we can get. Especially when we find there's another one in close proximity that wants to come in, which is the better of the two, even though one's ahead of the other. ...500 feet, it might be the people that are 1,000 out that might see...more offended by it. But I guess I tie it back to when we went on the tour, we went down off of Lyman Road. The one that was there. A lot of people forget that that one was... Yes, to answer your question, we do try to look at... You've got to keep in mind that they need to get a 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 certain topography elevation in order to make it work, but it is nicer putting it in an industrial park. Peterson: Questions of staff? Is the applicant here and do they wish to address the commission? Michelle Johnson: My name is Michelle Johnson. I represent American Portable Telecom, which is also referred to as APT. It's located at 1701 East 79 Street, Suite 19, Bloomington, Minnesota, 55425. Also here with me tonight are Doug Cowan, John Barstow and Duke Winn representing APT if there are any further questions from our engineers or anything that come up. I think the staff has prepared a very thorough report. Rather than just duplicating everything I'd like to comment on a couple of things that were raised here. First the barbed wire. We said we do intend to build an 8 foot fence but we have no problem eliminating the barbed wire from the top of that fence so that is no longer an issue. In the planning report there was a statement about the, a concern that there might be some encroachments onto some city easements. We're willing to configure the site so that it will not encroach upon any of those easements. As far as moving the site to about 50 feet away from those trees that were existing, we are willing to work with the staff on that as well. In our preliminary discussions with the property owner on that, he had expressed an interest in possibly removing those particular trees and replacing them with evergreens or something that would be a little more fuller because apparently he's had problems with those trees having to continuously cut them back in order to prevent them from going onto his parking lot and destroying that parking lot. So he did profess an interest in that so we might be able to work out something with staff and I guess I will have something a little more definite worked out before the City Council meeting on that. As far as the aesthetics point that was brought up, we do feel that because of the utility poles and the light poles and stuff that go along those highways there, it actually serves to lessen the visual impact of the tower. It's the vertical elements, just the series of vertical elements rather than if it was just out in a flat field where it'd be a lot more noticeable. When there are all of those other things, people tend to get very used to it very quickly and no longer notice it anymore. I don't have any further comments at this time but we are open to questions. Peterson: Questions from commissioners. Skubic: I have a question regarding co- location. You say that you're at the edge of your range right now at this location. Now if we co- locate somebody on there who might be 20 feet, the separation distance is 20 feet I believe it is. Will that further restrict their range and make it more difficult to co- locate? Michelle Johnson: Different systems require different heights on the towers. We are, our towers are capable of holding another system, another co- locator. That's another thing I wanted to mention that we are willing to provide that letter saying we're open to co- location, and we have had two companies express a preliminary interest in looking at that site to see if they could possibly co- locate on that in the future. It doesn't limit, because the systems are different, they require different heights of their antennas. They require different distances between the towers. So it really doesn't limit the ability to co- locate as far as other towers. Towers are only capable of holding a certain number of antenna structurally so it won't hold an infinite number of co- 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 locators but depending upon the type of company that comes in, what height they need, we would be open to allowing them to work with us. Skubic: Thank you. Conrad: I guess I don't understand the plan. Is it, visually the previous one was a little bit easier for me to understand. On this site, in this area that's 35 x 30 feet, we have a tower and then what else? Maybe Bob you can answer. What is the building? Generous: It's not a building per se. It's like boxes. Conrad: Okay. It's still similar to the other one then, that we just approved? Michelle Johnson: Yes it is. The cabinets are about the size of a vending machine so they're not in any way considered a building. They're about 3 x 5 x 3. Conrad: So the 40 meter monopole, that is the pole we're talking about right? Michelle Johnson: Right. Conrad: Okay. I get the schematic a little bit better. An arrow was going through what I thought was a building, not the pole. It runs through the building to the pole. No more questions, thanks. Peterson: My question