Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CAS-03_CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
0 0 The contents of this file have been scanned. Do not add anything to it unless it has been scanned. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for: Commercial communication transmission tower to support cellular telephone service. 2. Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: See attached Exhibit A. 3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff will approve the aesthetic design of the tower and building and the building should be consistent with other recently constructed telephone and public utility buildings in the area. 2. Staff will approve and document the tower shape and structure and that it's construction will follow that approval. 3. No other radio uses shall be approved without an addendum to the conditional use permit #90-3 which will come in before the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Landscaping shall be installed as part of the approved landscaping plan. A letter of credit guaranteeing improvements will be required before building permits are issued. 5. No lights or signage be placed on the tower or elsewhere on the site. 6: The tower shall be painted a flat color so that it blends in with the background. 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following circumstances: material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located and/or violation of the terms of this permit. 5. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Date: September 10, 1990 SCANNED 0 Mr. John Uban September 11, 1990 Page 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS COUNTY OF CARVER ) Il CITY OF CHANHASSEN By: City Clerk The oregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �2 %� day of , 19L, by Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor and Don Ashworth, City Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Drafted by: City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)937-1900 VfA REN d ENCE_unn7T FY CU9V0 - �.. ',TA CAF`✓Ll C wmn Won ex;, EXHIBIT A That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 116, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Carver County, Minnesota, which lies southwesterly of a line drawn parallel to and distant 380 feet northeasterly of the centerline of County Road No. 18, as measured at right angles, and which lies southeasterly of a line drawn parallel to and distant 395 feet northwesterly of the centerline of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, as measured at right angles. Except that part taken for County Road No. 18. Except that part taken for the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CARVV/EElR Filing Fee �/ V This is to certify that this docu ent t�yy�o�ffice he�day oS�19ZLLA. Dat—Lf—o'clock LC[[1 M. and was duly recorded as document no. 118396 HANS N JR. ry o .r by: 3 T A T TT /1T IXMT CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 6123393300 MEMORANDUM DATE: S April 1991 TO: Paul Krause, City Planner FROM: Edw. Hasek, A.S.L.A. RE: U.S.West Cell Site Landscaping RECEIVED APR 10 7991 CITY (ir- ���EN Enclosed is a graphic which depicts the existing landscape materials which where insta;led as of our site inspection of May 5 1991. these materials where machine moved and placed by the land owner. They are as follows; 3 - ash (A) 2" MM 6 - buckthorn (B) 3" MM 2 - cherry (C) 3" MM 1 - elm (E) 2" MM 14- maple (M) 2-3" MM 6 - oak (0) 2" MM 1 - pine (P) 6' MM TOTAL 33 plants Due to the siting of the building, this amount and diversity of martials NI -ill effectively accomplish most of the intent of the approved landscape plan. The one area which may still need to be addressed would be the parking area to the west of the structure. I would suggest that the 7 vibumums shown on the plan would serve to effectively complete the screening of part of the site and provide the city and the area with a well landscaped cellular communication facility. If i can be of further assistance please call me at 339-3300 at your earliest convenience. $CA""" 40 ,o • -rDWER 0 11.50 0G l MEMORANDUM i i ?O 3 CITY O F OU- CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 0 FAX (612) 937-5739 TO: Planning Commission and City Council FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: March 12, 1991 SUBJ: Proposed Weather Service Facility on Audubon Road As most of you are aware, staff has been speaking to the National Weather Service about relocating their Twin Cities facility to Chanhassen. This would be the region's main forecasting facility and would house up to 60 professionals. The 10 acre site would house a 15,000 square foot brick office building and weather radar with the balance of the site in green space. The 130 foot high weather radar raises visual and safety concerns but plans are being developed to address these issues. Staff has also worked with the agency to make sure that it is developed as a taxable use. We have advised the Weather Service that extensive meetings with area residents will be required. The attached article from the March 11, 1991, Star Tribune, describes the facility. Please contact me if you want additional information. V Vl. Y, 1JJUC L4 Thursday, March 18, 1991 P.O, Box 99, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanha \1i I , A /�(� U.S. POSTAGE I `�I' YU PAID IV/� S.W. SUBURBAN PUBLISHING CO. 41110 e7ffl a e r Weather service may build forecast center in Chanhassen By David Pedersen "The temperature in Chanhauen at the top of the hoar is... " Ther may be the new b=. cast on the'Iwdn goes TV and radio weather reports if the National Weather Servim.(NWS) goes ahead with its PPlana to nanous its Weather Forecast Odea from the ImematiorW Al%to Chanhassen. The NWS is investigating a 10. acre site in Chanhassen on Audubon Road, about a mile south of Hwy. 5, for a we"Iter'forecasting facility that will be one of the lotest in the na- tion. Of the 113 new kember I= - count Offices a"ost the country, the local office would be second only to the National Hurricane Center in size. Chanhassen was chosen for two masons, according to Jim Campbell, chief meteorologist for the local weather service office. First, the lo- cation fits Into the system of radars being located throughout the Upper Midwest, including sites near Sioux Falls (S.D.), LaCrosse (Wis.), Fargo (N.D.) and Duluth. The NWS is commencing a S3 - billion modernization and reswctur. ing profam that is expected to m- e the capability , it and predimiog weather patterns, The current "Doppler" techoology would be replaced in the next decade by systems that could possibly predict a tornado 30 minutes in advance. Second, the Chanhassen site will provide better forecasting for the Twin Cities metro arca, slom most storms come out of the with and west. Campbell said that the current radar systm at the airport was built The site of the weather service of. fice would be on Audubon Road, south of Hwy. 5. in 1957. "It's old, but still reliable." But the new technology, called Nexrad, gives forecasters the capa. bility to book farther "inside" than. derstorms, "to help us get warnings out sooner for tornadoes and severe thunderstorms." Staff from three different NWS organizations would share the facil- ity: the Weather Forecast Office, the North Central River Forecast Center (fieod forecasting), and the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center (mow -pack mcona. ing). Approximately 60 white-collar employees with scientific back - Chgrounds would be stationed at the anhassen office, bringing an esti- mated $2.7 million in salutes to the area. Twenty-five of the employees would be from the weather service; another 18 would be with the flood forecasting office; and the rest from the mow -pack measuring office. The entire complex would be 15,000 square feet, including a one- story office building, a nearby two- story weather balloon -release facil- ity, and a radar tower of optimal. matel/yy 120 feet. Weather balloons — about 10 feet indiameter—would be micued swim a day, carrying equipment that measures air temperatures, baromet- ric ppressure, and wind speeds. Much of die area around the buildings would be green spam, since the balloons require a 300-foo1 radius to be launched. The radar tower is reported to be of lower pow" than cellular phone towers. City officials are tempering their discussion of the proposal writ a more comprehensive plan for that arse a The property, owned by Re Gd rams, is zoned agricultural, but is guided fm future light indua- trial businesses. Planning Director Paul Krauss said that no public hearings have been scheduled yet, and that they would be prcmded by neighborhood meetings. Residential developments are located to the south, east and west, but Krauss noted that with the city's new"buffer rune" requirements, the facility would not be Wlthhn clone vicinity to the homes. Construction would likely begin next year, with completion possibly in 1993. Although the facility would be on land owned by the federal govern. ment, Krauss expects that it would be taxable property. A private devel- oppeer would probably build the cum- ple . then lease it to the government. I was initially 'down' on the the proposal," said Krauss, "but I was =pressed with the quality of it. We want to promote an wage that this is A community with high-tech indus- tries. We believe we're on the cutting edge of a lot of things here." "Ips kind of like having aweather office in the t,edryarq•'said Camobeg, who added that the [acihty would be an attraction for school classes and other interested groups. Legislators are debating teen work curfew By Elizabeth white • Weather help is on the way New satellite system will outperform star Doppler radar by decade's end By Jim Dawson Staff Writer Every spring and summer, the whine of marning sirens becomes a pan of life in Minnesota as weather watchers warn people of the 20 tornadoes, 250 thunderstorms and the few flash floods that typically hit the state. Weather radars and ground spotters watch the thunderheads build on the horizon, while satellites 24,000 miles in the sky keep track of larger weath- er patterns. National Weather Ser- vice meteorologists watch their ra- darscopes closely, trying to make pre- dictions in one of the most unpre- dictable of sciences. They take phone calls from people standing on rooftops, and check the satellite images. It's both high-tech and low-tech, a complicated network designed to warn of bad things about to happen. And they do happen. In the Urlited States last year there were 10,000 severe thunderstorms, 5,000 serious floods and 1,000 tornadoes — more natural disasters than in any other country on Earth. Yet much of the warning system is based on technology that grew out of World War Il, anchored solidly in an era of vacuum -tube electronics. The computers are antiquated, and even the weather satellite system that pro- vides the broad overview seen on TV news shows each day is in trouble. "If we're lucky, we can give you a couple of minutes' warning of a tornado now. How would you like 30 minutes' warning? We think (with the new system) we can do that." Gray Castle Deputy undersecretary for oceans and atmospherics One of the two orbiting weather sat- ellites for the United States broke several years ago, and the last at- tempt to put a new one in orbit was aboard the ill-fated final flight of the Challenger space shuttle in 1986. The solution is coming: a $3 billion overhaul of the National Weather Service network that will put five satellites in orbit, build 115 Doppler weather radars and install 1,700 automated observations sites. All of the information gathered by these systems will be tied together into a comprehensible form by a computer- ized system that will present forecast- ers with sharp, clear images of the atmosphere. "It gives the forecasters a power well beyond what they have today," said Gray Castle, deputy undersecretary for oceans and atmospherics at the Department of Commerce. Castle, speaking Friday at a meeting of emfrgency workers in Minneapo- lis, said the installation of the system will begin over the next several years and be completed by the end of the decade. "If we're lucky, we can give you a couple of minutes' warning of a tor- nado now," he said. "How would you like 30 minutes' warning? We think (with the new system) we can do that." The five satellites account for SI bil- lion of the modernization, Castle said, and the new radars and auto- mated weather stations will use a large chunk of the rest of the money. The radars, known as Nexrads, are Doppler systems that are more pow- erful than the Doppler radars now used by some local TV stations. Doppler radars can look inside of a thunderstorm and, because of the stretching and compressing of its ra- dar waves, determine if rain is begin- Weao�er continued on page 2B Weather Continued from page la i Hing to rotate — a strong indication that a tornado is forming. When the system is in place, Castle said, "When we tell you on Friday that it will be sunny on Sunday, you can believe it, with 90 to 95 percent reliability." But longer -range forecasts, those looking up to 90 days into the future, won't get better, he warned. Due to the sheer size and chaotic nature of the atmosphere, few scientists believe that truly accurate long-range fore- casting will ever be possible. Jim Campbell, head of the Twin Cit- ies National. Weather Service office, said he hopes to move his facilities from Minneapolis -St. Paul Interna- tional Airport to a 10 -acre site near Chanhassen in 1993. The new radar, costing about S2 million, will be installed then, he said, and will be free of the "ground clutter" caused by operating so close to downtown Min- neapolis and St. Paul. An identical radar system also will be installed in Duluth, he said, and will cover northern regions of Minnesota and Wisconsin. �1 L_i MEMORANDUM CITY OF qo-i1 w4 1 yo -s .,p CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 TO: Mayor and City Council Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director. DATE: March 7, 1991 SUBJ: Antenna Tower Attached please find correspondence from the Federal Aviation Administration advising us that the tower height of the cellular antenna was lowered from 185 ft. to 130 ft. above ground. It is now equal to the height of the radar antenna proposed for the potential weather station on Audubon Road. SCANNED rIN- ,� srn5 A /Guy' �v GREAT LAKES REGION USDeportmeri 2300 East Devon Avenue INREPL,REFER TO ofTronsporfotIor Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 AERONAUTICAL STUDY Federal Aviation NO. 90-AGL-1633-OE Administrotion TE VIINATION OF AERONAUTICAL STUDYOTTRZP - ED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION a I Minneapolis SMSA Limited Partnership H I Attn: Tim Wong 0 3350 161st Avenue SE y Bellevue, WA 98008 CONSTRUCTIONDN PROPOSED Antenna Tower (869-894 MHz, erp 500 Watts) CONSTRUCTION LOCATION PLACE NAME Chanhassen, MN LATITUDE I LONGITUDE 44050'56" 93034'52" mEIG"' 'N FEET .80vEGROUND ASO.E MSL 165 1125 Subsequent to the end of the circularization period, the sponsor; in negotiation with the FAA, expressed his interest in aviation safety by reducing the height of the proposed structure from 165' AGL/1125' AMSL TO 130'AGL/1090' AMSL. This 15' reduction eliminated the Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) effect at Flying Cloud Airport. Therefore, this case is terminated. ouglas F Powers _ Manager, System Management Branch, AGL-530 E Gti ESL Des Plaines, Illinois February 27, 1991 AIRPORT MANAGERS - PLEASE POST COMMENTS INVITED FAAForm7460.6 A -aa ,_ _-:,__===E. . Robert J. Davis. AIA Arcititeco 612.925.5529 Mobile Phone 723-8590 FAX 920-6440 Home 927-4986 4010 - W. 65th St. Suite 217 • Edina, MN • 55433 TO (2/7-Y of l if/�h/ASS �J Lo9L7 �Ou[.TE'� �.P DX IZ117 �h`//n�rrr15acU M&) 5531r 1=74(D 17 7M nIR S90 077RIL ..,C .o. It (.S. WE, T- \ao bkoukr, WE ARE SENDING YOU IM Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ® Prints ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES OAT[ NO. O[SCAIITION 9 /`5 �-S ,QEuM/nJHR irE �J AZELTINE� I cJ lO 9p l LAnJDSC/7P� ACJ l l -Harp OF U S. WES-r Kk—uj Ucc-cam `t z -��c'ELIMINH2 �OPOSET> �LAh15 Q put USc LE7�� OF Cr26-rj rr COQ LiINDS cAPriJ (� l f�0�-u�uJ THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval U1 For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS O Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Returncorrected prints 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US CCP`! TO �� O� I%-`� �� xC �� `� " SCANNED 0 0 0 CITIPOF September 11, 1990 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Mr. John Uban Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban 300 First Avenue No., Suite 210 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Re: Minneapolis SMSA Limited Partnership for U.S. West NewVector, Inc. Dear Mr. Uban: This letter is to confirm that on September 10, 1990, the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit #90-3 for a cellular transmission tower for SMSA Limited subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff will approve the aesthetic design of the tower and building and the building should be consistent with other recently constructed telephone and public utility buildings in the area. 2. Staff will approve and document the tower shape and structure and that it's construction will follow that approval. 3. No other radio uses shall be approved without an addendum to the conditional use permit #90-3 which will come in before the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Landscaping shall be installed as part of the approved landscaping plan. A letter of credit guaranteeing improvements will be required before building permits are issued. 5. No lights or signage be placed on the tower or elsewhere on the site. 6. The tower shall be painted a flat color so that it blends in with the background. SCANNED 9 0 Mr. John Uban September 11, 1990 Page 2 The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title should be submitted to the Planning Department in order for the conditional use permit to be filed with Carver County. The conditional use permit is not valid until it is filed with the County. Plans of the tower and building should be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to receiving a building permit. Also, a letter of credit for landscaping improvements should be submitted for staff approval. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. SirAcere/ly, LU�f 612 L_ /J Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning PK -x cc: Building Department .City Council Meeting-0ptember 10, 1990 0 aware, we're all aware of the fact that we're attempting to move Mary Mervyn's over to a new structure. We have no intention of going out and trying to put out of business an existing businessman so to the extent that we can monitor things and ensure that we can help him move over to a new facility. Not have the outside storage or at least the type of problem that exists right now, fine. The necessity to immediately go out and start issuing citations in that Particular instance. He's been there for a long time doing what he's doing. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Johnson: But we don't want to see it increased any. It seems like in the last year it's really increased. Paul Krauss: I spoke to Kent Ludford and he indicated that over the last couple of months there's more equipment out there than there was formerly because of the construction activity in front of the store. Some of the stuff that I believe he had on the sidewalk or in a graveled area has been displaced. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I think we can handle that next time too. Thank you. CUNUITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CELLULAR TELEPHONE FACILITY (TOWER AND EQUIPMENT /,)A BUILDING) TO BE LOCATED JUST EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND THE CHICAGO MILWAUKEE. ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD MINNEAPOLIS 01UP SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Paul Krauss: The applicants are coming before you to get conditional permit approval to build a cellular telephone antenna over on the Volk property which is near the intersection of the railway tracks and CR 18. The antenna itself it used for cellular telephone transmissions. There's a lot of background information Provided in the staff report by the applicant indicating how the system works. I've had some experience working with these things before and have concluded on my own that they are, or appear to be what's represented which is relatively benign. Very low powered structures. They also have a fairly good ability to withstand storms. The question for staff in reviewing this before the Planning Commission was whether or not this was an appropriate use. we became concerned that the area being proposed for this tower is designated as future residential on the draft land use plan. Of course now that draft land use plan has not yet been approved but that is the determination at this point and since it's been this way for quite some time, we didn't feel it was likely to be changed. We did not feel the tower was terribly appropriate given a future land uses of residential. We did concede however that if one had to pick a site for a tower, that this is not altogether a bad one. It's relatively secluded. It's up against a railway tracks. It's fairly far removed from virtually all residential properties and it's been our experience that when you view these things on the great expanse of the horizon, they