3 Conditional Use Permit/AT&T
-
,.
f
)
-
J
..
,
...
{
t
-
~
LJ
-
-
f)
PC DATE: 7/1&/00
8/15/00
3,
-
CITY OF
CHANHASSEH
CC DATE: &/14/00
9/11/00
REVIEW DEADLINE: 8/19/00
STAFF
CASE #: CUP #00-5
By: Kirchoff, C.
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Request for a conditional use pennit to construct a 79.5 foot monopole including
antennas and a site plan review to construct a 12 foot by 28 foot (336 sq. ft.)
equipment building.
LOCATION:
275 West 79th Street
APPLICANT:
AT & T Wireless Services
2515 24th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55406
(612) 721-1660
Brown's Tire & Auto
275 West 79th Street
Chanhassen, MN 553 I 7
(952) 934-2155
PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway and Business Services District
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
ACREAGE: .85 acres
DENSITY: N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant would like to install a wireless communication site on
property zoned BH, Highway and Business Services District. Towers and antennas are pennitted as a
conditional use. The site contains a multi-tenant building with automobile-related uses.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use pennits, based on whether or
not the proposal meets the conditional use pennit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the
City finds that all the applicable conditional use pennit standards are met, the pennit must be
approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
,5
~~
~
s:
Q)
-.
~
.
Of
en
ëD
CUP - AT & T Wireless Services
September 6, 2000
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE - AUGUST 15.2000
This item was reviewed again on August 15, 2000, where the Planning Commission recommended
denial by a unanimous vote. The Planning Commission expressed concerns about co-locating this
facility with an existing or proposed wireless communication site, whether this site is required for
adequate service provision and aesthetics of the 79.5 foot tower along TH 5 and in relation to St.
Hubert's Church steeple.
The applicant has submitted a new survey that places the tower closer to the existing structure so the
equipment building meets all codes. This report has been updated. All new infonnation is in bold
and all outdated infonnation has been struck through.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE - JULY 18.2000
On July 18, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item. By a unanimous vote,
the application was tabled in order for the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed height is required
for adequate service provision, submit photographs of the monopole in relation to St. Hubert's Church
steeple and demonstrate that this facility cannot be co-located with a future Sprint facility.
The coverage maps (Attachment 7) indicate that there is a gap in the service south ofTH 5 along TH
101. A 79.5 foot monopole will provide more coverage to this area than the lower, 55-foot tower.
Correspondence regarding a co-location between AT&T and Sprint is located in Attachment 8. The two
carriers cannot co-locate because the proposed towers are incompatible with each other's coverage
requirements. Photographs showing the monopole's height in comparison to St. Hubert's Church
steeple are also attached.
APPLICABLE REGULATION
Section 20-714 of the zoning ordinance pennits commercial towers as regulated by article XXX as a
conditional use in the BH zoning district.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a conditional use pennit to construct a 79.5-foot monopole with antennas
and a site plan for a 336 sq. ft. equipment building for a wireless communication facility. The zoning
ordinance pennits towers and antennas as a conditional use in the BH, Highway and Business
Services District. The tower is proposed to have three arms mounted at the top of the pole that can
support up to 12 antennas. The applicant has stated that only nine antennas will be installed initially.
Also, the monopole has the capacity to hold an additional three arms at the 55 foot elevation that can
accommodate up to 12 antennas for a co-locator. The monopole and building are to be located to the
east of an existing commercial building (Brown's Tire & Auto, Toll Welding and Master Collision)
that abuts TH 5.
The monopole and equipment building will be accessed via an existing drive aisle and cul-de-sac.
The site ¡¡Ian ¡jees net in¡jieate any lan¡jsea¡¡iag, ReV/ever, the a¡¡¡¡lieant iRten¡js te ¡¡Iant shrllbs areHa¡j
the eEjUi 'Jmeat ImiMing. Existing vegetation to tbe south (coniferous trees along TH 5) and to the
CUP - AT & T Wireless Services
September 6, 2000
Page 3
north of the proposed wireless communication site provide screening of the equipment
building. Additional landscaping is not proposed around the base of the building. The entire
site is elevated approximately 8 feet above TH 5. The existing landscaping along TH 5 will screen
the equipment building.
The tower is north of TH 5, west of the pedestrian bridge, east of an existing commercial building
(Brown's Tire & Auto, Toll Welding and Master Collision) and south of the Chicago Milwaukee St.
Paul and Pacific Railroad.
Staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in this report.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to install a 77-foot monopole with 3 arms at the top containing up to 12
antennas that are approximately 4 feet in length, I foot in width and 6 inches in depth. The monopole
is designed to hold an additional three arms with up to 12 antennas at the lower, 55-foot height. The
monopole and equipment building are to be located on a 46 39.4 footby -l9 16 foot concrete island ~
11.5 feet from an existing commercial building and directly abutting an electrical transfonner.
As shown on the following table, the tower complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
That is, it meets all height and setback requirements. ',vith tHe e¡(ee 'Jtien of tHe setBack fFØm tHe
selHh ¡¡rС¡eFty liae. The srdinanee feE/IDles it ta Be aRe half tHe HeigHt oftha tower, iaelü¡jiRg
antennas. The setBaek that is she'.'.'ft is frem ellFè te cmB, Ret frÐm meRs¡¡ele ts tHe 'JFØ¡¡erty liRe.
TABLE I
Proposed monopole compared to ordinance requirements
Ordinance Proposal
Tower Heie:ht 150 feet/maximum 79.5 feet including antennas
Tower Setback
TH5 40 feet/minimum Net SHawa 60.25 feet
East property line 10 feet/minimum # 80 feet
The tower is to be galvanized and painted blue or "Artie Ice." This color is consistent with the tower
and antenna design requirements in the zoning ordinance. However, staff would like to specifically
recommend the brand be "Tnemac" and the color "Blue Elusion." This is the same color used on the
water tower in the Arboretum Business Park (southeast comer ofTH 5 and TH 41).
In locating a telecommunication antenna, the applicant must demonstrate that the antenna cannot be
accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one-mile search radius.
However, towers less than 80 feet in height are exempt from this requirement. Since the monopole is
only 77 feet (79.5 feet with antennas), this applicant does not need to comply with this obligation.
The applicant has contacted NSP about locating a wireless communication facility on the existing
power lines. This placement does not work for either party for safety reasons. Roger A. Johnson,
Construction Supervisor with NSP, infonned staff that antennas must be mounted below 50 feet on
CUP - AT & T Wireless Services
September 6, 2000
Page 4
the 100 foot tall power poles because they must be a certain distance from the lowest conductors.
This height does not meet the needs of the applicant.
EOUlPMENT BUILDING
A 336 sq. ft. equipment building is to be installed in conjunction with the monopole. This proposed
structure is 10 feet in height, 12 feet in width and 28 feet in length. It is to be constructed of
prefabricated concrete and painted a color to blend in with the existing building. However, the HC-1,
Highway 5 Overlay District prohibits painted brick. Thus, staff is requiring that the equipment
building be constructed of textured block or brick similar in color to the existing building.
The following table shows the zoning ordinance requirements compared to the proposal. The
building setbacks are not shown to the property line. This information will have to be provided
as a condition of approval.
Ordinance
1 sto /maximum
400 s . ft./maximum
TABLE 2
Equipment building compared to ordinance requirements
25 feet/minimum
10 feet/minimum
Not Shown
The equipment building is shown to be M 23 feet from the existing building. This setback complies
with the building code that requires the minimum setback to be 20 feet based upon the building
classification.
As additional antennas are installed on the monopole, additional equipment buildings will be
required. All structures will have to meet zoning ordinance requirements.
PARKlNG/INTERlOR CIRCULATION
The existing parking will be used. No additional parking spaces are required for this use. The site plan
does not indicate the number of parking stalls that will be impacted by this application. Therefore, staff
is recommending that the applicant demonstrate the number of parking stalls being impacted by the
installation the monopole and building on the site plan.
LANDSCAPING
Existing landscaping includes a continuous staggered row of evergreens that screen the equipment
building on the south. Currently, there is one dead evergreen near the proposed monopole and building
that should be replaced. The mature evergreen and deciduous trees obscure views from the properties to
the north. The zoning ordinance does not require additional vegetation to be planted because the
existing building is screened.
CUP - AT & T Wireless Services
September 6, 2000
Page 5
The a¡¡f!lieant lIas ÎR¡jieate¡j that sàrllbs are te Be ¡¡laateà areHHà the base af the e¡¡l!Ìf!meat Imilàing.
Staff resømmeflås that a laFu:lseaJ3e plan detailing the speeies and site leeatiaB he sueæitteà t8 the City
¡¡risr ts illStallatiea.
LIGHTING
Lighting is not shown on the site plan. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall
not display strobe lights unless the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority
for a particular tower specifically requires such lighting.
SIGNAGE
The applicant has not shown a sign plan. No signage, advertising or identification of any kind
intended to be visible from the ground or other structures is pennitted, except applicable warning and
equipment infonnation signage required by the manufacturer or by Federal, State, or local authorities.
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:
I. 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, undennine economic value and growth.
Finding: A 79.5-foot high tower at this location should not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
surrounding property or substantially diminish property values. The Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul and
Pacific Railroad separate the residential property to the north from the proposed monopole and
equipment building. Mature, existing trees should help to partially screen the monopole from
properties to the north. Further, so long as the pennit and building code requirements are adhered to,
the proposed tower should not endanger the public health or safety.
Staff finds that the applicant has met the general standards for all conditional use and the design
standards for towers.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
CUP - AT & T Wireless Services
September 6, 2000
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION
"The City Council approves Conditional Use Pennit #2000-5 to allow a 79.5 foot monopole with
antennas and a site plan for a 12 foot by 28 foot (336 sq. ft.) equipment building for a wireless
communication facility as shown on plans prepared by Ulteig Engineers, Inc. on June 16, 2000, and
stamped received August 7, 2000, and survey prepared by Ulteig Engineers, Inc. on August 15,
2000, and submitted on August 15, 2000, subject to the following conditions:
1. The monopole and equipment building shall comply with article XXX. Towers and
Antennas of the zoning ordinance.
2. The tower and all antennas shall be less than 80 feet in height.
3. The monopole color shall be the brand "Tnemac" and the color "Blue Elusion."
4. The 8I"plieaat shall àemoastrate that the manspale meets the Fe¡¡aireà 1Q faet setbaek frem
the ¡¡rs¡¡erty line abHttiag TH 5.
