1d. City Code Amendments: Chapter 20 Re Antennas and Towers.1
I MEMORANDUM
'
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Don Ashworth, City Manager
John Rask, Planner I
October 22, 1996
Action by City Administtatff
Endorse .�' = '
Modified -
Rejected -�-- --r
Dat
Date Submitted to CommissioN
Date c ;ted to Counei!
Draft Ordinance Pertaining to Telecommunication Towers and Facilities
INTRODUCTION
On October 28, 1996, the City Council approved the first reading of the draft ordinance
pertaining to towers and antennas. The Council directed staff to review the proposed changes
submitted by Mr. Peter Beck, representative of AT &T. Staff incorporated several of the changes
which are shown in bold in the attached ordinance. Below is an explanation of reasons why staff
did not incorporate certain provisions recommended by Mr. Beck.
I ANALYSIS
The following is a response to each of the written comments received from Mr. Beck which were
not incorporated into the draft ordinance. Mr. Beck's proposed revisions are shown in bold.
Sec. 20- 1504(2). Exception to Height Restrictions. Antenna devices over 80 feet in height which
are attached to a structure and not freestanding are permitted may b leeat in any residential
zoned districts under the following conditions:
A. antennas are located upon existing or proposed structures allowed as principal or
conditional uses in the underlying zoning district and /or upon public structures;
B. antennas are limited to a height of fifteen (15) feet projecting above the structure.
The City Council may permit antenna heights of up to twenty -five (25) feet above the
structure if the applicant can demonstrate that by a combination of antenna design,
t
Draft Ordinance - Towers and Antennas
October 22, 1996
Page 2
positioning of the structure and/or by screening erected or already in place on the
property, that off -site views of the antenna are minimized to acceptable levels.
Comment: The exception to the height restriction listed above applies to residential districts
only. Other district requirements, such as the IOP and BH Districts, allow antennas and towers
to be as high as 200 feet with Council approval. Changing the language to read any district is
misleading as antennas are prohibited in certain districts. Staff is of the opinion that this
revision is unnecessary.
Sec. 20 -1505. Setbacks.
Towers shall conform with each of the minimum setback requirements:
(1) Towers shall meet the setbacks of the underlying zoning district with the exception of
institutional, industrial and business zoned districts, where the tower may encroach into the
rear setback area, provided that the rear property line abuts another institutional, industrial or
business zoned districts and the tower does not encroach upon any easements.
Comment: The City's OI, Office and Institutional zoning district consists of school sites and
city owned property. The only instance where we have an Ol district next to industrial property
is at Bluff Creek Elementary. Allowing reduced setbacks in this location is not advisable.
Sec. 20 -1505. Setbacks.
Towers shall conform with each of the minimum setback requirements:
(4) Towers shall be set baek from all plapmed public; rights of way by a minimum distanee equal.
Comment: Staff maintains that this requirement is necessary, and is not overly restrictive. If a
situation arises in which it would be desirable, in terms of public safety or aesthetics, to locate in
a right -of -way, staff would encourage the applicant to apply for a variance. In addition, number 6
of this same section allows the Council to reduce or eliminate the setback if the tower or
antennae is integrated into an existing or proposed structure, such as a light pole, power pole, or
similar device. Staff recommends that this provision remain.
(1) Towers supporting commercial antennas and conforming to all applicable provisions of this
Code shall be allowed in residential zoned districts in the following locations:
a. Church sites, w he preferably camouflaged as an architectural feature such as
steeples or bell towers.
1
1
1
1
L 1 1
t
t
C
1
Draft Ordinance - Towers and Antennas
October 22, 1996
Page 3
b. Park sites, when compatible with the nature of the park; and,
Government, school, utility, and institutional sites.
Comment: Because most church sites are located adjacent to residential uses, staff believes that
antennas must be camouflaged or screened from view. Staff recommends that this section
remain as proposed.
Sec. 20 -1509. Tower and Antennas Design
(2) Commercial wireless telecommunication service towers shall be of a monopole design unless
the City Council determines that an alternative design requested by the applicant would
better blend in to the surrounding environment.
Comment: Staff recommends that this section remain as originally proposed. Adding
"requested by the applicant" would take away Council's ability to offer alternative designs to
mitigate negative impacts on adjacent properties.
Sec. 20 -1510. Co- Location Requirement.
All personal wireless communication towers erected, constructed, or located within the
City shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) A proposal for a new commercial wireless telecommunication service tower shall not be
approved unless the City Council finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for
the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building
within a one mile search radius (one -half mile search radius for towers under 120 feet in
height, towers under eighty (80) feet are exempt from this requirement of the proposed tower
due to one or more of the following reasons):
(d) Other unforeseen reasons that make it unfeasible to locate the planned
telecommunications equipment upon an existing or approved tower or building, i.e.
(property) not available, owner will not lease, etc.
G
Comment: A private property owner's refusal to sell or lease property is not grounds for the
relaxation of zoning regulations. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed zoning ordinance
provides a reasonable opportunity for the establishment of wireless services in the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
Draft Ordinance - Towers and Antennas
October 22, 1996
Page 4
"The City Council adopts the amendments to Chapter 20 pertaining to towers and antennas." I
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Ordinance
2. City Council minutes dated October 14, 1996
1
t
1
t
u
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO TOWERS AND ANTENNAS
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
to read:
I
Section 1 . Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Article XXX
ARTICLE XXX. TOWERS AND ANTENNAS
Sec. 20 -1500. Purpose and Intent.
The purpose of this ordinance is to accommodate and provide a reasonable opportunity
for the establishment of wireless telecommunications in the City. The City finds it necessary to
adopt standards and regulations that promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, while
minimizing the possible adverse effects of towers and antennas on nearby property. The Council
finds that these regulations are necessary to:
(1) Establish standards which permit a reasonable and equitable opportunity for the
establishment of wireless telecommunication services in the City;
(2) Ensure that towers and antennas are designed, constructed, installed, and maintained in a
manner that does not adversely impact public safety;
(3) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to accommodate new
wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve
the community, and;
(4) Minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting standards which
attempt to screen and /or camouflage towers and antennas from adjacent public and private
property.
Sec. 20 -1501. Findings.
The City of Chanhassen finds it necessary for the promotion and preservation of the
public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the community that the construction, location,
size, and maintenance of wireless telecommunication facilities be controlled. Further, the City
finds:
1
(1) Towers and antennas have a direct impact on, and a relationship to, the image of the
community;
(2) The manner of installation, location, and maintenance of towers and antennas affects the
public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the community;
(3) A reasonable opportunity for the establishment of wireless telecommunication must be
provided to serve residential and business needs, and;
(4) Uncontrolled and unlimited towers and antennas adversely impact the image and aesthetics of
the community and, thereby, undermine economic value and growth.
Sec. 20 -1502. Building Permits.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, replace, re- erect,
or repair any tower without first making application for and securing a building permit as
provided in this Title.
(2) The applicant shall provide at the time of application for a building permit sufficient
information to indicate that construction, installation, and maintenance of the antenna and
tower will no t onto a s af e ty hazard or damage to the p pef y of other p be in
compliance with applicable Uniform Building Code requirements.
(3) Permits are not required for:
a. Adjustment or replacement of the elements of an antenna array affixed to a tower or
antenna, provided that replacement does not reduce the safety factor.
b. Antennas and /or towers erected temporarily for test purposes, for emergency
communication, or for broadcast remote pick -up operations, provided that the
antennas or towers are not located on public right -of -way, and towers are
protected against unauthorized climbing. - provided that all r � *° � „t.,:,, °a
in Gonstmetion Reqriirements (See&n 20 1508), with the exeeption of
„r,p,,,.,, 7 ( -Fling eaffos .,t -i l) which i wa oa Temporary antennas
used for test purposes or broadcast remote pick -up operations shall be removed
within 72 hours following installation.
