4. CUP Request & Site Plan Review for Cellular Tower @80 W. 78th St
CITY 0 F
CHANHASSEH
PC DATE: 1/15/97 Lf
CCDATE: 2/10/97
2/24/97
3/ 10/97
CASE #: 96-6 CUP
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Conditional use permit request to permit a 135 foot cellular commUnIcatton
tower
-
z
ex:
:.>
:J
1..
1-
=:(
LOCATION:
80 West 78th Street
APPLICANT:
American Portable Telecom
1701 E. 79th Street, Suite 19
Minneapolis, MN 55425
(612) 858-0027
PRESENT ZONING:
BH. Highway and Business Services District
ACREAGE:
0.024 acres
DENSITY:
not applicable
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
N - BH, vacant, railroad line; R-12, apartments north of railroad
S - BH, Highway 5
E - BH, Lotus Lawn & Garden
W - BH, vacant
::(
-
~
1.J
WATER AND SEWER:
Available to site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.:
The site is currently occupied by a two-story office building with
associated parking lots. The specific location has some shrubs
and grasslands. The site is relatively flat with few natural
amenities.
-
-
f)
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
~ I .,-1 ',---- .
~;.~A;..~l},~~'~ ~~'
,''0 '-, l' I ~ " 7400'
;_<.~~v \. riVK/ '> k ' 0 ~
" ,,j u ",,", "" i' '> Y"'-'; _ h ~ 0 <Xl
,\' i~'y/".~I -ff (~L ' ~ 0 ::: rI
// "" ",,, < t4 I,~ ~ ~ 0 .-1
~ ~ Ili ,.i\'>'J.-.: r r ' )-'" ~ ~'j g ,
,\ IT 1 =0 _ -^ ~,,~ rI
, ',' j ~ 1;1 '/ ~I.... ~ :7t", ) / ,," -'f(
~D* ~~;r~ hTn~-~~ ~~ ~ t~,l~ r
*"",-<, .,' h ~..! BID I m 1I~'Y7 ~ .... 1"L0"'''''' ~ l ~
-:JJ;I\-] ~ r ~..-_"""'~_~. ITIID~ " ~.ION
~\f 'L n ,J S~/~;tin Ii ~ / ~
~\_ r-___::}O T" \ \ \~~St. 1~ ~~, 1.ak~l1ve E. ]
, z-- ~ .:tJ;V\LI' )ff ~ ~~\ I\J]J}-?S~~...D
,______ \ ~ \" Y -.:: -, B.tata. 'Ii
t22:; . 5 '---= ~..-/" ~. ' \::: ~t:!; \'i ~ JUai park 0
; ~HwvS /' (I -- t.- '
" -'--~\ ;; ,. f;;i
, _ ,-6
~ JA' H~~iZZ:f
~'. \ /". "'\h\ \ ~ 1~r.cl ::/~';
. ,"-:, 17:{9 '<,.',,< ,""'r.~"
{
~.. . _.~ .. ~~ /-....~ t.
, ,\ r IWL' H ",
'?-.l , I) ~.l.JFfti..~~ ~I;;t fi:, '.,0 .....'
<1>-,." ' ' · · \' -,'\
, ' ~ ""'" '
i \ 'J. ,",' ;;'i,,,~,;;:,,,~,;,;,,;,;,,"i
k\ Susan ~ j _ ~1~:-:~:'\' . "~I
, !S~" """"",' R1,ce
j :-"fI ,,'
iti r::iI
_ ' " h L
A" ~ 1\ ars ake
~, r---......._ ~ ~::..t."L ~
, JIll< J;;.. E.. '"
~ ~n .(,~r~; :oU~ f;. Vi (/) :i
, . )7/L-~ffi' ~ ., "'
1_~~~.i7~~€J~,t""'M'- i ~
~ "of Iff{C-~1i-" ~. r"~W~-- s:-
~Brl~' ~ L L~[~ r" . .- -;:::::~":'~ ~
---f',... ~ ;.- ~ ---- --- ,:>, >
::::$: -!,' 1 ') \ ~ ... .,.,- ... .,.,- ... .1:: n
~ ,. ~RO~o"t?_~~:--_/ u
IPR. " ,-~-
:t:J:. Y" 1 ' /
VI /
f;; /.....1 _. ./
~
8100
~I.,
fa
8200
8300
8400
8500
8600
8700
8800
-'
I I
Q..~ 8"",
.-
-W'-.
American Portable Telecom
January 15, 1997
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing a 135 foot tall cellular communication galvanized finish, monopole
design tower with nine directional antennas. (For reference, the electrical transmission poles
located south of Highway 5 near McDonald's are 90 feet tall and the office building is
approximately 30 feet tall.) The applicant is proposing the lease of a 50 foot by 50 foot area of the
site. Within this area, a 33 foot by 28 foot fenced enclosure is being proposed. The applicant is
proposing an eight foot fence, which is permitted within commercial districts, with three strands of
barbed wire at the top. City Code requires a separate conditional use permit for the use of barbed
wire and another conditional use permit for fences in excess of eight feet (Section 20-1018).
Within the fenced enclosure is the tower and a bridge structure with five foot by three foot by three
foot equipment cabinets on top. The applicant proposes to use an all weather gravel surface within
the enclosure.
While not fully documented by the applicant, staff is unaware of the ability to locate the proposed
telecommunication facility on an existing tower or building within the search area. Due to the low
building heights in the city and especially along Highway 5, there are minimal opportunities to
locate antennas on existing buildings.
The site for the proposed telecommunications tower is currently covered by an existing mix of
young trees adjoining the adjacent wetland. Directly to the west, there are no trees. A shift of 50
feet to the west would eliminate the need for extensive tree clearing and help reduce visibility of
the ground mounted equipment by placing the equipment more directly behind the existing
building.
As shown on the site survey, the applicant is encroaching upon the drainage and utility easement
by five feet. This five feet may not seem to be any more of a problem than an encroachment
agreement, but at the site it appears to be not land, but utilized wetland. The construction of this
telecommunications tower would require partially filling in a utilized wetland, a practice that is
not allowed in Chanhassen unless replacement is done on site.
According to ordinance, screening is required for the base equipment and the tower must be
designed to blend in with the surrounding area. Applicant has not provided for any landscaping
to be installed as part of the project. Screening of the base equipment will be difficult
considering the fence surrounding the equipment runs directly along the parking lot. The front
will not be able to be screened using vegetation, rather a type of privacy fence or other such
architectural features will be needed if reduced visibility is desired. And that is the question, is
reduced visibility of the chain link fence, barbed wire, and ground mounted equipment desired?
Realistically, no vegetation will be able to hide the fact that the fence and equipment is there.
Rather, some vegetation should be planted around the site to stabilize the soil after construction
and add to the existing wetland vegetation.
American Portable Telecom
January 15, 1997
Page 3
Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit/site plan for the wireless
telecommunication tower subject to conditions. Most importantly, staff is requiring that this tower
be designed and constructed to permit the co-location of another user on the tower.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
City Council reviewed the proposed development at their February 24, 1997. They tabled the item
to permit the application for the U. S. West Newvector Group to be reviewed at the same time and
to determine if either was a preferrable site. In addition, City Council wanted the applicant to
continue to investigate additional sites for locating the tower.
City Council reviewed the proposed development at their February 10, 1997 meeting. The Council
tabled the item, requesting that the applicant provide additional documentation regarding the search
for a tower site. Specifically, the applicant was to address the feasibility oflocating the tower on
properties to the east of the proposed site, including the water tower in Eden Prairie.
The applicant has provided the city with a letter in response to Council's request. In addition, the
applicant has advised staff that they have talked with the property owner of the Lyman Lumber
property and they refuse to enter into a lease agreement on their property. Staffhas advised the
applicant to be prepared to discuss their search area for the proposed tower, the service area of the
tower, adjacent cell service areas, and the location of other approved towers within their system.
The applicant told staff that they are concerned about providing some of the above information in a
public format due to the proprietary nature of the information.
BACKGROUND
In November 1996, the City ofChanhassen adopted Ordinance 259 pertaining to towers and
antennas. This ordinance provided criteria for the design and location of wireless
telecommunication facilities in the city.
The city has been advised by wireless telecommunication companies that this area of the city is a
dead zone for current service users. Part of the impetus for revision of the tower and antenna
ordinance was this dead zone for wireless telecommunication.
The city recently received another application for a conditional use permit for a wireless
communication tower on the property immediately to the east of this site. In order to minimize the
proliferation of these towers in the city, the ordinance has a co-location requirement as part of the
design and approval of these facilities. As a condition of approval for this tower, staffis
recommending that the applicant commit to allow for the shared use of the tower.
American Portable Telecom
January 15, 1997
Page 4
The city has an existing drainage easement over the northerly part of the site. It appears that
based on the site plan the site improvements may encroach into the city's easement. It is very
important that no filling occur within the city's easement. The easement contains a stormwater
pond designated to pretreat stormwater and act as flood control. Filling in this area will reduce
the ponds storage and treatment potential. Encroachment into the easement may also impede
maintenance of the pond by restricting access. The site improvements may encroach the city's
easement as long as no fill is placed in the easement and the applicant and property owner enter
into an encroachment agreement with the city which addresses city liability and maintenance
Issues.
FINDINGS
When approving a conditional use permit, the city must determine the capability of a proposed
development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional
use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items:
1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or
general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
Finding: The proposed tower should not endanger the public health, safety or welfare of
the city.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter.
Finding: The proposed use is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and generally
complies with city ordinance requirements.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance
with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the
essential character of that area.
Finding: The proposed tower complies with city ordinance requirements and is
compatible with the character of the area.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Finding: The proposed tower will not be hazardous to existing or planned neighboring
uses.
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and
American Portable Telecom
January 15, 1997
Page 5
schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons
or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
Finding: The proposed development is provided with adequate public services.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Finding: The proposed development will not require excessive public services.
7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of
excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash.
Finding: The proposed tower should not create conditions that are detrimental to persons
property or the general welfare of the community.
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Finding: The proposed development will not interfere with traffic circulation.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic
features of major significance.
Finding: The proposed development will not destroy or damage natural, scenic, or historic
features.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Finding: The proposed tower will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Finding: The proposed development should not depreciate surrounding property values.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
Finding: The proposed development will meet standards established for communication
towers. The following revision must be made to the plans:
American Portable Telecom
January 15, 1997
Page 6
· Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation.
· The applicant shall document that the tower is designed, structurally, electrically,
and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable
antennas for at least one additional user. Towers must be designed to allow for
future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at
varying heights.
· A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the
shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable
terms and conditions for shared use shall be submitted to the city.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On January 15, 1995, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
telecommunication tower. The commission voted 4 to 1 to recommend approval of the conditional
use and site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Filling within the City's drainage easement shall be prohibited. If the site improvements
encroach upon the City's drainage easement, the applicant and property owner shall enter
into an encroachment agreement with the City. The applicant shall escrow $50.00 with
the City for drafting and recording of the agreement.
2. Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation.
3. The applicant shall document that the tower is designed, structurally, electrically, and in all
respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at
least one additional user. Towers must be design to allow for future rearrangement of
antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights.
4. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared
use of the tower ifan additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and
conditions for shared use shall be submitted to the city.
5. Barbed wire at the top of the fence shall not be permitted.
6. Applicant shall move monopole site to the west to reduce tree removal and visibility of
equipment.
7. A formal landscaping plan must be submitted before it goes to City Council."
American Portable Telecom
January 15, 1997
Page 7
The one dissenting vote was due to a desire that additional graphic materials should have been
presented so that the city could better visualize the impact of the proposal. To that end, staff has
requested that the applicant provide a photocomposite image of the tower behind the office
building. (Staff believes that from a distance there will be minimal additional visual impact of the
tower due to the location of the electric transmission lines within the Highway 5 corridor and
moving the tower to the west will reduce visual perception of the tower because of the building.)
The applicant has submitted a revised plan that addresses several of the conditions of the Planning
Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves conditional use permit 96-6 for a personal communication service
(PCS) wireless telecommunication facility, including site plan, prepared by Fluor Daniel, Inc., dated
9/13/96, revised 1/29/97, approval for a 135 foot monopole tower and associated equipment, at 80
West 78th Street for American Portable Telecom subject to the following conditions:
1. Filling within the City's drainage easement shall be prohibited. If the site improvements
encroach upon the City's drainage easement, the applicant and property owner shall enter into
an encroachment agreement with the City, and the applicant shall escrow $50.00 with the
City for drafting and recording of the agreement.
2. Barbed wire at the top of the fence shall not be permitted."
Manager's Update: Mayor Mancino and myself drove the area from Dakota to Dell Road, both
on the north and south side of Highway 5. It is our belief that three sites should be considered by
the city council. A map of the sites will be made available, but can generally be described as all
of the parcels lying east of Lyman Lumber and west of Dell Road and abutting the railroad. The
sites have been relayed to both of the applicants and they are in the process of testing each of the
sites to determine if they would work from a communications standpoint.
DWA
(3-5-97)
American Portable Telecom
January 15, 1997
Page 8
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Letter from Douglas C. Cowan to the Planning Commission dated 11/25/96
3. Statement of Compliance with 12 General Standards for Conditional Use Permits
4. Letter from Steven M. Krohn, P.E. to APT - Minneapolis dated 11/25/96
5. Letter from Scott Peters to Robert Generous dated 12/19/96
6. William Covington, "Wireless Word," Planning vol. 62 no. 11 (December 1996): 8-12
7. Letter from Michelle Johnson to Robert Generous dated 1/27/97
8. Letter of Intent for co-location prepared by American Portable Telecom
9. Planning Commission minutes for 1/15/97
10. Letter from Michelle Johnson to the Mayor and Members of Council dated 2/18/97
11. City Council Minutes of 2/ 10/97
12. Reduced Site Plan
13. City Council Minutes of2/24/97
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
Minneapolis. MN 55425
OWNER: CII'W yJ L - 0 ~ ,re h, (I
ADDRESS: S.90() J-11/C& Clleno r ~t't
f).v I tJ-/'f\do., P L ~ 2 ,f ()!