5. The setbacks from property lines shall be shown on the site plan for the equipment building.
6. There shall be no artificial ighting or signage for the monopole.
7. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval,
iaelaàiag showing the location of the replacement evergreen tree along TH 5.
8. The applicant shall submit 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 tenns and conditions for shared use, and so long as there is no negative
structural impact upon the tower, and there is not disruption to the service provider.
9. The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of building pennit application
showing the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located
antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas. A description ofthe
tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated
should also be provided.
10. The equipment building shall be constructed of textured block or brick similar in color to
the existing building.
11. The site plan shall indicate the number of parking stalls that are impacted by the
installation of the monopole and equipment building.
12. The island around the antenna and equipment building shall be B-612 concrete curb and
gutter consistent with the existing parking lot.
CUP - AT & T Wireless Services
September 6, 2000
Page 7
13. A building pennit is required to construct the building and monopole. The monopole
must be designed to include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice.
14. The equipment building must be a minimum of20 feet away from the existing building to
the west. The west wall must be one-hour fire-resistive construction; opening or
penetrations are not pennitted in this wall unless it is at least 25 feet from the other
building, at a distance of 30 feet, openings are pennitted without restrictions.
15. The contractor shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss
plan review and pennit procedures and also the code requirements for the buildings based
on the separation distance."
ATTACHMENTS
2. Application and Letter
3. Site Plan and Elevations
4. Memo from Steve Torell dated July 5, 2000
5. Public Hearing Notice
6. Minutes from July 18,2000 Planning Commission meeting
7. Coverage maps
8. Letter from David Hagen dated August 3, 2000
9. Minutes from August IS, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
10. Letter from AT&T dated September 7, 2000
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
INRE:
Application of AT&T Wireless Services
Conditional Use Pennit
On July 18, 2000 and August 15, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its
regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of AT&T Wireless Services for a conditional
use pennit for the property located at 275 West 79th Street. The Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the proposed conditional use was preceded by published and mailed notice. The
Planning Commission heard testimony fÌ'om all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned BH, Highway and Business Services District
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Commercial
3. The legal description of the property is: see Exhibit A
4. Section 20-232:
a. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience
or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
b. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this
chapter.
c. 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.
CUP - AT & T Wireless Services
September 6, 2000
Page 2
d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
e. 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.
f. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
g. 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.
h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion
or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
i. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or
historic features of major significance.
J. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
k. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
I. Will meet standards prescribed for certain usesas provided in this article.
5. The planning report #2000-5 dated July 13, 2000, prepared by Cynthia Kirchoff is
incorporated herein.
CUP - AT & T Wireless Services
September 6, 2000
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the conditional use
permit.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15 day of August, 2000.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chainnan
ATTEST:
Secretary
g:\plan\ck\plan comm\at & t cell tower cup 00-5.doc
06/15/00 15:21 F~~~93è 5739
CITY OF CIIASHASSEN
~ 0021003
é)tif'Y?[\Ofi.I,l flASSEN
. .....--..·r""n
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
. , 690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
tJUN 19 2000
CHANHA~:::itr~ ~LJ.\~mll''..;I ur;¡JT
APPLICANT: lJí4:r ~hr,,-./q,>~ _~f(ø:,
ADDRESS: 2<5/5 24-t-LÅt.JCL. Sð.
1M. ~ "\ll.L4'fi' ( ; So, VV\ tJ, 5' Ç4910
TELEPHONE (Daytime) (1012) 72/- i tJ,..j)
OWNER: '13rouJ/1 ~ .4.)'10 tf Da..
ADDRESS: 275 1/1': '79M. sf,
G¡',",,¡;'.K~"'..4'\.. t flf",. 5$3/7
TELEPHONE: ( ((7) 9 '~4 -'2ISf;-
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales permit
,
-Ä Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements
- Interim Use Permit - Variance
_ Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit
_ Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Sign Permits
_ Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign
_ Site Plan Review' -X- Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ..
($50 CUP/SPRNACNAPJWAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
_ Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ 4tOU.W
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 B'/z" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
_ Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE _ When multiple appUcations are processed. the appropriate fee shall be chargEld lor each' application.
06/15/00 15:21 FAX 612 937 5739
CITY OF CHAXIIASSEN
I4i 003/003
PROJECT NAME 111'« 1¡(f¡r.(J~s _~()¡'u~"> r.~ù2.-<;·f:.J~:)r ~ ,Ur:
275 W. 7C¡-ß-, sf.
-p /7J.:# 25- O/3!'7{)O
A/1d1Y£ ~u.> /5 -rllb,7(Z,,?;
. . .
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
f'.?r I- t? .f
TOTAl ACREAGE
WETlANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING
REOUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
YES V NO
8v>,¡te4":> I-Ir;UJ¿
~. U,? . r rJlJIcf / ¿u,'¡-~JeJS
( /
JDj'1Æ-t.M.Q..r~; ,.....(
S / f(L.,
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASONFORTHISREQUEST /J:í<l r 1.~/<è.J~.sC. ç('.nl¡'~~.Ç <c, /.<.)4rt·L Iv Io~A:k..
(;c, (i"~,'\I\I,,^,,,'\.ì <!'_;~~).'1". ,,¡·h...... Ä--:-f=_:tt.·¡ <>.. !ocr-A..:.t;nrl.
This appfication must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specRic ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application subminal. A written
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 with
all City requiremenis with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any maner pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate CertIficate of Tille, Ab~tract of Tille or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signeèl this application.
1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines far submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowiedge. .
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the appli nt.
'/);;r¿'
Fee Paid é4c0.OO
t.,k.¡ /P ð
. Dáte
/Í? -/ /- (J¿:?
Date
Receipt No. 7317 '2:J
-
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report whIch will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
Jf not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
-
AT&T
-
-
-
Iœ8 Hí, Zggg
Wireless Network Services
Real Estate
Ms. Cynthia R. Kirchoff
Planner I
City ofChanhassen
690 City Center Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
AT&T Wireless Services
2515 24th Avenue South
Minneapolis. MN 55406·1218
612 721·1660
FAX 612 844·6604
Re: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless
Communication Site in Chanhassen, MN
I>earMs.KirchofE
AT&T Wireless Services of Minnesota, Inc., (ATTWS) desires to provide
coverage to their customers as they travel Highways 5, 101 and throughout the
community of Chanhassen. In order to establish a strong signal within these
areas, it is necessary to locate a wireless site which would provide signal to all
of these areas. The proposed site is located behind Brown's Tire and Auto.
This property is zoned BH (Business Highway) which according to
Chanhassen's city code, section 20-1500 towers are allowed with a
conditional use permit. In addition to the enclosed application fonD, the
following supplemental information is provided.
In order to provide the necessary signal to the previously described area,
ATTWS needs to erect an SO-foot monopole to which our antennas would be
attached. The monopole is a steel-tapered pole and is placed approximately
six feet from the equipment building. This height would provide the
necessary signal strength for our customers and the residents of this area, and
connect to the surrounding ATTWS sites. By providing such service to the
community, ATTWS believes they are enhancing the public health, safety and
general welfare of the community. Locating a monopole at this site would be
compatible in appearance with the existing character of that area and will not
be hazardous to the existing uses in that area.
The proposed monopole and equipment building is an unmanned structure,
only requiring power and phone service to be brought to the site. Both of
these services are located in the immediate area and will not require any
additional public facilities services.
USA
OQ9
PRQUDf>ARTNER
This proposed site will not generate excessive traffic, noise, trash or any other
condition that might be detrimental to any person or property in the area. The
vehicular traffic to and from this site will be very minimal since a technician
is only required to show up once a month unless there is an emergency.
This site will not result in any destruction, loss or damage to any historical or
natural features in the area and it is ATTWS's opinion that this site would be
aesthetically compatible to the area. There have been numerous independent
studies on property value throughout the country, and it has been determined
by these studies, that surronnd property values do not depreciate.
The equipment building is a prefabricated concrete building which can be
painted to blend into the color of the existing structure on this parcel ofland.
The building is 12' wide, 28' long and 10 feet high, providing a 336 square
foot print. We propose to plant shrubs around the base of the building to
soften the building's appearance and meet landscape requirements. The pole
will be painted a blue color as required in the City Code.
Please find enclosed the following:
· 26 copies of the site plan with one (1) reduced to 81/2" X 11".
· 26 copies of a photo showing the proposed equipment at this location.
· ATTWS check in the amount of $400.00 for the application fee.
· A list of property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcel.
ATTWS believes that this application complies and conforms to the City
Ordinances and Comprehensive plan. ATTWS requests that the City Council
and Planning Commission approve this Conditional Use Application for the
80' monopole and equipment shelter at the Brown's Tire and Auto location.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (612) 868-1668.
Very truly,
/ ì -
é U~~~)¿&K~
Warren Dunlap
Consultant for AT&T Wireless Services
;;
_ø
K
I \
!
. ~.' ~ ¡
'. ""
~1: ø J
R ~ ~
f
,>
I
.!'
lih
"'"fa tal' rI'/U;;:'.,¡:~= ~=.æ
,~ ".l~ ..7OdV.... .-..--
~ n... ==:..:=
tJWHI A'MIIf' l.'f~'oø .. ---
-ONI øB1I33N1ÐN3 Ðla.l.7n :.:!:T,:,JE
M"'__
tnoA.Y' SNOI1Y^31a aNY A.MllnS _ .....~" -,. ..
YJ.OS~NNIW 'N::ISSYHNYH:) imw-" ..... _1-
3J.18 .OL aNY I AYMHDIH - ·~MJô J¡¡iô -.- .... ..
'ON! Yl0S3NNIW:lO ..'='.'""..--'- .- !
S:lOIAII:lS SS:l1:1111M l'11Y ~;¡¡¡;~;;,¡.:~ª'~, -::-., ¡ i
,,~
bJ
,
II
j'=~-~~~-==--=-- .-=
,ç",........,....
...z-
I
!
;
,
.....
'.
,
II
.
~
.u,.....,....,....
II
...
..:~I'....
t~~'1i ~.
.i,"
I,',i!
~ 1::
~..!