Sec. 20 -1503. Height Restrictions
(1) Height Determination. The height of towers shall be determined by measuring the vertical
distance from the tower's point of contact with the ground or- r-ooftop to the highest point of
the tower, including all antennas or other attachments. Whe tower -s are mounted upo other -
9 the eembined height of the str-ue�ur-e at the I
mu st m the height reS O f thi S A
2
1
' (2) Except as provided in the following paragraph of this Section, maximum heights for towers
are as follows:
a. In all residential zoned property the maximum height of any tower, including all antennas
and other attachments, shall be eighty (80) feet.
b. In all non - residential zoning districts, the maximum height of any tower, including all
antennas and other attachments, shall not exceed a height of 150 feet. The City Council
may allow towers up to 200 feet high if the applicant can demonstrate that based upon the
topography of the site and surrounding areas, antenna design, surrounding tree cover and
structures and /or through the use of screening, that off -site views of the tower will be
minimized.
Sec. 20 -1504. Exceptions To Height Restrictions.
The following re exceptions to the maximum height restrictions for towers:
g p g
(1) Multi -Use Towers designed to accommodate more than one user may exceed the height
limitations of this Section by up to twenty -five (25) feet.
(2) Antenna devices over eighty (80) feet in height which are attached to an existing structure
and not freestanding may be located in residential zoned districts under the following
1 conditions:
a. antennas are located upon existing or proposed structures allowed as principal or
conditional uses in the underlying zoning district and /or upon public structures;
b. antennas are limited to a height of fifteen (15) feet projecting above the structure.
1 The City Council may permit antenna heights of up to twenty -five (25) feet above the
structure if the applicant can demonstrate that by a combination of antenna design,
positioning of the structure and/or by screening erected or already in place on the
property, that off -site views of the antenna are minimized to acceptable levels.
Sec. 20 -1505. Setbacks.
' Towers shall conform with each of the minimum setback requirements:
(1) Towers shall meet the setbacks of the underlying zoning district with the exception of
industrial and business zoned districts, where the tower may encroach into the rear setback
area, provided that the rear property line abuts another industrial or business zoned district
' and the tower does not encroach upon any easements.
(2) Towers shall maintain a minimum setback of ten (10) feet from all property lines.
(3) For sites that are adjacent to parcels developed, guided, or zoned for residential use, setbacks
shall be equal to the height of the tower.
(4) Towers shall be set back from all planned public rights of way by a minimum distance equal
to one half of the height of the tower including all antennas and attachments.
(5) Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street.
(6) A tower's setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public street varied, at the
sole discretion of the City Council, to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or
proposed structure, such as a church steeple, light pole, power line support device, or similar
structure.
(7) No tower, antenna, or accessory structure shall be located in a wetland or within the wetland
setback.
(8) In a residential district, the required setback from a property line for antennas and towers not
rigidly attached to a building or structure, shall be equal to the height of the antenna and
tower. Those antennas and towers rigidly attached to a building or structure, and whose base
is on the ground, may reduce the required setback by the amount equal to the distance from
the point of attachment to the ground.
Sec. 20 -1506. Towers In Residentially Zoned Districts.
Towers to be located in residentially zoned areas are subject to the following restrictions:
(1) Towers supporting amateur radio antennas shall conform to all applicable provisions of
Section 20 -915 of the City Code.
(2) Towers supporting commercial antennas and conforming to all applicable provisions of this
Code shall be allowed in residential zoned districts in the following locations:
Church sites, when camouflaged as an architectural feature such as steeples or bell
towers.
b. Park sites, when compatible with the nature of the park; and,
Government, school, utility, and institutional sites.
(3) Only one tower shall exist at any one time on any one residential parcel with the exception of
towers designed to replicate an existing structure.
Sec. 20 -1507. Multiple Principal Uses And Structures On A Single Lot.
For the purposes of this Division, one tower and multiple antennas shall be permitted on
the same lot as another principal use or structure subject to the requirements of this Chapter.
El
L�
r
rl
1
Ll
I Sec. 20 -1508. Construction Requirements.
All antennas and towers erected, constructed, or located within the City shall comply with
the following requirements:
(1) All applicable provisions of this Code.
(2) Towers and their antennas shall be certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer
to conform to the latest structural standards and wind loading requirements of the Uniform
Building Code and the Electronics Industry Association and all other applicable reviewing
agencies.
(3) With the exception of necessary electric and telephone service and connection lines approved
by the City, no part of any antenna or tower nor any lines, cable, equipment or wires or braces
in connection with either shall at any time extend across or over any part of the right -of -way,
public street, highway, sidewalk, or property line.
t (4) Towers and their antennas shall be designed to conform with accepted electrical engineering
methods and practices and to comply with the provisions of the National Electrical Code.
(5) All towers shall be constructed to conform with the requirements of the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration.
(6) All towers shall be protected against unauthorized climbing.
(7) Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material
(8) The applicant is responsible for receiving wfitten statements of eemp"^""° approvals from
the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and any
appropriate state review authority stating that the proposed tower complies with regulations
administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt from those regulations.
Sec. 20 -1509. Tower And Antenna Design.
Proposed or modified towers and antennas shall meet the following design requirements:
(1) Towers and antennas (including supporting cables and structures) shall be designed to blend
into the surrounding environment through the use of color, camouflaging, and architectural
treatments. Communication towers not requiring FAA or FCC painting /marking shall have
either a galvanized finish or be painted a non - contrasting color consistent with the
surrounding area, such as, blue, gray, brown, or black finish.
(2) Commercial wireless telecommunication service towers shall be of a monopole design unless
the City Council determines that an alternative design would better blend in to the
surrounding environment.
a. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or
approved tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed professional
Sec. 20- 1510. Co- Location Requirement.
replaced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost.
All personal wireless communication towers erected, constructed, or located within the
City shall comply with the following requirements:
qualified and licensed professional engineer and interference cannot be prevented at a
(1) A proposal for a new commercial wireless telecommunication service tower shall not be
approved unless the City Council finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for
the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building
within a one mile search radius (one -half mile search radius for towers under 120 feet in
height, towers under eighty (80) feet are exempt from this requirement) of the proposed tower
due to one or more of the following reasons:
d. Other unforeseen reasons that make it unfeasible to locate the planned
a. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or
approved tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed professional
engineer, and the existing or approved tower cannot be reinforced, modified, or
replaced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost.
b. The planned equipment would cause interference materially impacting the usability of
other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building as documented by a
qualified and licensed professional engineer and interference cannot be prevented at a
reasonable cost.
Existing towers buildings the search radius cannot
c. or approved and within
accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as
documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer.
d. Other unforeseen reasons that make it unfeasible to locate the planned
telecommunications equipment upon an existing or approved tower or building.
e. Existing or approved towers or buildings are not in the service area, or do not meet
the needs of the user. Documentation shall be provided at the time of application
clearly demonstrating why existing structures do not meet the needs of the user.
(2) The applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to co- locate on existing towers and
structures was made, but an agreement could not be reached.
(3) Any proposed commercial wireless telecommunication service tower shall be 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.
See. 20-1511. Lighting.
f]
iJ
I L]
L
F
fl
Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe lights
unless such lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other
federal or state authority for a particular tower. When incorporated into the approved design of
the tower for camouflage purposes, light fixtures used to illuminate ball fields, parking lots, or
similar areas may be attached to the tower.
Sec. 20 -1512. Signs And Advertising.
No signage, advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the ground or
other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and equipment information signage
required by the manufacturer or by Federal, State, or local authorities.
Sec. 20 -1513. Accessory Utility Buildings.
All utility buildings and structures accessory to a tower may not exceed one story in
height and four hundred (400) square feet in size and shall be architecturally designed to blend in
with the surrounding environment and meet the minimum setback requirements of the underlying
zoning district. The use of compatible materials such as wood, brick, or stucco is required for
associated support buildings. Equipment located on the roof of an existing building shall be
screened from the public view with building materials identical to or compatible to existing
materials. In no case shall wooden fencing be used as a rooftop equipment screen.
Sec. 20 -1514. Landscaping.
Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation, except
where a design of non - vegetative screening better reflects and compliments the architectural
character of the surrounding area. Removal of existing shrubs and trees shall be minimized
through careful site selection and design. Landscaping shall comply with the standards provided
in Chapter 20, Article XXV of the City Code.
Sec. 20 -1515. Antennas Mounted On Roofs, Walls, And Existing Towers.
The placement of wireless communication antennas on roofs, walls, and existing towers
may be administratively approved by the City, provided that the antenna meets the requirements
of this Code and the following:
(1) The maximum height of an antenna shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet above the roof, and
shall be setback at least ten (10) feet from the roof edge.