TELEPHONE: '/0 1 - .:.2l! ~ - S:;J /5:"
APPUCANT: American Portable Telecom
ADDRESS: 1701 E. 79th St.. Suite 19
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 612-858-0027
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit
-XX... Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements
i
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
-L Site Plan Review. -1L Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
($50 CUP/SPRN ACN AR/W AP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
- Subdivision. TOTAL FEE $800
Agent: Douglas Cowan, AICP
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 8W' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
_ Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE _ When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee .shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME
Proposed Wireless PCS antenna tower
LOCATION
80 West 78th Street, Chanhassen, MN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract "A" and "B", Registered Land Survey No. 59,
Files of Registrar of Titles. Carvf'r r.nllnry, M;nnp~nr"
TOTALACREAGE +/- 3 acres
WETlANDS PRESENT
YES XX NO
PRESENT ZONING "BH" Highway and Business Services
REQUESTED ZONING (no change)
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION COMMERCIAL
REQUESTED LA.ND USE DESIGNATION (no change)
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Conditional use approval is required by Ordinance No. 259 for
Commercial Tower in BH District
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
~ determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
10tice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
rhis is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
3.11 City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
he City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
;opy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
his application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
mderstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
wthorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
ny knowledge.
rhe city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
equirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
~xtension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
lxtensions are approved by the applicant.
/-7
~ /~L~//X//-2S--C~?
Ii_~nt ../ /' " /. / / ~ ~ . . Date
~ L /~-~/.:,./r 'K 1/-2 r --Y'C'
Date
iigna ee Owner
.pplication Received on JllJ.5!q~
Fee Paid $'?CO ~
Receipt No. & 338' d---'
he applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
f not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
t~
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road 82
Roseville, MN 55113
December 19, 1996
r.....,.,~'"
!. ,., .. . 'h",
Robert Generous
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
D;-(I
-:,....P')~
.J ': ,0('",
v"';;O
en'\!' ,
I l..-,.. '-I
'. .
... Ii~
..........
-:\1
Dear Robert Generous:
Subject: American Portable Telecom: Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review
Public Hearing Notice Review PH96-01
North Side of West 78th Street, 1/4 Mile East ofTH 101
Chanhassen, Carver County
CS 1002
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed your request for comment
regarding a Conditional Use Permit for a telecommunications tower at 80 West 78th Street. We have
no major concerns regarding the application. However, we would like to take this opportunity to
remind the applicant of certain stipulations regarding development of property adjacent to Mn/DOT
right of way.
. A Mn/DOT access permit is required for access to or across state highways or rights of way,
including Mn/DOT owned frontage roads. A change in the intensity or type of use of an
existing entrance also requires a permit.
. A IvIn/DOT stormwater drainage permit is required for any change in rate of runoff to trunk
highway right of way, or any alteration of trunk highway stormwater drainage systems.
. Any other use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way, including but not limited to grading,
utility work, and landscaping, also requires a permit. The permit necessary depends on the
nature of the proposed work.
. If property adjacent to Mn/DOT right of way is to be platted, the preliminary plat must be
submitted to us for review, along with a site plan and grading and drainage plans if prepared.
An equal opportunity employer
Robert Generous
December 19, 1996
page two
Copies of proposed plats and site plans may be sent to Sherry Narusiewicz, Local Government
Liaison Supervisor, at the above address. Questions regarding permit applications may be
directed to Bill Warden of our Permits Unit at 582-1443.
If you have any questions about this public notice review, please contact me at 582-1654.
sw~
Scott Peters
Senior Transportation PlannerlLocal Government Liaison
~ - ,-~------., ~ ~~~~~"",.,..""".--":"----.............-~_.~_...----------~-
8 Planning December 1996
10 Planning December 1996
Given that situation, my advice to lo-
cal governments is to get a handle on the
key elements of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, which lays out the ground
rules for industry and local government
in the area of land-use law.
What is required
The law creates a presumption that needed
wireless facilities can be sited in a com-
munity. Flat refusals to grant permit ap-
plications are no longer allowed. The law
also requires that requests for permis-
sion to build must be acted on promptly.
It forbids regulations from favoring one
sort of wireless service provider over
another. And it prohibits local govern-
ments from regulating radio frequency
emissions. A federal standard has been
set in this area and demonstrated compli-
ance with that standard is all a locality
can seek from the permit applicant.
Regular communication with the car-
riers serving a community is also essen-
tial. At least once a year every locality
should invite the telecommunications car-
riers serving the area to a regular meet-
ing. Use this time to review the contents
of permit applications. Place special em-
phasis on the type of information that is
expected from the applicants. Identify
the parts of the application that can be
left blank, which must be filled out, and
under what conditions an application will
be rejected as incomplete. Also, ask ser-
vice providers where they may want to
build facilities in the next year.
Increasingly telecommunications com-
panies are teaming up with local govern-
ments to sponsor regional wireless semi-
nars. These educational forums usually
last a full day and bring together local
.
u
.!
..
...
.
u
'5
..
!i
~
Ii
c
~
r!l
.
s
.i
~.. ~"~:'b'2~.i~JJ'?:
What the Wireless Revolution
.~ .~, f~ ;.q;, ,'x:,,); "tf>1.~)
At this moment,ethousands" of
. 'siteacqws' iti.'.on. r.. e..p.....res.e ..n. ta..ti 'v. ~s'
are standing at planning counters
everywhere in the U.$...demand-
. ing permit~~now; In~osf coni:
munities, however, there is no' plan {or
accommodating the sites over~.e l()ng
haul.~~:::~~" ~ ,i~: 2:","' . ~'~~:::;(~~t~':)~)\:':
Both city and county governments typi:
cally categorize personal \Vjreless,facili~
ties as special or conditional. 'u~e,s~:,r et
they often rely on outdated radio trans-
mission and satellite dish zoning provi-
sions to regulate them. , ./ ,...";,::,,.~~.~.'i;;!i.;';:.,.'
. ' ."~' ~"I{;",,"\~~~!Ilt.;.1~'-P', .
But some communities haveinstitufed
~. '. ."1' ',1'- .~~., 1..>1 ^
multitiered review proce<iures,';Under
some of these procedures,~esidel1~ ~n~~'"
get one' approach, comni~rcialand iJidus~
t' ''''~,'', '~" !"",.~~'''''':I~'1> ' ',"
trial zones anlJthe~;, m.orioI1<>J~s i~qUir~
review while mounts 50 feefanclless are
penmtted adIiUcistratiye~y. <
The advantage' toa~i()ning'or 1
approacr is''tl1l:1t ea1:h"'~ceit site~~~';~e .,' ,,:>.<..
with co~istexin{arid unifJ'piilY.f1'h~~i~<.t>";;;~"'!
advantag<<Us'that. the 'iurisdictfQtit' deals ',,'t'~'
:~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~t9rY'~~r~~~fi'~~.~~~:'i
govenunent~,~~ ~PP!e.vm , . .' iI
on a site~by-site'Dasis::.,~,~";'} ,~~1
Some Cities and cOuDtie~__ ..owmg ",;.. ~
they are ruDning ou(ofg()6dSe;ll'sit
revie~, appl~c~~io.ris i~ b~!k~,:~Pl~fi~~?
for example, requIres ~ualsuD~sslon~.
of all cells.it,es froni,,~a~J,1, ~afri~:;~~an}r. . ,
. . ... ~ .," .. :",,-);,-<"" '-! Lo ~"l:~>\'~:.!~:.!.!!~'!~~'^";;,;
11
government officials, community lead-
ers, industry representatives, and other
interested parties. The topics include wire-
less communications; the types of facili-
ties needed; the method used to select
possible sites; how the permitting pro-
cess works; and health issues and prop-
erty values. AT&T Wireless Services has
held such gatherings in Boston, New York,
Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and sev-
eral other jurisdictions.
Local governments should also review
their land-use legislation to be sure that it
coincides with the provisions of the tele-
communications act. Other elements that
jurisdictions should consider are: use by
right in industrial and commercial zones;
a hearing process for residential areas;
specific, as opposed to qualitative, re-
view standards; fixed time frames for
permit processing; and separation of the
Total U.S. Digital Cellular Subscribers
'"
~
.
1992 I
...
E!';t 1993 !
.x] ,~
'1:= 1994 !
,8"
,,! '"
"'.s 1995 ~
2000
o 5.000 10.000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
A segment of a map in a hypothetical city {left} shows where
cell sites might be placed if none of the 10 carriers will co-
locate. Above: The number of people using cellular devices is
expected to explode within the next few years.
nd solves two problems: Local govern-
Lents can choose the best locations for
ireless facilities, and applicants can get
land out of the permitting process quickly.
ew companies have popped up to mar-
et these public lands and to direct the
uriers to "easy" city and county sites.
The problem is that the wireless firms
ften insist on an exclusive arrangement
'ith the community, in effect tying up
:cess to public land-and exposing the
)mmunity to potential legal challenges.
urther, private landowners may object
) the competition from a public body.
An alternative approach is to require
II cell sites to be located on land owned
r leased by the jurisdiction. Ringwood,
few Jersey, is trying that, although it has
nlythree publicly owned sites that qualify.
he suburban Passaic County commu-
ity has also offered to lease land from
rivate landowners seeking a cell site
nd then to sublease the site to a wireless
arrier .
A wireless master plan is another way
) go. The town of Windsor, Connecticut,
; considering the preparation of such a
Ian for the area between Hartford and
radley International Airport. Also, the
Ed-America Regional Council, which
ncompasses eight counties and 114 mu-
icipalities in two states around Kansas
:ity, has begun a two-phase process that
ould lead to a regional wireless master
Ian.
The master plan approach involves two
teps. The first is to approve the areas
{here cell facilities could be located. The
econd step is to review individual site
.'::. ..;,.~ -,
/:'i.,;'.;r'""
+,.~';:j.: .,. '~
f.
has not'requiredpermits for tower con-
struction. In Pennsylvania, the state court
of appeals denied Bell Atlantic Mobile
Systems' claim that a ISO-foot cellular
tower was an essential service that should
be permitred.~sofrighi. .'
The~c()Urts'are a bellwether of what's
ahead for planners. It's clear that plan-
ning is needed. So is a factual record and
a review process. i;+t' .i"
Ted Kridnes, AICP V?~.: .
r . 'f ~:'''''::'\:._. ".,~
applications. A more stringent review
would be required for properties not iden-
tified in the master plan. A two-step ap-
proach has the advantage of assuring
public input at an early stage. Because it
requires a map, it is also the only ap-
proach that ensures some degree of cer-
tainty .
Given all the options, I would say that
the wireless master plan is the tool of
choice. At this writing, only a few cities
and counties are exploring the master
plan approach, so there is no model to Kreines i~pt~sid;nt of Kreines & Kreines in
follow. But carriers are bound to tire of Tiburon, California. The firm specializes in
the ad hoc approach of siting one cell wireless planning. ,{ . .
:~~:~e~u~:~n;~~ I ~:~~~~\;h:~:~~:~~ '{0t:;i;'~:.f~~ifYt~t''',\~1;ic~t/?'
with a wireless master plan. Terms of Art
The courts are also pointing the way. ~~~ 4: ;,,~:~: k~~ f< 4
There have been four important court . App!i~ants ,The p~ople an? compa-
cases on wireless planning so far, and n.l~s. th~t .apply f~r .p'er~onal wlreles,s fa-
there are sure to be many more. EE1!lier clll~les:t~lte ~.?9-~lsItI~n representatIves,
this year, a federal court upheld a;six.i;,.la~ers,,~c;~ sl,te,.!)wl~ers, landowners,
month moratorium imposed by the city :. an~?!hers: Be aware ,that . some appli-
of ~~ina, Washington. Sprint Spectrum cants seek approval of cell sl!es and then
had asked for a preliminary injunction to sell 2r,!ease th.em tq thec,~rlersor land-
override the moratorium which Medina',.owp~rs they repr,esent, ~~>;;;:',;-7J,;" ~,
argued it needed to give it time to J?lap for{~;:~';iC#~f~er! ;ce~panie~ l.ictmsed by. t.he
cell sites. But another federal court ,up- ~;~FCC!q,.buI!,~,pe!sonal ,,:uel~ss facll.ltIes
held the contention of BellSouth Mobil- , and operate personal wueless servIces.
ity that Gwinnett County, Georgia, had ,Ther~ a.re;al~.o unlicensed carriers.
not presented sufficient evidence t?SUP-,, . Per$ona1;,:vireles~ fa~ilities Described
port its denial of a permit::;""r,j~;n~~d~Ji~t.t~n th~. Tel~co~munIcatIons -!,\ct of 1996
Meanwhile, a group 'of residentsJn as. faci~it~~s,l~r"t~~p~?vi.sion of personal
F kl. C ty Tt '0 . wueless seTVlCel>;1...h'",-. ;. ""
ran In oun , exas,.\,Von. ..~;~1,l:lP~:tJ[~..",;:,:"'';,,,;C9'"'' ; . """'\f~Y;",,,; '. 0'"
rary injunction against constrUction of a';:~;;k.:P~",~onaI wirele,s~ serylces Commer-
multicarrier tower, which they;argued..~,,,c~al ~()b~!~~eryices, unlicen~ed w!reless
would impair their quality of life and servIces, and comm?n carner WIreless
diminish property values. Franklin County exchange access servIces.
12 Planning December 1996
~
~
-....
=~
An example of co-location, showing
several different services that can be
accommodated at different heights on
one tower.
public hearing and the actual vote on
approval.