tend to visually disappear. They're relatively skinny. The height is significant but there's not much on them. They're not lighted. They don't have to paint them red and white or anything else. They're not tall enough to require that. We took this before the Planning Commission in August and the Planning Commission essentially disagreed with the staff's position. They concluded that yes, they have been working on a comprehensive plan for quite some time but two things. That the ordinance does not state that you cannot, what the ordinance states right now is 57 City Council meeting - :ember 10, 1990 • that towers are a permitted conditional use in agriculturally zoned property. It doesn't say anything about potentially guided something else in the future and they indicated that in fact that isn't even the case. That it's not potentially guided until that plan's adopted. They looked at this site and believe it was an acceptable one based on the various impacts or potential for impacts that were cited and they recommended on not quite a unanimous vote, almost, that it be approved. We are passing forward their recommendation for approval. We added some conditions. The Planning Commission in reviewing this tried to develop conditions with staff that evening. We would like to provide an additional condition though and in reviewing this we realize that there was always an implication that they would be subdividing off property, a parcel to surround the tower and in fact we have a survey of how that might be done but there has been no plat application for that and we think that it needs to be Platted to subdivide it off. It's probably also going to take a variance because it's in the agricultural district and only going to be a 3 acre lot. Or 4 acre lot. They have to enlarge it somewhat now because the tower's a little taller than it was originally proposed to be but since the only use on this thing would be for non-residential type of structure and the 1 per 10 ratio only applies or is supposed to apply to residential structures, we'll have to read the language but it may take a variance to do that. So with that we are passing forward the Planning Commission's recommendations with that one additional condition pertaining to platting. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Paul. John Uban: my name is John Uban. I'm here to represent U.S. West. I'm a consulting planner with the firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. We've been working on this property for some time and with me tonight is Dave Hellerman, who's the engineer with U.S. West that can answer any technical questions you might have and also merle Volk that is the land owner and he is here and can answer any questions you might have. In talking about the platting, it is our intent to lease the property and so in that case we are not anticipating a Platting off of a separate lot. I have put together just a quick response to the various conditions that the Planning Commission asked and part of the approval and we agree with every one of them. This is just to confirm that agreement. The primary issues that we wanted to confirm was basically that we would be building a building that conformed with other buildings the city had Put together. In other words, it will be brick. It will hav some lime stone trimming. It will have a gabeled roof and will be then compatible with all the aesthetics of the other structures that the city has produced. It will be landscaped quite nicely and what I'd like to do is answer any questions you have. I know that this has been looked at very thoroughly at the Planning Commissio level but you may have some very specific questions. We have located it in such a fashion that it follows within the search area. I have slides here if you would like to see them that shows the process of finding a site. Why the sites work together. Cellular phone systems are unique in how they locate antennaes because they are based on a grid system rather than just a single tower that broadcasts over a very large area. They're very low powered. They're really intended to provide use to all citizens and that way they are licensed and meet very specific criteria and only two companies can operate in any one area. So there's some concerns with how it operates. It has to fulfill it's license requirements of serving all the people in that area and that's why we're here. To locate another antenna. To add capacity so more people can use 58 City Council Meeting-•ptember 10, 1990 . it. To make the system work better so you get better reception and so that the whole system is completed. Cellular'phones are changing. Many more people are going to what is called a hand held. A small pocket telephone. They actually pull out. Although many people have units in their cars. The small ones have very low wattage so they don't have much power and this antenna will help create a better pattern of coverage for those types of phones. And we are also interested and why we're here today is that we would like to get the tower erected and operational by the spring of 1991 which happens to be the time the U.S. Open is happening at Hazeltine. We just want the very best service we can Possibly give at that point. There are going to be a lot of people fully communicating out on that golf course. You can imagine 100 of these phones running around and everyone talking to each other and so we really want to make it something that people don't complain about on television and so forth. U.S. West is out there to make the best name possible for the community and themselves of course. And that is one of the things that has brought us here at this point to ask for your approval. I have a picture of the site. first the location. I don't know if this is the best way for you to see this. Maybe should I bring it closer? Mayor Chmiel: No, it's fine. Councilman Johnson: We've got a stand usually. ...So our cable viewers can see this. John Uban: This is the general area in which it's located. And part of the area is Chaska with a great deal of industrial development in the area to the west. The area all around at this point is agricultural. There's a railroad tracks of course that runs through and here's the basic site. There's a long row of trees. What we wanted to do is locate the tower right on the edge of the trees so it would tend to blend in and become a little more obscure. Also it's right at this intersection of the railroad tracks and the CR 18. It's quite busy. There are trains through there and trucks and it really isn't appropriate we think for residential. So this is a good buffer so that Mr. Volk who owns all these woods and pasture through here, in the future will develop this as single family and he feels comfortable and actually wants to have a buffer of a quiet use in this corner. In looking at all the criteria the City has, the ordinance, we feel it's an appropriate use. We've met all the conditions so we're here asking for your approval tonight. If you have any questions, we're here to answer them. Mayor Chmiel: John, I have just a first question that always keeps coming into mind. Being that the U.S. Open is coming to Chaska, this is going to provide a better kind of communication for the use of those phones. Why don't you locate it closer to Chaska? I know you're saying that because the United Telephone in that particular area. The other question that I ask is, that there's nothing that really governs either or as far as a public utility commission or anyone else so why can't that specific tower be located more in that direction where you have more concerns? John Uban: Perhaps some of the slide show might help answer that but maybe I can try quickly to see if that will suffice. Number one, we can't just move these towers around anywhere. We have looked throughout the area. 59 City Council Meeting - ; ember 10, 1990 . Mayor Chmiel: What's the radius that you have to go to? John Uban: The radius that we were working on was about a quarter of a mile and this was just about in the center. And in that radius, which is on the, it's more fully developed in the handout that we gave you. This locates the site within the center of a cell and the cell then is matched together. We have a site in Shakopee. There's another site in Eden Prairie so these cells match in. It's like a honey comb system where the center is quite precise. This is not just to meet the needs of the U.S. Open. That is just why it came before us at this particular time. We want to make sure that we do have good coverage at that particular time next year. But this is to serve traffic on TH S. We want it to be in place so that it's equally spaced or almost equally spaced to new 212 that will come through in the future. It can't be too close to Eden Prairie or too close to Shakopee because then you start getting interference. You want them evenly spaced. When you look at all the criteria, you look at the elevations. They do computer runs looking at the coverage and how it operates, this turned out to be the best place to locate it. Obviously we can move it somewhere else but we really get hindered in the kind of coverage we can produce and we might have to do other towers instead and it really is not efficient. It really won't meet the needs of the community or U.S. West to try and move this out of the search area. This really is the best place for that. U.S. West, why can't you do it somewhere else? For the Open itself, obviously being closer to it would help but this really has to be here for another 20 years plus. 40 Years. However the life of that system's going to handle and so we're here to serve a much greater area than just that Open and that's why we need it in this specific spot. The other issue which is really outlined on this drawing by a red line, this is United Telephone. This is a different telephone company. We want to stay within the U.S. West because they've basically a competitor and we want, we have to be in our own region. Our own telephone system because they interconnect ground lines. Ground line systems with the radio broadcasting to each individual towers so it's a combination of both the ground line and the antennaes and mobile phones. Councilman Johnson: Okay. Did you look at the west side of Merle's existing property which is slightly outside the half mile area? John Uban: In here? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, in there. Towards the back of this property line. Behind this tree. Behind his big pile of black dirt and go behind that and behind the trees right on the Chaska border there. John Uban: I'll have Merle answer that. It's his property. We cannot tell a landowner exactly. He tells us where he wants the facility. How it's going to work with his future plans. We don't have the right of emminent domain. We cannot go out and bid. Councilman Johnson: We understand that but you're more compatible within an industrial use which is what that property probably will eventually be versus the property you're looking at. Elevation wise you're, geographically you're so far, so close to your half mile ideal that you're 99% of your ideal. I don't think your engineer's going to leave you too much trouble. You might be actually topographically a little higher there. Not need as high of an antenna. 60 City Council Meeting Oeptember 10, 1990 . Merle Volk: The question I had on that was, where would we put it? You know that's for future development. What would you put on that spot by the railroad tracks and 17? I certainly don't want a home in that corner. With the trucks and the traffic going over a railroad tracks. And the other side, you're talking in the future of maybe going industrial. Now you've got a tower right below there. So what are you going to do? Councilman Johnson: It's compatible with industrial though. Put a building down next to it. Merle Volk: We have industrial right across the street all the way around and in that particular corner with this tower and with landscaping around it, I think would be a good barrier between the railroad tracks and the highway there. I just can't visualize anybody building a home on that corner. Councilman Johnson: No, but I can. Merle Volk: And what are you going to use the property for? Councilman Johnson: A quarter mile north of that corner in that big cornfield there. Merle Volk: What would you use the corner for though? Mary Harrington: Houses. Councilman Johnson: Some places, Eden Prairie put a whole mess of houses and there's a lot of satisfied people living right on that same railroad track right across from Lyman Lumber. Same track. Same kind of location. You know where Lyman Lumber is on TH S? Merle Volk: Down here? Paul Krauss: Building Components by The Press. Councilman Johnson: The Press. All those. Merle Volk: That's Chanhassen. Councilman Johnson: That's Chanhassen but the other side of the railroad tracks, which is the same track I believe. Merle Volk: But you don't have a 9 ton road there either do you with trucks running by all hours of the night? Councilman Johnson: You've got TH 101. You've got the industrial park on the other side. It's similar. It's not exactly you know. No two things are going to be. Merle Volk: See we've got County Road 18 where they come off. Trucks going by and they end up at Preferred Products and back and forth pretty much all week long. There's a lot of truck traffic. A lot of activity in there. It's an industrial area and farther back I could understand. I mean by the tracks. That 61 Ci'[y Council Meeting - Se. mber 10, 1990 I can understand but right on that particular corner, there's got to have to be something come up for that use and I feel that this tower is a good use. And a good barrier. It will generate some tax revenue for the City and what does the City, they don't have to do nothing. No street to maintain. No nothing. Councilman Johnson: I don't know what kind of tax revenue it generates. Merle Volk: Pardon? Councilman Johnson: It will be interesting to see what kind of tax revenue that generates but. Merle Volk: ...tax generates? Councilman Johnson: I said I'd be interested to see how much it would because. Merle Volk: Well every little bit should count I would think. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I would think that in the other location it would generate just as much and it'd be in a future industrial park like most their towers are. A lot of their towers. Merle Volk: But what happens down the line when you want to develop that industrial park? Councilman Johnson: Then it's there and it's compatible. Industrial users don't care. Merle Volk: Right now what's there in the building, you push them over and you start over with a decent industrial park. Now we're going to put in something that's not going to fit. I just think that... Mary Harrington: Houses would fit. Mayor Chmiel: You'll have an opportunity to discuss this. Merle Volk: But my feeling is that the buildings out there really don't allow for that much on the other side of the street. And at the time that it's developed, you have a clean piece of property. We get rid of them and you have a clean piece of property. Here you're setting with a tower. I wouldn't even have the slightest idea where to put the tower because there's water retainage to work out. There's drainage problems. There's streets. All them things down the line. I run into that once before on a lot that I wanted to keep. It didn't work out right on Mitchell Lake. That was a bad one and I am not for breaking out a little chunk of land. Councilman Johnson: We're not going to subdivide this at all. It's only going to be leased to them and he's going to lease a portion of your land. Merle Volk: We're going to lease the corner. I'm leaning for the lease because I still have control of it. If the thing doesn't work out, we still have the land. And a lot of that property could be left as green area. 62 City Council Meeting - latember 10, 1990 0 John Uban: I think it really is a good site. We have a substation down here in industrial. And this really can be done nicely so that it holds as open space as a buffer on that corner. Especially when in the future Mr. Volk will be developing or selling for development this piece for residential uses. And he's very comfortable with this and that's ... into these large trees on the edge, we think it really is not an obnoxious visual impairment to development. To put it back in some interior portion on this other property, number one we'd have to build some sort of access road back there that doesn't exist today. Here we have straight off the existing county road and it would be long. It has to be paved by your ordinance so it's expensive. The ... has to be locked in also by an easement and so those are the kinds of things that to impact on his portion or his property over here is harder for him to produce because he has other plans over there. And we, as U.S. West, really have to go where the landowner wants us to go and those are the concerns that we've had to address and this is really the spot that he wants us and we really do feel it works out quite nicely for him and for us also. Mayor Chmiel: John you keep saying we, as U.S. West. John Uban: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: My understanding is that there's no affiliation between U.S. West and Cellular is there? John Uban: U.S. West New Vector is a sub -company of U.S. West. Mayor Chmiel: This is a separate company though is my understanding. John Uban: The actual ownership of the tower is yes, is a separate joint venture. The operation and equipment and that part is U.S. West. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to address on it? Councilman Johnson: The ownership is under a joint venture that's not U.S. West? John Uban: It's a limited partnership. Councilman Johnson: Between U.S. West and who? Dave Hellerman: There are some other minority partners. My name is Dave Hellerman. I'm the project manager for U.S. West. We're the managing and operating partner. There are some other minority partners. Councilman Johnson: Other corporations? Dave Hellerman: other phone companies basically. Centel is one of them. To be honest with you, because each of the territories that we serve has a slightly different partnership mix, I don't know them all by heart but they're all phone companies. The license that we have is reserved for wire line operation companies and so the wire line companies and phone companies are partners in it. We're the majority partner, the operating partner. PIQ City Council Meeting - Stomber 10, 1990 • Councilman Johnson: But United's not in there? Dave Hellerman: I don't. Councilman Johnson: Since you can't cross that magic line. If they were a partner, I would think you could somehow cross that magic line. Mayor Chmiel: If there's nothing more, I'd just as soon throw this open for some of the people here who may like to address this specific item. Anyone that wishes may get up and Please state your name and your address. Mary Harrington: I'm Mary Harrington. I live in Timberwood which is the development just north of that proposed problem. As you know there is a Petition out with 85 signatures on it. Only less than half of them are actually in Timberwood. The rest of them are in the western area. You'll have to excuse me. I'm going frog tonight. Among our concerns is that we do not wish to see any more industrial or non-residential uses in the area that is existing already for residential. And as I talked to you know Jerome Carlson's wife and the neighbors who are next to that and what not, a few of us showed up at the Planning Commission meeting and went away very cynical. Nobody spoke in favor of it and the Planning Commission decided, except for 1 descenting vote, to pass it on. One of the things that we feel is very inappropriate is that this should be earmarked for residential people who live along highways and people live along railroad tracks without any difficulties. If you look in history, people have lived along busy highways first and the businesses showed up later. Traffic does not bother that many people. There are people who will not live on it but people live there. We live near the railroad track. The railroad track does not go by that often and it doesn't deem to be a nuisance or anything by the people in Timberwood. This is an industrial use. It belongs in an industrial area. That is not an industrial area and we do not even want to see this property across the street south of Jerome Carlson's house turn industrial either. Needless to say we would not be in favor of that which I'm sure the Planning Commission Probably is aware of. We'd like to see residential stay in there. People are mentioning that these things are not noticeable and that's true. They may not be noticeable where they're presently planted in other cities but you remember that they're planted among the ugly eyesores of cement block buildings with flat top roofs with condensors and pipes and your brain has already said, these are ugly. I'm not going to look at it anyway so you don't Pay attention to the tower but you plunk it in next to some beautiful landscaping and trees where houses are going to be, it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. This is a private enterprise and we don't have to have it in Chanhassen. Why do we have to have an ugly tower sitting uglifying our town? I'd rather have something pleasant looking and a house would sit there. Maybe it'd be a twin home. With Chanhassen's tax structure the way it is, we'd probably... lower taxes on a house if you're going to look at it from that perspective but there were no residents in the area who were in favor of it and we're the people who live in the town and we care about our town you know. What's going to be here. These folks, obviously they have a business enterprise and they care about their business and I understand that but I could not get any of our disgruntled, cynical neighbors to show up anymore to meetings... I do care about the place even though I don't live down in that corner, I just don't think it's an appropriate use in residential. We have such little residential land that they're planning for. I'd like to see it in an industrial area. And 64 City Council Meeting - Otember 10, 1990 so he did mention that yes, sure we could possibly move it someplace else. He did make that statement. Maybe we can find him someplace else to put it. Thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Mary. Anyone else? Merle Volk: Yes. As part of the tower that she brought up. Mayor Chmiel: If you could just state your name and address. Merle Volk: Merle Volk. There's a lot of houses next to towers. Next to water towers. Now to me a water tower is a lot more bigger to look at than one of these little towers and I really urge you to, if you could come up with some better use for that property, I would like to know. I really urge you to give it a good consideration. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, if hearing none. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Jay? Councilman Johnson: Since I took the earlier attack, I should now go in my efforts to move this thing a little bit. I think these guys really know where we're at. Our current ordinances allow it. It's a conditional use. They meet all the conditions. We have a future plan of this being residential but currently it is not planned residential. I prefer to see it elsewhere. I think I've got a good idea of several different places but they don't seem to be working for various reasons. I think our hands are tied on this one as they have been on a few others where, I don't know where our attorney had to leave it looks like tonight. Either that or he fell asleep and fell off his chair. I'm not sure which. Don Ashworth: He's within shouting range. Councilman Johnson: Oh, he's within shouting range? But I think several times it's been, in conditional use permits as I remember, if they meet all the conditions, we're pretty well tied to granting the permit. I think that is basically they've done their homework. They've come in. If they came in a year from now, this would probably be planned as residential in the future and we could accept staff's ideas that we can deny this based on the planned future use but we have a proposed future use. We don't have a planned. Planned future use in our documents is agricultural. We have a proposal that in the future it will become residential. At this point we don't even have an inkling from Met Council as to what they will allow or not allow in our new comprehensive plan. If we were in the final weeks of this comprehensive plan rather than the final months, I think we might have another leg to stand on but we're pretty short of legs to stand on right now. So with that I think that we probably don't have a choice. Councilman Workman: You're not committing my vote are you? Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah, I have a choice. 65 City Council meeting - Slember 10, 1990 . Councilman Johnson: No. In my considered opinion, isn't that what legal beagles say? Councilman Workman: You're saying we. Councilman Johnson: Well me and the mouse in my pocket believe that our hands are somewhat tied if we're going to follow the rules by which we're supposed to govern this town. Or if we're going to make up our zone up as we go, that's something else. Councilwoman Dimler: If I could, I do have a few questions. I wonder if John, could you answer. Do you have any plans for future expansion or could you explain to us as your system grows, the tower could possibly get smaller and do you have plans to do that? John Uban: Dave could answer some of the what's been happening in some of the other areas but as the grid system matures, in other words, more users, you need more cells. The cells get smaller and the actual tower, or the antenna gets less because if it stays the same, they start interfering with one another so the tower gets smaller. And it's to the point that in downtown areas and so forth, that the towers could range 60 to 80 feet tall. In England they're putting together a system where they're getting rid of most of the lines, normal telephone lines and they're going to almost a complete cellular system in which they'll have some power almost on every block and that's about like a light post or something so it just starts blending away and the technology is changing considerably too. So what happens in a mature system, the antennaes get smaller and I think Dave could tell you of a few that are happening right now in the Twin Cities where they're reducing the size of the tower. And there will be more towers but much less noticeable. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you'd have more towers on this site but they'd be smaller? John Uban: Not on this site, no. They'd have to be somewhere else. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And this particular tower could get smaller? John Uban: Yes. Councilman Johnson: If we held our breaths, how long would we have to hold our breaths before it got smaller? Councilwoman Dimler: Long time. Dave Hellerman: It depends on the growth rate of the system. To give you an example of one that we just lowered. We just lowered one in Arden Hills that we have that was at about 430 to 450 feet. In that range and we dropped it to, this was a rented tower. We didn't actually own this tower but we want on a rented tower. We dropped to 150 feet so we dropped more than half of the height went away. Originally when the system was originally built, we liked that height because it allowed us to cover a lot of ground with a single antenna. As we get, as the system gets more dense and there are more facilities, not on the same place but spread is different. Yeah, excuse me. It's late. my mouth is 66 City Council Meeting *ptember 10, 1990 0 tired. What happens essentially is that as you start out with big cells and then you divide them up into little, -smaller sub cells as you have more and more traffic. So to answer your question specifically as to how long it would take. If the growth rate continues as it has, I would think we're looking at S years. You know that's. Councilwoman Dimler: It's a long time to hold your breath. Councilman Johnson: for an individual but not for a city. Dave Hellerman: We've been surprised by how quickly our business has grown frankly. We're scrambling to keep up with it. That might continue and we might get a shock and next year the bottom might go out of it you know. We sometimes feel like we've got the proverbial tiger by the tail just trying to keep up and that's the way things are going now. Who knows. Councilman'Johnson: Until some new technology comes out that beats you out. Everybody I turn around there's somebody with one of these stupid things in their briefcase. Dave Hellerman: Well that's possible although a lot of the new technologies that are being proposed would still require some kind of tower structure like this and we might_ end up changing out the equipment in the equipment building to a new technology without any real apparent changes and provide the service with the physical facilities that we'd have. That would be my guess. Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Okay, then I have one more concern and I guess I don't quite agree that our hands are completely tied. I think this comprehensive plan has been in the working for quite some time. Our intent has been stated and I guess I'd just like to check with Roger how do you see that. As far along as we are in the process, how does that hold up? Roger Knutson: It gives you something to talk about but like the legislature You know. The bill hasn't been passed. You haven't adopted that comprehensive Plan yet so right now it's an idea that's being. Mayor Chmiel: It may become a reality. It may not. Roger Knutson: Yeah, discussed at staff and Planning Commission level and worked on there but it is not the policy of the city at this time but it is some indication, as Paul and I have discussed of what the plans are for that area. I would be concerned about... Councilwoman Dimler: Can we change our plans as a result of this? Is that a possibility? Roger Knutson: Change your Comprehensive Plan? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Paul Krauss: We looked at bringing an ordinance amendment to the Planning Commission last week and couldn't do it for time reasons and the Planning Commission then asked us not to rush into this. But I think there's some 67 City Council Meeting - ltember 10, 1990 • loopholes in the existing ordinance. Even if we had adopted our comprehensive plan, if we had not changed the ordinance, this tower would still comply because the ordinance simply says land zoned for agricultural use. It doesn't say anything about guided for something else. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Thomas. Councilman Workman: Can these towers or antennaes be mounted on water towers? Dave Hellerman: Oh yeah. We can do that. Councilman Workman: Wouldn't the Hazeltine water tower be kind of convenient? Councilman Johnson: United Telephone. Dave Hellerman: That's the one that's southwest...? Councilman Workman: You can see it for miles. Dave Hellerman: They're in the United Telephone service. Councilman Workman: That can't be done absolutely? Dave Hellerman: Well the other problem with that one, in addition to it being a United Telephone is it's right next to a cellular telephone tower... Councilman Workman: Where's that tower? Dave Hellerman: I believe just north of the water tower. Councilman Workman: In the Chaska Industrial Park? Dave Hellerman: It is in Chaska, yeah. Councilman Workman: Who's is that? Dave Hellerman: That's Cellular One. That's our competition. They provide a similar service using their bi-frequencies so we have to maintain some separation from them. Councilman Workman: Well you're probably just as close? Mayor Chmiel: But isn't there filters you can put on that too? Dave Hellerman: To some extent. We haven't had, the results that we've wanted using the filters that are commercially available. It can be done. It's something we prefer to avoid. I wouldn't tell you it's impossible. We like to try and stay away from them. Councilman Johnson: But they're allowed to go into Chaska because they are not a hard wire telephone company. Dave Hellerman: They're not associated with the phone company, right. 