(2) Wall or facade mounted antennas may not extend five (5) feet above the cornice line and
must be constructed of a material or color which matches the exterior of the building or
structure.
Sec. 20-1516. Application.
�J
h1 addition to the submittal requirements required elsewhere in this Code, an application
for a Building Permit for antennas to be mounted on an existing structure shall be accompanied
by the following information:
(1) A site plan showing the location of the proposed antennas on the structure and documenting
that the request meets the requirement of this Code;
(2) A building plan showing the construction of the antennas, the proposed method of attaching
them to the existing structure, and documenting that the request meets the requirements of
this Code;
(3) A report prepared by a qualified and licensed professional engineer indicating the existing
structure or tower's ability to support the antennas; and
(4) Compliance with FCC regulations is required to ensure there will be no interference with
existing tenants or public safety telecommunication providers.
Sec. 20-1517. Appeals.
An applicant may appeal an administrative decision under this Section to the City
Council. Following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council
shall make a final determination on the application.
Sec. 20 -1518. Existing Antennas And Towers.
Antennas and towers in residential districts and in existence as of the effective date of this
Ordinance which do not conform to or comply with this Section are subject to the following
provisions:
(1) Towers may continue in use for the purpose now used and as now existing but may not be
replaced or structurally altered without complying in all respects with this Chapter.
(2) If such towers are hereafter damaged or destroyed due to any reason or cause whatsoever, the
tower may be repaired and restored to its former use, location and physical dimensions upon
obtaining a building permit therefore, but without otherwise complying with this Chapter,
provided, however, that if the cost of repairing the tower to the former use, physical
dimensions, and location would be fifty percent or more of the cost of a new tower of like
kind and quality, then the tower may not be repaired or restored except in full compliance
with this chapter.
Sec. 20 -1519. Time Limit On Tower Completion.
Once a tower is approved by the City, the tower must be substantially completed within one
(1) year, including any structures accompanying the tower, following the date of permit.
1
1
1
Ll
F,
l
1
U
I Sec. 20 -1520. Abandoned Or Unused Towers Or Portions Of Towers.
' Abandoned or unused towers or portions of towers and accompanying accessory facilities
shall be removed as follows:
j (1) All abandoned or unused towers and associate facilities shall be removed within twelve (12)
months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the
City Council. In the event that a tower is not removed within twelve (12) months of the
cessation of operations at a site, the tower and associated facilities may be removed by the
City and the costs of removal assessed against the property.
(2) Unused portions of towers above a manufactured connection shall be removed within two
years six months of the time of antenna relocation, if the unused portion exceeds twenty -five
(25) percent of the height of the tower or thirty (30) feet, whichever is greater. The
replacement of portions of a tower previously removed requires the issuance of a new
conditional use permit.
(3) After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an improved
condition.
Sec. 20 -1520. Interference With Public Safety Telecommunications.
No new or existing telecommunications service shall interfere with public safety
telecommunications. All applications for new service shall be in compliance with FCC
regulations.
chan approval. pr-evider-s shall netif� the City at least ten ealendar- days
advance of such b
pFE)OeSS.
Sec. 20 -1521. Additional Submittal Requirements.
1
L
In addition to the information required elsewhere in this code in an application for a
Building Permit for towers and their antennas, applications for towers shall include the following
supplemental information:
(1) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer that provides the following:
a. describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation;
b. documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co- located
antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas;
describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it can
accommodate; and
0
e. demonstrates the tower's compliance with all applicable structural and electrical
standards and includes an engineer's stamp and registration number;
(2) For all commercial wireless telecommunication service towers, 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 and so long as
there is no negative structural impact upon the tower, and there is no disruption to the service
provided.
Section 2. Section 20 -1, Definitions, is amended to add the following definitions:
Antenna is defined as, "Any structure of device used for the purpose of collecting or transmitting
electromagnetic waves, including but not limited to directional antennas, such as panels,
microwave dishes, and satellite dishes, and omni - directional antennas, such as whip antennas."
Commercial wireless telecommunication service is defined as, "Licensed commercial wireless
telecommunication services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS),
specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging, and
similar services that are marketed to the general public."
Public Utility is defined as, "Persons, corporations, or governments supplying gas, electric,
transportation, water, sewer, or land line telephone service to the general public. For the purpose
of this ordinance, personal wireless service shall not be considered public utility uses, and are
defined separately."
Tower is defined as, "Any ground mounted pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof,
including supporting lines cables, wires, braces, masts, intended primarily for the purpose of
mounting an antenna, meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade."
Tower, Multi -User is defined as, "A tower to w hi e h is a designed for the antennas of
more than one commercial wireless telecommunication service provider or governmental
agency."
Tower, Single -User, is defines as, "A tower to whiek is attacke designed for only the antennas
of a single user. lth g h th e t ower m be de ri,
t„ ,,d to th e a n te n nas of ,,t;r�o
N
users as r-equired in this Cade."
Section 3. DIVISION 3. STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURAL AND
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Sec. 20 -256. Commercial communication transmission towers
is amended to read as follows:
10
1
1
All towers and antennas must comply with Article XXX. r,,,, fne,- transmission
iewer-s not designed to collapse pr-egr-essively sh-A-11 be, spet -hack from all pr-aper-ty lines a
' distance e qu al t the height o f the teWe,-
Section 4. DIVISION 4. STANDARDS FOR BUSINESS, OFFICE,
' INSTITUTIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, Sec. 20 -287. Communication
transmission towers is amended to read as follows:
r1i
All towers and antennas must comply with Article XXX. r t - ans is - S i - „
t wiver-s t d tlllhll be back r_em all -t li nes .
! oa e. s a e s
p,-., p e. y
distance e qu al t the height of the t
Section 5. ARTICLE X. "A -2" AGRICULTURAL ESTATE, Sec. 20- 574(7)
Commercial communication transmission towers is deleted in its entirety.
Section 6. ARTICLE XXIL "IOP" INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT, Sec.
20- 814(2) Commercial communication transmission towers is deleted in its entirety.
Section 7. ARTICLE X. "A -2" AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, Sec. 20-
572. Permitted uses. is amended to read:
(9) Antennas as regulated by ArticleXXX of this Chapter
i�
Section 8. ARTICLE X. "A -2" AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, Sec. 20-
574. Conditional uses. is amended to read:
(15) Towers as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter
Section 9. ARTICLE XI. RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, Sec. 20 -592.
Permitted uses. is amended to read:
(8) Antennas as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter
Section 10. ARTICLE XI. RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, Sec. 20 -594.
Conditional uses. is amended to read:
(5) Towers as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter
Section 11. ARTICLE XII. "RSF" SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT,
Sec. 20 -612. Permitted uses. is amended to read:
(7) Antennas as regulated by XXX of this Chapter
7
L
Section 12. ARTICLE XII. "RSF" SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT,
Sec. 20 -614. Conditional uses. is amended to read:
11
L�
(4) Towers as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter
Section 13. ARTICLE XIII "R -4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT, Sec. 20 -632. Permitted uses. is amended to read:
(8) Antennas as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter
Section 14. ARTICLE XIII "R -4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT, Sec. 20 -634. Conditional uses. is amended to read:
(5) Towers as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter
Section 15. ARTICLE XIV. "R -8" MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT, Sec. 20 -652. Permitted uses. is amended to read:
(5) Antennas as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter
Section 16. ARTICLE XIV. "R -8" MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT, Sec. 20 -654. Conditional uses. is amended to read:
(6) Towers as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter
Section 17. ARTICLE XV. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
DIVISION 1. "R -12" DISTRICT, Sec. 20 -672. Permitted uses. is amended to read:
(4) Antennas as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter
Section 18. ARTICLE XV. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
DIVISION 1. "R -12" DISTRICT, Sec, 20 -674. Conditional uses. is amended to read:
(8) Towers as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter.
Section 19. DIVISION 2. "R -16" DISTRICT, Sec. 20 -681. Permitted uses. is
amended to read:
(4) Antennas as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter
Section 20 . DIVISION 2. "R -16" DISTRICT, Sec. 20 -683. Conditional uses. is
amended to read:
(7) Commercial Towers and Antennas as regulated by Article XXX of this
Chapter.