is...but is in reality, are there going to be any cellular towers even put up that require buildings? Are the buildings essentially done with the progression of technology as we see it today? Michelle Johnson: I can't really speak for other companies. I can only speak for what we're doing. I know it depends on the technology for how much they need. The technology is progressing so that smaller and smaller buildings are required. So it's possible that no one will come in again asking for a big building but I can't guarantee that. It depends on what their system requires. If there's a cellular company still working. I know one of the ones we were talking to, they do require a building so. Generous: The Chairman of, the cellular tower next to this had a building. Joyce: How quickly after the approval process, how fast do these things go up? Is that a very quick process? Michelle Johnson: Maybe for construction I'd better refer to John. Joyce: You can answer from there. John Barstow: Yeah, we would...immediately after we get approval... We'd have to get a permit and start construction. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Joyce: How long, when would it be completed? John Barstow: A month. Joyce: It's like a month process then. Two weeks? John Barstow: ...dig the foundation. Wait a week for the foundation to carry the stacked steel...so it's about 2 -2 1/2 weeks... Peterson: Other questions? Thank you. Can I have a motion to open it for a public hearing and a second. Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. Peterson: Anybody that would like to make a presentation, please come forward and state your name and address please. Jay Littlejohn: I wouldn't go so far as to characterize this as a presentation. My name is Jay Littlejohn. I've been before you many times. I represent Air Touch Cellular. We have the other application that has been filed. It is on the corner property that is directly east of this. The pole that we need, I don't remember exactly, is it 76 feet or 78? Generous: 72 and then there's. Jay Littlejohn: It might be 76 or 75 to the tips of the antennas. The pole's considerably shorter. We are, we've been in touch with John and everybody else in this company and tried to work, to see whether it's possible for us to go there but 1 sense some trepidation as to whether this site is a good location as opposed to ours. There is that option open that perhaps they'd be on our tower as opposed to us on theirs. I don't know what your position is but mostly I'm here tonight to just answer questions as it relates to the other application if you're going to be looking at which one comes first or if it's just a matter of they filed their application first and so we'd be looking at going on their site. I'll throw that out. You can deal with it as you will. Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to comment on that if you'd like our. Peterson: Please. Aanenson: ...lot for visual... Jay Littlejohn: That's all I have. Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else like to make any comments? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing and a second? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. Peterson: Comments from commissioners. Any comments? Joyce: Not really. The only reason I asked this fellow how long it would take to build it is I guess we'll get some feedback real quickly. There's really no other comments. It's certainly not as desirable a place as the industrial site. So I'm kind of interested in seeing how it goes, how it's received but I don't have any problems with it. Peterson: Bob. Skubic: Looks good without the barbed wire on there. This is, I think a little more visible site than the previous one. I think we have good landscaping around this fence here. More so than the previous one. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I'm kind of uncomfortable. This is not my vision for where these towers were going to be, and I do agree. I'm not going to, we've got some towers, we've got some utility poles that are just, it's terrible that we have utility poles, power poles running up and down TH 5 the way we do but, and I think visually from TH 5 this may fit in but I guess I can't see it and I've got to say that I didn't go there today to try to figure this out. The other area I felt real comfortable with. This one I'm just really, it's fitting into neighborhoods. It's fitting into traffic areas and 1 can't tell. I guess that's my bottom line. I just don't know. I didn't see a landscape plain which we don't require for this. There was some verbiage about landscaping but it really, I just don't, 1 just have a real funny feeling that I'm approving something that I really don't know what I'm approving. And maybe that's my fault folks for not going out and taking a look. I know the site very well you know. I know the site very well. I've just not gone out there with the express thought of saying, how does a 130 foot pole fit here and what's the visual impact. So I don't know. I can't make a real good. I think the staff's comments are right. I think there can't be any barbed wire. I'm nervous about how finish looking this looks. But on the other hand I don't know who's going to see it other than the apartment buildings. But if they see it, I want it looking decent so I don't know. I'm sorry for such bad, not expressing myself better on that but I'm not real comfortable. Peterson: Jeff. Jeff Farmakes' microphone was not working and his comments were not picked up on tape. Peterson: I agree with Ladd. I really want to protect the Highway 5 corridor as much as we absolutely can but I have a sense that we really can't do anything about it. Aanenson: Well like I say, we know that this area is the area that we're deficient, even in city use. If you look at what's there in that area. If you put it on the south side, even on the south side of TH 5, you've got residential back up there. You're limited so. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Joyce: There is no option. You're going to have a pole somewhere. Aanenson: It's not the best place to put one from the beginning so if you were to take, taking that position, there's no good place. This is the next best. You've got residential behind all the areas there. Peterson: Other that that, I think the comments other commissioners made about landscaping, and integrating that formally into the conditions... With that, do I have a motion please? Joyce: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #96 -6 for a personal communications service wireless telecommunications facility, including 135 foot monopole tower and associated equipment at 80 West 78 Street for American Portable Telecom subject to conditions 1 through 7. 7 being a formal landscaping plan. Peterson: Is there a second? Skubic: Consider a friendly amendment to alter number 5 to completely exclude barbed wire from the fence. Is that necessary staff? Aanenson: That's fine. I think if you want to just make sure that's clear. Joyce: I'll certainly accept that. Skubic: I'll second it. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #96 -6 for a personal communication service (PCS) wireless telecommunication facility, including a 135 foot monopole tower and associated equipment at 80 West 78 Street for American Portable Telecom, subject to the following conditions: 1. Filling within the City's drainage easement shall be prohibited. If the site improvements encroach upon the City's drainage easement, the applicant and property owner shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. The applicant shall escrow $50.00 with the City for drafting and recording of the agreement. 2. Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation. 3. The applicant shall document that the tower is designed structurally, electrically and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least one additional user. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 4. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use shall be submitted to the city. 5. Barbed wire at the top of the fence shall not be permitted. 6. Applicant shall move monopole site to the west to reduce tree removal and visibility of equipment. 7. A formal landscaping plan must be submitted before it goes to City Council. All voted in favor, except Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Conrad: And let me just make a note. I think when we, and this goes back to policy here. When we put something like this that's so visible in a very public area, I need far better materials than I got tonight. This just does not do it. It just, we're putting, because it's a technical product we're assuming it's just going to technically fit in and I don't buy that and that's a, I need a landscaping plan which Kevin's got in there now but I just have to see how this fits better. 1 think we need better presentation materials when something like this comes in. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: The City Council did approve the site plan for Jay Kronick, the greenhouse with the addition to the retail space. They also approved the first reading of the wetland ordinance. So that can go on for second review... If I could maybe just take a minute and talk about ongoing items. Our next regular meeting will be February 19` To let you know what's on. We're doing a minor comp plan amendment regarding wetland. When somebody can extend a wetland permit that's not recorded. Just a minor change on that. We'll be looking at the Legion site as far as a site plan review. That will be a big item. Conrad: What's going in? Aanenson: Restaurant, ...bank, strip center. Conrad: Do you like it? Aanenson: Yeah. I think it's moving the right direction. Just so you're aware of it. There is somebody working on trying to put the car dealership on the property right next to it, which is the Mortenson piece which will probably be in March. At this point staff has said that they wouldn't support the recommendation but they're still going to go forward with it so, just so you're aware of that. Peterson: Is it the same people but a different? 