68 City Council Meeting - •tember 10, 1990 Councilman Johnson: So they can go anywhere. Dave Hellerman: Yeah. Councilman Workman: Sounds like red tape. Merle, anything you can do to get us more taxes, more power to you. Merle Volk: Well, there's going to be ... on the building and the thing is I guess that I want to point out. I'm leasing the property so I feel I still have control. Councilman Workman: I guess the Council has been tough on developers and organizations that have come into town on how things look to neighborhoods. That's my, well one of my few concerns about this. I think these towers are necessary evils and someday I'll get me one of then thar things but it's, I guess the ultimate concern is Timberwood. I drove by this site. It seems fairly low and probably sheltered and shielded and everything else. My concern is what is this going to look like from Timberwood. What are we going to, if I owned a home in Timberwood, would I see this? This is 175 foot? Mayor Chmiel: 175 feet. Councilman Workman: If I owned a home up there and Mary Harrington says she has the highest elevated home out there, what would that look like to me? How high would that be sticking out over the trees? Now we've asked other groups, developers that have come into the city to get us an idea of what it would look like say from a view from TH 5 or from CR 17. This is a high, this potentially can be a high impact thing. Should we be requesting that of this group so that we all know? Are we all taking kind of an imaginary guess about how this will look. And Jay, you say our hands our tied, it sounds to me like it's ambiguous at least in one area. I don't have the right handout here, as to how does it look. Is it detrimental to the aesthetics of anybody? Do we know that for sure? I don't know that. That along with the actual building itself at the base, I think the construction of that is a little bit ambiguous. I guess I'd be more inclined to number one, see exactly what that's going to be on the plan or ask that it be built at least comparable to the one on TH 101. Are we saying that? Paul Krauss: Yeah. That was the Planning Commission's. Councilman Workman: Okay, and then that's the only, that point I'm not worried about but if I do own a home in Timberwood or anywhere else, and this is 175 foot tower and there's no hiding that. What's it going to look like? I don't think we have any concept. Mayor Chmiel: Look at a building 12 stories high and give you a good idea. Councilman Johnson: Not really. 12 stories and LO feet wide. Mayor Chmiel: I'm talking just strictly height. Councilman Johnson: Strictly height... 69 City Council Meeting - *ember 10, 1990 • Councilman Workman: This is a high impact thing and that's no offense but it is. You know that and you've got this problem wherever you're putting up a tower. It's not a happy thing but we do have the ability in here to ask that question I guess. The facility will be aesthetically compatible with the area. I agree that it will be landscaped and maintained and that there will be a buffer and eveything will look fine down here but from a distance you can't buffer 175 foot tower unless you have low clouds. And so that would lead into the lower one, the proposed facility will not depreciate surrounding property values. I don't know that that would be true or not. It seems some distance from the homes. That seems to slope down lower and so you're losing maybe a little bit of a height right there. But as we look over the top of those trees to the south of Timberwood, what do we see? John Uban: I can answer that question. Councilman Workman: Okay. John Uban: Number one, the tower, the width itself is very narrow when it gest to the top. You have to understand that when you look at it, here's Timberwood. Here's the lower portion of it up in here. There's a significant amount of woods you have to look not only through but over and that really intercepts all the views. When you're down in here, you really don't see what is going on to the south at all. This is down at the lower spot. This rolls down and it will be right against the existing trees here. So in essence what you will see, from a very long distance. For instance this house is 1,900 feet away. This house is 1,900 feet away right here and this is right into the trees. From this Property you'll have absolutely no view of it at all. It will be impossible to see even in the wintertime. Councilman Workman: How about further back to the center? John Uban: This will be over, about a half mile or more and at that point part of this is about 12 to 16 feet wide with a few little antenna things on the top. You will not be able to pick it out over the horizon and the tree branches. I mean you just won't see it at a half a mile distance. Mayor Chmiel: John, just driving today going to Monticello on Hwy 25 I checked the distance to make sure because I come back that way. It's 2 1/2 miles and there are 5 towers that are depicted in the skyline. John Uban: Those were... Mayor Chmiel: I don't think they're much more than 175 feet. At least they're not marked with any aerial so they have to be under 200 feet MSL because that's a requirement. But those were very, very visible from that distance. Fortunately I got new glasses. Maybe that helped but I could really pick them out as I was driving through that particular. John Uban: I'm talking of only from a specific vantage point. Timberwood. Obviously on some of these roads you'll have a much longer view and you can see it more clearly when you don't have trees intersecting that view. You're talking about an angle and just a portion of that tower up over the crown of the trees. That's what we're saying. The very minimal and the impact is really not 01 City Council Meeting Aptember 10, 1990 40 significant. And you find it everywhere in the metropolitan area. And we gave in our submittal to you, in the report on studies that towers do not have a detrimental effect on adjacent properties. I know you can say that's not right but we've given you, an official appraisal of that situation to show that it doesn't happen. I have slides and pictures of many other communities here and I'll show you if you'd like or we can give you copies of that for the record of other towers in neighborhoods. Towers that existed before neighborhoods. Towers that came in afterwards and everyone is co-habitating quite nicely. It's part of the urban fabric and quite acceptable and part of the conditional use Process that we've met here. It's zoned appropriately and so forth and we believe we have the right to be here and we hope you will continue with the approval process. Mayor Chmiel: Anything else Tom? Councilman Workman: Yeah. We're saying to the city that what the NSP substation down here and how this tower, that's where we're going to put this stuff. No doubt about it. It's not going to be pretty. We need highways are a part of the social fabric of America but that don't make them pretty. You know we need a freeway through town. We're going to get one eventually but that don't make it pretty and so those are the concerns of the neighbors and it's going to change somebody's view somewhat and I'm not going to be the judge of how much or how little that disturbs them but if we're saying, you know we're kind of saying that we're going to put substations and towers and everything else. See it's not going to bug Chaska but with the Comp Plan hanging in the balance, this is going to be one more thing. Maybe it's best to have all the stuff here before you build. I'd like to have Redmond Products build before we get the neighbors across the street. I wish Timberwood wasn't there so we wouldn't have some of these problems but they're there so we've got to addres those concerns and if Council feels comfortable that we've fully addressed those concerns and we're going to say well, cellular phones are a part of our American fabric, then that's all there is to it and we're going to so to speak, roll over or tie our hands or any other euphemism and that's the way it is, then that's what we've got and we're going to continue to get it. I don't know if that's good or bad. That's not a judgment but that's another big move I think. I don't particularly care. I've got a ticket to the U.S. Open and I don't Particularly care if they can talk on their phones or not out there. As long as the beer's cold out there. You know so they probably won't see it up there. Maybe not but I don't know if we know that. That's the concerns that I think I have to voice and now I have and Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear what you have on your mind. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess I have one, well I have several questions. How are these cells, originally on the concept coming in it used to be 125 feet. That increased to 150 feet. Why? Dave Hellerman: ...the application got made before we completed our engineering... detailed engineering that we needed and we got it done before the hearing and realized that we needed a few more feet to do what we intended to do. It was just a timing situation. We do some computer runs and some studies... I think the specific thing that maybe caused us to underestimate with our first guess is that some of the hillier terrain to the south of the site. In order to fill in those, you have to get up a little bit and look down. 71 City Council meeting - S*ember 10, 1990 • Mayor Chmiel: How much are we looking up above to looking down into with the additional amount of footage? Dave Hellerman: There are quite a few of the little lows there. Some there and a couple out on TH S where it goes up and down where it makes the difference between a useable signal and not useable signal. That came out pretty clearly once the computer runs were done. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can you address to me about fiber optics as to the useage of those in comparison with your subject. There are so many things that fiber optics can do in providing connections and line locations and hospital to just about anyplace that you wanted. Dave Hellerman: Yeah, we do use fiber optics to do the connections into the cell sites in a lot of our locations but fiber optics now is a technology that still requires the physical fiber. There is no, we are using fiber optics more and more for the circuits in but those are circuits that the phone company, U.S. West, the mother company provides us so when they get ready to start Providing fiber optics, we'll certainly be using them. We do use some fiber links out of our main switch downtown into some of the local substations. Mayor Chmiel: One of our optics are right now available within the city of Minneapolis and also St. Paul. Dave Hellerman: Yeah. Well we are using them. We have fiber links into Orchard Substation and 24th Street. Is that what you mean? Mayor Chmiel: I guess communication channel as to bring the voice across. In other words, having your towers. They're necessary because of the heights in order to get you directional of your transmission going through space. Okay. My other question is, can it be done through fiber optics being under the ground? Dave Hellerman: Well not and get to a moving vehicle just because you have to connect to the vehicle direct. Mayor Chmiel: It's something that's really catching on. Dave Hellerman: I'm sure if there's a way to do it, we'd like to do it. The Problem that most systems have that have tried to use optics to go through the air is that rain and things like that, you know they block light and they block optical systems. So that's been a problem. You need something that's going to get through it. You'd also have to, you'd still have to put the light source up high. Now we're talking science fiction here at this point but it's an interesting subject for sure. Mayor Chmiel: Well, I've worked on a fiber optics, that's why I'm asking the question. Dave Hellerman: Yeah. We certainly, we'd still have to put the fibers up high to get the line of sight. 72 'City Council Meeting-Wtember 10, 1990 0 Mayor Chmiel: Well, that's the question I had. That was never explained to me. Whether it did have to go high or it could be contained within duct work in the ground and still have that probability of getting those signals out. Councilman Johnson: fiber optics doesn't receive a signal unless it's directed directly into the end of the line. It can't come in perpendicular to the line through the ground. Mayor Chmiel: Yes it can. You bet it can. You'd be surprised at what it can do. Councilman Johnson: Through the ground? Mayor Chmiel: Yep. The other question I have. Being that that tower is going to go up in that particular area, if there is a failure within that tower, how close would that tower be to the railroad? In the event it fell in that Particular location. Dave Hellerman: I think some of the material that John distributed has some information from an engineering firm. Mayor Chmiel: I know. It talked about the property owners. Paul? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the ordinance requires that it be the height of the tower from the property line. The original proposal was 125 feet away from the Property line. I believe Mr. Uban indicated at the Planning Commission that they would increase that setback for the higher tower. Councilman Johnson: To the railroad? Paul Krauss: Now strictly speaking, the ordinance talks about tower's designed to topple or designed to break and this tower probably fits. The information we have is that it fits into that progressive falling type of design. It doesn't shatter catastrohpically. It typically kind of bends at a point in the middle so it probably conforms to that standard that doesn't require the full setback but they indicated they would meet it in any case. Councilman Johnson: 165 feet to their Property line, the railroad beyond that Probably another 50 feet. Dave Hellerman: The failure point of this type of tower is about 80 to 100 feet above so everything should fall within 80 feet of it. That's the way it's designed. I should say that we've never had one of this size fail nor do we know of one that's ever gone. It takes a tremendous amount of ice load. Where you can get it go is if you load it up with ice and then get the wind and that's a pretty rare circumstance. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, the other question I have in relationship with that proposed tower. What additional things could be connected onto that tower at a later date? Dave Hellerman: Well one of the conditions is that we'd have to come back and do that. 73 City Council Meeting - Amber 10, 1990 • Mayor Chmiel: But what I'm saying is, what additional things could be attached to that tower or be self contained on it. I'm thinking of a microwave system. Dave Hellerman: Well anything that requires an antenna. A tower is just an antenna support structure so technologically it's anything. Our normal policy is that we don't rent tower space. We're just not set up to do it. We don't like to do it. It's more grief than it's worth basically. Mayor Chmiel: I look at it from a city standpoint. If you can have maybe 2 or 3 kinds of communication channels on it, it'd be much better than putting up 2 or 3 more towers. Dave Hellerman: Well technologically there's no barrier to that. I guess that's a business question. Mayor Chmiel: Had you ever considered putting up a steel pole structure rather than the lattice tower structure that you proposed? Dave Hellerman: On a pole? Yeah, at this height they get a little bit iffy. You're kind of getting to the upper limit of what we like to do with them on a Pole. It can be done. You don't have as much excess strength. You're getting closer to the design limits of the tower and it gets quite expensive but it's, we have used them. You generally around 140 or 150 feet is what we feel is the limit of where we like to use that single steel monopole structure. Mayor Chmiel: I was thinking from a standpoint of structures as such with tornadoes. They have a better change of remaining standing than what a lattice would and the type you're proposing. Dave Hellerman: I haven't seen those studies. Mayor Chmiel: I've seen those specific studies with tornadoes and with electrical pole structures. Steel structures. And they have withstood the tornado aspects of it. In fact it happened in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park area. Dave Hellerman: That could very well be. Mayor Chmiel: So was there any consideration in using a single steel? Dave Hellerman: Our normal procedure is we don't go to, we don't use monopoles much above 140 or 150 feet. We just found they haven't been efficient. So the lattice tower is our normal way of going for this height. I suppose it could be considered. Mayor Chmiel: I guess that's all, those are the only questions I have. Any further discussion? Do I have a motion? Councilman Johnson: As I said, I don't love the site but I think it's as obtrusive as a lot of people think it's going to be. I know that when I built my house, just to digress slightly, I had a beautiful farm behind my and the farmer told me that he'd be taken out of there feet first. He now lives over by St. Hubert's and I've got 4 houses built on a hill that was raised up behind me 74 City Council Meeting • ptember 10 1990 • several feet. Now instead of a view of a farm at sunset, I have a view of houses at sunset and I've gotten fairly well used to that. It's a fact of life. The tower's not nearly as intrusive as having those houses built behind me at a higher elevation than my house. Councilman Workman: Are you making a motion Jay? Councilman Johnson: So, moving in towards the motion, I also believe that they meet all the requirements of a conditional use permit given our existing comprehensive plan and the existing wording of our ordinances in order to follow the rules by which we're supposed to operate this city, that I move approval with staff conditions as stated. Were there any other additions? Mayor Chmiel: The one on page 7 or page 8? Or 9? Councilman Johnson: And 9. Page 9 conditions I believe are the conditions. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: I'll second it. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit f90-3 for SMSA Limited for a cellular transmission subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff will approve the aesthetic design of the tower and building and the building should be consistent with other recently constructed telephone and Public utility buildings in the area. 2. Staff will approve and document the tower shape and structure and that it's construction will follow that approval. 3. No other radio uses shall be approved without an addendum to the conditional use permit #90-3 which will come in before the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Landscaping shall be installed as part of the approved landscaping plan. A letter of credit guaranteeing improvements will be required before building permits are issued. S. No lights or signage be placed on the tower or elsewhere on the site. 6. The tower shall be painted a flat color so that it blends in with the background. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Workman: I'd move adjournment. Mayor Chmiel: We have two quick ones here. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, are you willing to suspect Council rules? 75 .0". 11.11161011'1 Ills CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612 3393300 10 September 1990 U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc. agrees to the conditions of approval noted in the Planning Commission Resolution dated August 15, 1990. 1. The design of the tower and the equipment building will be built in accordance with other such buildings built in the City. At this point we anticipate that the design will consist of red brick facade with limestone ledges and detailing and a peaked roofed giving an overall residential appearance to the structure. Speck plans will be submitted for staff review and approval with the building permit. 2. The 175' tower will have open lattice structure and will be constructed as shown on the submitted plans. The detailed construction plans of that tower will be submitted to staff for their approval. Additionally, we have included a letter from the tower engineering firm of Ehersemann Engineering, Inc. consulting engineers, reviewing the capabilities of the proposed tower and its behavior under stress conditions. 3. No other radio uses will be placed upon the U S WEST tower without coming before the City Council and Planning Commission to amend the conditional use permit. U S WEST does not anticipate any such additional radio uses on their tower. 4. No other additional antennas would be installed other than typical technological adjustments to the U S WEST antenna without coming before the City for an amended conditional use permit. 5. Landscaping will be installed as per the submitted plan. The planting plan will be installed in the Spring of 1991. 6. No lights or signage will be installed on the site other than what is needed for safety and security. No flashing lights are required. 