Loading...
5. Conditional Use Permit for American Portable Telecom at 80 West 78th StreetCITY OF �, CHANBASSE STAFF REPORT 1 i I i PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: PC DATE: 1/15/97 CC DATE: 2/10/97 CASE #: 96 -6 CUP By: Generous:v Conditional use permit request to permit a 135 foot cellular communication tower 80 West 78th Street American Portable Telecom 1701 E. 79th Street, Suite 19 Minneapolis, MN 55425 (612) 858 -0027 i 1 7 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway and Business Services District ACREAGE: 0.024 acres DENSITY: not applicable Ac6on by City . Admioistrat6t Cowicil u _ ll.'s a....•-�tta1 b CoT:aissioti 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 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 EMIR rill i�� 111 11 IIP� CHI wm :' State H 5 do 7400 0 C) OD OD OD co o H 01% 1 8100 Lake Rice ,ke" Susan -W Afarsh Lake M SS " ge 19/pIll 8200 ? Lakco. rive E. Ch&J3baB86J2 x8tateig mini Park 1 8100 Lake Rice ,ke" Susan -W Afarsh Lake M SS " ge 19/pIll 8300 A 8400 8500 8600 8700 8800 8200 8300 A 8400 8500 8600 8700 8800 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. 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 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: Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. American Portable Telecom January 15, 1997 Page 4 Finding: The proposed tower should not endanger the public health, safety or welfare of the city. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. American Portable Telecom January 15, 1997 Page 5 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 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: American Portable Telecom January 15, 1997 Page 6 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. 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. 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. 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 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 American Portable Telecom January 15, 1997 Page 7 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. I 1 (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. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 'PLICANT: American Portable Telecom )DRESS: 1701 E. 79th St., Suite 19 Minneapolis, MN 55425 LEPHONE (Daytime) 612- 858 -0027 Agent: Douglas Cowan, AICP Comprehensive Plan Amendment OWNER: -40 Y ADDRESS: 5 _gGC L Ilelia r r1 TELEPHONE: -2 V S - J`J/ S — Temporary Sales Permit yX_ Conditional Use Permit interim Use Permit Non - conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Vacation of ROW /Easements Variance is Wetland Alteration Permit _ Zoning Appeal _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review RRx Notification Sign X Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost" I ($50 CUP /SPR/VACNAR/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 8' /2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract )TE - 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 N o. 59, Files of Registrar of Titles, Carver Cmi Minna snra _ TOTALACREAGE +/- 3 acres WETLANDS PRESENT YES RX NO PRESENTZONING "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 Ord 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 informati and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Plann' 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 wriii 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 I am responsible for complying w all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whi the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (eiti copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to ma this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I furti_ understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to a authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I 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 heart. re quirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 r extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional revi extensions are approved by the applicant. ySignature Kant r Date Date Owner Application Received on � � / (� � Fee Paid OW Receipt No. 62 339:v' The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeti. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. o "" S OT, Minnesota Department of Transportation (011 Metropolitan Division OF Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 December 19, 1996 Robert Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Robert Generous: r n C)"v 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 1vlrv'DOT 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, Scott Peters Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison Planning December 1996 Wireless World Telecommunications technology —and local government response — is at a crossroads. By William Covington ompanies hoping to succeed in the highly competitive communications arena must have good relations with lo- cal governments. It's the lo- :al governments, after all, that supply he franchises and permits needed to leliver cellular and paging services and Aber communications products. So far, those relations have been pretty ;ood. Local governments want the ben - !fits that new forms of communication :an bring, and wireless service providers mderstand that cities and towns must - xercise some control over what comes nto the community. The challenge is to .eep things on an even keel at a time of apid growth in the telecommunications 'idustry. A sign of that growth is the auctions eld on August 26 by the Federal Com- :iunications Commission. On that date, he FCC began the second in a series of uctions that will allow more companies D offer wireless communication services. I ow it works 'he term wireless communications re- -rs to a family of communication de- ices that can send and receive messages istantly —by voice in the case of cellular -lephones or alphanumerically in the ase of pagers. Soon, too, computer users , ill be able to send and receive data via tireless modems. One of the newer forms of wireless oice communication is the personal com- junications service. PCS is similar to a -llular phone but operates at different dio frequencies and requires twice as any communications facilities. In pag- ing, the lat- est innovation is narrowband messaging. This service allows customers