Getting together
Local legislation should also include pro-
visions for co-location-the sharing of
facilities. Everyone seems to want co-
location. Local governments like
the idea because it reduces site
proliferation, and industry likes
it because construction and op-
erating costs are reduced. There
are some drawbacks, however.
For one thing, co-location cre-
ates larger sites. The more carri-
ers sharing a facility, the bigger
(and potentially more intrusive)
it will be. Also, permit review
time may increase dramatically,
and the extra height of the facil-
ity can push the application into
a more stringent review category.
Finally, established cellular car-
riers may have reasonable con-
cerns about revenue, operations,
and liability when a new carrier
is added to an exist-
ing site.
For local govern-
ments seeking to
make co-location an
attractive option for
wireless providers,
I have three sugges-
tions.
First, provide in-
centives to co-locat-
ing parties. Assure
the carriers that the
time needed to re-
view a co-location
request and the rules
involved will not
greatly exceed those
for a single applicant.
Second, considergiv-
ing the co-locators
access to municipal
property, speeding up per-
mit processing, perhaps even
lowering application fees.
Third, take advantage of
the fact that local govern-
ment is the central clearing-
house for all permit applica-
The answer to the question on page 9.
tions. Use your regular annual meeting
with the cellular companies as an oppor-
tunity to register potential permit appli-
cants. Every time a permit is sought, the
registered parties could be informed and
invited to contact the applicant to discuss
sharing the facility.
A final suggestion: Look to the future.
Ask industry representatives to share their
expectations of what's ahead in the way
of services, carriers, and concerns.
William Covington is land-use and environ-
mental policy counsel to AT&T Wireless Ser-
vices in Kirkland, Washington. He was for-
merly director of right-of-way permitting for
King County, Washington.
CELLULAR
REALTY
ADVISORS, INC.
1701 E. 79th Street, Suite 19
Bloomington, MN 55425
(612) 858-0000
(612) 854-4105 Fax
23 January 1997
Mr Robert Generous
Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Conditional Use Permit Application for Proposed Wireless
Telecommunication Facility located at 80 West 78th Street in Chanhassen,
Minnesota
Dear Mr Generous:
Since Doug Cowan will be transferring to another assignment before the end of January,
I will be your new contact for the remainder of the processing of this application. I am
sorry we did not have the opportunity to meet at the Planning Commission last week but I
look forward to working with you to complete this process.
In response to the comments of Staff and the Planning Commission members, enclosed
please find additional documentation relating to this application. That documentation
includes a letter of intent for co-location signed by American Portable Telecom, one
additional copy of drawings submitted with the application which show the structural
design of the tower and indicate that it is capable of supporting at least one additional
user, and a revised site plan which incorporates the changes discussed. Those changes
include movement of the site to the west to better screen the tower behind the existing
building and reduce the necessity of tree removal, reconfiguration of the site so that it
does not encroach upon any city easements, the removal of the barbed wire from the top
of the eight foot fence surrounding the tower, and a landscape plan showing how the
equipment may be screened from view.
Thank you for your continued help in this process. If you have any questions or
concerns, please feel free to contact me at 858-0090.
Sincerely,
Yl1.JiU c &ft~
Michelle Johnson
Zoning Coordinator, Cellular Realty Advisors, Inc. on behalf of APT
858-0090 (work), 854-4105 (fax)
APT
AMERICAN PORTABLE rELECOM
A TDS COMPANY
1701 E. 79th Street
Suite 19
Minneapolis, MN 55425
612-858-0000
Fax 612-851-9103
January 16, 1997
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Letter of Intent for Proposed PCS Telecommunications Site at Property
located at 80 W. 78th Street, Chanhassen, Minnesota
To whom it may concern:
This letter is to inform you that the tower owner, American Portable Telecom, Inc.
and its successors will allow the shared use of the tower at the above location as
long as the co-user will agree to pay a reasonable charge for shared use, and
the tower is stucturally capable of accommodating the proposed additional
equipment.
Thank you,
By:
Title:
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
Peterson: Is there a second to that?
Joyce: I'll second that.
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit #96-5 for a 150 foot telecommunications
tower and an 8 foot chain link fence as shown on the site plan received December 11, 1996,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan before it goes to the City Council.
2. The tower shall comply with requirements in ARTICLE XXx. TOWERS AND
ANTENNAS of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The tower shall have a galvanized finish.
4. There shall be no artificial lighting or signage.
5. The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of building permit application
showing the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas
and the minimum separation distances between antennas. A description of the tower's
capacity, including the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated should also
be provided.
6. There shall be no barbed wire on the fence and the top of the fence shall be changed
to look finished.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 135' TELECOMMUNICATION
TOWER TO BE LOCATED AT 80 WEST 78TH STREET.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Gary Goll
Jason Funk
1455 Park Road
2900 Lone Oak Parkway, Eagan
31
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
Terrie Thurmer
Doug Cowan
Michelle Johnson, APT
7625 Metro Blvd., Edina
1701 East 79th Street, Bloomington
1701 East 79th Street, Bloomington
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff.
Joyce: There was no need for notification on this to anybody? There was no one within 500 feet
I take it, because I didn't see any.
Generous: It was notified. I just didn't, I forgot to attach that.
Joyce: The only concern I have is looking at some of the residential areas that I know aren't 500
feet away and that's our policy to just, it concerns me that someone's going to look up in the air
one of these days and see that thing and not know why it's up there. I don't know how, I don't
have any direction on that but it's obviously, it's an issue. I mean you know.
Aanenson: You're right. You're right. There's 20 names that were identified. Property owners.
Joyce: Okay.
Conrad: Is it staffs feeling that this is not a visual issue at this location? It was a lot easier
accepting a tower in an industrial area. Now we're in a commercial, residential, very easily seen
from TH 101 and TH 5. Do we have so much pollution, visual pollution there already that the
position is this ain't going to make any difference.
Aanenson: The eastern end of the city was the, was what triggered the whole ordinance
amendment. We knew that area was deficient. Providers have been, have identified this area as
deficient as far as service. That's what kind of forced us to provide a mechanism for a tower
being placed. We felt visually that this was probably the best, as far as aesthetic. We didn't want
it right on the entryway to the City. It's interesting to know, we went back and we were looking
at the high tension power lines that went through the city 10 years ago and there was a lot of
discussion about the visual impacts. The negative side is we kind of lose, after a while we just
get used to that negative pollution, which is kind of bad. We certainly don't want to encourage
them but it's try to look at, but the building in front. Hopefully that would take away, the
professional office building in front. Some of the impacts of it. Setting it back instead of having
it right on the comer ofTH 5 and Dell Road. But certainly it's something we look at every time
it comes in. Is this probably the best location we can get. Especially when we find there's
another one in close proximity that wants to come in, which is the better of the two, even though
one's ahead of the other. ...500 feet, it might be the people that are 1,000 out that might
see.. .more offended by it. But I guess I tie it back to when we went on the tour, we went down
off of Lyman Road. The one that was there. A lot of people forget that that one was. .. Yes, to
answer your question, we do try to look at... You've got to keep in mind that they need to get a
32
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
certain topography elevation in order to make it work, but it is nicer putting it in an industrial
park.
Peterson: Questions of staff? Is the applicant here and do they wish to address the commission?
Michelle Johnson: My name is Michelle Johnson. I represent American Portable Telecom,
which is also referred to as APT. It's located at 1701 East 79th Street, Suite 19, Bloomington,
Minnesota, 55425. Also here with me tonight are Doug Cowan, John Barstow and Duke Winn
representing APT if there are any further questions from our engineers or anything that come up.
I think the staff has prepared a very thorough report. Rather than just duplicating everything I'd
like to comment on a couple of things that were raised here. First the barbed wire. We said we
do intend to build an 8 foot fence but we have no problem eliminating the barbed wire from the
top of that fence so that is no longer an issue. In the planning report there was a statement about
the, a concern that there might be some encroachments onto some city easements. We're willing
to configure the site so that it will not encroach upon any of those easements. As far as moving
the site to about 50 feet away from those trees that were existing, we are willing to work with the
staff on that as well. In our preliminary discussions with the property owner on that, he had
expressed an interest in possibly removing those particular trees and replacing them with
evergreens or something that would be a little more fuller because apparently he's had problems
with those trees having to continuously cut them back in order to prevent them from going onto
his parking lot and destroying that parking lot. So he did profess an interest in that so we might
be able to work out something with staff and I guess I will have something a little more definite
worked out before the City Council meeting on that. As far as the aesthetics point that was
brought up, we do feel that because of the utility poles and the light poles and stuff that go along
those highways there, it actually serves to lessen the visual impact of the tower. It's the vertical
elements, just the series of vertical elements rather than if it was just out in a flat field where it'd
be a lot more noticeable. When there are all of those other things, people tend to get very used to
it very quickly and no longer notice it anymore. I don't have any further comments at this time
but we are open to questions.
Peterson: Questions from commissioners.
Skubic: I have a question regarding co-location. You say that you're at the edge of your range
right now at this location. Now if we co-locate somebody on there who might be 20 feet, the
separation distance is 20 feet I believe it is. Will that further restrict their range and make it more
difficult to co-locate?
Michelle Johnson: Different systems require different heights on the towers. We are, our towers
are capable of holding another system, another co-locator. That's another thing I wanted to
mention that we are willing to provide that letter saying we're open to co-location, and we have
had two companies express a preliminary interest in looking at that site to see if they could
possibly co-locate on that in the future. It doesn't limit, because the systems are different, they
require different heights of their antennas. They require different distances between the towers.
So it really doesn't limit the ability to co-locate as far as other towers. Towers are only capable
of holding a certain number of antenna structurally so it won't hold an infinite number of co-
33
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
locators but depending upon the type of company that comes in, what height they need, we would
be open to allowing them to work with us.
Skubic: Thank you.
Conrad: I guess I don't understand the plan. Is it, visually the previous one was a little bit easier
for me to understand. On this site, in this area that's 35 x 30 feet, we have a tower and then what
else? Maybe Bob you can answer. What is the building?
Generous: It's not a building per se. It's like boxes.
Conrad: Okay. It's still similar to the other one then, that we just approved?
Michelle Johnson: Yes it is. The cabinets are about the size of a vending machine so they're not
in any way considered a building. They're about 3 x 5 x 3.
Conrad: So the 40 meter monopole, that is the pole we're talking about right?
Michelle Johnson: Right.
Conrad: Okay. I get the schematic a little bit better. An arrow was going through what I thought
was a building, not the pole. It runs through the building to the pole. No more questions, thanks.
Peterson: My question is.. .but is in reality, are there going to be any cellular towers even put up
that require buildings? Are the buildings essentially done with the progression of technology as
we see it today?
Michelle Johnson: I can't really speak for other companies. I can only speak for what we're
doing. I know it depends on the technology for how much they need. The technology is
progressing so that smaller and smaller buildings are required. So it's possible that no one will
come in again asking for a big building but I can't guarantee that. It depends on what their
system requires. If there's a cellular company still working. I know one of the ones we were
talking to, they do require a building so.
Generous: The Chairman of, the cellular tower next to this had a building.
Joyce: How quickly after the approval process, how fast do these things go up? Is that a very
quick process?
Michelle Johnson: Maybe for construction I'd better refer to John.
Joyce: You can answer from there.
John Barstow: Yeah, we would. ..immediately after we get approval... We'd have to get a
permit and start construction.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
Joyce: How long, when would it be completed?
John Barstow: A month.
Joyce: It's like a month process then. Two weeks?
John Barstow: .. .dig the foundation. Wait a week for the foundation to carry the stacked
steel.. .so it's about 2-2 Y2 weeks...
Peterson: Other questions? Thank you. Can I have a motion to open it for a public hearing and
a second.
Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing.
Peterson: Anybody that would like to make a presentation, please come forward and state your
name and address please.
Jay Littlejohn: I wouldn't go so far as to characterize this as a presentation. My name is Jay
Littlejohn. I've been before you many times. I represent Air Touch Cellular. We have the other
application that has been filed. It is on the corner property that is directly east of this. The pole
that we need, I don't remember exactly, is it 76 feet or 78?
Generous: 72 and then there's.
Jay Littlejohn: It might be 76 or 75 to the tips of the antennas. The pole's considerably shorter.
We are, we've been in touch with John and everybody else in this company and tried to work, to
see whether it's possible for us to go there but 1 sense some trepidation as to whether this site is a
good location as opposed to ours. There is that option open that perhaps they'd be on our tower
as opposed to us on theirs. I don't know what your position is but mostly I'm here tonight to just
answer questions as it relates to the other application if you're going to be looking at which one
comes first or if it's just a matter of they filed their application first and so we'd be looking at
going on their site. I'll throw that out. You can deal with it as you will.
Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to comment on that if you'd like our.
Peterson: Please.
Aanenson: .. .lot for visual. . .
Jay Littlejohn: That's all I have. Thank you.
Peterson: Anyone else like to make any comments? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the
public hearing and a second?
35
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing.
Peterson: Comments from commissioners. Any comments?
Joyce: Not really. The only reason I asked this fellow how long it would take to build it is I
guess we'll get some feedback real quickly. There's really no other comments. It's certainly not
as desirable a place as the industrial site. So I'm kind of interested in seeing how it goes, how
it's received but I don't have any problems with it.
Peterson: Bob.
Skubic: Looks good without the barbed wire on there. This is, I think a little more visible site
than the previous one. I think we have good landscaping around this fence here. More so than
the previous one.
Peterson: Ladd.