. 8~~
~:
:"N...."', ''''')~)II
( g 119U'llg tt9l1 kif" OO!ô'-"Il'lICIIlI ~II"
'.)7'-' Irtg!ô lfJ( fHNN/W '51%7=
OlfON II~IH .15"';1 lorg
:'; "'"":::,;::;"'~"""~~;: "aNI 'S1I33NIÐN3 913.1. 7n
'1lOS3NNlI'i N3SS'1HN'1llJ
S3JIM 3S SS313M1M 1'111'1
MOJ 03M'1d3Md '31lS 101
ON'1 S A'1MIJÐlII JO N'1ld 3l1S
11111.1 A3^MnS OdOl 'AM'1ONnOe
a i,a t .::,h"'s l'
I ' j¡ j!lr!:liiii¡¡I~ir~¡¡ I,
I"!! ,
, ¡ i¡ ~.. I If I .I! III',!· II, ·il
¡ , I' .f , :ilrj "t'IIWnlbl
,
.¡ ; ¡ 'II. !! '. !/.!Iar ':"::i;I'JI
,,". i" ," , I:¡, , ¡" 1·1¡lf II' f'fl'l ,"
:-"'1:- . ¡ Þ:~J'I . t II ,I I" iF ("'fihl
"'''1 , \~.I " I"~" .Ef .f', JI I
h" ," HI! , j¡ IJii:;lj Ijr;J¡ r:~r~
,,~ ~ ,
"1 ,I !'. . I I; I¡ J'".r I I"
:il j!¡ii!:iifili!J:J¡Iii!!
"
\
If \\\"
, \ ""
."
i
" \
. \
¡ \ -\
n
,
..
-
I '
I "
.j)
f ill ~
!I"!
I ~
~
(~''''iI (øJl'll1.fU'-
,-
;1
;¡
I ¡,
I ~I
>1
l¿- - ----
¡¥ I ¡.I ~I ~I~d ~ i
,h! ¡ (!I I. ~ %!" ~ i
-;1 ·\'~I r ,I· I, ,.,; !~~!,!H X
~~ Iii; i Id h ~fm~mm I:
~o \. I jiiìi'~··"" ¡ 1-iI
f:"ø)Il..'1 f3"""_
t/'''-./_HJOIJJI'.''_lnIlJOJII'ISYJ
\
\
H".''''I'.J" IJ./...-I''.H IJ.....~1<II~
----.... c;....'.,w ~.·;ïi~;-~- -- - ,----...--
(3J>1)6IliU ("3J>1).._
---l
"7 "/(gt>: If ..,
'-Û?;-""- -
;i;;:Ú~~:tr~~~
':.~; ~ -
....,... ~ ~
,::..;.; U¡·1.
.~r) (5'
,-'::>::=..::';,~.::..,:,.;':=.';"...
~--.-
I- ='--~
-.11--- I
It ' j
~ I'!
,
;(;
',1
WJ
.
,~ !'-~ .
.-- ,,1--:_1'1
'------ _~.:1 L:-'
\
\
)
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,"
.~
!f~l
~i'
\
i
~
.~
--I
I
,
.
;J
/.
iI
Õ
,
- ..__n___
II""''"
AUG-08-2000 15:53
Qf
ULTEIG ENGINEERS INC
763 571 1168 P.02/02
PROPOSED
LOCATION
I:J
I-
ß::Ig,
I-
; W
<.0(1)<[
1<1:2
(¡,IXIZ
r-u.~
I:JZ
<[
a.
I:J
¡-.
O·
Þ
..,:;,p7
~;P
/-
¿:
270· -
FUTURE ANTENNA
LOCATION
150·
N
i
Q;) MONOPOLE ANTENNA CONFIGURA TIDN
SI PLAN VIE'"
ELEVATIDN - MONOPOLE
DtSCRIPTIDN AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES OF MINNESOTA, INC. AOTtV, :¡c"-i NONE
ANTENNA CONFIGURATION 101/5 SITE L"O'R'SO,,-'
ULTEIG ENGINEERS, INC. DIIA....~ A. EVANS Iltvl$ICN
uøt EAST RM!1t RØA/ WWW'.ult.'SI.com ¥J D'-TE: 8 AUG 00 DRAY'INij NO·
,1/I7E 301/ 0O-5840-~
~ _IOTA -, CHECKED J, SCHMIT
PHCJN6 tom 67t-;t_ FAX tom I17I-tlOll
T1ÕT("\ '" ..,~
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
c;ity Cmf" Drive, PO Box 147
'anbanen, Mil1lltiota 55317
Pbone 612.9311900
;meral Fox 612.937.5739
¡ineeri/Ig Fox 612.937.9152
,fie SaftlJ' Fax 612.934.2524
'b wll'/l'.ci.chIlJlhnssen.mll.lJJ
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner II / ~.
Steve Torell, Building Official 7 I
July 5, 2000
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Review ofa request for a conditional use pennit by, AT&T
Wireless Services, to construct a 12' x 38' equipment building and an
80-foot monopole.
Planning Case: 2000-5 CUP
I have reviewed the request for the above project and have the following conditions:
1. A building pennit is required to construct the building and monopole; the
monopole must be designed to include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice.
2. The equipment building must be a minimum of20 feet away from the existing
building to the west. The west wall must be one-hour fire-resistive construction;
opening or penetrations are not pennitted in this wall unless it is at least 25 feet
from the other building, at a distance 000 feet, openings are pennitted without
restrictions.
3. The contractor shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible
to discuss plan review and pennit procedures and also the code requirements for
the buildings based on the separation distance
g:safcty/st/mcmoslplan/at&1.275w79th
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: AT & T Wlrele..
for 80' Monopole with Antennas
and EquIpment Building LOCATION: 275 West 79th Stniet
NOTICE: You are Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant,
AT & T Wireless Services, Is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a 12' x 28' equipment
building and an 80 foot monopole with antennas to be located at 275 W. 79th Street.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing Is to Inform you about the developer's
request and to obtain Input from ~ neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2, The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing Is closed and the Commission discusses project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, It Is helpful to have one
copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 6, 2000.
/"0.
;mooth Feed Sheets™
BAR PROPERTIES INC
AL KLINGELHUTZ
GREAT PLAINS
.NHASSEN MN 55317
.NHASSEN HRA
:ITY CENTER 147
.NHASS MN 55317
OMBERG COMPANIES INC
PO BOX 730
NHASSEN MN 55317
3 PROPERTIES LLC
KOEHNEN CIR
ELSIOR MN 55331
RICAN LEGlON-CHAN POST 580
GREAT PLAINS
NHASSEN MN 55317
.CO AMERICAN OIL CO
'ERTY TAX DEPARTMENT
iAST RANDOLPH M C 2408
:AGO IL 60601
, OF CHANHASSEN
SCOTT BOTCHER/
:ITY,.ÇENTER15R PO BOX 147
!'JHÂSSEN MN 55317
, OF CHANHASSEN
SCOTT BOTCHER
:ITY CENTER DR"PO BOX 147
NHASSEN MN 55317
/
'OF CHANHASSEN
SCOTT BOTCHER
:ITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147
NHASSEN MN 55317
. OF CHANHASSEN
;COTT BOTCHER
:ITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147
NHASSEN MN 55317
.-/-
,
!tV
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTCHER
690 cìTy';~ BOX 147
C~ÊN-n_nMN 55317
VAL VOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE
3499 DABNEY DR
LEXINGTON KY 40509
GERALD W & LOIS A SCHLENK
225 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GERALD SCHLENK, JEAN VON BANK
& MARY GOETZ
225 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL J SORENSEN
25648 200TH ST
BELLE PLA1NE MN 56011
CHURCH OF ST HUBERT
8201 MAIN ST
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PAUL G EIDEM &
ANDREA F GRIFFITH
7727 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS & CHRISTY STODOLA
21101 OAKDALE DR
ROGERS MN 55374
CHRISTOPHER & D ANNA COX
222 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN W & PAULA J ATKINS
220 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Use template for 5160@
BRIAN P & COLLEEN S NUSTAD
7791 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GRACE DEVELOPMENT LLC
18202 MINNETONKA
WAYZATA MN 55391
CHANHASSEN HRA
690 CITY CENTER D
CHANHASSE
FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTH CHRUCH
275 EAST LAKE DR PO BOX 388
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GARY L BROWN
1831 KOEHNENCIR WPOBOX474
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
HOLIDAY STATION STORES INC
4567 80TH ST W
BLOOMINGTON MN 55437
.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
8. A bituminous parking area 10-12 feet wide shall be paved along both the west and east sides of
the proposed building to provide parking areas. The plans will need to be revised to address this
parking and drive aisle expansion requirement.
9. The contractor and all sub-contractors should be aware access to the water tower site will be
restricted. It will be necessary to contact the City's Utility Supt. A minimum of 24 hours in
advance to access the tower. In addition, the city will require the engineering firm of AEC to
inspect and supply a written report to the city of all welding/construction activities involved with
installation of the antennas at the cost of the applicant.
10. The city has a private driveway agreement with these property owners, which should be reviewed
by the City Attorney's Office to see if the easement permits access rights to other parties.
11. That the applicant must provide opportunities for co-location,
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 12' X 28' EOUlPMENT
BUILDING AND AN 80 FOOT MONOPOLE TO BE LOCATED AT 275 WEST 79TH STREET.
AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Warren Dunlap
Christopher & Dee Cox
Paul Hume
AT&T Wireless
222 West 78th Street
7727 Frontier Trail
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this issue.
Peterson: Cindy what, me being color blind and all. What color are the NSP power towers?
Kirchoff: Grayish bluish. The sky.
Peterson: What do we do about ongoing maintenance for the monopoles? Kate, you've got the policy
there. The ordinance. But like the NSP towers are generally pretty crappy looking.
Aanenson: Yeah. My understanding is through the, they do have an ongoing corporate agreement with
NSP for them using that and they are painting those as far as when we negotiate service agreement.
Franchise. That's the word I was looking for. Thank you. Franchise agreements. With this, it'd be the
same thing. It'd just be having to monitor those. Generally we get calls with that kind of issue but it will
take some maintenance. Ongoing.
Peterson: So I guess to clarify my color question, are they the same color? If they are the same color,
why wouldn't we want them the same exact color?
28
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18,2000
Aanenson: Well I'm not sure of the water tower. They're the exact same color either. They are in close
proximity. Can you discriminate? You can check with the applicant to see if that's something you'd like
to do.
Peterson: I'mjust thinking, the monopole looks more like a NSP tower than it does a water tower so.
Aanenson: We can recommend that they use a similar color. I don't think that would be a problem.
Peterson: I mean it's one perspective. Other questions?
Kind: Mr. Chair, along those same lines. The brand, I can't pronounce it. Tnemac. Is that a galvanized
material so we won't have that rusting problem that the NSP towers seem to have?
Kirchoff: It's my understanding no. That paint lasts for 8 to 10 years.
Kind: Is there an advantage to specifying that it should be a galvanized material?
Aanenson: I'm not sure as far as reflectivity. I mean that's what we have on the pedestrian bridge. It's
non peeling, is that what you're looking at?