12
F7 iJ
1
LJ
F1
F,1
L�
Section 21. ARTICLE XVII. `BH" HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES
DISTRICT, Sec. 20 -712. Permitted uses. is amended to read:
(22) Commercial Antennas as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter.
Section 22. ARTICLE XVII. "BH" HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES
DISTRICT, Sec. 20 -714. Conditional uses. is amended to read:
(10) Commercial Towers as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter.
Section 23. ARTICLE XX. "BF" FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT, Sec. 20- 771.1.
Permitted uses. is amended to read:
(5) Commercial Antennas as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter.
Section 24. ARTICLE XX. "BF" FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT, Sec. 20 -773.
Conditional uses. Is amended to read:
(6) Commercial Towers as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter.
Section 25. ARTICLE XXL "OP' OFFICE AND INSTITIUTIONAL DISTRICT, Sec.
20 -792. Permitted uses. is amended to read:
(15) Commercial Antennas as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter.
Section 26. ARTICLE XXL "OI" OFFICE AND INSTITIUTIONAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20 -794. Conditional uses. is amended to read:
(2) Commercial towers as regulated by Article XXX this Chapter.
Section 27. ARTICLE XXII. "IOP" INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT, Sec.
20 -812. Permitted uses. is amended to read:
(13) Commercial Antennas as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter.
Section 28. ARTICLE XXII. "IOP" INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT, Sec.
20 -814. Conditional uses. is amended to read:
(15) Commercial Towers as regulated by Article XXX of this Chapter.
Section 29 . This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of _
, 1996.
13
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
1
14
I�
u
�I
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Alex Krengel: I don't think I have a choice. It's getting pretty late in the year to plant evergreens. I've been
planting trees for over 15 years and I know that the weather's going to beat us out so I don't think I have a choice.
No, this isn't exactly what I wanted but it looks like it's ... when you can't beat someone I guess you have to join
them. And I can see now that they are going to get approval on the hours and with all the other conditions so I might
as well join the group and try to get my problems resolved.
Councilman Berquist: I want you to know though Mr. Krengel that I'm making the motion of approval on the hours
predicated on your being, your problem being resolved. If your problem is unresolvable, in your mind, I will
withdraw the motion.
Alex Krengel: No, it's resolvable. I don't know that we can do it in a year. Trees don't grow that fast.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well we need some 8 footers.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. There's a motion with a second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve an amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit #92 -2 with the following conditions:
1. No public address systems are permitted.
2. No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the site.
3. No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives, or public right -of -way.
4. No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight on the Goodyear site. (Cars awaiting repair such
as new brakes or new tires are not considered damaged or inoperable.)
5. No outdoor storage shall be pennitted at the Goodyear site.
6. Noise levels shall not exceed OSHA requirements or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency guidelines at the
property line. The overhead garage doors may be kept open.
7. Pollution levels shall meet standards set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
8. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and Subdivision #90 -17.
9. There shall be no exterior tire displays. Temporary signage shall comply with the sign ordinance.
10. Hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. on Sundays.
11. The issue regarding headlights shining in the back yard of the neighbors shall be resolved to staff's
satisfaction prior to any amendments of conditions taking effect.
12. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed for compliance of conditions in one year.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING
ANTENNAS AND TOWERS, FIRST READING.
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. What we have here before us this evening is a new
ordinance pertaining to towers and antennas of a commercial nature. This item has also appeared before the
Planning Commission on several occasions and they are recommending approval of it with the changes as outlined in
30
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
the draft ordinance. I'll try to make this as simple as I can. It does get kind of complicated so feel free to interrupt
me at any time. There's been a number of things going on here. One is with the adoption of the
Telecommunications Act earlier this year. The other change that has occurred has been in the technology used for
wireless services. With the ebange over to digital technology as opposed to analog technology, has really expanded
the... The Telecommunications Act authorized the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, to sell
additional licenses throughout the country. In this area there was three additional licenses sold. Originally AT &T
and Airtouch, which used to be U.S. New Vector Group. They currently provide wireless service right now in the
metro area. They use an analog technology, some of whom are in the, I know AT &T for one is in the process of
switching over to digital technology. The three additional licenses were obtained by Sprint Spectrum, American
Portable Telecom, and OneComm. It's these three users that will be looking to establish service in the metro area. I
know there, well I know for sure that Sprint Spectrum and AT &T are actively pursuing sites in this city. I've not
talked to anyone from OneComm. With that, and additional licenses, it kind of goes hand in hand with the changes
in federal law and how they look at wireless services. The Telecommunications Act of this year did a number of
things from breaking down barriers to establishing services to how companies could deal in a wide range of
telecommunication services. As far as we're concerned though with this ordinance, the Telecommunications Act
limits the city's ability or authority to regulate certain aspects of the establishment of wireless services. Among those
are basically three limitations here. One, the city may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally
equivalent services. That is to say since we already have two carriers here, we cannot say the rest of you go away.
We're satisfied with what we have. We basically have to allow an opportunity for all five carriers at this point to
establish services in our city if they need a site. I should also note that there may be additional licenses sold in the
future. I think at this point they're looking at two more. So we could have seven carriers within the next few years
all looking for antenna sites throughout the metro area. The second point, cities may not prohibit or have the effect
of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. That is we cannot come up with an ordinance that would
prohibit services, such is we said antennas can't be over 50 feet. Well that would have the effect of basically
prohibit them the ability to establish so we have to set reasonable standards. The third point is, cities may not
regulate personal wireless services on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent
that such facilities comply with FCC regulations. This primarily deals with EMF. The electromagnetic fields. We
cannot regulate, as you've been aware, through towers in the city. That's often a concern to residents who actually
live near -by. It's also a concern with other uses such as power lines. Overhead power lines. This chart here 1
received from Sprint Spectrum and it basically shows you where personal communication services, PCS fits on this
spectrum of uses. It is fairly low. It's considered a non - ionizing source. It's the ionizing source of ultra violet, the
x -rays that are the real health hazard and being that these lower non - ionizing ones are not really a significant health
issue. So we cannot regulate based on that. I'm going to just show you a couple of examples of what we're looking
at for tower sites here and I'll also pass around a book that has some colored pictures that may be of some help to, if
you haven't seen this stuff yet. I've tried to keep you updated as we've worked on this and included some
information in the packet. This also is in some of the ordinance requirements. What we're looking here as an
ordinance requirement is a requirement to require monopoles, which would be this type of a pole. A lattice tower
would be prohibited. We do have a lattice tower currently in the city. It's just south of Stone Creek on the ... so
that's what we're looking at. When we talk about, throughout the ordinance about antennas located on buildings or
antennas designed to be camouflaged or to serve as an architectural treatment, we're primarily talking about a panel
antenna. And this structure is a bell tower. These are the antennas. They're pretty low profile. They're 4 to 5 feet
in height. About a foot to 6 inches in width. And they're basically, for the most part, camouflaged. Here again
similar. There are some, what you see here are antennas on the side of a building. These cannot be used in all
instances. They're limited. They only throw out a signal within a certain radius so it is, with antennas, the regular
stick antennas, have to be utilized in some instances. These two are fairly small. They won't be over 15 feet in
height. Just to give you an example. This has also been discussed. It's camouflaged in light fixtures, or antennas in
light fixtures. When we talk in the ordinance about how we're allowing them in parts or on city property in certain
instances. This is what we had in mind as an example. It would be ball diamond lights possibly at Lake Ann. They
could be fitted. The light standard could come down and the antenna could go up. And this whole issue was brought
before the Park Commission at the recommendation of the Planning Commission. They did not have a problem with
it per se as long as they had an opportunity to review it. They also commented on the fact that they did not want to
see them in private parks. In Lundgren's development there's a few private parks that are owned under the
ownership of the Association. They would want the city to have that additional control. And again, the way the
ordinance is written is that it allows an opportunity, but obviously with the city being the property owner, we have an
additional opportunity to review it or prohibit it outright for whatever reason that you chose. The reason we did this
31
I
1
L
1
i�
J
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
is if we were to restrict it only to industrial we would limit the areas of the city significantly. Everything north of
Highway 5 is primarily residential. So we pretty much put out the northern third of the city. When these carriers and
providers establish services, it's predicted that in the future they'll need antenna sites anywhere from a mile, one
antenna every mile to 3 miles. So you will see a significant increase. And again if you have seven providers, each
one of them needing their own antennas. What we've done to try to reduce this, and reduce the number of towers, is
where we have a co- location requirement where each tower would have to accommodate the users antennas and then
would have to provide space for one additional antenna for another carrier to utilize the same tower.