to acknowl- edge a page by pressing a button on their pagers. Soon they will be able to receive short text messages as well. Wireless communications typically re- quire three components: a device (tele- phone, pager, or portable computer; a cell site /radio link; and a switching of- fice. Every major metropolitan area has one or more switching offices, where calls from cell sites are processed. The calls are then sent out through the tele- phone system. When a wireless customer calls another wireless telephone, the switching office locates the cell site clos- est to the party being called and connects that caller via that cell site. Over 90 percent of all wireless communications still start or end on a traditional tele- phone system (called "wireline" in the business(. When a call is made, the device seeks out a radio link, also known as a cell site. Radio links capture the signal, process it (verifying that the caller is a legitimate customer(, and send it on. Most cell sites include one or more antennas, a struc- ture to support them, and a building to house radio and computer equipment. Cell sites can be located on the roofs of buildings, on billboards, atop wooden utility poles, and on metal poles. Lattice towers are considered a last resort. On the ground Several considerations determine where cell sites are placed. The first is that the site must be close enough to the caller to receive the signal generated by a half - watt portable phone. The second consid- eration is that cell sites must be located far enough apart to eliminate cross -talk. The third is interference. Tall buildings and large bodies of water, for instance, can distort a signal, precluding high - quality service. Finally, according to the industry, good service requires that there be at least one cell site in every neighborhood, normally within every six to eight square miles depending upon terrain and number of customers. Wireless communications companies can share cell sites. They cannot, how- ever, share the radio equipment that sends and receives calls and information. Should two carriers share a site, normally 10 feet of space must separate the antennas be- longing to each company. As the number of customers increases, so must the num- ber of cell sites. However, the additional sites typically are smaller and easier to 9 To make cell sites less obtrustive —and more politically acceptable —some firms are choosing stealth locations. Can you find the device on this building? See page 12 for the answer. Going once Back in 1981, the Federal Communica- tions Commission published a report on implications for economic development of the then very new cellular telephone technology. After a series of hearings, the commission invited providers to ap- ply for licenses to provide cellular ser- vices in 306 metropolitan service areas and 428 rural areas. So many companies applied that the FCC decided simply to assign local tele- phone companies enough radio spectrum (B bloc spectrum) to offer cellular com- munications in their own areas. A lottery was set up to allow non - telephone com- panies to compete for the remaining A bloc spectrum. By the end of 1984, nearly every major metropolitan area in the U.S. had been assigned to a carrier. In 1989, similar lotteries were held for the rural areas. The cellular lotteries exceeded all ex- pectations. Original estimates predicted fewer than a million subscribers by 2000. But by 1990, the cellular industry had attracted over 10 million customers. Im- pressed by this success, the FCC in 1994 decided to auction off enough radio spec- , ice e to oe orrerea was reierrcu w as r w or personal communications services. The auctions were completed in March 1995 and raised over $ 7 billion. Yet another auction was held earlier this year, this time to encourage at least one more nationwide provider. About $10 billion was raised by auctioning off what is known as C bloc spectrum. Then, on August 26, the D and E bloc auctions were initiated. They are expected to be completed by the end of this month. No one is certain how the successful bidders will make use of this additional radio frequency. Auction winners with licenses may simply enhance their cur- rent systems by providing ancillary ser- vices, or they may offer dramatic new communications services. In any case, it is likely that the D and E bloc offerings will result in a need for more cellular towers. As a result of all this activity, local governments have been approached by already operating providers who are seek- ing to expand their coverage area or to supplement service where existing ca- pacity is exhausted. At a time when sub- scriber lists are growing by over 30 per- cent a year, incumbent carriers in major metropolitan areas may seek permission to build 15 to 50 facilities a year. The new PCS licensees and the new paging providers are also seeking sites, and so are the growing numbers of com- panies offering data communications and similar services. However messaging and data delivery services typically can use much smaller sites and often share exist- ing facilities with cellular or PCS provid- ers. The winners of the C bloc auctions (companies like Next Wave and Wireless PCS) are just now beginning to make an appearance. Like the PCS license hold- ers, they will need to build an entire network, with the number of sites de- pending on the type of technology used and the degree to which they can "co- locate" with other providers. Many wire- less companies also use "stealthing" tech- niques (hiding facilities on rooftops or elsewhere) to effectively conceal sites. Local governments can probably use their experiences with PCSs, which typically request permits for 50 to 100 facilities a year, as a guide to determine how many facilities a C bloc carrier might seek. In a hurry A wireless company typically spends be- tween $250,000 and $700,000 to get a cell site up and running. Those A and B bloc providers that received their licenses in the 1980s have actually built their sys- tems three times: first to serve customerE with three -watt car phones, then to ac- commodate half -watt portables, and fi nally to convert analog cellular system: to more efficient digital technology. Now come the successful PCS and bloc bidders, and the soon -to -be -deter mined winners of the D and E bloc spec trum. All these companies have a tre mendous monetary obligation to the federa government and to banks. In addition stiff industry competition is forcing com panies to lower access charges and fee: for each minute of use —their two main sources of revenue. As a result, wireless service provider: will be in a hurry to get constructioi permits, and they will resist schemes fo imposing taxes, auctioning off access ti public property, and other assessments. 