Conrad: I'm kind of uncomfortable. This is not my vision for where these towers were going to
be, and I do agree. I'm not going to, we've got some towers, we've got some utility poles that
are just, it's terrible that we have utility poles, power poles running up and down TH 5 the way
we do but, and I think visually from TH 5 this may fit in but I guess I can't see it and I've got to
say that I didn't go there today to try to figure this out. The other area I felt real comfortable
with. This one I'm just really, it's fitting into neighborhoods. It's fitting into traffic areas and I
can't tell. I guess that's my bottom line. Ijust don't know. I didn't see a landscape plan which
we don't require for this. There was some verbiage about landscaping but it really, Ijust don't, I
just have a real funny feeling that I'm approving something that I really don't know what I'm
approving. And maybe that's my fault folks for not going out and taking a look. I know the site
very well you know. I know the site very well. I've just not gone out there with the express
thought of saying, how does a 130 foot pole fit here and what's the visual impact. So I don't
know. I can't make a real good. I think the staffs comments are right. I think there can't be any
barbed wire. I'm nervous about how finish looking this looks. But on the other hand I don't
know who's going to see it other than the apartment buildings. But if they see it, I want it
looking decent so I don't know. I'm sorry for such bad, not expressing myself better on that but
I'm not real comfortable.
Peterson: Jeff.
JeffFarmakes' microphone was not working and his comments were not picked up on tape.
Peterson: I agree with Ladd. I really want to protect the Highway 5 corridor as much as we
absolutely can but I have a sense that we really can't do anything about it.
Aanenson: Well like I say, we know that this area is the area that we're deficient, even in city
use. If you look at what's there in that area. If you put it on the south side, even on the south
side ofTH 5, you've got residential back up there. You're limited so.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
Joyce: There is no option. You're going to have a pole somewhere.
Aanenson: It's not the best place to put one from the beginning so if you were to take, taking
that position, there's no good place. This is the next best. You've got residential behind all the
areas there.
Peterson: Other that that, I think the comments other commissioners made about landscaping,
and integrating that formally into the conditions... With that, do I have a motion please?
Joyce: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use
Permit #96-6 for a personal communications service wireless telecommunications facility,
including 135 foot monopole tower and associated equipment at 80 West 78th Street for
American Portable Telecom subject to conditions 1 through 7. 7 being a formal landscaping
plan.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Skubic: Consider a friendly amendment to alter number 5 to completely exclude barbed wire
from the fence. Is that necessary staff?
Aanenson: That's fine. I think if you want to just make sure that's clear.
Joyce: I'll certainly accept that.
Skubic: I'll second it.
Peterson: Any discussion?
Joyce moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit #96-6 for a personal communication service (PCS) wireless
telecommunication facility, including a 135 foot monopole tower and associated equipment
at 80 West 78th Street for American Portable Telecom, subject to the following conditions:
1. Filling within the City's drainage easement shall be prohibited. If the site improvements
encroach upon the City's drainage easement, the applicant and property owner shall enter
into an encroachment agreement with the City. The applicant shall escrow $50.00 with the
City for drafting and recording of the agreement.
2. Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation.
3. The applicant shall document that the tower is designed structurally, electrically and in all
respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at
least one additional user. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of
antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
4. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared
use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and
conditions for shared use shall be submitted to the city.
5. Barbed wire at the top of the fence shall not be permitted.
6. Applicant shall move monopole site to the west to reduce tree removal and visibility of
equipment.
7. A formal landscaping plan must be submitted before it goes to City Council.
All voted in favor, except Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
Conrad: And let me just make a note. I think when we, and this goes back to policy here. When
we put something like this that's so visible in a very public area, I need far better materials than I
got tonight. This just does not do it. It just, we're putting, because it's a technical product we're
assuming it's just going to technically fit in and I don't buy that and that's a, I need a landscaping
plan which Kevin's got in there now but Ijust have to see how this fits better. I think we need
better presentation materials when something like this comes in.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: The City Council did approve the site plan for Jay Kronick, the greenhouse with the
addition to the retail space. They also approved the first reading of the wetland ordinance. So
that can go on for second review. .. If I could maybe just take a minute and talk about ongoing
items. Our next regular meeting will be February 19th. To let you know what's on. We're doing
a minor comp plan amendment regarding wetland. When somebody can extend a wetland permit
that's not recorded. Just a minor change on that. We'll be looking at the Legion site as far as a
site plan review. That will be a big item.
Conrad: What's going in?
Aanenson: Restaurant,... bank, strip center.
Conrad: Do you like it?
Aanenson: Yeah. I think it's moving the right direction. Just so you're aware of it. There is
somebody working on trying to put the car dealership on the property right next to it, which is the
Mortenson piece which will probably be in March. At this point staffhas said that they wouldn't
support the recommendation but they're still going to go forward with it so, just so you're aware
of that.
Peterson: Is it the same people but a different?
38
CELLULAR
REALTY
ADVISORS, INC.
1701 E. 79th Street, Suite 19
Bloomington, MN 55425
(612) 858-0000
(612) 854-4105 Fax
18 February 1997
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Conditional Use Permit Application for Proposed Wireless
Telecommunication Facility located at 80 West 78th Street in Chanhassen,
Minnesota
To the Mayor and Members of the Council:
The City Council tabled APT's application to construct a 135 foot monopole
communication tower at the above location to enable APT to examine alternate
sites suggested by the City Council.
For the PCS technology APT is developing, antenna sites are laid out in a grid
pattern. A grid is employed to enable spectral efficiency and provide contiguous
coverage between cell sites. If the sites are too far away from each other, there
will be gaps in the coverage. Conversely, if the sites are too close to each other,
there will be problems of interference, which reduce the quality of service.
The radio frequency engineers and site acquisition specialists work together to
find the most appropriate location for placement of the antennae. Within any
specific search "ring," existing structures are the first sites considered for co-
location. Some structures do not provide sufficient height to obtain the coverage
requirements. Other structures are unable to be leased. When all existing
structures within a designated area have been eliminated as possible sites, APT
attempts to find the most appropriate location to construct a tower to support our
antennae. This process takes into consideration ground elevation, surrounding
land uses, zoning designations, and the willingness of particular landlords to
lease space to us.
We have reassessed the area in question to ensure that no possible sites were
overlooked. The City Council suggested specific sites to APT which we have
examined in detail.
· Eden Prairie Water Tower: This site is located in Hidden Ponds Park on Dell
Road and Twilight Trail. The site was previously the primary candidate for
this area. However, when we approached the city last Spring about locating
antennas on their water towers, they were unwilling to negotiate. Since then,
we have attempted to locate on other water towers within the city of Eden
Prairie but have been rejected by the Public Works Department. This week,
we contacted the city again about the Dell Road Water Tower. The Public
Works Department reiterated their desire to keep antennas off their water
towers.
. Chanhassen Water Tower: This site was also previously considered.
However, due to the terrain, specifically two hills at an elevation of 950 feet,
APT would be unable to provide adequate coverage to portions of Highway 5
from this site. Additionally, this location will not allow for the balancing of
frequencies on established sites west of Chanhassen. It is too far west and
begins to overlap with sites there. At the same time, it leaves a gap in
coverage to the east.
. St. Hubert's Church: John Barstow from APT spoke with Dave Bangaster,
the architect for this church, about the possibility of locating our antennas on
the church, which is currently under construction. It was determined that the
structure could support our antennas but only at a height of 50 feet. This is
too low for our system. Additionally, there is no benefit to APT to construct a
taller tower here because the hilly terrain interrupts signal propagation.
. Redmond Property east of proposed site: It is APT's position that nothing
would be gained by moving our tower to this site. First, although the ground
elevation is slightly higher, the tower would reach the same elevation at either
site. Second, this is a more dense area where we may not be able to locate
sufficient space for our towers and equipment. Also, there is no indication
that we would be able to lease this property. Our lease with Mr. Munson is
already finalized. Finally, APT does not see any significant aesthetic gain to
this site over the proposed site.
Based on the above findings, there is no alternative site in the area which would
meet our needs. For that reason, APT respectfully requests approval of our
application as submitted.
Sincerely,
.m clttUe f4i\~
Michelle Johnson
Zoning Coordinator, Cellular Realty Advisors, Inc. on behalf of APT
858-0090 (work), 854-4105 (fax)
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 135 FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER.
80 WEST 78TH STREET.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mayor, Councilmembers. The applicant, APT is requesting a conditional use
permit for a 135 foot tower. As part of the original proposal and when we presented it to the Planning
Commission they did not have their intent to co-locate and since then they have provided the City with a
letter to that so that's one of the conditions that was originally proposed that's already fallen out.
Actually all of the conditions have been complied with. We've left, we're recommending that two of
them remain in because it's part of the construction review on this... The applicant has agreed to relocate
the site approximately 50 feet to the west. You can see on the overhead picture. This will help
to.. . behind the office building on West 78th Street and also keep it out of the existing vegetation. .. It is a
monopole design. It is per city ordinance. They do have sufficient space for co-location. We have an
application for the property next door for another telecommunication tower at, I believe it's at 76 feet or
at 78 feet. And we have the two companies negotiating right now to see if they can work out a lease
agreement and... The applicant is proposing as part of their landscaping plan...
(There was a tape change during the staff presentatIOn.)
Councilman Berquist: Can this site support a structure?
Mayor Mancino: The soils?
Councilman Senn: Can I help add to your question? Stay out of the easement and leave the wetland
alone.
Bob Generous: The relocation...
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Let's assume for the moment the negotiations fail. With the other user.
Are we talking about. . . this is Chanhassen Office Building here, right?
Bob Generous: Right.
Councilman Berquist: And next door is Lotus. And someone else is looking at that site and now we've
got one proposed for... Now let's assume that they don't come to agreement. At that time it comes to us
and we say, work it out? We have that ability?
Bob Generous: Yes, they have to be reasonable, and that's determined by City Council.
Roger Knutson: Reasonable efforts have to... whether reasonable efforts were made. For example, if
someone wants a million dollars to locate on their tower, it's not reasonable to turn down that...
Councilman Berquist: And yet we're approving this. We're telling these folks that yes, they can go
ahead and put it up and now they're going to be in the cat bird seat, so to speak. In the negotiations with
the other party.
Roger Knutson: Whoever goes first has the advantage. But my experience has been, and I've had some,
is that today this company goes first. Tomorrow they'll be looking to the other company to go on their
48
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
tower. These things are sprouting up all over. And we're seeing a fair amount of cooperation... If
you're unreasonable to me today, I'll be unreasonable to you tomorrow.
Kate Aanenson: Can I make an additional comment on that? In reviewing the application, staff really
felt this was a better site, and if we had a choice between this and the other co-location.. . we felt this was
better as far as what's around it and visibility...
Mayor Mancino: But even though we have residential north of this.. .?
Kate Aanenson: yeah....
Bob Generous: You have the transmission lines in the background so it sort of blends in...
Councilman Senn: Bob, one question that I was just curious on. I didn't see anything here about public
notification like I saw in the other one. Were people notified on this within 500 feet because?
Bob Generous: Yes they were and I just forgot to attach it.
Councilman Senn: So everybody in the apartments and stuff were notified?
Bob Generous: Well the owners. The property owners.
Councilman Berquist: Do you want to continue or can I throw one in?
Councilman Senn: Go ahead. I've got a couple more but go ahead.
Councilman Berquist: In the Planning Commission report they talk about areas of the city where we're
deficient in our coverage and those areas require towers. What other areas are we looking at that are
deficient? Particularly abutting residential areas. Do we know?
Kate Aanenson: No. Right now it's generally Highway 5. That's where the greatest volume of traffic is
right now and people in their cars. We know that the eastern end of the city is.. .public safety.
Councilman Senn: ...because of the high voltage lines. That's why there's a problem.
Mayor Mancino: Because they become transceivers or what?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, they interfere with cellular communication. You drive back and forth
underneath them and you'll just cut in and out all the time.
Councilman Berquist: Plus the cows don't give as much milk. So we don't have any other dead areas
abutting residential areas that, dead zones that are abutting residential areas?
Mayor Mancino: Well they can't put one in abutting residential areas.
Bob Generous: They can put one in a residential area.
Kate Aanenson: Yes they can. On public property.
49
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Mayor Mancino: But not in neighborhood parks.
Councilman Senn: Your issue in here that you raIsed over the drainage and utility easement. Why would
you allow them to go into the drainage and utility easement under any circumstances?
Bob Generous: Just for grading purposes...
Councilman Senn: Okay, so that would be for construction purposes only?
Bob Generous: Yeah, temporary.
Councilman Senn: Temporary?
Bob Generous: But they advised me that they won't, they've relocated it so they don't even go into that.
Councilman Senn: I know Highway 5's a problem but I think this locatIOn sucks.
Councilman Berquist: Well at least it's behind that building.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council?
Michelle Johnson: Hi, my name is Michelle Johnson. I represent American Portable Telecomm, located
at 1701 East 79th Street, Suite 19 in Bloomington and since you've recently enacted an ordinance, I'm
sure you're very familiar WIth the technology and so due to the lateness of the hour I'll cut my
presentation short and just try to address the concerns that have been brought up. I'd like to show, I have
a transparency. This shows the revised site plan that we prepared in response to the suggestions of statf
and of the Planning Commission. As you can see, it shows what was shown by Mr. Generous in the
drawing to the original site plan. That the site has been moved over so it's behind the building. It's been
reconfigured so that it doesn't encroach upon the easement. We are willing to enter into an
encroachment agreement if necessary but we don't believe that that's going to be necessary the way that
it 1S situated now. Also the 8 foot fence, the barbwire has been removed from that. It's just an 8 foot
chain lmk fence and around the perimeter of that would be the service berry bushes that were... And]
understand from a picture standpoint it's hard to imagine what this actually looks like so we've created a
photo montage to kind of show you. Took pictures of the area and then computer added the monopole so
you can see... There's two different view points to show you and I also have a before and after picture of
what it would look like. I don't know how well you can see it from there but, I'll wait until you all have
one.
Councilman Berquist: May I ask you a quick question Michelle?