Councilman Berquist: Quickly John. The light standard tower. Is that four separate antennas or is that?
John Rask: That would be for one carrier in which it would send it out in all directions. As I indicated they're
limited on, the panel antennas send out a specific signal. They're not, it's not a 360 deal.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. So that in fact, when we talk about each carrier needing their owner tower. In order to
get two carriers on that type of a configuration you'd have to have two banks of those at different elevations.
John Rask: That's correct. And you need approximately 25 feet of separation between the two. For technology
reasons you can't, you'll get interference with antennas that are any closer than that. That's why within the
ordinance we've provided a 25 foot height bonus if they do design the tower to accommodate an additional user.
Councilman Berquist: And once we're saturated we're every mile to 3 miles?
John Rask: Ultimately.
Councilman Berquist: With 7 carriers with maximum of two carriers per tower.
John Rask: That may be a worst case scenario but it is a possibility.
Kate Aanenson: Don't use your cellular phone.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well you've got to hope that the technology will change.
John Rask: Yeah. The good thing too is, there's a lot of issues here so I'll try to stay on track but as they densify,
the towers will come down in height. You can't have overlapping signals so where we may start out with towers
being 150 feet high, as they densify their cells, the towers, the antennas come down on the towers. We've also tried
to address that issue by requiring them to remove unused sections of towers and that's kind of been a sticking point
with some of them but we certainly want to have the ability to get rid of some of these tall towers in the future. Also,
as they densify and come down, they'll be able to make use of other structures. Buildings. Things that may not have
been feasible the first time out. So we will have some, as technology improves, they'll be able to handle more calls
per antenna. AT &T in switching to digital will get that. So there are some improvements but ultimately you could
see them every 2 miles so that's, what the industry is predicting. A lot of it obviously goes with usership and then
topography. It's a line of sight signal. Therefore if you have an obstruction such as a large hill, large building, it
blocks the signal so that's an issue. And where we have, we're blessed with rolling topography out here, it's also
somewhat of a hindrance when trying to establish cellular service. With that I think I'll just get into some of the
ordinance here and just hit the high points and then answer.
Councilman Berquist: No pun intended.
John Rask: No pun intended. They had a couple of changes too I'll mention as I move through here. Or instead of
going through the changes, maybe I'll, Peter Beck from AT &T is here this evening and has recommended some
changes and some of them, we have 2 or 3 others I think we still have some concern with so we can go through those
here in a minute. Maybe I'll just hit a few high points. I think the first few pages of the ordinance are pretty self
explanatory. Moving to page 3 of the ordinance, under Section 20 -1503. In residential districts, the height of any
tower, including antennas, shall be 80 feet. The reason we picked 80 feet is trees typically grow between 70 and 75
feet at a maximum around here and they need to be above the tree line. Again when we're talking residential, we're
32
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
talking city property. Park sites. Could be a water tower. In the cases of the water towers, obviously they're going
to be over 80 feet. That's why in (d) we provided an exemption. Oh no, excuse me. Further down under
exemptions to height restrictions. We provided an exemption so that we could utilize existing structures and not be
limited on the height. In (b), we've limited the height of towers to 150 feet in all non - residential so it'd be your
industrial office park. It'd be BH and BF. We did prohibit towers in the CBD, in the Central Business District and
the General Business District. So you will not see any towers in those two districts.
Councilman Senn: On your height. On basically you're kind of setting the guideline to really as applying to right -of-
way, which is it can only be 50 %. I mean that's ... 50% of the height of the tower?
John Rask: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Is that what's common now? And I may be dating myself here but I remember back when some
of these towers in Shoreview... setback required the full height of the tower. You want to stay on your own property.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Or collapse in so.
Councilman Senn: Yeah... collapsing, whatever. Have we covered that off or are we opening up a public safety
hazard so to speak?
John Rask: Well, originally we had greater setbacks in here and some of those were relaxed as kind of a compromise
with the industry at the Planning Commission level. There are some very stringent building code requirements that
are applied to these things. I believe they have to be designed to withstand an 80 mph wind with certain ice loads
and so forth. So basically, I'm not an expert in this area but basically if that tower goes down, there's going to be a
whole heck of a lot around it that goes down too so. But that was something that we had a concern with certainly.
That was something that has been relaxed throughout the process.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well on those monopoles, I mean they can't just implode. It's just a signal...
John Rask: They may be designed to progress or to collapse because they're basically a telescoping pole. That was
a requirement that we originally had in our ordinance and it's been deleted from the draft ordinance. Moving on
through. We do have some exceptions to the height restriction. Here's where if it's located on existing structures
you can exceed it and then the City Council may permit antenna heights of up to 25 feet. If for some reason the
antenna signal is obstructed. Setbacks. Here's where we talk about from rear property lines and from right -of -ways.
We did leave for sites that are adjacent to parcels, developed, guided or zoned residential, setbacks shall be equal to
the height of the tower. So it would have to be from the property line so in most cases the structures are going to be
at least 10 feet on the property line. So they do enjoy that luxury there or they do have that protection from
residential homes. Yet we still have setbacks half the distance from the right -of -way. Part of the setback there too is
the aesthetics. We obviously don't want a tower slammed right up right next to the right -of -way, which is also
addressed in number 5 where we said towers cannot be located between a principal structure and the street. So if
somebody was going to locate a tower behind an industrial building, it would have to go behind an industrial
building. It couldn't go in the front yard or elsewhere on the property...
Kate Aanenson: Maybe to just add a little bit to what John was adding too. Since these are going on private
property, they also have to get a lease from the underlying property owner and that's part of the discretion of looking
at relaxing the ordinance... We looked at that as they need to get an underlying lease, there's insurance requirements
with the underlying tenants and some of that responsibility goes with that too so the tenants, whoever leases... So
again, at a minimum. That certainly...
Councilman Senn: What about when you're in an I zone and let's take the Post Office just as an example. Let's say
there's some industrial property backing up to residential. And now you're requiring effectively the I zone to be in
the back of the building. I mean is that in fact contrary to what we're really trying to achieve... residential?
John Rask: Yeah we have, in most cases, I think in all cases where we have industrial that abuts residential, we have
a buffer. In this case we have a 112 foot buffer. But yes that is, as long as they met the setbacks, that could be a
33
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
situation where you could see it between industrial and residential. Originally we had 1 % times the height of the
tower for the setback from residential and that was reduced down to the distance equal to the height.
Councilman Senn: Could you say that...
John Rask: Certainly.
Councilman Senn: Well I was just saying leave it open for, so it's a decision on the city's part to put it on the side or
the front or whatever rather than just figure it's going to end up next to residential?
Kate Aanenson: I guess in looking at this we try to go back to the criteria of where John originally said no
reasonable application... and where there's reasonable opportunities. A lot of our industrial park...
Councilman Senn: But I'm just saying, you can still get reasonable opportunity on the side of the building or in front
of the building versus abutting residential, right?
John Rask: Yeah, I think it's possible.
Councilman Senn: ...I'm not saying that ... each one individually.
John Rask Sure. We could take a look at that also. Towers in residential zoned districts. I went through that.
Under 2. I'd make an amendment as recommended by the Park Commission. It would be city park sites. We need
to clarify that, and not private parks. And again, as long as they're compatible with the nature of the park, the Park
Commission did express a desire to review those.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That was my question. Isn't that kind of open to interpretation what's compatible and
what's...
John Rask: Yeah. Again, incorporating it into a light standard, which would be something compatible. if somebody
wanted to locate it right in the middle of, in open space that's used as a play area, they certainly have, you could
deny that for no other reason except for you know like it's, since it's on city property.
Kate Aanenson: A light pole. Part of a backstop. Part of an existing structure... incorporated as part of the system.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I can just comment on that. I personally don't get as concerned when you're talking
about putting it on public property because they have to negotiate a lease with you and if you don't want it there, all
you've got to say is no.