Kind: Yeah.
Aanenson: That's an option.
Kind: I feel like there's a pole in town, and I couldn't come up with where it was located, that is out of
that material. And it seems to blend, be pretty light colored. Seems to blend pretty well.
Aanenson: I'm not sure if the one down on Park Drive, if that's painted.
Kind: That's the one. Is it on a public works?
Aanenson: Correct, it's behind there.
Kind: I was not crazy.
Aanenson: Well we could research that for you. That's some issues that you have as far as color and
maintenance between now and council and give them some good rational reasons for what it should be.
Kind: Personally I think that was pretty invisible and looks to me like that's going to be maintenance
free.
Aanenson: Well that's a decision we made on the bridge too. It does tend to disappear. Based on the
proximity, like Craig was saying, is it going to stand out more or less and that's something I guess we
could look at. Get some other color renderings for the council to review.
Peterson: Okay.
29
Planning Conunission Meeting - July 18, 2000
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have just one other quick question. How are you measuring the tower height
and why is the variation between 80 and 77? I was confused.
Kirchoff: Okay. The ordinance says the height of a tower shall be measured from the ground to the top
of the antennas. And in the staff report it says the 77 feet, it should be actually 79. After talking with the
applicant today, and what was in the staff report was that the antennas are 4 feet in height. Essentially
they're 2 feet.
Blackowiak: 2 feet up, you know. Yeah.
Kirchoff: Right. Standing above.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. And that's aliI have here 1 guess, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions of staff?
Conrad: Yeah Mr. Chair. Cindy, this picture, are there more poles sticking out from the main poles than
just what we see?
Kirchoff: Yes. There's 3. There's 3 anTIS.
Conrad: So do I see 2?
Kirchoff: Yes.
Conrad: And so how many more do I get? 4 more?
Kirchoff: Well but the design of the pole, and maybe the applicant can address this more but the design
of the pole can hole 3 more arms.
Conrad: So there's, the report I like. I like all the pictures in there. That's pretty neat. I'll wait for the
applicant.
Peterson: Other final questions for staff?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. Tell me about the same picture that Ladd just brought up. This is not
proportionate to the rest. It's the height, or is it? I have a hard time believing that that's a 80 feet height
there.
Peterson: I think the applicant can probably.
Sacchet: Maybe the applicant can address that. It's the height of the photograph I believe and how that's
out of proportion size.
Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward.
Warren Dunlap: My name is Warren Dunlap. I consult AT&T Wireless services. I'd like to explain
why we need something here. AT&T does not have a presence in your conununity. Currently it has a
very weak signal which tries, we're attempting to cover your conununity. I don't know hopefully
30
Planning Commission Meeting-July 18, 2000
somebody here is a customer of AT&T's. But the Engineers feel that we need to locate something in this
community to give it a stronger signal and be sure we can reach into our other sectors or other sites that
we have in the area, in the adjacent communities. To answer some of the questions that were brought
out, first of all the photo, to my knowledge is not to scale. I believe that building, the owner said was
almost 30 feet in height. To the peak of that roof. The other question regarding the arms. There is in the
packet, I'm not sure if you have it here. There's this drawing. This is looking down on it. We initially
start out with 3 arms on the top. We have 3 arms and at the end of each of these arms are, would be 3
antennas. Currently in our older system we have 2 antennas on there and we're going around replacing,
putting up a third one. AT&T plans for future expansion in their system. They would either put in this
type of arm coming off at the same level, or else they would expand this cross arm and put all 4 antennas
so we'd have 12 antennas as a future loading. Again, referring back to the staff report, this is the same
type of scenario which we would allow co-location down below. Not everybody uses the type of arms.
Some of them use, what we call a crow's nest or a platform. But in either case co-location would be
allowed. I don't have any other comments but I'd be happy to answer some questions. The only other
comment I wanted to address is 1 believe the pole is set back. I'll have to check with the surveyor on this,
but the property line on this particular property is the same as the right-of-way line for Highway 5. And I
believe that would be 40 feet. I will check that though and provide that information to the staff. If
there's any other questions?
Peterson: Questions of the applicant?
Sacchet: Mr. Chair I have a question of the applicant. One of the conditions that we have in front of us,
that staff put on this is that instead of constructing the building with prefabricated concrete, that's a little
more aesthetic. Is that an issue for you?
Warren Dunlap: No sir. No, we can do that.
Sacchet: Thanks.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: I guess a request. I really like the rendering, the photos. Wondering if you could provide City
Council with some longer views because immediately when I thought oh, monopole and I was thinking of
where I live and where I drive into Chanhassen. I was thinking about how it might look in terms of the
whole downtown area and particularly old St. Hubert's and steeple. And if we could have a photo that
would show how that would relate to the downtown like from 5 and Powers and maybe from the other
side entering Chanhassen from the east at 10 1 and 5 for example.
Warren Dunlap: I think that'd be possible. I was with the person when he took these photos. We went
to the west side of the town up on that rise I guess where the railroad goes under. I think he has to have a
special lens. This was used with a digital camera. We'll have to get a 35 mm out and get a wide angle to
do that, but I think that can be done.
Peterson: Ladd.
Conrad: One more Mr. Chairman. On one of our, the pieces in the packet there were some specifications
from Valmont and Ijust, are you familiar with?
Warren Dunlap: I'm familiar with Valmont, yes.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
Conrad: Okay. Halfway down it says proposed antenna loading scenario. I'm trying to understand if
that's what you just said a few minutes ago. There are three 13 foot wide curved T -arms. Is that what
you said?
Warren Dunlap: Yes.
Conrad: You said there might be 6. They start with 3 at the top.
Warren Dunlap: Well we start with the 3 arms and off the ends of those arms is a pipe mount and that's
what we mount our antennas to.
Conrad: And those are the 12 antenna mounts?
Warren Dunlap: That's where we can mount off the 3. We'd have 4 on each of those arms.
Conrad: Okay. The proposed, there are 3, this document says three 13 foot wide cured T -arms at the top
of the pole which would be at the 80 foot level, or whatever. Then three 13 foot wide curved arms again
mounted at the 55 foot elevation. Is that what you're applying for? Is that it's capability?
Warren Dunlap: No sir. Well, the staff is saying that we need to have the pole for co-location purposes
at our height and then at a 55 foot height also allow for another carrier to come in. Whether they use the
arms or not, that's up to them. We use those arms as I said, where they arc out from the pole. There
would be 3 of them. And we've stuck with that design and we've been able to put all the antennas we
need at the ends of those arms. In this particular drawing here that came with the packet, it shows 3 other
arms. That would be an option to hold the 12, the total of 12 antennas.
Conrad: So from the center park, are these arms 6 feet out or are they 13 feet out?
Warren Dunlap: I believe they'd be 6 feet out. We do have to keep certain separation between our
sectors so they're not, the signal is not cross talking. That's part of how we do that. I don't believe the
arm from the pole to the end of the pole would be 13 feet. I don't believe they're that long. I've seen
them on the ground and they're more like the 6 foot length.
Conrad: Okay.
Peterson: Do you have any idea, or can you prognosticate, how many of your monopoles now are co-
located?
Warren Dunlap: Actually AT&T, I've had a little bit of history with the company in this market. AT&T
was purchased by McCaw. This type of pole which we're talking about here and those type of arms, was
first done here in this market. It was designed here in this market. And the poles were always, always
overly designed for loading purposes. So what happened was, other carriers did come to us when the
communities decided to co-locate and we were the only carrier. There were only two cellular carriers
and we were the only carrier at that time who could put them on there. So when we designed our system
we designed it for our loads and in this case we'll also say we need for another 12 antennas at this
area.... And then they always put in a safety factor and all of that is put into the pole as it's designed at
the manufacturer.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
Peterson: So you're saying you have a number of them that are already co-located?
Warren Dunlap: Yes sir.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have a couple questions. First, will this ever get any taller than 77 plus 2 for
the arms?
Warren Dunlap: No. We don't need it any taller. Now you may find somebody coming in here that
would request, they want to go above our antennas. They want to put 20 feet onto it. The pole will not
be designed for expansion. If that came about, they would have to come to us and say, can this be done?
We would say, go do a tower analysis. Here's all the loading criteria. The manufacturer would have to
give AT&T assurances that it can be done before we would even allow it and then they'd have to get
permission from you folks.
Blackowiak: Okay. Kate, would that ever happen?
Aanenson: Well, if they couldn't find another site and they wanted to go on that site, they would have to
work out something because they've got the primary position to accommodatè both. There's another
issue too 1 think and that's the setback from Highway 5 to go higher. [think we're getting close to the 40
foot. They have to have half the distance and at 80, they're almost there now. .. .variance, if they want
to to keep it on one site or something like that but what he's saying is structurally they're not building it
to go higher so.
Blackowiak: Okay. [just want to make sure it's not really, really tall. And then the second thing is,
there's currently a water tower site approximately half a mile as the crow flies from this site you're
proposing on West 76'''. Did you look at that for co-location opportunities?
Warren Dunlap: Is this the water tower?
Blackowiak: No. This is a different one. Not the one we just talked about.
Warren Dunlap: No, no. [mean it's the one right back up.. .houses?
Blackowiak: Yeah.
Warren Dunlap: Yeah, 1 did. And it wouldn't accommodate what we need to do. It looks pretty loaded
to me on the ground. You know you have a number of buildings already, it appeared to me to be in their
back yards so 1 did go look at it but it was not in the area that I was instructed to search at. My search
area is basically right there along the Interstate. Or excuse me, along the highway. From about the area
around the dinner theater to just past where I'm at. So I had very limited area to work in.
Blackowiak: Yeah, 1 was just curious if you even tried that because.
Warren Dunlap: I did go look at it.
Blackowiak: Oh I meant just to do a search. Put your equipment up there and check signal strength or.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
Warren Dunlap: We look at it for, you know I take the coordinate readings on it and then I turn that into
the RF person and he runs it with his, in his computer to see how it works with the rest of the surrounding
area and if we can't make a connection to another cell site. That's one of his criteria to throw it out.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks.
Kind: Mr. Chair, along those lines. When you co-locate you share the tower but you have to have your
own equipment building? You don't really co-locate in each other's buildings?
Warren Dunlap: No. That's a no-no. They don't even do that. They have a paging company and the
paging company was bought by another company and they have kicked them out of buildings.
Kind: Because I know it's a site that Alison was talking about that there is a building down below that's
I think probably...