38 CELLULAR Bloomington, to S MN 5 , 5 4 2 2 5e 19 N 545 (612) 858 -0000 ■ (612) 854 -4105 Fax ADVISORS, INC. 18 February 1997 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Conditional Use Permit Application for Proposed Wireless Telecommunication Facility located at 80 West 78 Street in Chanhassen, Minnesota To the Mayor and Members of the Council: The City Council tabled APT's application to construct a 135 foot monopole communication tower at the above location to enable APT to examine alternate sites suggested by the City Council. For the PCS technology APT is developing, antenna sites are laid out in a grid pattern. A grid is employed to enable spectral efficiency and provide contiguous coverage between cell sites. If the sites are too far away from each other, there will be gaps in the coverage. Conversely, if the sites are too close to each other, there will be problems of interference, which reduce the quality of service. The radio frequency engineers and site acquisition specialists work together to find the most appropriate location for placement of the antennae. Within any specific search "ring," existing structures are the first sites considered for co- location. Some structures do not provide sufficient height to obtain the coverage requirements. Other structures are unable to be leased. When all existing structures within a designated area have been eliminated as possible sites, APT attempts to find the most appropriate location to construct a tower to support our antennae. This process takes into consideration ground elevation, surrounding land uses, zoning designations, and the willingness of particular landlords to lease space to us. We have reassessed the area in question to ensure that no possible sites were overlooked. The City Council suggested specific sites to APT which we have examined in detail. • Eden Prairie Water Tower: This site is located in Hidden Ponds Park on Dell Road and Twilight Trail. The site was previously the primary candidate for this area. However, when we approached the city last Spring about locating antennas on their water towers, they were unwilling to negotiate. Since then, we have attempted to locate on other water towers within the city of Eden Prairie but have been rejected by the Public Works Department. This week, we contacted the city again about the Dell Road Water Tower. The Public Works Department reiterated their desire to keep antennas off their water towers. • Chanhassen Water Tower: This site was also previously considered. However, due to the terrain, specifically two hills at an elevation of 950 feet, APT would be unable to provide adequate coverage to portions of Highway 5 from this site. Additionally, this location will not allow for the balancing of frequencies on established sites west of Chanhassen. It is too far west and begins to overlap with sites there. At the same time, it leaves a gap in coverage to the east. • St. Hubert's Church: John Barstow from APT spoke with Dave Bangaster, the architect for this church, about the possibility of locating our antennas on the church, which is currently under construction. It was determined that the structure could support our antennas but only at a height of 50 feet. This is too low for our system. Additionally, there is no benefit to APT to construct a taller tower here because the hilly terrain interrupts signal propagation. • Redmond Property east of proposed site: It is APT's position that nothing would be gained by moving our tower to this site. First, although the ground elevation is slightly higher, the tower would reach the same elevation at either site. Second, this is a more dense area where we may not be able to locate sufficient space for our towers and equipment. Also, there is no indication that we would be able to lease this property. Our lease with Mr. Munson is already finalized. Finally, APT does not see any significant aesthetic gain to this site over the proposed site. Based on the above findings, there is no alternative site in the area which would meet our needs. For that reason, APT respectfully requests approval of our application as submitted. Sincerely, i f i L Michelle Johnson Zoning Coordinator, Cellular Realty Advisors, Inc. on behalf of APT 858 -0090 (work), 854 -4105 (fax) City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 135 FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER, 80 WEST 78 STREET. Bob Generous: Thank you Mayor, Councilmembers. The applicant, APT is requesting a conditional use permit for a 135 foot tower. As part of the original proposal and when we presented it to the Planning Commission they did not have their intent to co- locate and since then they have provided the City with a letter to that so that's one of the conditions that was originally proposed that's already fallen out. Actually all of the conditions have been complied with. We've left, we're recommending that two of them remain in because it's part of the construction review on this... The applicant has agreed to relocate the site approximately 50 feet to the west. You can see on the overhead picture. This will help to...behind the office building on West 78 Street and also keep it out of the existing vegetation... It is a monopole design. It is per city ordinance. They do have sufficient space for co- location. We have an application for the property next door for another telecommunication tower at, I believe it's at 76 feet or at 78 feet. And we have the two