Kate Aanenson: And that's what the Park Commission would like to see it before they come to you...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What kind of dollars are we talking about?
John Rask: Depending on the location. What's been the going rate, from what I understand is between $8,000.00
and $15,000.00 per year.
Councilman Senn: Outer suburb or what? A lot more are going to come...
John Rask: That's Apple Valley. I think Apple Valley is closer to 15. Part of the, I guess if it's a suitable site, I
guess we don't want to set such a high price that you would potentially discourage it because the only reason we
were concerning any residential areas is because, and we may have to in the future. We would rather have additional
control that we would obtain by putting it in city property. So no, a lot of cities have kept it low because they have
some real desirable sites such as water towers. It may be a piece of property that doesn't have much value. That the
HRA owns for some reason. So that's why I say, it's a wide range. I mean if it's Lake Ann Park and it may be
somewhat undesirable and maybe you wouldn't want it. So I guess that could be determined with each instance. We
provided construction requirements. What's needed at the time of application. Tower and antenna design I think is
34
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
pretty straightforward. We've required just... color. Co- location requirement. That's where we get into
constructing it for one other antenna. Also kind of a unique feature of this section sitting at the top of page 6 is that
we have some control over where towers... other sites that, and just to kind of go through this. On 1. The proposal
for a new commercial tower shall not be approved unless the City Council finds that the telecommunications
equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building
within a one mile search radius for towers under 120 feet. And then towers under 80 feet are exempt so this gives us
some flexibility. We can say hey, have you looked there. Have you looked here and try to get carriers to work
together. Try to get them to work on existing structures. So it does give you some leverage in that perspective. The
rest of it I think is pretty self explanatory. I don't think I'll go over it unless you have some specific questions. At
the very end of the ordinance we've listed what districts it would be permitted in and which would be conditional
uses and so forth. Basically in residential, any tower would be a conditional use. Antennas could go as a permitted
use if they meet the standards. In industrial, if you have an existing tower, you could put another set of antennas on
that tower as a permitted use. Again, this is the current, we wanted to encourage co- location so we said if you can
find an existing tower or existing building, we'll approve it administratively subject to the standards in here. If
you're going to put up a tower, you're going to have to go through the conditional use permit. Do the search radius.
Provide us this documentation showing why you need this location and why you can't do it anywhere else. But again
it's kind of the carrot and the stick approach. We wanted to provide some incentive for co- location... Provide some
ability to speed these things through. It's a very competitive industry and they're all trying to get tower sites up and
to establish service so as soon as this ordinance is passed, you're going to see a few of them here in front of you.
There are some, several that have been talking to us for several months now. With that I think I'll just entertain any
questions that you have.
Mayor Chmicl: Okay. Is there anyone that has any questions on...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, you have to understand that I think radios are magic and there are little people in
my TV set but interference with other signals, I mean without getting too technical..., how does that work. I mean is
it going to screw up any of our 911 service or any of our police...?
John Rask: Yeah, that's something that we were concerned with. On page 9 of the ordinance, Section 20 -1520
we've asked that they notify us. Anytime anyone puts up any sort of radio antenna, they need to seek FCC approval
for commercial uses and FCC is the governmental agency that regulates interference and maybe some of the people
here this evening can speak to you a little bit more about that but that is governed. We have, they have, what we're
requiring in the ordinance is that they notify us at least 10 days in advance so if we want to, we can monitor
interference levels. There are at least one of the carriers is concerned with this and would like to see it deleted.
We're simply asking that they call us and let us know so that we can monitor. Whether it's technical or not, if we
just, so we're aware of it. If other people have problems they can call us and we can certainly relay that information
and let them know that somebody is testing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But are these like, are they, and again. No knowledge basically at all on radio
frequency or bands but is there enough to support what they potentially...?
John Rask: Well I guess the market's going to determine that. That was part of the Telecommunications Act was to
break down these barriers and expand market opportunity for not only wireless but cable television, the Internet, a
number of areas that it addressed. Because of that we now have to deal with this issue. Also the technology has
changed and they offer a wide variety of services that there weren't before so.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? If not... Peter.
Peter Beck: I'm trying to see how I can move this along quickly. We have, first of all... representing AT &T
Wireless Services and I've been working with them for almost 10 years. They were previously known as Cellular
One. The old McCaw Communications organization, for those of you who recognize that name. It was acquired by
AT &T a few years ago. So we've been working for AT &T for the last couple years. And we are one of the two
original, if you will, cellular providers. We've been in this market since 1984. Have put up 90 some sites to date in
the metropolitan area. We have worked with many cities on specific sites and more recently in many cities on
ordinances exactly like this and I would say that the ordinance you're proposing is very much what other cities who
35
F1
1
u
I
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
are on top of this issue are doing. Very consistent with what I would call the state -of -the -art ordinance as of October,
1996. And the technology is moving very quickly. We have had an opportunity to work with your staff on it. I
think we've got it awfully close. What I did is I took the copy that I got for tonight's meeting and marked it up with
some of my thoughts. What I'd thought I'd do is pass that out. Many of them are just technical issues if you will,
that I'll be working with Kate and John on but I think I'll just focus on the three or four what I'll call policy
issues... Council should be aware of. And then if I can answer any questions that you have. Working with this
industry for as long as I have, I think I can answer most of your questions that... Please interrupt me at any time if
you have a question as we go through this. We'll move through it rather quickly. As I mentioned, AT &T is one of
the current cellular providers and the new licenses, the so called PCS providers are also represented here by Jay
Littlejohn, who I'm sure will speak. For the most part our issues are the same but there are some differences in and
I'm sure Jay will... We'll start on page 2. Under permits, because I think just a technical issue. I would just suggest
that you make it clear that what we're talking about here is building permits and conditional use permits. In number
3, the temporary facilities. Again I would call this a technical issue. What I'm trying to do and again, the
suggestions that I'm making tonight and that we've been making throughout this process are our effort at getting as
much flexibility into this ordinance as we can while still being consistent with your vision for the city, your goals for
the city in terms of these uses. But 3(b) deals with temporary facilities. They're typically ...mounted on trucks and
they couldn't comply with any of the, virtually any of the requirements that are otherwise applicable so I would just
suggest that that language be stricken. And also the 72 hours. In some instances... would requirement an on -site
communications for an extended period of time, where you might have like a building. Very, very unlikely to
have ... and I think we could address that... The next page is 3. The exceptions for multi -use towers. This is
a ... we're not in disagreement with the staff and I think it needs to be ... but I do want to highlight this issue for the
Council so you understand. A multi -use tower, what we're suggesting that be a tower that's designed for two or
more users so that if we were to put in a pole and someone else down the line had a need in that general area, we
would have space for them. We could make it available. The way it's written now, you'd have to have the two users
at the beginning in order to be a multi -user tower, which would probably almost never happen that these companies,
at this stage in their development, would have a need in the same location at the same time so the problem is you
wouldn't be able to design a pole for two users because it wouldn't qualify as a multi -use tower, which would be the
purpose of that co- location.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why is that Peter? I mean you're both trying to start and you're...
Peter Beck: Let me back up a little bit and talk, sort of a Cellular 101. Try to condense as much as I can. The
technology of this, as you know, is the so- called cellular. This word cellular comes from the fact that the technology
works by each antenna site delivering signals to a given area or cell. Okay. And the magic in it, and believe me it's
magic to me too, is that the computers and the system can transfer calls as you move from cell to cell. That as you
design the system the constraints are, capacity and coverage for quality of signal. Each cell is only licensed for a
limited number of radio frequencies. So it can only handle a limited number of calls. So as usage goes up, the cells
go up as you get capacity, you wouldn't be able to get on your phone. You'd get a busy signal. You'll get nothing.
That's when that cell needs to be broken down into smaller cells anywhere from 2 to 4. Typically when we're
breaking down the cells. Each of those cells, the new cells covers a smaller area. Therefore it needs less height.