Warren Dunlap: The cellular and the PCS, one of the differences the cellular carriers have a lot more
band width and therefore it takes more radios, therefore their buildings at bigger. PCS people, a lot of
times have smaller buildings or just platforms with outside cabinets. In this market, AT&T has opted not
to go to outdoor cabinets because if you do that in the winter time you may have one radio that failed and
when you go to fix it and you open the outdoor cabinets, you may have 4 or 5 racks of radios that fail so,
because of the temperature. So that's why they like that, and the technicians like to be indoors in the
winter.
Peterson: Alright, any last questions of the applicant?
Kind: Oh yes Mr. Chair, I have one more. I'm interested in your opinion about material for the pole
itself. Galvanized versus...
Warren Dunlap: They are galvanized and we normally paint them what we call an artic ice. It's a very
light blue but you know, I overheard what you were saying. We'd be happy to contact that carrier and
find out if that color.
Kind: So the material itself is galvanized and, I supposed it doesn't guarantee anything but it's not likely
to rust like those NSP towers did?
Warren Dunlap: Yeah, I don't believe I talked to the man at NSP right before they had the crew out to
paint it and I don't know why they don't use galvanized poles but he did say, you know they were going
to paint this particular pole and he said it takes 30 days to cure because of some real heavy paint that
whatever, but the pole can be galvanized and painted. That doesn't cause a problem.
Kind: Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Motion and a motion for a public hearing please.
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing, The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18,2000
Christopher Cox: My name is Christopher Cox.. I live at 222 West 78th Street in Chanhassen. I've been
a Chanhassen old town resident for roughly 8 years. I have seen 78th Street come through. We tore down
all the telephone poles. We ran all the electricity underground. Everything west of 101 is underground.
Everything north of Highway 5 is underground. This pole, I've seen the diagrams that they have here,
it's very, very close to the current pedestrian bridge that crosses Highway 5. You can't see it in the
picture I don't believe. This is, when we say 77 feet, I think 8 stories. This is 8 stories. Now yeah, right
across the highway, right on the other side of Highway 5 we have NSP poles running down. There's our
electricity coming right in. Can you see those poles as you drive eastbound on 78th Street? No you
cannot. The highest thing in downtown and in old town Chanhassen is the church tower. I stood in front
of the Chanhassen Dinner Theater right in front of, right at the entrance and I turned around and 1 saw the
church, then I saw Brown's Tire and Auto and I could picture 8 stories. I would implore you to think, if
you're familiar with the area, east of 494 and County Road 6 in Plymouth. There are 3, 2 or 3 radio
towers. They're different. They look like erector sets. They're not a pretty little monopole like what
we've got going on here. But there's 3 of them. How do you know when you're at County Road 6? You
know you're at County Road because you can see those poles. They are a landmark. Anywhere you've
ever seen one ofthese poles, it's a landmark right there in front of you. You know when to turn right, it's
Chanhassen. There's the pole. I do not want to hear that in the future. 1 don't want to hear people say,
take Highway 5 til you see the pole and hang a right. I don't want that there. It's probably going to be
right out my bedroom window. You're going to see it. I think it's going to over stand the highest
landmark that's been there since the 1800's. We've rebuilt the old town area. We've made a lot of it
more beautiful. We've taken down the ugly construction so that we can see the trees. So that we can put
this pole up and see it instead? I disagree with the location. There's another water tower. It's not in
Chanhassen. It's in Eden Prairie. It's less than a half a mile from where this present location is. It's just
on the other side of the railroad tracks. It would be another opportunity for co-location. I feel that this
would be a poor location to have an 8 story tower. Thank you very much.
Peterson: Thank you.
Paul Hume: Chair, I'm Paul Hume. I live at 7727 Frontier Trail. I had a few questions for the
contractor. The diameter of the antenna, you're only talking about 13 feet wide antennas. What is, is it
going to be something that's 20 feet wide, 80 feet up in the air? That's one of the questions I had. And
as far as the location, wouldn't it be better to have a location in a business district, perhaps on south of
Highway 5, West of 17 where there's already a lot of businesses located and it's a half mile from where
the current site is? Another question I had is, they had mentioned a 55 foot height for a carrier coming
in. Why couldn't they use the 55 foot height instead of the 80 foot height? If! could get those questions
answered.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mrs. Cox: Hi. My husband just gave all the factual things here. I'm Dee Cox. I live at 222 West 78th
Street and more or less I would just like to reiterate the plea that we have put so much effort into trying to
keep old town old and pretty and then to see this come along, you know I think it would dwarf everything
and I think it would detract from that. My husband did some photography with the digital camera from
different sites in the city and I'djust like to show you them. This red line in there, we don't know height
wise.. .but that gives you an idea of what you're going to see. Also we have AT&T Wireless Services
and they do work out here so we're not hurting. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
Christopher Cox: I'd just like to add one additional comment pertaining to the photograph that I
submitted to you. That is from westbound Highway 5. It's about in the nature of Lotus Lawn and
Garden, as you're looking towards Chanhassen. 1 also took additional photographs from 78th Street, from
the Dinner Theater. As you heard earlier tonight, 10 days isn't a heck of a lot of time. I didn't have
enough time to really go through the photographs that I captured and to really try and, all I can do is
guesstimate with the tools I have. lean 't survey this stuff. 1 don't have all the tools available to truly say
you know, here I am driving down 78th Street and that's almost where that's going to be, isn't it? This
is a guesstimate. It's not factual. I do have some other photographs. I do believe that we are all going to
be staring at this thing every day. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Would the contractor like to comment on the size, to answer one of the questions?
Warren Dunlap: The antennas that go on there will be approximately 4 to maybe 5 feet in height. I foot
width, 6 inches in depth. You may see bigger ones in other areas but what we're trying to do here is to
serve an area in height. Determines how far these go. And the location is critical so we can make the
connection within the system. If you move too far away you don't have as strong of a signal so that's
basically how areas are located. The only other comment I have, it's 80 feet in height. The power lines
that are there are about 100 feet in height. We didn't locate on the power lines. It's a safety issue for
AT&T and for NSP and the other point there is the property that would allow us to get access to the
highest location is currently owned by Northcott and they are not interested in leasing anything because
they have their own plans for development. Ifit was something that AT&T was interested in, but as I
said, it's a safety factor. Safety issue for them. 1 think that's what I had written down. If there's other
questions.
Peterson: Thank you. Motion to close public hearing.
Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Kate are we already co-located on the one off of Dell Road, on the city property?
Aanenson: You mean the one in Eden Prairie?
Peterson: Yeah.
Aanenson: Yes. We tried to. Just so you know, there is another user looking in the Quattro area. We
did contact Eden Prairie and I did meet with their zoning officer who works for the police department.
They will not be allowing any other users, even through their own negotiations on that so that's not an
acceptable option. As the applicant just said, we looked at trying to use Northcott. It's got the high
visibility. We could put the panels on. They wouldn't give a lease agreement. They searched this area.
We've worked with them over several months trying to find the acceptable, trying to mitigate the impact
of, it's going to be visible from somewhere. I don't know how you can resolve that. Certainly when
you're in this corridor of the downtown. It's the same issue. We're looking to see one in a couple weeks
on Quattro.
Peterson: My concern, and we had the same concern the last couple of the ones we had is, we've got this
person sitting back in headquarters with a PC saying you've got to have, it's got to be in this block. They
don't test anything outside of that block and how accurate is that analysis?
Aanenson: Well if you want to table this for their RF study, you can certainly recommend that.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
Peterson: For the what?
Aanenson: For their RF study to see exactly what they studied and where their zones. What the gap
they're trying to cover. That's acceptable from additional information. You can look at the study and
see where their gap is.
Peterson: It's important enough where I don't feel overly comfortable unless you make us feel
comfortable, particularly me comfortable that the due diligence has been done versus just saying this is
where it has to be and they haven't looked at.
Aanenson: Sure. Let me just go back to the previous one at Holy Cross. We're not capable of reading
that. I'm not an electrical engineer. We had to hire a consultant before. We can look at that and give as
best information as we can but no one on this staff is qualified to read that.
Peterson: Well that's what I'm saying but, and I don't know whether or not the city wants to hire a
consultant every time to do this but it may be an important enough issue that we should consider it so I'm
not asking you as a staffto do that but get the information that you feel comfortable.
Aanenson: No, what I'm saying is, we can get that and give it to you in layman's terms as best we can.
Give you some other information to see where they're at. Give you some additional information. That's
fine. Then the council will have it too.
Peterson: If you told me that, if we move it a half a mile at a 1% degradation of signal, than I haven't got
a real problem at all doing that. But if it's 50% in a half mile, Ijust feel under informed to make a
decision like this. That's my problem. And I don't know whether you can inform me.
Blackowiak: I'd like to add Mr. Chair too that since we're seeing one on Quattro Drive, which is again
less than a half a mile from this proposed site, I think it would be smart for us to wait and make sure that
we're not just plopping them in along Highway 5 to suit whichever applicant. I mean we should have
some method to our madness and take a look and see if we can't consolidate that are coming in at the
same time.
Aanenson: We had talked about that. I think additional information would be helpful.
Kind: Mr. Chair I have one more request. Could you also review whether the 55 foot height would be
acceptable and maybe in this particular downtown sensitive location we do not allow for co-location.
Your opinion on that I guess. Because I think 55 feet would be quite a bit better. That roof is pretty tall.
Aanenson: That's going to come back as part of their study, what height they need to get that, as Craig
was saying, their distribution so we can look at that. Because your gap is going to be less if you're
higher up, but we'll look at all of that. 1 think those are good questions. That's the same process we
went through with Holy Cross. If you're at different heights, what's your gaps.
Kind: And then if 55 feet is no good, then it really isn't co-locating. It's not offering co-location.
Aanenson: It doesn't meet their needs. It may meet somebody else's.
Kind: Okay, I get you.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
Sacchet: Mr. Chair, would it also be possible to be very clear, assuming we would stay with this
location, to have the height of those NSP poles as a reference point?
Aanenson: Right. I think that was an issue we got before that you want at least, even before it got to the
City Council you want better clarity as far as the siting of this trom different perspectives.
Sacchet: I think that would be an important context. 1fNSP poles are 100 feet high and they're dotted
along the highway, they're not to me certainly nearly as aesthetic as a monopole. So I think that would
be a good reference point.
Peterson: Okay. I'll entertain a motion.
Kind: Mr. Chair, I move the Planning Commission tables the application for Conditional Use Permit
#2000-5.
Conrad: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? If we do table this, the next one is
coming up at the next meeting? Just for the applicant's?
Aanenson: As soon as they can turn it around. I'm not sure what their timeframe is. They may not be
on.