companies negotiating right now to see if they can work out a lease agreement and... The applicant is proposing as part of their landscaping plan... (There was a tape change during the staff presentation.) Councilman Berquist: Can this site support a structure? Mayor Mancino: The soils? Councilman Senn: Can I help add to your question? Stay out of the easement and leave the wetland alone. Bob Generous: The relocation... Councilman Berquist: Okay. Let's assume for the moment the negotiations fail. With the other user. Are we talking about...this is Chanhassen Office Building here, right? Bob Generous: Right. Councilman Berquist: And next door is Lotus. And someone else is looking at that site and now we've got one proposed for... Now let's assume that they don't come to agreement. At that time it comes to us and we say, work it out? We have that ability? Bob Generous: Yes, they have to be reasonable, and that's determined by City Council. Roger Knutson: Reasonable efforts have to...whether reasonable efforts were made. For example, if someone wants a million dollars to locate on their tower, it's not reasonable to turn down that... Councilman Berquist: And yet we're approving this. We're telling these folks that yes, they can go ahead and put it up and now they're going to be in the cat bird seat, so to speak. In the negotiations with the other party. Roger Knutson: Whoever goes first has the advantage. But my experience has been, and I've had some, is that today this company goes first. Tomorrow they'll be looking to the other company to go on their 48 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 tower. These things are sprouting up all over. And we're seeing a fair amount of cooperation... If you're unreasonable to me today, I'll be unreasonable to you tomorrow. Kate Aanenson: Can I make an additional comment on that? In reviewing the application, staff really felt this was a better site, and if we had a choice between this and the other co- location...we felt this was better as far as what's around it and visibility... Mayor Mancino: But even though we have residential north of this...? Kate Aanenson: Yeah.... Bob Generous: You have the transmission lines in the background so it sort of blends in... Councilman Senn: Bob, one question that I was just curious on. I didn't see anything here about public notification like I saw in the other one. Were people notified on this within 500 feet because? Bob Generous: Yes they were and I just forgot to attach it. Councilman Senn: So everybody in the apartments and stuff were notified? Bob Generous: Well the owners. The property owners. Councilman Berquist: Do you want to continue or can I throw one in? Councilman Senn: Go ahead. I've got a couple more but go ahead. Councilman Berquist: In the Planning Commission report they talk about areas of the city where we're deficient in our coverage and those areas require towers. What other areas are we looking at that are deficient? Particularly abutting residential areas. Do we know? Kate Aanenson: No. Right now it's generally Highway 5. That's where the greatest volume of traffic is right now and people in their cars. We know that the eastern end of the city is...public safety. Councilman Senn: ...because of the high voltage lines. That's why there's a problem. Mayor Mancino: Because they become transceivers or what? Councilman Senn: Yeah, they interfere with cellular communication. You drive back and forth underneath them and you'll just cut in and out all the time. Councilman Berquist: Plus the cows don't give as much milk. So we don't have any other dead areas abutting residential areas that, dead zones that are abutting residential areas? Mayor Mancino: Well they can't put one in abutting residential areas. Bob Generous: They can put one in a residential area. Kate Aanenson: Yes they can. On public property. 49 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: But not in neighborhood parks. Councilman Senn: Your issue in here that you raised over the drainage and utility easement. Why would you allow them to go into the drainage and utility easement under any circumstances? Bob Generous: Just for grading purposes... Councilman Senn: Okay, so that would be for construction purposes only? Bob Generous: Yeah, temporary. Councilman Senn: Temporary? Bob Generous: But they advised me that they won't, they've relocated it so they don't even go into that. Councilman Senn: I know Highway 5's a problem but 1 think this location sucks. Councilman Berquist: Well at least it's behind that building. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council? Michelle Johnson: Hi, my name is Michelle Johnson. I represent American Portable Telecomm, located at 1701 East 79 Street, Suite 19 in Bloomington and since you've recently enacted an ordinance, I'm sure you're very familiar with the technology and so due to the lateness of the hour I'll cut my presentation short and just try to address the concerns that have been brought up. I'd like to show, I have a transparency. This shows the revised site plan that we prepared in response to the suggestions of staff and of the Planning Commission. As you can see, it shows what was shown by Mr. Generous in the drawing to the original site plan. That the site has been moved over so it's behind the building. It's been reconfigured so that it doesn't encroach upon the easement. We are willing to enter into an encroachment agreement if necessary but we don't believe that that's going to be necessary the way that it is situated now. Also the 8 foot fence, the barbwire has been removed from that. It's just an 8 foot chain link fence and around the perimeter of that would be the service berry bushes that were... And 1 understand from a picture standpoint it's hard to imagine what this actually looks like so we've created a photo montage to kind of show you. Took pictures of the area and then computer added the monopole so you can see... There's two different view points to show you and I also have a before and after picture of what it would look like. I don't know how well you can see it from there but, I'll wait until you all have one. Councilman Berquist: May I ask you a quick question Michelle? Michelle Johnson: Sure. Councilman Berquist: And I don't know what the radius of these things are. I'm certainly not a technological wizard by any shape of the imagination. I know that not very far from there, probably a quarter mile as the crow flies, perhaps a third of a mile. There's a water tower in the city of Eden Prairie. Michelle Johnson: I know that we're locating on at least one tower in the city of Eden Prairie. I'm not sure which one you're talking about. If that's the one that we're located on. 50 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Berquist: No, it's actually on Dell, it's right off of Dell Road and Twilight Trail. Is it Twilight Trail? Yeah. Twilight Trail. East of Dell Road. Michelle Johnson: As part of our process we do look at all existing structures within generally a half mile radius of the site. Sometimes ordinances require more. I'm not sure off hand what your ordinance requires but we do look at existing structures to try to co- locate on those first because it's a lot cheaper obviously for the company to be able to do that rather than to build it's own tower. And having chosen this site, although I personally am not familiar with that water tower, I'm sure our engineers did look at that. As you can see from the picture, it is, I mean obviously it is noticeable. We're not trying to pretend that this is an invisible tower that no one is going to see. But these both are taken from across Highway 5 looking towards the site and with the existing poles, utility poles here, we believe that helps to limit the affect, the visual impact of this tower. Position behind the building as it is, you can't see the equipment or the base of the tower or the fence, anything from the road. Also being as it is at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 101, most people won't be looking at the scenery there so that is also a bonus that the people on the road are supposed to be looking at the road and not looking up in the air. As was mentioned by your staff, it is an area where it has been recognized that it is deficient from a cellular perspective. We are a different technology than cellular but obviously we want to provide the best quality service possible to our customers so we don't want to have any holes. We don't want to lose any holes at all. It's become a lot more of a concern for residents of Chanhassen as well. If you have been reading the papers recently and heard about the woman stuck in her car in South Dakota or the snowmobilers who go into the lake and are able to call for help on their cellular phone. And as cell phones become more popular, as an emergency situation, we don't want someone to be using our phone. Have a need for it in an emergency and be located in a hole where they're not able to call for help. So we want to provide the best quality coverage that we can. The radio frequency engineers have been very technical in locating on their grid exactly where the towers need to be placed. They look at the topography of the land, the population density, the expected use levels in a particular area, and as I mentioned before, whenever possible they look at the location of existing structures that they could co- locate on. So there aren't a lot of structures in Chanhassen that are tall enough, and that's why we need to build a new tower here. As was mentioned by Mr. Generous, we are willing to co- locate and we have had extensive discussions with U.S. West New Vector, which I believe is the other applicant that was across the street, and expect that if our tower is approved, we will be having that co- locator on our tower soon after that. Councilman Berquist: Let me ask you another question. We have a church being built in the city of Chanhassen that's when done will be probably 300 yards off of Highway 5. It's on the south side of Highway 5 and then it's actually adjacent to, it's right across Highway 5 from what's now our downtown area. And again, as the crow flies it's not more than 500 or 600 yards. Wouldn't a structure like that be preferable to, or would it be possible to put the antenna on a structure like that rather than erecting a pole? I mean if in fact the position of this