Michelle Johnson: Sure.
Councilman Berquist: And I don't know what the radius of these things are. I'm certainly not a
technological wizard by any shape of the imagination. I know that not very far from there, probably a
quarter mile as the crow flies, perhaps a third of a mile. There's a water tower in the city of Eden Prairie.
Michelle Johnson: I know that we're locating on at least one tower in the city of Eden Prairie. I'm not
sure which one you're talking about. If that's the one that we're located on.
50
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Councilman Berquist: No, it's actually on Dell, it's right off of Dell Road and Twilight Trail. Is it
Twilight Trail? Yeah. Twilight Trail. East of Dell Road.
Michelle Johnson: As part of our process we do look at all existing structures within generally a half
mile radius of the site. Sometimes ordinances require more. I'm not sure offhand what your ordinance
requires but we do look at existing structures to try to co-locate on those first because it's a lot cheaper
obviously for the company to be able to do that rather than to build it's own tower. And having chosen
this site, although I personally am not familiar with that water tower, I'm sure our engineers did look at
that. As you can see from the picture, it is, I mean obviously it is noticeable. We're not trying to pretend
that this is an invisible tower that no one is going to see. But these both are taken from across Highway 5
looking towards the site and with the existing poles, utility poles here, we believe that helps to limit the
affect, the visual impact ofthis tower. Position behind the building as it is, you can't see the equipment
or the base of the tower or the fence, anything from the road. Also being as it is at the intersection of TH
5 and TH 101, most people won't be looking at the scenery there so that is also a bonus that the people
on the road are supposed to be looking at the road and not looking up in the air. As was mentioned by
your staff, it is an area where it has been recognized that it is deficient from a cellular perspective. We
are a different technology than cellular but obviously we want to provide the best quality service possible
to our customers so we don't want to have any holes. We don't want to lose any holes at all. It's become
a lot more of a concern for residents of Chanhassen as well. If you have been reading the papers recently
and heard about the woman stuck in her car in South Dakota or the snowmobilers who go into the lake
and are able to call for help on their cellular phone. And as cell phones become more popular, as an
emergency situation, we don't want someone to be using our phone. Have a need for it in an emergency
and be located in a hole where they're not able to call for help. So we want to provide the best quality
coverage that we can. The radio frequency engineers have been very technical in locating on their grid
exactly where the towers need to be placed. They look at the topography of the land, the population
density, the expected use levels in a particular area, and as I mentioned before, whenever possible they
look at the location of existing structures that they could co-locate on. So there aren't a lot of structures
in Chanhassen that are tall enough, and that's why we need to build a new tower here. As was mentioned
by Mr. Generous, we are willing to co-locate and we have had extensive discussions with U.S. West New
Vector, which I believe is the other applicant that was across the street, and expect that if our tower is
approved, we will be having that co-locator on our tower soon after that.
Councilman Berquist: Let me ask you another question. We have a church being built in the city of
Chanhassen that's when done will be probably 300 yards off of Highway 5. It's on the south side of
Highway 5 and then it's actually adjacent to, it's right across Highway 5 from what's now our downtown
area. And again, as the crow flies it's not more than 500 or 600 yards. Wouldn't a structure like that be
preferable to, or would it be possible to put the antenna on a structure like that rather than erecting a
pole? I mean ifin fact the position of this thing is being dictated by, number one by height and number
two by what's a dead zone. If something's being built that would accommodate your antenna, would it
not make sense to put it there? You just don't know about it yet.
Michelle Johnson: Right. We're not sure about that. We're not sure how tall the top of the church is
going to be. Whether or not it would structurally be capable of supporting our antennas. Whether or not
the church would be willing to lease us that space. There's a lot of different factors that have to be taken
into consideration. We also have a time factor that we as a business need to consider. That we need to
get our system up and running by spring of '97 in order to comply with our FCC license and so we can't
wait indefinitely. We're not sure about that. We looked at the area. We believe this is the best spot. We
believe that it is not going to cause a substantial detrimental affect on the city in any way. That it's in a
commercial, highway business district. That it blends very well into that. That there are not a lot of
51
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
residents who are going to feel any substantial impact on that, and that we are able to co-locate with
another user to eliminate at least one tower that could be possibly going up in the city. Usually also, in
the church, considering the co-locatIOn aspect, usually ifit's located let's say on the spire of the church,
that can only support one structurally, if it can even support that and so you still have the issue of another
tower coming in.
Councilman Berquist: But during construction at least you have the beauty of trying to design something
that could support it but, okay.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for the applicant at this point? Thank you. Is there anyone here
wishing to make any comments on this, from the audience? Okay. Comments from commissioners. I'm
sorry, Council members. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Well, I guess I don't know. I don't like the location. I don't like it abutting
residential, and I don't know. I guess I've made my feelings well known about what we've already made
that side of town look like and I really hate to add to it at this point.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: I'm basically opposed to towers like this anyway so, and it doesn't sound, that's all
I'll say.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I'd like to see you take two weeks and come back to the next Council meeting. I
know that you've got to be competitive and get this stuff by the spring, according to what you just said. I
thmk there's still plenty of time to do that but I'd like you to come back and let me know why you can't
use that Eden Prairie water tower. It doesn't sound to me, I'm not convmced that that's been fully
explored, number one. And number two, Steve's request to check with St. Hubert's new church or
another church on the south side ofTH 5 to see if you can use their steeple, which I think as someone
said, is another option many people are using. Check those two out first. I'd like to see you do that
before we come to a decision on this. But I agree with these guys, we could do a little better on the north
side of TH 5 just east of our downtown.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well, I mean I appreciate what Mark said. The other aspect of this is that as we
go east on TH 5, the next building is Lotus Lawn and Garden, which is a very small building. It would
stick out, be very noticeable. The next building east of that is Redmond Products, and I know that every
land lease is a negotiated deal but Redmond Products I believe has a higher elevation. Significantly
higher elevation than this building. I believe it abuts the same railroad track. I believe the woodedness
of the area behind it is much denser than the area behind this. And east of that is Automated Building
Product. And that thing has some, that site has some elevation. It may not be able to hide it as well but it
would seem to me, I'm sorry what was your last name?
Michelle Johnson: Johnson.
Councilman Berquist: Miss Johnson. It would seem to me that given the locations that are potentially
available along this corridor, this is the one that sticks out the worst so.
52
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Mayor Mancino: I must admit I agree with the other Council members. As much as we have a new
ordinance, this really adds to the visually clutter here so I would like to see you look at other locations
east of this and come back to us. May I have a motion please.
Councilman Berquist: What do we want to do? Do we want to table for resubmittal or do we want to
deny it?
Roger Knutson: To table would be appropriate.
Councilman Berquist: I move tabling for the applicant to re-examine locations and come back to us.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the Conditional Use Permit and
Site Plan Review for the construction of a 135 foot telecommunications tower at 80 West 78th Street
by American Portable Telecom. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS:
Mayor Mancino: Next item on the agenda is City Council appointments. I would like to have Council
members volunteer for each commission or appointment and then we'll make one motion approving all
appointments. First appointment is for Southwest Metro Transit. May I have a volunteer from a Council
member.
Councilman Engel: I will volunteer for the Southwest Metro Transit Commission.
Mayor Mancino: Second appointment is for the Suburban Transit Authority. Is there a volunteer?
Councilman Senn: What did we talk about that? That we wanted that to be the same or not?
Councilman Mason: Yes, we did.
Councilman Engel: We did?
Councilman Mason: Yes, you said you'd do it.
Councilman Engel: I guess I will stick to my word and volunteer for that as well.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, for Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
Councilman Berquist: Me. Me.
Councilman Senn: With that kind of enthusiasm, I think he should be the alternate too.
Mayor Mancino: Board of Adjustments and Appeals, Steve you'd like to volunteer. I would like to
volunteer to be the second there. Park Task Force.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm already there.
53
< I
(')
z
~ a
0>
s: ;;j
:> CARVER co
'1J HtNN[PIN co
~
I;~I ~
m
~~o
. i!;;~ dDJ
i"
=
@) (d)
(') (') ~
(') CIl CIl :;;; n"''"1 > ::r: I ~
=i =i )(_ ~c~
0 m;:l"@ m ;;;~ 8-'10 ~ )> )>
z ]I~~ E ~:g . :::~ Z
~ ~ ~ ~~ 8 -or ;=g~ z
C/) < ~ ~8 ~ !~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::r: Z 1QJ
c ~~~~ ~ \W m ~~'!l . ~ ~~ c 0 )>0) I
~ ~1D~~O 5 !"' p~.--- en ~ ~ ~ ! s:: (/)0 CD
~~i. ?Z ~ ~~3~1~ :3 ~ ~ ; m ~:E )>
z lS'il~ in m i! 1I!!;l 0 -I en dDJ
f:i r- Z ~ ..~. z
-l -l ~ . M1'l m )>zm en
-l )J ......~(/) 91
m s:: '"'0 -I m
:> 0 oz-...J Z ~
s: <>>zO)
Z ...... -I
0 m::r: 00
'"'0 (/)(/) -.....J
0 0-1 (X) F
r ~ --I m
m
01 I
01
(..) en 91
~
<>> --I m
'1J \: ~ ~ h F
:D ~ @ m
0 ~ !'l ~ e S
c.... l'l ~~ !"'
m ~ ~'" (d)
0 ~ '!l!" ~ C/)
-l ~ ~ C') CD
C/) '!l z a
c ,
~ ~ ~
~ "
z
~ '!l
)> b
:D <:
-< ""<
o
~
Z
Gl
z
c:
~
01
j ~
"'0 -;
e ~
m
(')
-l
Z
"'T1
o
:IJ
s:
~
(5
z
(fl (fl UI
og ~ =l =l
m m
~:E E; s; z
c:
~m 0 ~ ~
!!Iii! f1:l 01
m
iil81 0 ;n
-~~ .. ~ :::
iO!!I
z ~ ~
z
m
~ m
z
> :.,
~
:r
(fl
~ . ..
~
z
~ ~ ~
~ ~
U\ "
~ ~
o 0
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
~
"
~
m
o
-;
z
c:
~
01
m
;n
. . ~ ~ 0
~ N ~
~ ~ ~ ~
.. z i ~ ~
. .. z
~ ~ .. ~ 0
~ !ii ~
E
'2 !"' ~
~ ~ ~
0
i i
i
)>
-C
--I
"
~ ~
:;
> fT1
~ co ,~
, .)
, <:.0 -,
~ ~ ."
~ to
if ......,
"'
~- " co :. )>
~g J: .
1'\ <5 ~ "
. m
<;;... n ~ :D -l
_OD p ~
..,oD r: ~
-,
",. z CD z
~8 0 ~ ~
~ Vi
" ~ ~ ~
0 ..
Xl ~
~ ~
z nl
c
MiJ;;
18
E:
'-
"'
",Vl
~=l
Eif'T'l
-iJ
i~
o.z
I
O.
f'T'I
",z
or
>>
M::O
., Cl
-f'T'I
"0;0
~-o
Ir
0>
Z
~
!:,
ITl
,
\
;
i
I
i
I
I
\
\
j
;
;
i
;
i
I
;
i
1
I-
!
\
~'"
",0.
~!i
ITlO
~1Tl
~
o
ITl
'"
'"
,
"
').
;\
, ,
I \,
I \~
I \'f..
i \~
I ' .
I \~
i \"~
I \~
I \~
I \.
I \..
I ~~~ \.
I ~~~ \
I l5IEl5 \,
I ~!:, \,
1 l{.l!:l '
II;: \
ITl \
1 ~ \
I \
1 \
I
; i
i I
\ 1
i I
i
\ !
, i
I
, 1
i I"'
L....._........._._.._.._................._..................._..__._..... ........._........_....._.._.._..............._.._......._........._._.......l.._..___._._._......___..___._._.._.._~_.._, ....-.-.......-.........- ,_,._,'~.l.
ITl
X
~
Z
o
m
=<
c
I:
Z
o
c
'"
"Q
>
Al
7'0
Z
o
"'1Tl
--<x
c-
g~
OZ
o
~i!
~O
n'"
7'0<3
~~
r=
o
Z
o
mlTl
=i~
f~
-Z
~0
C
'"
~
Al
7'0
Z
o
O"Q
OAl
1:0
"Q"Q
00
C'"
zlTl
00
>
:ll
!
'"
'E
....
~
:I:
~
,
\
\.
'\
"
\
",
'\
"'~
$~
c~
m .
",,,,
ITl
~
n
ITl
m
ITl
Al
Al
-<,
.
o
I:
~
ITl
Al
I:
o
z
o
"Q
o
r-
ITl
>>
--<~
--<1Tl
Oz
"Qz
0>
"'"Q
<3~
IE'"
1Tl0
AlAl
I:
O"Q
:I:Al
!:!6
Zo
r-'"
-1Tl
~o
.., 01.
ITlI
Zo
O.
ITl
:I:
Z'i
:I:
>"Q IX! IE '" 1Tl"Q n
ZAl ~ o OAl
--<0 1 K. ~~ ITl
1Tl"Q 0, ITl m
Zo 0 ~ ~~
Z'" C Al
>1Tl ~ 6 . ITl 6 y,"
"'0 r- zlTl 0
ITl --<0
~> ITl ~ ITl ,.,
m > v
n"Q Al ITl :!l ~
---<
z 6 >
0 0
,.., Al J
'" ~
q
~ TITLE.
~ SITE PLAN & ENLARGED
Z
o PROJECT NO, SITE NAME.
~ 04463230
I:
~ SITE NO.:
~ A1P061
~
FLUOR DANIEL
r1UOf' Doni." !ne.