Peterson: Well we need to give the applicant some direction so I assume you'll meet with the applicant
and discuss in detail what.
Aanenson: Right. The RF study. The better pictures. The colors, alternatives.
Peterson: Then offer the right timing.
Aanenson: Yes.
Peterson: Okay.
Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table the Conditional Use Permit
#2000-5 application. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL FROM BRINN AND BOB WITT TO STAFF'S
INTERPRETATION OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF A LAKESHORE SETBACK
VARIANCE. 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD.
Cindy Kirchoff and Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff?
Conrad: Mr. Chair just a clarification. Didn't we turn this down the first time?
38
('
. I
.'
..
..:... .
"1"'r '.
''''I
.
,
,
..,
',,'
. :,-
..'
.;.;
,
::-.'
:;¡:
~ :)
~ ;:b ~
? c::
" '" ~.~
0 ')0
) ....., 117
-,.
- C> È~ ~
'"
0 õ 8 ~ -'"
~ ., V f"T1
':' II ~
" --.;Q.o
-< ~}, CD r-
'" 30
0 -VJ
0
('
~
..... ~~~.
o ~>::.--.
o ~
... :r c' (/) -0
:~:.Q- ~ 8 §'
.' £. c;:· ð. Q
0> 0 ""<
I.C____
"'< ~-
0>
en
o
o
;;;
;::
co
o
o
s:
.
o
....
I\rV\c+IM
_,r"
;::
;::
;::
~ ~n ~ ~ ~ r-~ ~ ~ (/) r-n
.o~z~~go~zo~zO~Z~~50~zogzogz~~ð
:~~~..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..~~
O_~~""'~O~mo_~Oœ~o~~O~mo_~o~~~.....c
~~- ml~~~ ~o ~~ Olo~o ~o ~~ m
I~~~~~I~~I~~IO~~~&IO~~~~Ia~~g
~~o_- 1-"':: ~O_:::eO_=eo_- I :::;eO-::eO_=eO_- I
a..··02 t'Vo..oz··oz·· Z I'.:) -. Z··02" Z (J1
(J1.. ~ ..(J1 ..(J1 '" (J1 ..(J1 ..(J1 .. ~
_. ~o U1z2 :::e~ ::EN ::e~ U1z =eN =e- ::e..... Z
~r- ~r- I'.:)r- Or- (J1 r- (J1r- ~r- (J1
g!=?~~ ,....a ~~o~~o~~ _ ,..... ~~U'I::?~O~~_
~30~Z ~ o~~o~~o~z ~ o~~o~~o~z
f"T1 OCD~ .. O-OZO~Zo~ 0-020-020-0
~~ gI ~ ~- ~_ ~x ~ ~_ ~_ ~x
:>ro -- OX ~x OI! OX OX oI
~. o~ f'V -~ a~ _~ u _~ _~ ~~
U) ~ 6~ ì ::j¡; ~~ ::j~ c!n ffii;::j2; tOg
~ ~..... ~ (J1 a
::e = =e
~
o
Z
<0
v-
I
v-
en
I
'"
<0
'"
O('")CD3:3:
~~~zz
("')-22
>U"J[;]~
O(Doo
--.--
-ro»
< ~ 0
.... '"
. ~
'-" ~
C
~
>
'"
~~
" -
"'en
~~
0-
",Z
G)
0
:r
'" 0>
¡¡ >
" c: ~
;1
n 'T1
" = -
'" 'T ()~ :r:
(") 0 ~ -;u
>- ~ ':!)lì V'"
;:;; " N <- '; II !of?
~ g m;¡: '~.: a.. 0
0;,:
TJ} ~_: CD r-
'" <::> 30
'" c !j) -u¡
<.n 0 n ""
0 0 't> g.
18 ....
0 §;!::2~ I c' U1"'"D 0
.... " ~ '" <
0 ¡:¡;->:.... û. '" n 3 m
0 .. ;; 0 ;u
~ S:~O ~
0- Vi a......... >-
0 >0""'" -<
0> "' .---.- u¡
....... ~ ::D'-<
0 ?' CO
.:;:: 0 ".
0
0
0
0 ex>
'"
'" 0
..... 0
(
. I
.'
)
...
~ ^"I,.
f.
.
U1 ~n U1 U1 U1 ~U1 U1 U1 U1 r-n
~-~>o ~- ~- ~_~>~ ~_ ~_ ~_~>~
:~~~~~~S~~9~~9~~~~~~~~9~~9~~~~~
....... <: ..þo.to.... <.... <.... <-..þo.(t .... -c.... <:,... <: ..þo.:oc:-
o_..þo.~..þo.-o~ma_~o~..þo.o..þo.~O~rno_~o~..þo.~..þo.o
~~~o~~g~~o~go~~os¿g~?o~go~~o~~
~. ~-~-~. ~%. ~%O~_.~%O~%. ~%O~-o
~~o_-I~~o_~o_~o_-I ~O_~O_~O_-J
a...··0% NO"OZ"OZ" Z N .. Z··OZ·· Z ~
~ .. ~O~ ..~ ..~ .. ~ ~ ..~ ..~ .. ~
5~~o Z~r-E~r-~~r-E~ Z r-E~r-E~r-E~ Z
nO>~ ~o>oo>oo> r- O>~O>aO> r-
0:":'=2 O"":..:.~ .:.:.~ ..:.:.~....:; 0 :..:.3 ..:':'3 .:.:..3....:; 0
30.. Z 0··-0·._0··2 Z 0'--0..-0··2 Z
O~~ .. O"'"DZO~ZO"'"D ~ O"'"DZo-uZO"'"D
~ g:r ~ ~_ ~_ ~x ~ ~_ ~_ ~x ~
(tI _~ I OX ~x oI I o~ OX oI I
. 0_ N -~ o~ -~ ~ _= _~ _~ ~
~ t~ ~ ~.. 0.. ~~ ~.. ~.. œ_ ~
rn o~ ~- -_ ~~ I ~_ ~_ ~O I
rn ~ ~~ ~ œ 0 0 N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
rn ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ = ~
o
".
-"
..,
'~
"
, -
r'
~
,
onCD:!::S::
ornCb--
CX>=~ZZ
c->-:zz
>~~[ri
Orooo
-~--
-q¡»
<- (')
.... '"
(....¡ ;:::
c
~
>-
;U
~
~
'"
"
:r:
~
m
(')
~
-
j
,
~
-.
....
:r
C1l
C1l
-
3:
o
::J
o
"0
o
-
CÐ
Sent By: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES ,INC.;
612 424 5822;
Aug·3-00 1~~
h(.ln,..~¡:lmll:1:'TndJ.¡~.ul...uu
August 3, 2000
Mr. Warren Dunlap
AT&T Wireless Services
2515 24th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minn_ 55406
Re: Sprint interest in proposed AT&T Site at Gary 13rown property in Chanha¡¡sen
Dear Mr. Dunlap:
You have asked me to write a lettcr to you concerning Sprint PCS' s interest in
collocating on the monopole that Är&T is proposing to build on Gary Brown's property
in the northeast quadrmt of Highway 5 anù Great Plains Boulevard in Chanhassen. My
understanding is that the proposed monopole will be 80 feet tall and that AT&T's
antennas will be at the top. Sprint has no interest in this sUe based on it's
determination that a Sprint antcnna site at the proposcd AT&T site would not
accomplish the customer service objcctives for the sitc.
This determination was made based on a field inspection of the location of the
proposcd site with Mr. Gury Brown who expressed inlcrcst in Icasing additional land to
Sprint if necessary to allow Sprint to collocate on the tower. During the field inspection 1
secured geogrdphic eoordinate~ of the site with a global positioning system instrument
which I later lorwarded to Sprint's Radio Frequency Engineer. The Sprint Engineer
r~iected the site 011 the basis that its 10eatitl11 is 100 far southwest of the search area to
meet the customer service objectives for the Sprint antenna site, regardless of the height
at whicb Sprint's anlennas would be attached.
If you bave allY questions ahout this letter please call.
~~-
David Hagen
projcet Manager/Broker
Copy: Cynthia Kirchon: City ofChalùmssen
LOUCK
u.fJì·f,:
MiU h.>lpnl¡"
SI. P~uJ
AiP't~ Ð
_.~ ATs.T
"="
-
--
-
Cellular Division
AT&T Wireless Services
2515 24th Avenue South
Minneapolis. MN 55406
612 721-1660
FAX 612 721-4770
Hi Warren,
I have looked at the Sprint location in Chanhassen. There are several problems
with that tower. First of all, the Sprint location loses 30 feet in ground elevation from our
current property. Also the Sprint location is about a mile away from the Hwy 101 & 5
intersection. The biggest problem of all is that we would only be at 50 feet on the pole.
Once you deduct the 30 feet for the loss in ground elevation, we don't have anywhere
near enough height to get us over the trees and buildings. If you have any other questions
or concerns, please don't hesitate to give me a call.
~fi
Senior RF Design Engineer
AT&T Wireless Services
,ç\),
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 15, 2000
Chairman Peterson caUed the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Matt Burton, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind,
and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Vii Sacchet
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I;
Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner and Dave Hempel, Assistant City
Engineer
REOUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 12' X 28' EOUlPMENT
BUILDING AND A 79.5 FOOT MONOPOLE TO BE LOCATED AT 275 WEST 79TH STREET.
AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES.
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this Item.
(Taping of the meeting began at this point in the discussion.)
Peterson: .. . degradation are we talking about. Are we talking about I %? Are we talking 50? Just to
give us some sense of the difference in the locations.
Peter Beck: Well it's not really talked about in the sense of degradation. The two issues that they're
trying to address in the loc.ation of these facilities throughout the metro area and incidentally the question
came up about co-locations and we couldn't think of one in Chanhassen yet that is co-located. But as
there becomes, well I'm going to back up. The two issues are coverage and capacity. You have to cover
the whole area. You want the whole service area to be in red there, and you have to within that coverage
area you have to have enough capacity. Each one ofthese sites can only handle so many calls at a time.