thing is being dictated by, number one by height and number two by what's a dead zone. If something's being built that would accommodate your antenna, would it not make sense to put it there? You just don't know about it yet. Michelle Johnson: Right. We're not sure about that. We're not sure how tall the top of the church is going to be. Whether or not it would structurally be capable of supporting our antennas. Whether or not the church would be willing to lease us that space. There's a lot of different factors that have to be taken into consideration. We also have a time factor that we as a business need to consider. That we need to get our system up and running by spring of '97 in order to comply with our FCC license and so we can't wait indefinitely. We're not sure about that. We looked at the area. We believe this is the best spot. We believe that it is not going to cause a substantial detrimental affect on the city in any way. That it's in a commercial, highway business district. That it blends very well into that. That there are not a lot of 51 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 residents who are going to feel any substantial impact on that, and that we are able to co- locate with another user to eliminate at least one tower that could be possibly going up in the city. Usually also, in the church, considering the co- location aspect, usually if it's located let's say on the spire of the church, that can only support one structurally, if it can even support that and so you still have the issue of another tower coming in. Councilman Berquist: But during construction at least you have the beauty of trying to design something that could support it but, okay. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for the applicant at this point? Thank you. Is there anyone here wishing to make any comments on this, from the audience? Okay. Comments from commissioners. I'm sorry, Council members. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Well, I guess I don't know. I don't like the location. I don't like it abutting residential, and I don't know. I guess I've made my feelings well known about what we've already made that side of town look like and I really hate to add to it at this point. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: I'm basically opposed to towers like this anyway so, and it doesn't sound, that's all I'll say. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I'd like to see you take two weeks and come back to the next Council meeting. I know that you've got to be competitive and get this stuff by the spring, according to what you just said. I think there's still plenty of time to do that but I'd like you to come back and let me know why you can't use that Eden Prairie water tower. It doesn't sound to me, I'm not convinced that that's been fully explored, number one. And number two, Steve's request to check with St. Hubert's new church or another church on the south side of TH 5 to see if you can use their steeple, which I think as someone said, is another option many people are using. Check those two out first. I'd like to see you do that before we come to a decision on this. But I agree with these guys, we could do a little better on the north side of TH 5 just east of our downtown. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: Well, I mean I appreciate what Mark said. The other aspect of this is that as we go east on TH 5, the next building is Lotus Lawn and Garden, which is a very small building. It would stick out, be very noticeable. The next building east of that is Redmond Products, and I know that every land lease is a negotiated deal but Redmond Products I believe has a higher elevation. Significantly higher elevation than this building. I believe it abuts the same railroad track. I believe the woodedness of the area behind it is much denser than the area behind this. And east of that is Automated Building Product. And that thing has some, that site has some elevation. It may not be able to hide it as well but it would seem to me, I'm sorry what was your last name? Michelle Johnson: Johnson. Councilman Berquist: Miss Johnson. It would seem to me that given the locations that are potentially available along this corridor, this is the one that sticks out the worst so. 52 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: I must admit I agree with the other Council members. As much as we have a new ordinance, this really adds to the visually clutter here so I would like to see you look at other locations east of this and come back to us. May I have a motion please. Councilman Berquist: What do we want to do? Do we want to table for resubmittal or do we want to deny it? Roger Knutson: To table would be appropriate. Councilman Berquist: I move tabling for the applicant to re- examine locations and come back to us. Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for the construction of a 135 foot telecommunications tower at 80 West 78 Street by American Portable Telecom. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS: Mayor Mancino: Next item on the agenda is City Council appointments. I would like to have Council members volunteer for each commission or appointment and then we'll make one motion approving all appointments. First appointment is for Southwest Metro Transit. May I have a volunteer from a Council member. Councilman Engel: I will volunteer for the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Mayor Mancino: Second appointment is for the Suburban Transit Authority. Is there a volunteer? Councilman Senn: What did we talk about that? That we wanted that to be the same or not? Councilman Mason: Yes, we did. Councilman Engel: We did? Councilman Mason: Yes, you said you'd do it. Councilman Engel: I guess I will stick to my word and volunteer for that as well. Mayor Mancino: Okay, for Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Councilman Berquist: Me. Me. Councilman Senn: With that kind of enthusiasm, I think he should be the alternate too. Mayor Mancino: Board of Adjustments and Appeals, Steve you'd like to volunteer. I would like to volunteer to be the second there. Park Task Force. Councilman Berquist: Well I'm already there. 53 " C o I ' n Z K 111 ......> CY1Kf CO � p • V H(WNEPIN CO I D IN E ,..v [: w em � ° 9 IUI u Illl H • er of i s s a 4 ® C) o N N D "4 2 O m a ^0 m ' : D C" 4 j m g p II�10 § s8 1 I i o y z V Si A D xo� �� s ` `, " m (n z z W �� m zm 0 a X m K oK-I m Z °'Z� z D o m_ ' 0g o off U • m = al co co (/) ' °, --1 rn V { M n II I -I • =m A O 0 D 1. 7i o n -n - m x • W j LO 7 h V N c 2 v N CO N z m u iii C N � = m m Z D C m N m m y i v Y ij m ; M `-m i ca c -I I p r i m c '� M 7 p { v N z z ]7 '':28 o m Z n m ` • O F ! � H 2 D $' Z g 3 O y v & F mpm Z S V. ti 1 m K z 2 1 0 i „,,,Z • m_ c ,, /. i Z -Ix \1 O yX 02 N i A 00 mto mm OA i `• ,� D I A Q. �O yX OA 1 cif) c nN m P Z mg �f —z p0 Ayx`.. m x -- I � c 0o oAy t z 0 D N 2C2 ii' r — N \ �< m > --I mD O CI (T Z !- VI A y f 0 0 x Nm I 2 2 mA J O co 1 O O 1 C , ,\ = I Z — -I f j •,. '.1 / f ,•, ,, i ir 1 ..,...._ O z NN A DA Ao o �0 20 . D . 1 m NN m i 16 - 0 ” G A 0 0 r C a n E - , �— nA I • IN) - m r, 13 0 c Ar O m O �� / ` ay l -.0 A y y D O III , a) i o� z0 z oz m IL 1 D m D 1- N O ° v z r i y 1 n D / 1 i N 2 m n o F, 23 - 47 A A m_ • 07 0 0 ° ; L IT ) {^� m o 1 11 _' } r o Li _0 D + ..1 Z �' , t • s � ,' ��'N (! tir I N O A 'W m m 0 I. m w C A 0 tO ,n DO O C N mO 0 h1 t CO n m m D D m v Ca D D m to A J () - 9, A m y f O m D C A m I D ` / /, \ \CS 0 0 A TITLE: Der: 9 -I1 -96 APT t SITE PLAN Sc ENLARGED PLAN MOW ' er' � AMERIGN OM PORTABLE TELEC p .w z !ROM 0 PROJECT NO SITE NAME: 0 °T"' rD ° '' 8410 West Bryn Mawr Avenue D z FLUOR DANIEL "N1^ Suite SITE NO.: 80 WEST 7819 ST 11 oo c 04463230 CHANHASSEN - 78TH ST r1 Danbl. Inc. cnter90 ev: Chic09 Illinois 60631 .3313 N¢h,,Non Niue B 1/1/91 REVISED PER CITY CODUENTS m rvine. CA 92330 A 9-13-96 ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL u.U: (312) 399 -4200 A Al P061 CHANHASSEN UINNESOTA np 975 - 2000 AS NOM For (312) 399 -4170 REV DATE DESCRIPTION CA 0 ■ x III LIIMIIIIIIMMIIIIIIIMMIIMIIMMMMM.MIMMII mu". we 9 0 0 I Z O A V m O r A A A 1m'1A A ZZ 00 00 0 0 5 o 0 A O 0 0 ZO O v Z z - 0 Z -I o o m 0 0 m - 0 O 00 00 00 Z O 0 O 0 m m Sm O m � 01 . rv rn G 0 0 0 0 0 mo •o roo Qo O 'v 'v n °° •0 i� --I 71 R-I o 0 ti ^ - i T0 O > 0 > s n c A O o 0 0 A m m i p T m S O p z z z o 0 m 7 z D > N N Z D. - 0 r z 0 r r in Z x ij 7 - --1 Z2 Z z Z Z zz O D D 130. -0" � — 10 133 -5" n s m W io V a( A TITLE: 9 -u -% APT f NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS I� DR (AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM ATP Ma* 0 PROJECT NO. SITE NAME: “84.48 8.* 8410 Weal Bryn Maser Avenue D z FLUOR DANIEL sR M Suite 1100 N c 04463230 CHANHASSEN - 78TH 51 rm., Daniel, Inc. n<ay9 n: S ot) 1 nunoh 60631 m 80 WEST 7 8TH ST 3333 YkMban move 8 1/17/91 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS m SITE NO Wine. Ca 92730 A 9-1345 ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL y,yt; (312) 399 -0.200 A A 1 P061 CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA e7s REV DATE DESCRIPTION AS HO U E" (312) 399 -8170 t l Pi Pi N —I MI m 1— woo -1 p o Z Imo, 1 0 -0 A A -r1A A DV --1 -0 m -0 v r -1 A A A mA A ZA aA DAA 5 DA O O 0 z 0 00 0 0 gOo z no A - co A Op A TJ ZA zAA - ZA 0 0 0 m0 0 AO 00 000 Z 00 N N N 0 V1 VI S N UI V1 N Z N m m m r•1 m , m - m N m r`1 O O m O o O O O - NO A00 'O 0 D n 09 D , 4 a 0nn A O n y m ' ; y . 0 m O m 0 0 A o O C Z Z A Z C C O z Z D -I -I O -1 m ro m 0 K 0 K 0 z Z Z 0 m 0 A a a a O y 2 z D 01 U1 V1 Z D A r Z 0 r r m Z x P1 D \ \ V) -J P1 I 1 `rl r 1'—Y D ��1 "' > > O Z Z Z m m O z z Z Z 130' -0" n 10' -0" 133' -5" 1 n x n 0 y CD o0 , - ,n w -z 1 z (O Tn E (0 90 m z o TITLE: APT f EAST & WEST ELEVATIONS 0x9- z r.wnw AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM y 0 PROJECT NO. SITE NAME: r V � DT° 641 w Br Mover Avenue v � 0) c 04463230 FLUOR DANIEL 90999 Suite 1100 CHANHASSEN - 7819 ST rimr 0eei•i, lee. 01100(00 sr: Chicago. Illinois 60671 mm SITE NO.'. 80 WEST 78TH ST 3733 weAei, o•m B (/79/57 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS ir.�ne CA 92730 A 9 -IJ -% ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL su (31 (311) 399-4200 CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA ( 4) 975 -2000 ( (719) 4200 ]0 a. Al P061 REV DATE DESCRIPTION AS x01[0