10 Planning December 1996 Given that situation, my advice to lo- .al governments is to get a handle on the :ey elements of the Telecommunications :ct of 1996, which lays out the ground - ules for industry and local government n the area of land -use law. Vhat is required 'he law creates a presumption that needed vireless facilities can be sited in a com- -iunity. Flat refusals to grant permit ap- -lications are no longer allowed. The law lso requires that requests for permis- ion to build must be acted on promptly. t forbids regulations from favoring one ort of wireless service provider over nother. And it prohibits local govern - lents from regulating radio frequency missions. A federal standard has been et in this area and demonstrated compli- nce with that standard is all a locality can seek from the permit applicant. Regular communication with the car- riers serving a community is also essen- tial. At least once a year every locality should invite the telecommunications car- riers serving the area to a regular meet- ing. Use this time to review the contents of permit applications. Place special em- phasis on the type of information that is expected from the applicants. Identify the parts of the application that can be left blank, which must be filled out, and under what conditions an application will be rejected as incomplete. Also, ask ser- vice providers where they may want to build facilities in the next year. Increasingly telecommunications com- panies are teaming up with local govern- ments to sponsor regional wireless semi- nars. These educational forums usually last a full day and bring together local Vhat the Wireless Revolution Means 1 t this moment, thousands of "site acquisition representatives" are standing at planning counters everywhere in the U.S., demand- ing permits —now. In most com- ,unities, however, there is no plan for ccommodating the sites over the long aul. Both city and county governments typi- lly categorize personal wireless facili- es as special or conditional uses. Yet ley often rely on outdated radio trans - lission and satellite dish zoning provi- ons to regulate them. But some communities have instituted -ultitiered review procedures., Under ime of these procedures, residential zones -t one approach, commercial and indus- ial zones another; monopoles require :view while mounts 50 feet and less are - rmitted administratively. ' The advantage to,a zoning ordinance_ iproach is that each cell site is dealt ith consistently and uniformly. The dis- lvantage is that the jurisdiction deals ith cell sites one at a time. As a result, ireless carriers are asking for, local >vemments are approving, vast systems i a site -by -site basis. Some cities and counties — knowing that ey are running out of good cell sites— view applications in bulk. San Diego, r example, requires annual submissions all cell sites from each carrier. Many risdictions also encourage or 'require -location'.' San Francisco" has a book of guidelines planning commissioners : ;to use in jiewin¢ cell site apnlications. But. even � K T Some communities lease public land — including water tanks —to wireless carriers. Local governments using that approach have control over cell sites, but they also open themselves up to potential lawsuits. . the best guidelines don't provide the cer- fact that some communities are Ieasing ' tainty of a good plan. public land —water tanks, parkland, rights - The situation is complicated by the of- way —to wireless carriers. Leasing public , a -, 0 a a "� fy' �. a •.{I' 4:• ..: "}'' � . Sri;.;' .,.; .. y . — 11 4 I d 0 � L� z � � o a L N C 1992 1993 1994 1995 2000 A segment of a map in a hypothetical city /left) shows where cell sites might be placed if none of the 10 carriers will co- locate. Above: The number of people using cellular devices is expected to explode within the next few years. land solves two problems: Local govern- ments can choose the best locations for wireless facilities, and applicants can get in and out of the permitting process quickly. New companies have popped up to mar- ket these public lands and to direct the carriers to 'easy' city and county sites. The problem is that the wireless firms often insist on an exclusive arrangement with the community, in effect tying up access to public land —and exposing the community to potential legal challenges. Further, private landowners may object to the competition from a public body. An alternative approach is to require all cell sites to be located on land owned or leased by the jurisdiction. Ringwood, New Jersey, is trying that, although it has only three publicly owned sites that qualify. The suburban Passaic County commu- nity has also offered to lease land from private landowners seeking a cell site and then to sublease the site to a wireless carrier. A wireless master plan is another way to go. The town of Windsor, Connecticut, is considering the preparation of such a plan for the area between Hartford and Bradley International Airport. Also, the Mid - America Regional Council, which encompasses eight counties and 114 mu- nicipalities in two states around Kansas City, has begun a two -phase process that could lead to a regional wireless master plan. The master plan approach involves two steps. The first is to approve the areas where cell facilities could be located. The second step is to review individual site B Q s 0 a 35,000 applications. A more stringent review would be required for properties not iden- tified in the master plan. A two -step ap- proach has the advantage of assuring public input at an early stage. Because it requires a map, it is also the only ap- proach that ensures some degree of cer- tainty. Given all the options, I would say that the wireless master plan is the tool of choice. At this writing, only a few cities and counties are exploring the master plan approach, so there is no model to follow. But carriers are bound to