So what you see in the heavily urbanized area is you need more sites closer together Bob for capacity
issues as opposed to coverage issues. And that's when you start getting the co-locations. And there are
sites in downtown area where there's 3 and 4 providers on a single pole so again, it's not an issue where,
it's not that we don't want to co-locate. That we're rejecting workable co-location sites. We just haven't
reached the point yet where the usage in this community is heavy enough that there's the demand for that
many sites that they're intersecting, if you follow that. Each company is designing it's own system and
when they have intersection points, where one company's needs are in a location where another company
already has a facility, then they will co-locate. It just hasn't happened here yet but it will and this pole
for instance is designed so that when that happens a second user can get on there and it will be fairly low
but at that point it might be on some of the major transportation thoroughfares closer in. There are sites
going in at 55 and 60 feet so sometime in the next few years there may well be a provider that will be
able to use this facility at that lower height. At this point in the development of our system, that height
won't work so we'll be up at the 79 feet. So to get back to your question, it's not degradation it's
coverage in this case and I don't know, from the map I'm guessing that we're losing maybe 40-50% of
the coverage area that the site is being desigued to address if we were to move to that Sprint location for
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15,2000
instance. But that's just eye balling it. It's way beyond the point at which they would make the
investment in the site. This is Warren Dunlap with AT&T.
Warren Dunlap: We did check, 1 don't know where Quattro is and when I checked with the Sprint
representative he did not identify his site by any name. He gives me the coordinates. We turn that in so
if this is the site on Quattro, it is far enough from this one that it would do us absolutely no good.
Blackowiak: Do you know for sure Kate?
Aanenson: Yes, they spoke to each other.
Blackowiak: It is Quattro? Is the Sprint the Quattro site?
Aanenson: They have not submitted an application. All we have is this plan tonight. He contacted them.
They exchanged information. What they can and that's all.
Kind: It's reasonable to assume that that's the site?
Aanenson: We've spoken to the person. They communicated with each other. They haven't submitted.
Peter Beck: You didn't have a third site in mind. That was the one you meant where the other provider
was?
Blackowiak: I believe that's the one we're talking about. I guess we haven't been told officially.
Peter Beck: As far as we know there was just the two that we were asked to.
Aanenson: Right, we had an inquiry so we had talked to Steve to see if there was a way if either one
could go on the other site. We did pursue that based on your recommendations.
Peter Beck: And those types of inquiries back and forth are fairly routine and providers all have
agreements, co-location agreements between them and where it works it's done because it's more cost
efficient, as well as better public relations if you will. The fewer the better.
Peterson: Any other questions?
Kind: Yeah Mr. Chairman. Do you ever do a joint ventures with your competition, for instance to make
the Quattro taller? Tower taller. If it was taller would it meet your needs? What I'm getting at is, I think
I would prefer to see one 100 foot tower versus two 80 foot towers.
Peter Beck: There's two questions there. Let me answer the first one. These companies are all
competitors and you have 6 now of these wireless providers that are competing in this marketplace and
they cannot, unfortunately cooperate if you will on anything that affects their pricing or service and the
location of these towers directly impacts service so they can't get together and design a joint system that
will work for everybody. In a lot of ways that'd be more efficient but that was not what congress decided
to do with respect to wireless phone. That's, the wire line as you know is a 100 year old monopoly and
that was the way that went but this time around they decided for better or worst that the consumer would
be better served by competition and so these providers are all subject to the anti trust laws of the country.
So they can't do that. So what they can do is respond on site by site inquiries. So for instance if a
2
Planning Commission Meeting-August 15,2000
provider comes in and asks Kate or her staff you know, they're looking at a particular location and
they're aware of something nearby, then we go look at it. And if we're over a certain height, we're
required to go identify the co-locatable facilities and if there is one that is close, then you contact that
provider. You get the coordinates which is what all this computer stuff is generated offofand you do the
study and you see if it can happen. The second part of your question is, you know I think is, if that went
higher could we both fit on it? And as you saw from with the engineer, we have not only a problem with
the separation from where we need to be but also there's a ground elevation difference. So we would
need to be at a height in that location in order to serve the area that we need to serve that would be too
tall and if that sounds confusing, as you know, as you might know with this technology it goes cell by
cell. Alright. And now we're over 100 cells, or 150 maybe in the metro area in that neighborhood. And
not only do they have to be tall enough, but they can't be too tall because if they are than that signal, it's
a line of sight. That signal will go too far and it will intrude on cells, you know 2 or 3 levels away where
the same frequencies are being used. The other, the two magic things that make this technology work is
hand off from cell to cell and frequency re-use so each company is licensed with a certain number of
frequencies and they re-use those repeatedly throughout their system. And they have to keep enough
separation between cells on the same frequencies otherwise you get what in the, for those who had
analog phones, you would occasionally get cross talk. Be in the middle of someone else's conversation.
Digitally it just cuts and drops you. But that's one of the other complications in siting these things. If
you put it up too high, it's just as bad as being too low because you're over shooting the area that you
need to cover and interfering with other cells. And I think, but the bigger problem here is the
combination of the separation and the ground elevation differences that it would be at a height much
higher than 100 feet, and which 1 don't think would be politically acceptable at that location. And again,
you know we're still in the fairly early stages of the build out of this system. There will be more
facilities. There will be co-locations on these facilities and I think the ordinance that you have, which we
worked with Kate and her staff in developing, is the maximum height notwithstanding, is I think a fairly
good approach to it. In other words, encouraging these lower facilities but still wanting to get them at a
height where co-location is feasible. For instance a 50 foot height limit would not be very sensible
because then you don't, then you lose any co-location opportunity. The one big constraint with this
technology is it doesn't go through trees very well so you've got to get up, in most cases above the tree
canopy. Now the site that we have here, again we're hopeful that it will work lOr someone at 55 feet
because you don't have a lot of deciduous trees on that highway side there. They're the evergreens that
are going to be below that so hopefully somebody that doesn't need to cover a lot of distance can get a
clear line of site to Highway 5 and the surrounding area from this facility in the future, and I think it's
almost certain you'll see that.
Kind: Thank you.
Peterson: Okay, any other questions?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I was having a hard time understanding the coverage diagram that you're
showing. Can you demonstrate, do you have something more on a 1 to 2 mile scale rather than the whole
metropolitan area because I wasn't, it wasn't clear to me that one ofthe white squares is actually you
know dead center right on Brown's Tire.
Peter Beck: Yeah, let me take, this is the one that's at the largest scale so maybe it will show up the best.
This is not the.. . area. What we have here is 494 Ithink and 5 and this must be 101. And here's our site.
And then what is showing is, the propagation that we're getting from other sites here, here, here, and here
and how this new site is filling in. Now this particular one happens to be the 55 feet and you'll see the...
3
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2000
The one that is the pole that's proposed is right here. We're still getting some areas, some problem areas
and it relates to, again as I mentioned, this is a line of sight technology so.
Sidney: So where is the pole? The proposed pole. That one, okay. Well it looks like you could move
that maybe closer to 494 and beef up that area and still get coverage?
Peter Beck: Here's Highway 5 and here's the next site which I believe, is that... I call it Edenese. That's
not what it is anymore. It'sjust west of Mitchell Road. So again, we're about, well we are as close, you
know hundreds of feet anyway to this as we can be probably.
Sidney: But what you're showing there is you're still not getting the coverage that you'd like?
Peter Beck: Well down here, it's south of5 where we still have an area that will be a problem and it's
probably related to what's happening topographically down there. And I'm not sure again moving this
west is even going to address that. It probably wants to be slightly higher but we have held it at the 80
feet that your ordinance is directing us towards.
Peterson: Okay, thank you for your comments.
Peter Beck: Thank you.
Peterson: This item has already been through a public hearing but I will entertain some brief comments
from any of the public ifthey wish to do so now please. Okay. Commissioners, your thoughts on this
one.
I'll entertain a motion. Can nobody hear me or something?
Kind: Nobody wants to go.
Conrad: Nobody wants to do that Craig.
Peterson: Are there any comments?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair, 1 have a comment. I am not wild, I'm sensing nobody's wild about making a
motion to put a monopole in, near downtown Chanhassen. I'm struggling with whether we want to have
the applicant explore co-locating with the Sprint-Quattro tower and making it a little taller so we can
have just one pole in that area or if we want to pass this with the conditions. And I am vacillating
between those routes.
Peterson: Any other comments?
Sidney: Mr. Chair I'll make a few comments. I guess I still don't feel comfortable that we have the data
that supports that this is absolutely the site that's necessary and I guess that's really a burden on the
applicant to maybe show us you know other sites and why they won't work. I guess I don't feel
comfortable with the aesthetics that we're facing in this situation. And I think that's a big concern for us,
especially I don't feel that the photos really were representative of what we had asked for in terms of the
visual impact relative to the St. Hubert's steeple. So I'd like to see photos that are more close-up ofthat.
So I don't really feel comfortable moving this forward as it stands.
Peterson: On what basis? 1 mean other than, they are meeting the code.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15,2000
Sidney: Well I guess if, I guess Commissioner Burton have some comments about that but I guess I just
don't feel comfortable based on the aesthetics if you look at what's in the city code concerning towers
and antennas. It just doesn't in my opinion pass the test.
Peterson: Matt, any comments?
Burton: Yeah, I'm struggling with this a bit too. We have some different elements that we're told to
look at here and deciding whether this can be approved and the first one is whether the tower will have a
direct impact on the image of the community, and I think it has a negative impact on that element. The
next element would be how it affects the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community
and again I think it would fail that test. The next one is a reasonable opportunity for the establishment of
wireless telecommunication must be provided to serve the residential and business needs and I think, I'm
not convinced that this is necessary. I think I mirror LuAnn's concerns there. And then the other one is
the uncontrolled and unlimited towers and antennas adversely impact the image and aesthetics of the
community and thereby undermine economic value and growth. And the applicant was saying how the
different companies don't cooperate and they're all kind of forced to go on their own and put in their own
towers and if that's the case then it is virtually uncontrolled and you have multiple towers where maybe
they could co-locate. So maybe this might be an opportunity to take a bit of a stand and try to force them
to co-locate. So I'm more inclined to vote no, or to table it and have them come back and make more of
a demonstration as to why it's absolutely necessary.
Peterson: Okay. Any other commissioner's thoughts?
Blackowiak: I'll just make a quick comment. I really too would like to see some co-location. It kind of
shocked me when you said that we wouldn't be seeing anything for a few years because although there
are opportunities for co-location around the city, it's only on water towers that it's happening right now
so we keep putting tower after tower after tower up and we don't get anything out of it. And I seem to
recall that the last time this came through that we were talking about the fact that this technology would
be obsolete in you know the next decade or whatever so it's like, so are we going to have all these towers
that are going to be sprouting up all over and then nobody ever co-locating before they're obsolete? I
don't know. I'm a little, I have a little problem with the 80 foot requirement. We're approving that there
are no co-location requirements. I really feel this isn't an issue I guess with the ordinance itself but I
think all applicants should be required to prove that they cannot be accommodated within a I mile search
radius regardless of the height of their proposed tower because I heard the applicant himself tonight say
he'd prefer to go a little higher than 80 feet. It might even be better but I think that they're at 79.5 so
they can meet that. I'm sorry, I'm being cynical maybe but 79.5 is awfully close to 80 and ifhe's telling
me he'd like to be higher than 80, I have to question you know why that number was chosen and I guess
I'll leave it at that. So again, I certainly agree with what Matt said about the findings that we need to
consider before we move ahead with this and I don't know. I'm not really comfortable right now I guess.