The distance that the signal travels is directly related to it's height. But it needs enough height to get over the trees,
to get into the valleys and the area that it covers, into freeway trenches, and those kinds of geographic features. So
as, again as the berm, as your system matures, your customer base increases, you're building more cells but you have
to make each cell fit into the whole network. At this point 90 some cells. It has to cover the area to provide
complete coverage to that area but it can't go beyond that area, and you'll hear us talk about, we can't go on a water
tower because it's too high. Our signal will go too far and what happens then is the signal will broadcast beyond the
cell into another cell on the same frequency and you will be able to cross talk. Be in someone else's conversation.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: But if you're in a very competitive market and you're building a customer base at
basically the same rate as your competitor, and you're both running into those capacity constraints, why wouldn't
you run into the issue of needing to build a tower in a similar location?
Peter Beck: In a similar location?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah.
36
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Peter Beck: Probably at this point anyhow, it could happen... There are some differences. We have an existing...
We have 90 some sites. We're building about 20 or so new sites a year. Jay's client and the other so called PCS
providers are building now...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you're at different levels in the chain?
Peter Beck: Yeah. Now they're going to need more cells right up front, partly because of their technology. They're
on a little bit different wave length in that band that was on there, and the signal won't travel quite as far so they're
going to need more cells up front than we do. But our system will turn on the big cells. On locations like IDS
Tower. The northwest and southwest bank ... Xerxes where I used to office. Tall sites. There's one up here ... putting
lattice structures in places like Minnetonka, as you can image how it was received. But now we're lower. We have
90 some sites and Jay can give you an exact number... because of the distance that that particular signal traveled.
But as we look at a cell, we're fairly site sensitive. We get the so called search area ... to the point where it's
measured in blocks. So if Jay's client or another client happens to have a cell, a hole a half a mile away, sometimes
it just won't work for him. We hope that it will because this is a very capital intensive business. Very capital
intensive so that's why McCaw... doesn't exist anymore. They needed access to AT &T's money and they'd never
build a pole if they don't have to because of the extra capital. If there's an existing structure to go on, they'll do it
and they'll save some money on that site and I believe that would be true most the time... but what we would like is
to build it to ... so we can get the second user on there in the future, if that's the way you want to go. If you want to
have poles...
Kate Aanenson: Let me just clarify. We intended that... but we agree with that...
Peter Beck: But I think it's a good issue for the Council to understand, to the extent I can make it understandable.
So let me go... Towards the bottom of the page, there was some questions that you will see under setbacks. Where I
have suggested that they've included institutional zones in the industrial and business zoned districts where if you
had institutional zones that butt up against the industrial district, it could go along the property line. Where we try to
put these poles typically is as far away from everything else as we can... outside of the parking lot... Councilman
Senn had a question about where industrial is up against residential. We do have in here, in all instances in that case,
there'd be at least the setback of the height of the pole. It would never be against the property line, as this is written
and that's, we think that's a good idea. The setback from the height of the pole is a reasonable aesthetic requirement.
It's not necessary for safety reasons. These poles are extremely reliable and extremely safe. In the Shoreview
instance that was a guide wire structure that... construction. Lattice structures will fail. They're designed to fail...
What happens with the pole is it just simply won't fall over. They're engineered to be, to withstand a 90 mph wind
but have been as high ... and our vendor has tested their design and found that the first failure occurred at about 105
mph winds and what happens is it kinks. Somewhere along it's height... but they've survived in winds like Hurricane
Andrew and that's what happens, it kinks. But they don't fall over. So the so called fall zone concept which arises
out of the older technology, the lattice and guide towers, where you cut the guide wires, it could fall over. It really
doesn't apply. As long as they're sure that ... and the other design, there are agencies that have set design
requirements for these. An important one of course is the footings and foundation and that has to be adequate to
hold the pole. But again, with the vendors that we deal with, I'm not aware of any failure.
Councilman Berquist: Excuse me. I believe you that the pole will never fall down but what about the mechanism
itself? The relay device.
Peter Beck: The antennas?
Councilman Berquist: The antennas.
Peter Beck: The antennas at the top of the pole? Again, and I didn't bring any pictures. They're very small. It
comes off like a leaf...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It just impales people when it falls.
37
n
1
1
1
1 City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
' Peter Beck: Well that's not really what we're doing right now. Yeah, I'm not going to say that in 105 mph, they
wouldn't blow off.
Councilman Berquist: Well yeah, in 105 mph obviously I'm not.
Peter Beck: Well at 90 they will not. The whole pole, the whole facility is designed to withstand a 90 mph. That's
the design speed that AT &T insists on for it's facility.
Councilman Berquist: And not for the pole design but for the mechanism on, the actual relay mechanism?
Peter Beck: The pole and the antenna. Actually the computer for the relay mechanism is in an equipment shelter at
the base which is also designed to withstand up to 80 mph winds. That's a 12 x 28 foot equipment building.
Councilman Berquist: Wait a minute. 12 x 28 equipment building?
Peter Beck: Yeah, 12 x 28.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Feet?
Peter Beck: 12 feet by 28 feet long.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: So with every pole we're getting, we're also getting that?
Peter Beck: Most the poles. Sometimes we can put that equipment in existing—on the base of a water tower.
Existing equipment building. Again, they don't build them if they don't need them but in a typical installation.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What's the height?
Peter Beck: They're about 8 feet.
' Kate Aanenson: The existing tower on Lyman...
Peter Beck: And those are typically designed to match ... to be compatible with whatever else is on the site. We've
done them in brick... industrial area. We'll try to match the color and materials that are on existing buildings.
Councilman Berquist: So a significant percentage of these towers would be accompanied by a 500 square foot
structure?
Peter Beck: Yeah...
John Rask: If I could comment on that briefly. We did limit the size of the building to 400 square feet in the
ordinance. We provided some design standards for those buildings. That they be architecturally compatible with the
surrounding structures. That they use brick, stucco or some material, quality material. No metal seamed buildings or
anything to that extent.
Peter Beck: And this is one area where we do differ.
John Rask: Yes. PCS will use smaller receivers. This is kind of what, this was provided again by Sprint. I've heard
the comparison made that their units at the base of the towers will be about the size of a couple vending machines.
Couple of Coke machines so they're, go ahead.
Peter Beck: The next, again...PCS's technology does have a smaller need. The bulk of our equipment building
is... so we can stay on the air. And at the very bottom of that page is the setback. For one half the distance from
the... Again, I think this is probably a policy issue. In many instances there are existing structures in rights -of -way
so we can try to match and make this facility less conspicuous if it's in a row of power poles or something like that.
38
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
So I guess our thought would be, it wouldn't be a setback from the right -of -way. Maybe from the road surfaces and
so forth but in the right- of-way it's often times a good place for this kind of facility so.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What kind ... but I didn't realize a building was coming along with this but do you need
10,000 square feet or what?
Peter Beck: For a site?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah.
Peter Beck: No. A typical site would be 30 feet square. 40 feet square. Virtually all... You had a question about
how much. That varies by location but also it varies on what we're leasing... costing hundreds of dollars a month. If
they're leasing space on a water tower, or on a structure, then you're talking maybe a thousand or more per month
because we don't have to invest in a pole.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What about this structure at the bottom? When you're leasing.
Peter Beck: We lease the same square footage whatever it is. We put the pole on the building and typically...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Peter, as you probably well know, we can shut this off at 11:00, which is our dead time.
What I'd rather see done is rather than address each one of these respective areas that you're talking about, I would
like to see you put this in writing and bring it back to Council. I would much prefer that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'd like, I mean considering this is a first reading, these aren't big items for staff.
Mayor Chmiel: No, but I don't want to rush into this thing either. There's an awful lot of things that I see concerns
with and total numbers of these structures in and throughout the entire city. When you get seven handlers and each
are going to put it in one mile each, or two miles max.
Peter Beck: I think that, I was going to get to that. I think that's more than, considerably more than reality...
Mayor Chmiel: Under those circumstances, it's almost like looking at the old day when antennas came in for
television. Every house you saw had one and it was not the most desirable sight you'd like to have. I think there are
a lot of technologies that are still out there that have not yet been addressed. And many of those technologies can
become better use for both the operators as well as going to each of the cities. And I understand what you're
basically talking about. But I would still much rather see this in writing so we can really go over that thing and as I
say, the bewitching hour is 11:00 and I would just as soon hear from the others in a rather short, brief presentation.