3333 Wk:h.taon Drive
irvin., CA 92130
(714) 975-2000
DATI:
'-1\-96
Oft... 1'1':
r.f'01llA
OCSGtCD ...:
S.HENRY
CHEMO ....:
APT
I AMERICAN PORTABlE TELECOM I
...--
8410 West Bryn Uowr Avenue
Suit. 1100
Chico9o. Illinois 60631
)>
.....
PLAN
CHANHASSEN - 76TH SI
80 WEST 78TH ST
CHANHASSEN. UINNESOIA
B 1/29/97 REVISED PER CITY COlAlAENTS
A '-IHI ISSUED rOR PROPOSAL
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
KALE:
AS N01(l)
(312) 399-4200
r.. (312) 399-4170
~
(">
ox ~,
~
~ "'" 4:
l rT\ ~,
to
, ")
. ;:
C.:l
tS ,- ~
i !:!3 'n
<I>
< m
" :z
~
~
III
o
c:
-l
:J:
('T'1
r
('T'1
<
)>
-l
~O
I' Z
c;
"U "U " "Tl"U "U )>"U
'" '" '" "'''' '" ...,,, """U """U r
0 0 0 Zo z'" ~'" )>'" )>'"
0 00 Ci
" "U " n" "U _0 Qo Qo :I:
0 0 0 "'0 0 "U z" Z" Z" ....
'" '" '" 0", '" "Uo ,",0 ,",0 ,",0 z
,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ~~ '" '" '" z
0 0 0 0 0 0'" -,., ",,,,
)> ...,0 '0 ",0 ..0 '"'
)> n en, )> ~?U q)> 0
~ "U )> '"
.... ,., I "U ~ ')>
-< !l:-< ~ " 0
"Tl M CD c; -< 0
0 0 '" .. '"' )> )> )>
C c 6 :I: 0 C z
!l: ~ z
z 'U '"' Ci )> -< ....
0 !l: M :I: '" ,., M M
~ !l: 0 Z Z Z
M n 0 z z z
6 z z '" )> )> )>
z .... :I: 0 )> '" '" '"
)> "U j=
Z 0
r r
M
Z
^
Z
o
;;0
-l
:J:
('T'1
r
('T'1
<
)>
-l
~O
I' Z
c;
130'-0"
133'-5"
';;:J TITLE.
~ NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS
Z
'"' PROJECT NO. SITE NAME.
E 04463230
!l:
~ SITE NO..
:9 A1P061
)>
I\)
1'l'f'\TTC'f"I. ('\1/"lQ/O-' It. 1"1.'"
~
FLUOR DANIEL
rluor Daniel, Inc.
3JJJ Ulchel!lon Orl.".
Irvine. CA 92130
(714) 975-2000
B 1/'I'l/91 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
A !-IJ-96 ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CHANHASSEN - 78TH ST
80 WEST 78TH ST
CHANHASSEN, UINNESOTA
co
:!:
> ::>
~ ...,
1 I"Tl
~ OJ
,
c:.:>
~ 'i
i ..
~ ""'" ~
OATE:
9-11-96
ORAWN IN':
r.POl1RA
O(SI(lN[D B'l':
S.HENR'1
CHtCKED 8Y:
APT
I AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM
~--
8410 West Bryn Uowr Avenue
Suite 1 tOO
Chicoqo. Illinois 60631
seALl:
AS NOTED
(J12) 399-4200
Fo, (312) 399-4170
. 1
=E
,."
(J)
-f
,."
r
,."
<
)>
-f
'" 0
o Z
1-
q
,."
)>
(J)
-f
,."
r
,."
<
-; )>
-f
0
'" z
q
1
q
" " " ."" " ,."
:0 :0 :0 1'1:0 :0 Z:o ~;g ~~~ r ~~
0 0 0 Zo Ci
" ~ " 0" 0 00
0 " ,," _0 _00 ~ _0
0 1'10 0 z" z"" Z"
III III III Olll III >~ ,",0 ,",00 Z ,",0
1'1 1'1 1'1 1'1 1'1 III lIllll Z III
0 0 0 0 0 ....1'1 ~M "'MM qM
.,,0 ",0 ~OO '"'
,. ,. 0 ~ ~1O q,. 0
" :!l ,. q,.o :0
.... M 1 " ,.
.... 1::.... " . ~fTl 0 :!l
." 1'1 CD q .... 0
0 0 :0 ~ '"' ,. ,.CD
C c a J: 0 C ,.
!:: z z:o z
z 'ii C> Ci ,. .... r;to ....
0 I:: M J: :0 M 1'1
~ !:: 0 z zC> Z
M 0 0 Z ZM Z
a z z ~ ,. ,. ,.
z .... J: 0 III III III
,. " ;=
z 0
r r
1'1
Z
^
130' -0"
133' -s"
0
s 0
z "T) ~
,
, ,."
~ c:l 00
:1"Tl
)0
c:.:> ,r
,>
-z
~ or
.-:'.
( 'f)
~ If)
1 m
z
)>
W
~ TITLE.
~ EAST & WEST ELEVATIONS
Z
'"' PROJECT NO SITE NAME:
~ 04463230
I::
~ SITE NO.:
~ A1P061
~
FLUOR DANIEL
rluor Oonlel, anc.
3333 Ui(tletlon Ot~
Irvine, CA 512730
(714) 975-2000
OAt[;
'-II-M
.........
f.l'OOllA
OESOCO I'f':
$.H[NRY
CtCCKtO ....:
8410 Welt Bryn Uowr Avenue
Suite 1100
Chico9o. lIIinoi, 60631
(312) 399-4200
ro. (312) 399-4170
APT
I AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM I
..--
CHANHASSEN - 78TH ST
80 WEST 78TH ST
CHANHASSEN. UINNESOTA
B 1/19/91 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
A 9-1J-16 ISSUED roR PROPOSAl
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SCALf:
'5 NOTED
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to open the public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Council on this
issue? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to close the public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Berquist. Comments.
Councilman Berquist: I just made them. No, I have no more. I'll be anxious to hear some other ideas on
the 3rd.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Same. Nothing to add.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: At the pre-Council session we chatted a little bit about how much we want, about
prior discussion to something like this and we essentially had none. With what I've heard just now I see
the need for this. I guess I'll ask you this. I also don't see any harm in continuing this until the 3rd of
March. I mean in terms of you getting applications in and done and this, that and the other thing. Does
that make, what kind of a bind will that put you in?
Kate Aanenson: That's fine.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions from Council members?
Councilman Senn: Nothing additional at this time.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well I think this is a great idea. A good request. Being new on the Council I
would also like to look at different options for the CDBG funding and talk about those at a work session.
But I think this targeted for first time home buyers is very important for Chanhassen to be doing right
now. So with that may I have a motion please.
Councilman Berquist: I move to continue this until our March 3rd Council meeting.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the 1997 Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant Program planning allocation until March 3, 1997.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 135' TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER. 80
WEST 78TH STREET.
Public Present:
8
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Name
Address
Jaymes Littlejohn
Peter Coyle
Mike O'Rourke
John Barstow
Steve Monson
4700 IDS Center, Minneapolis
7900 Xerxes Avenue, Bloomington
1701 79th Street, Bloomington
1701 79th Street, Bloomington
8850 Audubon Road
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Your last meeting on February lOth this item was tabled. As you recall it's
located on Highway 5, behind the Chanhassen Professional Building. The reason why the Council tabled
this item is they wanted additional information regarding possible alternative locations. I'll let the
applicant address that tonight but they're here to present their rationale behind this site preference so I'll
turn it over to them.
Mayor Mancino: Otherwise, excuse me Kate, there is nothing new in the staff report? It is exactly the
same as the one we saw before. There's nothing new in landscaping?
Kate Aanenson: I believe that the conditions that you imposed last time, the concerns that you had have
been addressed and they were addressed at the last meeting so those have been carried forward. The
landscaping and the barb wire and everything else like that.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council?
Peter Coyle: Good evening Madam Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Peter Coyle. I'm an
attorney with the Larkin-Hoffman firm. Here tonight on behalf of American Portable Telecom, the
applicant for a CUP. We have a very brief presentation. We mostly want to respond directly to
questions that were raised at your last meeting where this matter was tabled. Those questions pertain
specifically to the suitability of the location as proposed, both by APT, endorsed by your staff and also
recommended for approval by your Planning Commission after a careful deliberation of the facts
supporting the application. APT has supplemented the record to provide the information that your
ordinance requires. Specifically we provided a letter to staff that documents the evaluation of alternative
locations that pre-existed quite frankly the submittal of the application to the city. With me this evening
are two representatives of APT who can respond to more specific questions about the location that's
proposed. Mike O'Rourke is present as well as John Barstow. I'm going to turn it over to them in just a
minute and let them respond to specifics relating to this site. The final comment though that I would
make regarding the application is your ordinance contains a requirement for co-location and aside from
this tower being proposed, the applicant is willing to commit to the requirement that it be designed for
co-location in hopes that it would provide a spot for a second provider. I'm understanding there is in fact
a second application pending before your City and that there is a reasonably good probability that if this
application is approved, that that vendor would be willing to entertain putting it's antenna facilities on
this tower so it would allow the City to reduce from two sites to one site the number of towers that would
be approved in this general vicinity. With that what I'd like to do is turn it over to John Barstow from
APT and let him present site detail as well as a photo montage that's been prepared to help you get a
better sense of the aesthetic impact of this tower given the location that's proposed. Thank you very
much. I'd be happy to answer any questions of course at this point but Mr. Barstow is able to. . .
Mayor Mancino: I just have one question, excuse me and that is Kate, there is then a second location that
another company is looking at in the area?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
9
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so we have this one and we also have one near Lotus Lawn and Garden?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. The Planning Commission tabled that at their last meeting.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So the Council can decide which site is better? Can look at both sites?
Kate Aanenson: Well we believe since there's two that they should co-locate. That's our objective.
That one has the ability to provide the space for the other. Certainly the other one as it came in did not
provide for a co-location.
Mayor Mancino: But they could be asked to too.
Kate Aanenson: Certainly.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Ijust wanted to clarify that for the Council.
Peter Coyle: Thank you Mayor.
John Barstow: I'm John Barstow. I'm the project manager with American Portable Telecom. I was at
the last meeting when these items were discussed. We had, Councilmembers had asked about some
specific alternatives. We went back and looked at those to make sure that we really had covered the
bases. The first question was concerning the Eden Prairie water tower. We went back and looked at our
records. Had seen that we had tried to negotiate on that water tower almost a year ago. Had made no
progress with the City of Eden Prairie. We re-contacted them to look at their mterest at this point in
time. They have no interest at this point in time in letting anyone on their facilities or any of their other
facilities at this point in time. Whether that will change in the future we really have no way to know.
The second site discussed was the church site. I talked with Mr. Bangasser who is I believe the architect
and who is constructing this site. He has a potential for us to locate at around 150 feet versus the 130
feet that we're looking at. This site would be in the, part of the, they're doing a tower that has a, an
illuminated tower that has a cross on the top of it. We would not be able to go to the full height of their
cross. It is not mechanically designed for that kind of an application. We would be able to go at a lower
level within the site but still it's at a 50 foot level on a piece of ground that's lower than the piece of
ground that we're looking at. It will not give us any coverage at this point in time. It will not cover our
need. We looked at some of the properties just east of our projected site as requested on the contingent
that they would be higher in elevation. Yes, they may be higher in elevation but only about 10 or 15 feet.
I do not know that that will provide any help in this situation. Also the properties in that area we had
looked at last April or May had talked to a number of those properties and they were not willing to
negotiate with us at that point in time.
Mayor Mancino: So a year ago was the last time you contacted them?
John Barstow: No, last Mayor, I think last May. We feel that we still need this site to provide coverage
to the area concerned. We already have sites located at the intersection of 494 and Highway 5, in that
area. There's a Wilson Learning Center. We also have a site located on the Chaska water tower just
down the road. We are looking at, we have a site in Shakopee and we're working to try to locate an
additional site up in Minnetonka. Based on trying to balance our system we need to fill in between the
area between the Chaska water tower and the 494/5 interchange. This has been the ideal location we've
looked at from an area wise and from a coverage pattern. If we were to move any farther west from
where we're located at this point in time, we would run into the Chaska water tower site. They would be
10
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
virtually on top of each other from the signal standpoint and we'd leave a large gap between Chanhassen
and the 494 corridor so we are really trying to cover that area that has no coverage at this point in time.
It's really not very well covered by cellular at this point in time. We would have preferred to have go on
the Eden Prairie water tower but again it is not open to us so we're looking for other alternatives. Do you
have any questions for me at this time?
Mayor Mancino: No we don't, thank you. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I do. Let's see here. Mr. Barstow is it?
John Barstow: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Is there, there's a number of high towers already in the area which are effectively I
assume NSP's or whatever. Those towers are not usable or compatible to putting this stuff on top, since
there is nothing on top of those towers?
John Barstow: Are we talking about the power poles that run along Highway 5?
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
John Bartstow: Those are approximately 90 foot structures. They do not have the strength, physical
strength for us to locate our antenna configuration. Our antenna configuration is up to 9 antennas. It's
quite a wind load and those tower are just not built to take that kind of load. Also we would have to find
a place to put our equipment and having dealt with NSP over the last year, we're not finding that their
rights-of-way, from a legal standpoint, will allow us to locate, the way that their right-of-way system is
done in Minnesota does not really afford us the ability to do that.
Councilman Senn: Okay. That's it for now.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Can you, I'd like to, I'm trying to understand the difference between the City of
Chaska's acquiesce to having a facility on their water tower and the City of Eden Prairie's reluctance to
even talk with you.
John Barstow: I do not know. We have approached them several times. We know that they actually
have someone else's facilities on their water tower. We have been talking with them over the last few
months, not only on, not specifically on this water tower but we had been looking at another water tower
over the past few months and have met with resistance from whoever the planning of their water
department chief is. I don't personally know the person. I've not talked with him. I've had my staff
looking at it. We're quite dumb founded by it in that most of the cities around the metropolitan area are
more than happy to deal with this and locate so that they're on existing towers and since they take our
money to use for public works. So we don't understand it but we're left with it.