Peterson: Okay. My closing thoughts. I think that we sent them back once. There's a certain amount of
technologies involved here and we are not certainly technologist in this area to make some of those
determinations. My feelings are that we would, I'd recommend moving it onto council with the caveat
that they present some more detailed and further documentation that this is the most prudent place for
more statistical reasons than have been offered tonight. So I'll entertain a motion.
5
Planning Commission Meeting- August 15,2000
Burton: Well if we deny it, it moves on so Mr. Chairman I'll move that the Planning Commission
recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit #2000-5, and I'm not going to read the rest but just
whatever it states there.
Peterson: Okay, is there a second?
Kind: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Conditional
Use Permit #2000-5 to construct a 12' x 28' equipment building and a 79.5 foot monopole to be
located at 275 West 79th Street, AT&T Wireless Services, All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST TO AMEND A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF A 7 FOOT VARIANCE FROM
THE 75' LAKE SHORE SETBACK. 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD.. BRINN AND BOB WITT.
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Name and address
please.
Bob Witt: Hi, I'm Bob Witt and this is my wife Brinn Witt. We're at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. Last,
well maybe it was a little bit more than about a year ago now one of the council members had added a
friendly suggestion that we work with staff to put lake shore plantings as a buffer between us and the lake.
But there really was no discussion actually open at that point nor was there really any clarification to
what was to be done. Again it's pretty important, and some of you have come out and seen the lot.
There is only 24 feet of lake shore there, which is a very small amount, and if you were to come over and
look at it you can see that there's access to the dock and there's room for basically a couple of chairs.
Yeah you can show that. One of the big issues that we have is that no other variance on Lake Riley
Boulevard and basically every home on that lake on Lake Riley Boulevard has variances. Some are
extremely close to the lake. A lot closer than us and none of them have had to do any lakeshore plantings
as a requirement to the approval of their variances. Also there is no city ordinance that would require
lakeshore plantings. Now the things that we have done, and a lot of the things we've done we feel really
have improved this lakeshore. Of course we removed over 60 truckloads of dirt of kind of a sludgy black
dirt that was, that came out was replaced with sand for filtration and that was what we needed to do to
build the, to actually build the house. We took two truckloads of boulders out of the wall. The previous
owner, Jim Jeppson had basically backed the trucks and just dumped the boulders into the lake with no
erosion cloth or anything like that so we went and paid the money to pull all that back out of the lake, and
what we did do is we built a two course boulder wall with double erosion cloth to protect from erosion
going into the lake. And with those boulders that came out of it, what we did was build boulder walls
around both sides ofthe home to protect against erosion because we have a pretty decent slope on both
sides of the home so.. . have there as well. We did put gutters on the house as well. And then as far as
plantings go, we put pines around the home up in front on either side. The east and west side of the
home in the areas where there might be drainage. We also put a lot of dogwoods and a lot of different
plantings around each side of those boulder walls to help with runoff. Lots of perennials. The one thing
6
09/07/00 14:30 FAX
LC8500
A-TJ7\C.+tM~ IC
-
-
-
HOO CIT'I' CENT1!k
33 SaU'rH SJXTIJ STR;"r
MlNN¡^'I)~TS:. MN 55402-3796
6/2343·¡SOO
FAX; 61'- 333.0066
w..¡ S1Tl~:: WW"Y.gpmhw.cum
CONSUL'¡/NC; OFFICE.. B&'IJfWG CHIN.f
612 343-5374
peter.beck@gpmlaw.com
September 7, 2000
Mayor Nancy Mancino
Members of the City Council
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drivc
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Proposed AT&T Wireless Setvices Cell Site at Brown Tire & Auto
Dear Mayor Mancino and Councilmembers:
This letter is written on behalf of OUT client, AT&T Wireless Services ("AT&T")
in support of their application to locate a wireless telephone cell site behind the Brown's
Tiœ & Auto StOTe located at 275 West 78th Street. The cell site will include a 12 by 28'
building for switching equipment and a 79.5 foot monopole for mounting antennas.
AT&T has requested approval of this site to address coverage and capacity
problems at and surrounding the intersection of Highways 101 and 5. At present, AT&T
is not able to deliver a strong enough signal to adequately serve the businesses in this area
and the residents of Chanhassen and other communities who pass through this area on
these two major transportation corridors. The need for this site, which has been identified
by AT&T through computer modeling, drive testing and customer complaints, was
reinforced when several Chanhassen residents attending the August 15 P]anning
Commission meeting fOT a different agenda item expressed complaints about AT&T's
coverage in this area to the AT &1 representatives at the meeting.
In 1996 AT&T and other wireless carriers worked with City staff and the City
Council to dcvc10p an ordinancc specifically regulating wireless te1ecommWlication
facilities. The purpose of this ordinance was to identify the locations where wireless
communication facilities would be allowable and the specific standards for their
installation it) these locations. As AT&T looked for a way to address its service problems
GRAY. PLANT, MooTY. MOOTY & BENNI!TT. P.Å. ÁTT()j¡NliU AT LAW
09/07/00 14:31 FAX
LCS500
141003
Mayor Nancy Mancino
Page 2
September 7, 2000
in the Highway 101/5 area, it referred to the city's telecommunications ordinance for
direction. Fortunately, AT&T was able to find a location, and design a facility, which
complies in all respects with the requirements of the city ordinance.
Working with City staff, AT&T filed an application for approval of its proposed
cell site. Staff confirmed that the proposal complies with the City's ordinances and
recommended approval, subject to a number of conditions. AT&T agreed to all of the
proposed conditions. Nevertheless, the planning commission has recommended denial of
the proposed facility.
As the City Council knows, if the standards applicable to this conditional use are
met, the conditional use pennit must be approved. The permit can only be denied for a
legally sufficient reasOTl for which there exists, in the record before the City, a factual
basis. Although we do not have access to the minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting as we write this 1cttèr, our notes indicate that the only reasons for denial
expressed at the P1anTÙng Comn1Ïssion were:
1. One Commissioner was not convinced that ilie facility is necessary; and
2. Several commissioners felt that the City should force co-location and
require the applicant to prove that oilier sites wilI not work.
Neither of these reasons, we submit, is either 1ega1Jy sufficiently or supported by a
factual basis.
Whether this facility is necessary is not a legally sufficient reason for denial of the
requested conditional use permit. There is no requirement in the City ordinance that a
provider prove that a proposed faciHty is necessary to meet the needs of its wireless
systcm, nor would such a requirement be lawful if it did exist. Furthermore, there is not a
factual basis for finding that the requested facility is not necessary. AT&T submitted to
the Planning Commission computer generated coverage studies which show that existing
coverage levels arc inadequate in the Highway 101/5 area. Even better evidence that the
facility is necessary is the fact that AT&T is requesting approval of it. This facility will
involve a capital investment of approximately $400,000-$600,000. AT&T would not
make that investment ifit was not necessary in order to meet the requirement in its FCC
license that it provide adequate service to all locations within its service area.
The statements of several planning commissioners that the City should force co-
location of this proposed facility in a different location is also not a legally sufficient
reason for denial of this conditional use pennit. The City's wireless telecommunications
ordinance does rèquire that the City Council not approve a new tower unless it finds that
the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or
09/07/00 14:31 FAX
LC8500
1ilI004
Mayor Nancy Mancino
Page 3
September 7, 2000
builcling. However, towers under 80 feet are expressly exempt ftom this requkement.
The ordinance by its very tenns does not require a co-location analysis with respect to
AT&T's proposed cell site.
Nevertheless, AT&T did investigate all possible co-location sites which would
enable it to meet its need to provide improved coverage to the Highway 101/5 area. The
co-location sites investigated included the towers along Highway 5 which support NSP's
power lines. These towers could not be used due to safety reasons and the fact that NSP
requires any such antennas to be located at least 50 feet below its power lines. 1bis
would put the antennas far below the height at which they would be effective. AT&T
also investigated a wireless facility being proposed by Sprint. This facility is proposed to
be approximately one mile away ftom the Highway 10115 intersection, and at an
elevation approximately 30 feet lower than the elevation of the Brown Tire & Auto site.
Due to the location of Sprint's antennas at the top of their proposed pole,AT&T would
not be able to be any higher than 50 feet on that pole. This would put AT&T's antennas
approximately 57 feet lower, and approximately I mile away ITom, the proposed cell site
at Brown Tire and Auto. The combination of the reduced height and distance from the
area to be served rendered the Sprint facility completely ineffective in meeting AT&T's
goal of providing an increased signa.! to the Highway 101/5 area. Although not req uired,
AT&T did investigate every possib]e co-location opportunity for its proposed eel! site.
There is, therefore, no factual basis for denying the request on the grounds that the
antennae could be co-located somewhere else.
We believe we have investigated every possible alternative to the instalJation of a
new monopole. Tfthere were an alternative, AT&T would take advantage of it to reduce
its capital costs for this cell site. With no existing facility available, the site proposed for
this monopole is virtually ideal. It would be difficult to find any other site in the
Highway 101/5 area which is further removed fÌom residentia] uses and the active
commercial areas of downtown than this site behind the Brown Tire and Auto Building.
The base of the monopole will not be visible from any sUlTOunding land use or public
right of way, and very little of the pole will be visible at all.
09/07/00 14:31 FAX
LC8500
!4J005
Mayor Nancy Mancino
Page 4
September 7,2000
We have worked very hard to find and design a cell sitc which complies in all
respects with the City's Code of Ordinances and minimi"es to the maximum extent
possible the impacts of this use on surrounding uses. We are profoundly disappointed
with the Planning Commission's recommendation, and respectfully request that the City
Council evaluate this proposed facility in light of the City ordinancc and approve the
conditional use pemüt. We win be at the council meeting to present thc project in greater
detail and answer any questions. In the meantime, please feel fi:ee to contact the
lilldersigned ¡fyou WOlùd like additional infoI11lation or have any questions.
V cry truly yours,
GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY,
MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A.
BY~
Pet K. Beck
cc: Ted Broich
Warren Dunlap
GP:730578 vI