Roger Knutson: Mayor? Maybe I could suggest, to the extent that the cell companies, or PCS. Whatever those
folks are. And staff are in agreement, they could bring back a revised draft incorporating everything there's an
agreement on and then you could focus on the areas where there are disagreement with staff plus anything else you.
Kate Aanenson: I think that's where we're at today. I think Peter would agree. That's where we're at and that's
kind of why he's sununarizing. We're in agreement except for the changes that he wants to present to you. There
might be some other things but we're pretty much we've been, we're there. I think we're...
Peter Beck: There's three or four items, just on policies and ... all that's left. And I'm really just pointing out the
other things...
Councilman Berquist: And one of those would be to be in the rights -of -way, or at least... Whether it's to, whether
it's in an institutional zone.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Even putting them in a residential zone because I know I'm not too acceptable to that.
39
u
11
�J
r
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Peter Beck: Well it's not... residential zones but only on what you would call institutional sites. Schools, churches,
that sort of thing and that really would be necessary in order to provide this service to a community like Chanhassen
where you have large areas of the community.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think when we allowed the first one in they said this would be the last one you'd see. That's
no longer the case.
Peter Beck: And that was done I think by MCI?
Mayor Chmiel: I believe it was, yeah.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What page...?
Councilman Senn: ...right -of -way issue.
Councilman Berquist: 1505.
Peter Beck: The bottom, very bottom of page 3. Number 4. The ordinance requires that the setback be half the
height from rights -of -way and.
Councilman Senn: And you're saying that... consideration.
Kate Aanenson: Right. We didn't want to change it for aesthetics.
Peter Beck: And we're thinking of situations like we talked.
Kate Aanenson: High tension power lines.
Peter Beck: There might be others. That was why I thought...
Councilman Senn: ...can't you use those?
Peter Beck: Someday we hope, right now we can't.
Councilman Senn: I was going to say my phone won't work anywhere near them.
Peter Beck: What we can do is throw a pole up you know the same style and color and we've done this on a number
of school sites where there's existing, other services existing. Light poles. Where they were not always to use them
but to put up a pole that matches them. Replicates them. Same height. Same color. Size.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can we provide for coming in for a conditional use?
Peter Beck: Well everything's a conditional use for the poles.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right but that would be my recommendation.
Mayor Chiniel: With a conditional use you'd have a little more control from the city's standpoint than you would...
Roger Knutson: You have more control to say no to a variance than you do to a conditional use permit.
Mayor Chmiel: Then that's vice versa of what I said...
Peter Beck: ...why don't I just, the rest... Channel 29 for instance is just right next to us in the frequency band...
and that's why ... the requirement is to notify the city... The whole system has to be retuned to accommodate these
new cells and the frequencies reallocated so ... on a common use facility...
40
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Councilman Berquist: How long does the fine tuning process take? You're talking about retuning the cell.
Peter Beck: It's typically done ... when usage is down...
Councilman Senn: ...every time you retune you notify?
John Rask: Well our original concern was over public safety. Telephone communications so that's what we were
most concerned. I'm not going to pretend to know everything about their industry. We also have
telecommunications that interact with our well houses. With our pump lift stations... I don't know. I think in the
future...
Peter Beck: ...be able to have that many
Councilman Mason: But everyone has e -mail. I mean you can just flash an e- mail... This area is going to be worked
on. I mean Peter I don't believe that can't be done. I mean I understand it's a hassle but I also know with e -mail and
that kind of stuff, if you get a list of all ... you'd press one button and it's gone. I mean for what it's worth.
Peter Beck: It's come up in other cities... I'll be happy to answer any other questions...
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we can sort of review this again and ... ask those respective questions.
Peter Beck: I'd be happy to come back out... We don't have any imminent sites in Chanhassen in '97 but again the
company is investing in my time to go...
Cotmcilman Berquist: When you were researching this, did you talk to any, I'm just wondering about the
communications interruptions for public safety in other communities. Did you talk to anyone who had experienced
that or was that?
John Rask: No, but a number of communities have adopted ordinances that takes this one step further than we do.
They require an intermodulation study, which is a very detailed study showing potential interference problems. We
took that out and we said you need FCC approval, and they said well we don't want ... so we took that out. So now
we're at, just call us.
Councilman Berquist: Is the inner... study a onetime deal upon the initial cell set -up which would tell us whether or
not we would have a communications.
John Rask: They would certainly provide it the first time. I don't know as they tune them and adjust them if they
would have to do the same thing...
Peter Beck: In Burnsville, a situation there is they have a long time policy of requiring everybody that needed
antennas to put them on their water tower, and it was a major revenue source... That's how this language appeared in
the ordinance. They also allowed it on other locations if the water tower... so it's not, in that instance...
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks.
Jay Littlejohn: My name is Jay Littlejohn and I'm representing U.S. West Vector Group for 9 years... Peter's
Cellular 101. I'll give Cellular 102. Or 201. ...that site that you saw with the church bell tower, that is one...
stealth antennas and that... Right now ... Air Cellular ... U.S West built their first site in 1982 in Minnetonka on
the water tower. We've also... There's a question of interference and... Staff has done an excellent job of working
on this and I'm just here to answer questions...
Councilwoman Dockendorf asked a question regarding cloning of her cell phone in Philadelphia.
Jay Littlejohn: Boy, if I knew that I wouldn't be here today...
41
I
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I was using it out in Philadelphia...
Doug Cowan: Good evening. My name is Doug Cowan. On behalf of the American Portable Telecomm I just
wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for ... and we look forward to any additional hearings that you want to
present... assist staff... let us know. And we agree with the comments that have been made this evening. I think in
particular to address the interference and we would ask that... authority of the FCC because I think the practicality of
trying to both monitor and...so again, thank you...
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks.
Jay Littlejohn: Somebody asked the question about the tower cycle. I know of one in the next two years that will be
done by my client...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, great.
Councilman Berquist: I did notice though that while Peter was talking there was one, a couple statements that he
made that you were shaking your head.
Jay Littlejohn: Oh that's the PCS...
Peter Beck: I apologize...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Did we provide guidance to you guys to do a final reading?
Kate Aanenson: This is on for the first reading...
Roger Knutson: There's no reason not to pass first reading. They'll bring back a revised draft and then if there's
any remaining issues, they can, staff can highlight them for you and then you can resolve it.
Councilman Berquist: ...public hearing'?
Roger Knutson: No.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Berquist: The only issue I was wondering was whether or not we provided adequate direction was 20-
1520. Interference with public safety telecommunications and John, if you seriously...
Jolui Rask: ...it has been a concern I know with a number of communities. As you're very well aware, this is all
being played out here in front of us. Nobody knows. There's a lot of uncertainties here yet. One of the reasons we
assigned separate articles and sections to this ordinance is we know it's going to be coming back. As technology
changes and as we learn as certain things get challenged in court, we will be back so that's why I'd prefer to ... see
how it goes.
Councilman Senn: I'll move first reading for now...
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
42
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996 1
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the first reading of a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code regarding Antennas and Towers as amended. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
in.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's try to crack the rest of these
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
'
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: We have a work session coming up this next Monday night. One of the items I forgot to put onto
this agenda was setting a time and place to canvas election returns so we do need to handle that item. I would
suggest that these three items be at the very first part of next week's work session. In fact they might go a little bit
faster in a work. You'd have to convene the Council together for the first part of the meeting but I think that they
would g faster in kind of that smaller session.
Councilman Senn: On the 4"'?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Senn: We won't be doing the election results on the 4`�?
Don Ashworth: No.
Roger Knutson: You'd better not be.
Don Ashworth: You have to canvas the returns within 48 hours following the election so on Monday night you
would be setting the time and place that you would actually canvas those returns. which would be either the 6"' or the
7 ti,
Roger Knutson: So technically what you would do tonight is adjourn this meeting to the 4"' at, set the hour.
,
Don Ashworth: 5:30.
Roger Knutson: So it would be a motion to, if that's what you want to do. To adjourn this meeting to November 4"'
at 5:30... taking care of those meeting issues. If that's what you want to do.
'
Councilman Mason: I would move that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah.
t
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adjourn the meeting to November 4, 1996
at 5:30 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. This portion of the meeting was adjourned at 11:20
p.m.
'
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
43