Councilman Berquist: Is there a time element involved?
John Barstow: For us to become on line? Yes. We're trying to get in business, as with our other pes
competitor Sprint. Sprint just acquired a tower in your area I believe two weeks ago. We're trying to
build a system out of the same time they are. We're both trying to go on line with brand new systems
here in the next couple of months. We've been pursuing this site since before, with the City, since before
11
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
you redid your ordinances and waited through the ordinance process and went on with the application.
We're at a point where we need to see some results if we're going to get into business competitively-at
this point in time during the next couple of months. So we're reluctant to try to do something different at
this point in time because we have so much time invested in this and any change would make at this point
in time, would cost us another 6 or 8 months. Would cause us to have no coverage in this area.
Councilman Berquist: Nothing further.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilman Engel?
Councilman Engel: Yes, really it's for Don Ashworth. Can you contact the Mayor of Eden Prairie and
find out what the hold-up is on this tower or what's their position on that? It seems to be in a prime
location just north of Highway 5 to be used for this sort of thing. Maybe you can get a little farther with
them than they seem to be getting.
Don Ashworth: I think the obstacle appears to be their street, what is Gene Deitz' title?
Charles Fo1ch: Public Works Director.
Don Ashworth: Public Works Director. And a feeling that if they need to repair that tank in the future,
repaint it or do anything, that they just don't want to deal with the liability of them being on that tower.
That's their position. At least the Public Works Director's position. Kate's shaking her head.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Todd spoke to them today to verify that.
Todd Gerhardt: ...they're still in the process of adopting their antenna ordinance. It's on a future
Council work session. Right now they've been operating without an ordinance and have allowed a
couple to go in but the point.
Mayor Mancino: They're going to need to talk about where and if they want it on their public land that
they own.
Councilman Engel: It would seem like an odd position given the way I see other communities
responding to these towers but I don't want to hold his business hostage to them.
Mayor Mancino: Well no, most communities have taken a moratorium and are developing their own
ordinances. Have been going through this for the last year. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address
the City Council on this issue?
Jay Littlejohn: Yes, good evening. My name is Jay Littlejohn and I've been here before dealing with
your ordinances. I represent Airtouch Cellular and I'm here because we have another site next door, and
first I want to make it clear that we endorse this and we'd like to see that some site be proposed here. I
don't know where to begin with this. I guess I'm a little bit confused and I expressed this in the Planning
Commission meeting before our item was tabled as to why the staff and apparently the Planning
Commission believed that this particular site is better suited. That it's aerial APT site is better suited
than the site at Lotus Lake Garden Center. Some of the reasons why I'm confused about that is the Lotus
Lake site that we proposed is right on the edge of where the lOP district is instead of being farther west
closer to residences like this is. Ours is on slightly higher ground. It's only, it looks like 5 feet. I
haven't had the ground surveyed but it looks like about 5 feet and we are proposing a much shorter
tower. Kate has pointed out, Ms. Aanenson has pointed out on a couple of occasions though, most
12
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
notably the Planning Commission that that aerial needs to go at some elevation. They can't go at the 76
feet that my client can go at. One of the conditions that you had suggested to aerial is that it
accommodate for co-location. I was just looking through my file here because I saw Mike O'Rourke in
the audience and I knew that I had sent him a letter and I found a letter dated January nod where we gave
Mr. O'Rourke our antenna requirements. The height we needed to be at. The size and dimensions of our
antennas and the size of the equipment shelter that we needed and asked that a lease be put forth and we
haven't got a lease yet. What I would like to see done is, since we know that someone needs to have a
tower approved, is that either our tower be approved with the condition that we enter into a lease with
APT, because they definitely need a site in the area. Or that APT be approved with the condition that
they enter into a lease with us. There's no magic about this. We're willing to pay half the cost of the
site. Pay the equal share of cost ifthere's a third person that can go on. Pay an equal share of the cost of
the building and the lease to the underlying tenant and yet we still don't have a lease and that's my
concern is that our site is being tabled based upon the hope that this other site be built and will
accommodate what I see in the future as Mr. Knutson's firm perhaps being retained to enforce the
conditional use permit because we don't have a lease, even the condition for co-location with someone is
put forth. There was a question about location. There may be some other answers for APT to go in other
places. Those answers aren't available to my client though. Our next adjacent site is at Eden Prairie at
about, well do you know where Water Pro is on Highway 5 and West 78th. There's a U.S. West
Communications building there. I wish I could remember the name of the cross street but it's between
here and 494. That's our next closest site to the west. This site is designed to split that area further west
with the site that I think we have in your city on a water tower to the east. Isn't that right? Or do we
have a tower? I'm sorry, to the west. Is it on a water tower?
Mayor Mancino: Is it Chaska?
Councilman Engel: Chaska water tower.
Jay Littlejohn: Oh, okay. So that's why we need to be in this particular location. I don't know if APT
has any options to move. I know that we don't and so it looks to me like there will be a pole there of
some kind. They're 90 foot poles that go right along the road and I have done photo simulations of what
our site would look like but they're not going to be much guide to you in this particular application
because we don't have the pole that's pictured on here is not a 135, 130 foot monopole. It's a 76 foot
monopole.
Mayor Mancino: So Mr. Littlejohn, if you were to co-locate on your pole it would go from 76 feet to
what?
Jay Littlejohn: Whatever height they needed.
Mayor Mancino: And what would you surmise that to be?
Jay Littlejohn: The height that they need?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Jay Littlejohn: What are you at right now? So if they gain 5 feet in elevation, it'd be 125 feet.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So it wouldn't be any different if we were to go on Lotus Lawn and Garden.
13
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Jay Littlejohn: Not remarkably different, no. But you would be right next to the lOP district and further
away from the residences.
Mayor Mancino: Have you looked, have you checked with any of the businesses further east in the lOP
District? Whether it's Lyman. Whether it's Redmond, etc.
Jay Littlejohn: Yes, in fact we had an application, maybe I should put this up. We had an application we
even filed with your City with the fee and everything. Can that zoom in at all or not? Here is the pole
that we proposed to add, but it would be taller than that. This is 76 feet so if you could imagine it.
Mayor Mancino: 135, yeah.
Jay Littlejohn: Another 60% taller I guess. The problem.
Mayor Mancino: Are we about a mile away from that?
Jay Littlejohn: Where we're standing now? No, we're actually standing just about right at the Welcome
to Chanhassen site. Lyman Lumber, we went to Lyman Lumber. They were not interested in leasing to
us. We also went, we had a site picked out and everything at Redmond. We thought we had approval
from the people that had to approve it but Mr. And Mrs. Redmond at the last minute decided that they
would not, didn't want to lease. Apparently there's some problem with clearing snow around the
building or something like that and so they were not interested in. .. I think that actually Bob or John
Rask or somebody even gave me back the application check because we had to withdraw the application
since the landowner decided at the last minute not to do it. Even before it got to the Planning
Commission. This is the proposed landscape plan. Now this is really the most interesting part about thiS
plan is, this is... This is the last high tension transmission standard in the row. After that they cross the
street. Across the street and I actually have a shot from across the street... this would make it more of a
major structure or prominent feature on this property. We disagree with that Just because.. .90 foot
electrical transmission standards. I'm not here though to try to defeat the application pending I just
want to make sure that my client can go somewhere and that's the only reason that I'm here today. And
whether it be this one and they share our costs or the other one and we share their costs, we don't care.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions from Council members for Mr. Littlejohn?
Councilman Berquist: Mr. Littlejohn, did I hear you correctly? Any further east than Automated
Building Components puts you in an overlapping signal area? In other words, the water tower, which
we're going to continue to come back to. The water tower is not an acceptable location for your?
Jay Littlejohn: The water tower, yeah it's not even close. I mean it's just about right on top of an
existing tower that's at that Water Pro location.
Councilman Berquist: Are you sure we're talking about the same tower?
Jay Littlejohn: Maybe not.
Councilman Engel: Are you talking about right up by Dell Road?
Jay Littlejohn: Yeah. Right by Dell, in fact that's the name of the cross street I think is Dell Road.
Councilman Engel: Dell Road. It's just up Dell Road.
14
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Senn: But it's not Water Pro. If you're talking about Water Pro, Water Pro's way down
past County Road 4 in Eden Prairie.
Jay Littlejohn: I need to see a map, you know. I have a few of these files open in my office and I don't
remember the address.
Councilman Senn: I think the tower you're talking about that you're on is the one that's south. I'm
sorry, north ofTH 5 and east ofTH 4.
Jay Littlejohn: That could be.
Councilman Engel: By ballfields up there and the school?
Jay Littlejohn: Right. That's where our present site is.
Councilman Engel: Well that's several miles east of here.
Jay Littlejohn: Oh okay. That's where the next tower is. Is there another tower that's between there
and here?
Councilman Engel: Just on the east edge of town here.
Jay Littlejohn: Oh yeah.
Councilman Senn: Just a few blocks from here.
Jay Littlejohn: Yeah, a few blocks would not work because of the signal configuration. 1 know that what
we did is, we actually started looking at Lyman Lumber as being just about as far east as we could go and
then we went west because we couldn't any further east and have the site still work. I think I might even
have a map in my file that shows it.
Councilman Berquist: How far west could you go?
Jay Littlejohn: We stopped as soon as we found a, we stopped at Redmonds because that was in an lOP
district. Was near a railroad. There were lots of buildings around it. There were the high line poles
there. We stopped there and then they wouldn't let us go there. They changed their minds so then we
went to the next site to the west and then we stopped again. We recognize that the further west we go we
get into residences and we wanted to avoid that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Mike O'Rourke: Good evening. I'm Mike O'Rourke. I'm the Director of Engineering and Operations
for APT. Ijust want to address some of the co-location issues so you understand how those are normally
done in the business. We are, we certainly have approached this that we do want to do a co-location.
We have actually the documents that Mr. Littlejohn was talking about were sent this morning. The actual
lease so there's really no issue in terms of getting a deal done. How these are commonly done, rather
than spreading costs in half because accountants have a real hard time figuring out who owns what when
you split costs of the tower and a site in half. How these are commonly done is a trade scenario. We
allow them on this site and then they allow us on one of their towers in another community and therefore
15
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
mitigating the need for another tower in that community, which is what we all ultimately want. I think it
would just cut down the number of towers that we possibly could do so that is all in the works. There's
no real issue. We have the community that we are planning on trading on is up in Long Lake and they've
got a site there and we are going to go, we're planning on going on that and we're going to make this one
available to Airtouch as well. We do co-locate on lots of water towers, and we have located on those all
over town. I just want to back up to another issue is that we've gone on approximately 80 of them in the
metro area here so that's, we try to use them whenever possible and if we could have gotten the deal done
with Eden Prairie, we certainly would have done that. That was our preferred location as well too. Is
there any other questions I might answer for you?
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: If you guys don't mind I'd just like a little bit of education here. APT needs a
135, 130 foot of elevation. Airtouch is looking at 75 feet of elevation. Can you just explain to me the
signal differences? Why the, why the wide variation in elevations?
Mike 0 'Rourke: Yes, most of that has to do with the number of sites that you ultimately need to
construct is that because Airtouch has been in the business for about 13 years or so and building a
network throughout the cities here, they have quite a few sites in the neighboring vicinity. They don't
need a lot of coverage. Mostly what they're doing, when he talks about a split cell, it's primarily to
enhance the number of calls that can be handled in a specific area rather than an overall coverage
objective. And so there will come a day when we'll probably be back here looking for 75 foot sites
halfway in-between here and Victoria and halfway between here and the Wilson Learning Center
building. Things like that. That's how the networks will grow and they'll eventually, the sites will
eventually grow down. 75 feet is probably about a minimum because of the tree heights In the areas. If
you get down below the tree heights, you're just shooting in the trees and it doesn't do any good.
Councilman Berquist: At that point would you think that the larger towers would be reduced in size?
Mike O'Rourke: Actually that's always a possibility. Oftentimes what happens is we're able to, we
might move our antennas down them and lease the top to somebody else that needs the height. That's
kind of the way it's done. I know that we've, in case we are leasing from one of the other competitors,
AT&T that did move their antennas down on a site. Made the top available to us. We're leasing on that
now so it really has worked good to fully utIlize the site as much as possible but there will come a day
when they can actually remove some of the sections on the tower. I'm not sure exactly when that might
be in this scenario but that's a possibility.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Jay Littlejohn: May I...?
Mayor Mancino: Yes you may. Come up.
Jay Littlejohn: Well, I'm working on my tenth year of doing this and I've never, ever seen a trade on a
site. When we do leasing we lease, based upon what it costs. We're not in the business of making
money from selling sites. We're not in the business of trading sites. While it's true that we like to see
minimum numbers of towers built, what we have here is a situation with two people that have potential
users in this city and we are going to be denied or made to be denied a permit based on co-location and
16
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
all we want to do is lease a site from them. Make that co-location possible. That's why we're asking that
you either table the matter or condition the matter based upon them entering into a lease with us. There
are all sorts of issues that have already been resolved and can be resolved here as to ground space for the
location of our tower. The structural capacity of the tower. All this is in the concept stage. Just bringing
in another site is not something that we endorse. We have not agreed that we would trade this. Trade
any sites out. We haven't even seen a lease that proposes such a trade. It might have been sent out but it
wasn't faxed out. I've been in the office all day. I'm just a bit concerned that this is a situation where
we'll allow you to co-locate eventually. Well meantime our site gets denied and then nobody, there's no
co-location here and I'll be back in front of you saying we still don't have a co-location agreement. So
that's my concern. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Okay Council members. Kate, a couple questions that I have. We're
looking tonight at American Portable Telecom. The other request that was tabled by the Planning
Commission, was that because American Portable Telecom came in first? Was it because Planning staff
thought it was a better site for co-location? Could you review that with us please?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. The Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommended this as a superior
site. Obviously our first objective is to have one tower with co-location. That's the objective. As Mr.