tire of the ad hoc approach of siting one cell facility at a time. I predict that they will soon request the certainty that comes with a wireless master plan. The courts are also pointing the way. There have been four important court cases on wireless planning so far, and there are sure to be many more. Earlier this year, a federal court upheld a,six- month moratorium imposed by the city of Medina, Washington. Sprint Spectrum had asked for a preliminary injunction to override the moratorium, which Medina argued it needed to give it time to plan for cell sites. But another federal court up- held the contention of BellSouth Mobil- ity that Gwinnett County, Georgia, had not presented sufficient evidence to sup- port its denial of a permit. Meanwhile, a group of residents in Franklin County, Texas, won a tempo- rary injunction against construction of a multicarrier tower, which they argued would impair their quality of life and diminish property values. Franklin County government officials, community lead- ers, industry representatives, and other interested parties. The topics include wire- less communications; the types of facili- ties needed; the method used to select possible sites; how the permitting pro- cess works; and health issues and prop- erty values. AT &T Wireless Services has held such gatherings in Boston, New York, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and sev- eral other jurisdictions. Local governments should also review their land -use legislation to be sure that it coincides with the provisions of the tele- communications act. Other elements that jurisdictions should consider are: use by right in industrial and commercial zones; a hearing process for residential areas; specific, as opposed to qualitative, re- view standards; fixed time frames for permit processing; and separation of the has not required permits for tower con- struction. In Pennsylvania, the state court of appeals denied Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems' claim that a 150 -foot cellular tower was an essential service that should be permitted as of right. The courts are a bellwether of what's ahead for planners. It's clear that plan- ning is needed. So is a factual record and a review process. Ted Kreines, AICP Kreines is president of Kreines & Kreines in Tiburon, California. The firm specializes in wireless planning. , Terms of Art Applicants The people and compa- nies that apply for personal wireless fa- cilities: site acquisition representatives, lawyers, cell site builders, landowners, and others: Be aware that some appli- cants'seek approval of cell sites and then sell or lease them to the carriers or land- owners they represent. Carriers Companies licensed by the FCC to build personal wireless facilities and operate personal wireless services. There are also unlicensed carriers. Personal wireless facilities Described in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as facilities for the provision of personal wireless services. Personal wireless services Commer- cial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services. iAi��iuiu:.la4aun:.�I� �.c��in.a►I 12 Planning December 1996 ��� wew nraw F�R_4 t mww. (we Mb o An example of co- location, showing several different services that can be accommodated at different heights on one tower. public hearing and the actual vote on approval. Getting together Local legislation should also include pro- visions for co- location —the sharing of facilities. Everyone seems to want co- ments seeking to make co- location an attractive option for wireless providers, I have three sugges- tions. First, provide in- centives to co- locat- ing parties. Assure location. Local governments like the idea because it reduces site proliferation, and industry likes it because construction and op- erating costs are reduced. There are some drawbacks, however. For one thing, co- location cre- ates larger sites. The more carri- ers sharing a facility, the bigger hand potentially more intrusive it will be. Also, permit review time may increase dramatically, and the extra height of the facil- ity can push the application into a more stringent review category. Finally, established cellular car- riers may have reasonable con- cerns about revenue, operations, and liability when a new carrier is added to an exist- ing site. Forlocal govern- the carriers that the time needed to re- view a co- location request and the rules involved will not greatly exceed those for a single applicant. Second, consider giv- ing the co- locators access to municipal property, speeding up per - mit processing, perhaps even lowering application fees. Third, take advantage of the fact that local govern- ment is the central clearing- house for all permit applica- The answer to the question on page 9. tions. Use your regular annual meeting with the cellular companies as an oppor- tunity to register potential permit appli- cants. Every time a permit is sought, the registered parties could be informed and invited to contact the applicant to discuss sharing the facility. A final suggestion: Look to the future. Ask industry representatives to share their expectations of what's ahead in the way of services, carriers, and concerns. William Covington is land -use and environ- mental policy counsel to AT &T Wireless Ser- vices in Kirkland, Washington. He was for- merly director of right -of -way permitting for King County, Washington. CELLULAR 1701E 79th Street, Suite 19 Bloomington, MN 55425 (612) 858 -0000 (612) 854 -4105 Fax R CA' ■ � 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, Michelle Johnson Zoning Coordinator, Cellular Realty Advisors, Inc. on behalf of APT 858 -0090 (work), 854 -4105 (fax) APT 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 A TDS COMPANY 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. 1 1 - By: / Title: 1��� ✓� f� 1� 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: 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 %z 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 I 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 plan which we don't require for this. There was some verbiage about landscaping but it really, I just don't, l 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 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. I 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?