Littlejohn indicated, what was represented was the 78 feet height but obviously if you require the co-
location on that one, his also would be taller. Both homes, both sites have residential behind them
whether it's Eden Prairie or Chanhassen residents. They both have residential. I preferenced the
professional office, the Chan Professional Office Building was that it was behind the building.. . and the
screening and the consistency with the Highway 5. Our real objective is just to have the co-location
requirement but that's our preferred site.
Mayor Mancino: And was it the Planning Commission's recommendation that there be a condition
giving a co-location contract with?
Kate Aanenson: They tabled it to see if this one was approved tonight, then the other application would
be withdrawn. That was what they were waiting to see if this would be approved tonight.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And did that pass the Planning Commission unanimously?
Kate Aanenson: I believe it did. It is scheduled for the next regular Planning Commission meeting.
That's why it's back on the agenda. We're following the 60 day time limit so we're processing it. We're
just trying to see what the action was tonight.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And has city staff at all, have you looked in that area or just east of that area, of
the two sites and have you contacted any businesses to see if they would be willing to rent space?
Kate Aanenson: As Mr. Littlejohn indicated they were, the reason this ordinance came into place, we
didn't proactively say let's bring cellular towers into the city. They came in with an application and we
didn't have the tools to accommodate it so we went through a process to amend the ordinance and we felt
like we had given due consideration to have a good ordinance that protects the city. They did have the
Redmond site and we believed that was the one going forward. As he indicated, that one certainly didn't
work. Then we have this application tonight. It is adjacent to residential. . . All of this is Eden Prairie
residential behind, even as you go farther east on that site. So I guess what we were looking at then, we
came back to the visibility of Highway 5. Yes there is high tension power lines that change but because
we felt like depending on your line of sight, depending on which way you're coming, you're going to
lose them anyway. You can stand in a certain perspective but the height is such, you're still going to see
17
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
either one. We liked it because it was behind the building and you would see less of the front of that.
That was the staffs proposal and the Planning Commission seemed to concur with that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. Comments from Councilmembers. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I don't know. I went out again this week and looked at this. I looked at it from four
different angles. The thing that keeps bothering me about this entire thing is all I keep hearing and all I
keep seeing pictures of is a view somewhere associated with Highway 5. To me there are two residential
areas that are impacted by either of these locations and that is the neighborhood to the northwest ofTH
10 1 and TH 5 as well as the neighborhood directly north. Go stand there and look. I like, I mean ifI had
to pick one of these two sites, I'd definitely pick the one at the nursery simply because you're extending a
line of poles, which you will do with this site. You're going to extend the line of poles. Plus it's further
away from the residential. Now the problem is go look and see what that buys you. Not a whole lot
because it's still very visible in this location and as I, when I got the report on this I kind ofread back
through it and it kept bothering me and kept bothering me. I mean to find findings offact that say that
there is, the proposed tower will be aesthetically compatible with the area. I mean yeah, if you like
looking at a bunch of towers there now and you operate on the premise that one more tower isn't going to
make any difference. But I'm afraid ifI lived in one of those residential areas I certainly wouldn't look
at it that way. You know and to say that the towers wouldn't create conditions detrimental to the persons
or property, you know again from the aesthetics standpoint Ijust, I don't buy that. I think this particular
area, excuse me is junked enough. And maybe that happened over a long period of time and there's not a
whole lot we can do about it but I just have a real hard time adding another tower to it. If push comes to
shove and we had to add one, I would definitely go for the location to the east simply because it's further
away from what at least I would be protecting, which is the residential area, and likewise would not
extend this line of poles further to the west which would happen at the other site.
Mayor Mancino: So when you say area to the east, be a little more specific.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean we have two chOIces here and one is the tower cohabitated behmd the
office building and the other one is a office cohabitated behind the nursery, where the nursery, I would
far select the nursery you know simply because it's further away from the residential areas and also
because it does not extend visually this line of poles further to the west because I believe one gentleman
did say, from that point there now, those towers end and it crosses the highway and goes kind of
southwest. So I mean it's kind of, how would you say, fades out at that point and what you're saying
now is... I have a problem with that so that's my comments.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Well, other people have said this and it's sometimes true. Councilman Senn and I
don't very often agree on things. We happen to agree on this one 100%, which is a scary thought. I
don't know whether that's good for him or bad for me or what, or vice versa.
Mayor Mancino: We'll have to separate you two soon.
Councilman Mason: Well I don't know, maybe not. I don't like the towers at all and I know they're
doing their thing and we have to do our thing. Visual, I think visual pollution is something we as a
society don't deal with anywhere near enough. I don't like them. Having said that.
Mayor Mancino: So what would you like to see? Would you like to see this tabled and see?
18
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Mason: Well if we table it, we're just going to corne back with the same stuff.
Mayor Mancino: Well what I mean is, and please sit down until we're done. See the other location corne
in front of us.
Councilman Mason: Well I certainly agree with Mark's comments about if we had to choose between
the two. I agree with him 100% on that. I would even raise the issue whether we need towers but I know
for a fact their lawyers are going to corne and throw all kinds of things at us if we say we don't and I
don't know if that's, so that's fine. So I'm done.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, did you want to answer that?
Councilman Senn: Ijust had a follow-up question. Roger, I mean effectively given our ordinance and
our standards and stuff, effectively I mean are we stuck with putting the tower in one of these locations,
or in this area? Is that a better question?
Roger Knutson: Based upon our ordinance it would be advisable to try to find an area that would work
that can give them coverage, yes.
Councilman Senn: But an area within this area that we're talking about tonight? Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I'm with these guys. I don't like the look in that area. It's blighted, as Mark's
already indicated. But as a businessman I don't like to stand in your way of running your business
effectively but my first duty, having said that, is to the citizens ofChanhassen and it's not a good area
aesthetically for anybody. It just isn't. When you drive by there, I know it's not great right now. This
just is keeping more junk in the yard I guess, for lack of a better word and I'm not convinced that the City
of Eden Prairie can't be worked with a little better here. Now with that said, if you come back and we've
got no other choice and the City of Eden Prairie has said forget it, we're not going to do anything about
this, I'd probably go for it then but I'm not convinced we have worked with Eden Prairie enough. I'd like
to have a little time for us to work with them ourselves. I think we can make a little headway there.
That's what I've got to say.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm going to ask Mr. O'Rourke a question regarding, and maybe you're not
the best one but since you were purported as the technical wizard I'll ask you. From an operational point
of view, I'm sorry you're with Airtouch?
Mike O'Rourke: No, I'm with APT.
Councilman Berquist: Knowing Airtouch's existing coverage and knowing what your coverage needs
are, and knowing perhaps some of the exploration of sites that's been done. There's a site, and someone
already said further to the west is not a good idea but there is a site further to the west, part of which is
owned by the City ofChanhassen. Part of which is another, I just thought of this. The old Brown's, the
Hanus building. That site.
Mike O'Rourke: By Amoco?
19
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Well up on top of the hill. Behind the cemetery. I mean yeah, there's a
neighborhood behind it. I don't know if it would be more, but it has a lot of elevation. The size of the
tower may be less. I offer that as an idea.
Mike O'Rourke: It's hard to say because I'm not familiar with that particular spot of course but we did
look at our propagation analysis and for every quarter mile that we move west, we do open up a gap on
Highway 5 between here and I'm not sure if you're familiar with where the Wilson Learning Center is.
It's a building that's up on, where 212 and 494. It opens a gap in-between those two and that causes a
real problem for us. We really don't want to go farther west because it actually starts doing overlap
coverage with Victoria.
Councilman Berquist: Even if, I mean we're talking perhaps 400 yards.
Mike O'Rourke: Oh, okay.
Councilman Berquist: 500 yards perhaps.
Mike O'Rourke: That's you know certainly a possibility. Technically that's, that kind of distance. I
thought we were talking a mile or something like that. That's a possibility.
Councilman Berquist: And one other question regarding elevation, you're from APT again, right?
Mike O'Rourke: Yes.
CouncIlman Berquist: You're looking for 130 feet, is that elevation from what you consider, I mean are
you looking at your service area as being the roadway there? Is that sort of. . .
Mike O'Rourke: The roadway and the city. We actually look to.
Councilman Berquist: Is that 130 feet tower height, that's the elevation that you're looking at the current
site. That's the elevation that you're looking at keeping it above the highway. So ifin fact you were able
to achieve that 130 feet but do it with 20 foot or 30 foot more of ground elevation, the tower height
would decrease, is that right?
Mike O'Rourke: That's right. That's nght. It would and the visual impact generally is the same but our
tower height would be less which is fine with us. It's less cost.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Well, to my way oflooking at it the perfect solution of this, in all honesty,
would be for APT to locate on the Eden Prairie water, you can sit down. I don't have any more questions
for you. For the APT to locate on the Eden Prairie water tower if and when Eden Prairie ever allows it to
happen. And then the 75 foot tower at Lotus, that would be one solution. A second solution would be at
a different site. Whether or not it's worth exploring the Hanus building site or the HRA property site,
remains to be seen. Obviously if that site becomes, or is not available or not compatible, a 75 foot tower
is certainly going to be less intrusive on the Lotus Lawn and Garden site. And if there's going to be a 75
foot tower, then I could probably make an argument, why not a 130 foot tower. And I could probably
make an argument as to why not too.
Mike O'Rourke: Could I clarify that too? Either location would be 135 feet.
20
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist: If you were to both locate on it, I understand that. Right. But if you were to
locate on the Eden Prairie water tower, there'd be no need for you to go to 130 feet. You could come in
at 75 feet. Your location, from what I'm understanding, your location along that TH 5 corridor needs to
remain constant. I mean that's set in stone so to speak.
Mike O'Rourke: Basically.
Councilman Berquist: Within you know, certain parameters.
Mike O'Rourke: Right.
Councilman Berquist: Theirs on the other hand, given the height, it can be a little bit more maybe set
back from the road and therefore the water tower, anyway.
Mike O'Rourke: Right. But the situation there is that Eden Prairie does not allow to do that.
Councilman Berquist: At the present time they're not willing to talk.
Mike O'Rourke: Right.
Councilman Berquist: We don't know if they're unwilling to do it.
Councilman Engel: We've got to get them to talk about it first.
Jay Littlejohn: .. .Eden Prairie on their water towers so they do it.
Councilman Engel: That's what I'm saying. That's what's frustrating me about this. I'm out of turn
here.
Councilman Berquist: I'd like, somehow or another I'd like to be able to facilitate a conversation
between the gentleman, or person that makes the decisions at Eden Prairie and you folks. I don't know if
we began that process today or not.
Mayor Mancino: And that may be a motion.
Councilman Berquist: Pardon me?
Mayor Mancino: And that may be a motion that you have.
Councilman Berquist: And that may be a motion that I have. That's the extent of my comments for now.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Mr. Coyle you had something that you wanted to say. You want to let that
pass, okay. Kate, did you have Councilman Berquist's suggestion oflocating that on the Hanus building,
do you have any reaction to that as far as that site?
Kate Aanenson: Highway 5 corridor study, that was an area we certainly looked at enhancing and kind
of making a park facility. I mean there's other properties that the city owns next to Lotus Park there
where there is a city well site. We looked at that again and the close proximity, there's homes right there.
I mean you're actually even closer to homes, as far as the city leasing that. And so aesthetically you're
pushing it closer to Highway 5 with nothing else screening it there so we felt keeping it in the lOP district
21
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
10 this circumstance was better. We did consider that and we considered putting it on the bridge.
.. .options right there with the visibility but we thought aesthetically that wouldn't be the best choice.
. . . because we believe that the bridge really and the landscaping on the other side is your entrance
statement to the city and I guess we felt like putting the tower right there... best statement.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well let me give a few of my comments and that would be, my suggestion for
this, hearing Council, different Council members, would be to table this and have Airtouch come in and
make a presentation to their site plan to the Council and at the same time the City Manager and I would
make a call to Eden Prairie and talk to their officials there and see if we can get somewhere with their
water tower. Placing it there. And we may not be able to. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Are we okay on a time line tabling this?
Kate Aanenson: Yes we are. What we'd do is on March 3rd it'd be before the Planning Commission so
we'd bring the other one back so you'd have both before you on the loth.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I think that sounds like a good idea but I think at the same time the discussion with
Eden Prairie should really be pushed. I mean I don't like the situation that's being created, especially
when there's a water tower there that can service the needs without more towers in the area. And if Eden
Prairie's attitude is they'd rather have it in Chanhassen, then I'll tell you what, I think we should put it on
the south of the industrial that is on the south side of Highway 5 there which will make It vIsual to all the
Eden Prairie neighborhoods rather than the Chanhassen neighborhoods and it will probably give them
Just as good a location.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Excuse me. Mr. Gerhardt.
Todd Gerhardt: I just want to make it clear that that was not Eden PraIrie's comments. That they were
pushing this onto Chanhassen. I'd hate to see this get 10 the paper and start a feud over thIS.
Councilman Engel: Oh, don't print that. Don't print that.
Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please?
Councilman Berquist: I move to table.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to table the request from American
Portable Telecom for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for the construction of a 135
foot telecommunications tower at 80 West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
UPDA TE ON U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CARRIER ANNEX (VERBAL).
Mayor Mancino: Roger, a verbal update please.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the Council. As I believe everyone on the Council knows, you
received the noise assessment study prepared by David Braslau Associates for the post office. We
received that last week. I believe at least you have a copy of it. Weare now in the process of arranging a
22