7. The tower will be painted a flat light color and will be reviewed by City staff in the process of approving the building permit. SCANNED EHRESMANN ENGINEERING,INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 805 WEST 11TH ST. YANKTON, SOUTH DAKOTA 57078 (605) 665-7532 FAX: (605) 665-9780 Sept 10, 1990 Mr. C. John Uban, President Dahlgren Shardlow & Uban 300 First Ave. North Suite 210 Minneapolis, MN 65401 Subject: U.S. West New vector Group, Inc.in your system Site: Chanhassen, MN EEI J.O. 1737 Dear Mr. Uban: We wish to take this opportunity to introduce you to Ehre- smann Engineering, Inc. and explain our involvement with the tower industry. We are registered in all states listed under Column A and we work with three various associates that are registered under columns H shown on attached sheet. We have over 30 years of engineering experience in design, inspection, management as chief engineer and director of engineering for projects involving structures, material handling, power transmissions, coal and aggregate process- ing. Approximately 85% of our work involves design and detailing of guyed and self supporting towers. The guyed towers range in height to a maximum of 2000ft. while the self supporting towers range in height to a maximum of 500ft. We offer partial or complete structural engineering services to include preliminary layout, write specifications, final design, fabrication and installation details with on site inspection if necessary. 0 0 We have been involved with approximately 750 to 1000 self supporting towers of various design configurations furnished by major tower fabricators. The particular design of the 175ft self supporting tower being proposed for the site at Chanhassen, MN is unique to PiRod, Inc. of Plymouth, Indiana. We have been directly involved with approximately 35 towers furnished by PiRod, Inc. of this design up to a maximum height of 500ft. we are not aware of any problems or failure of a tower furnished by PiRod Inc. using this design. A competent structural engineer experienced in tower design will follow EIA RS222 latest revision and any other specifications that may apply to complete a safe, sound structure. It is recommended that the tower should be designed with the maximum combined stress ratio of the mast located at either the top of sections 4 or 5, this will place the point of structural failure 80 or 100 foot above the base. The probability of the design wind & ice load occuring is 2% per year or one (1) time in 50 years. Please note this design loading will not cause failure to the structure. Failure would not occur until all safety factors of the structure have been exceeded, depending on the final combined stress ratio of the tower. I would expect this tower to survive a wind velocity up to 125 MPH. Again, if this tower is designed as outlined in this report fabricated in accordance with the American Institute of Steel Construction and the American Welding Society, in- stalled and maintained as speoified in EIA RS222D the point of failure can be accurately defined. With failure occurring soft to 100ft above the base this tower will not fall outside of a circle having a radius of approximately 80ft. We are aware of no instances in which a completed tower of this design fell over in a straight line. Sincerely, EHRESMANN ENGINEERING, INC. 4. 42HRESMANN, P.E. 0 0 EHRESMANN ENGINEERING,INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 805 WEST 11TH ST. YANKTON, SOUTH DAKOTA 57078 (605) 665-7532 FAX: (605) 665-9780 STATES U CERTIFICATION Aug, 1990 "An 16$11 "Bu ------------- ------------- South Dakota ---------- Illinois New York Iowa Indiana North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Pennsylvania Minnesota Michigan South Carolina Montana Arkansas Missouri New Jersey Oklahoma Wisconsin Arizona Florida Utah California Wyoming Colorado Oregon Kentucky Washington Massachusetts Louisiana Maine Alabama New Hampshire Georgia Vermont Maryland Rhode Island Idaho Kansas Nevada Nebraska New Mexico Texas Virginia West Virginina Tennessee Sec. 20.919. Telephone equipment buildings. Telephone equipment buildings are allowed in all zoning districts as a conditional use subject to the.following standards: (1) The site must provide landscaping as required in article XXV. (2) The driveway surface shall be surfaced with a hard, all-weather, dust free and durable surfating.material. (3) The applicant shall receive an access permit from the regulating agency. (4) The building shall meet the required setbacks of the district in which it is located. (5) The equipment building shall be architecturally consistent with surrounding structures. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, 4 26,12.15-86; Ord. No. 80-B, $ 1, 6-15-87) Sec. 20.1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Accessory use or structure means a use or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and clearly and customarily incidental thereto. Sec. 20.915. Antennas, satellite dishes and amateur radio towers. (a) Satellite dishes, television antennas, and ground -mounted vertical antennas shall be permitted accessory uses within all zoning districts. (b) Amateur radio towers shall receive a conditional use permit in all districts prior to installation. (c) In all residential districts, only one (1) of the following are permitted per lot: (1) Satellite dish. (2) Amateur radio tower. (3) Ground -mounted vertical antenna. (d) A ground -mounted satellite dish shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height above ground level. (e) No ground -mounted satellite dish, amateur radio tower, or ground -mounted vertical antenna shall be located within the required front yard setback or side yard setback. (f) Ground -mounted satellite dishes, amateur radio towers, and ground -mounted vertical antennas shall be set back from all adjoining lots a distance equivalent to the height of the dish, tower or antenna. If a portion of the tower or antenna is collapsible or securely fastened to a building, only the portion which can fall will be used to determine the setback from property lines. Location shall not adversely obstruct views from adjacent property. (g) A building permit shall be required for the installation of any satellite dish, amateur radio tower, or ground -cover mounted vertical antenna. Building permit applications shall require the submission of a site plan and structural components. When a satellite dish or radio antenna is located on the roof of a building, the applicant shall furnish the city building official with building plans and structural components displaying the means of securing it to the building. The building official must approve the building plans before installation. (h) Each satellite dish, amateur radio tower, and ground -mounted vertical antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code, as adopted and amended by the city. (i) Satellite dish, amateur radio tower, and ground -mounted vertical antenna, electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in adherence to the National Electrical Code, as adopted and amended by the city. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, ¢ 21, 12.15.86; Ord. No. 90, 6 8, 3.14.88) Cross reference—Technical codes, 0 7.16 et seq. Supp. No. 1 L, 20 August 1990 Mr. Paul Krause City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 lclItl`lRi',I 0 RECEIVED CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AUG 2 21990 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 612.339.3300 RE: Planning Commission's Recommendation for Approval of Conditional Use Permit Dear Paul: This letter is written to verify that our original application for a conditional use permit to construct a 125 foot self -supported antenna was amended at the August 15 Planning Commission meeting with the change from a 125 foot self -supported antenna to a 175 foot self -supported antenna, and that the motion to recommend included the 175 foot antenna. Also at that meeting, U S WEST agreed to design and construct a building that is acceptable to the City. We are looking forward to the City Council meeting scheduled for August 27 to present this proposal for final approval. If any new issues arise or if the City receives additional comments regarding this project, please notify me. Sincerely, DAHLGREN, SHARDLO V, ANTD UB,'U , INC. William R. Buell Senior Consultant RCANUM Z Q U ^J^ 1^.L CL Q Q UJ h RiTv of "�` CHANHASSENly STAFF REPORT i, PC DATE: 8/15/90 CC DATE: 9/10/90 CASE #: 90-3 CUP By: Krauss/v PROPOSAL: To Locate a Commercial Communication Transmission Tower To Support Cellular Telephone Service. The Proposal Calls for a 125 Foot High Self Supporting Tower and an Associated 12' x 30' Equipment Building LOCATION: The site is located on the Volk Parcel east of Lyman Boulevard, immediately north of the Chicago, Milwaukee Railroad Line. BY CRY MmMn1,��l�ord APPLICANT: Minneapolis SMSA Limited Partnership Represented by John Uban, with Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, ilodleL for U.S. West NewVector, Inc. liel°`ted 300 First First Avenue No., Suite 210 Det• S g o Minneapolis, MN 55401 Date Submitted to Commisslur PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate ' Oete submitted to Council 9—iv - 90 ACREAGE: The site occupies a 2.5 acre area located adjacent to the intersection of the railroad tracks and Galpin Boulevard on what is a total of a 5.3 acre parcel. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2; agricultural use S - Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul RR E - A2; undeveloped acreage and railroad W - Galpin Boulevard and additional acreage zoned A2 used for a combination of agricultural and commercial uses WATER AND SEWER: Not available - the property is located outside of the MUSA line. Proposed for inclusion under current 1990 draft Land Use Plan. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site consists of a south facing hillside with a peak elevation of approximately 990 feet located at the north property line dropping down to an elevation of approximately 950 feet at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard. There are no wetlands or other identifiable drainage features on the property. Mature trees are found on the east and south sides of the parcel. The remaining land area is in agricultural use. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: This area is not designated for any use. The draft land use plan currently being considered identifies this site as Low Density Residential uses. 1700 $600 a1 O OO in ejIn ej N 9003 C L�Wu �L—�SA�2 9100 9200 92,00 p , T A2 0 0 Cellular Tower August 15, 1990 Page 2 PROPOSAL/DISCUSSION The applicants are requesting approval to locate a 125 feet high, self supporting communications tower on a 5.3 acre parcel located at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad tracks (CMSPRR). The tower will be used to support and improve cellular telephone service. The tower will be a self supporting open lattice work structure and will be accompanied by a 30' x 12' equipment building which will be located at the base of the tower. The equipment building will be trucked onto the site and set on a permanent foundation. It will be constructed out of fiberglass, painted with a multi -colored brick pattern. An asphalt access drive from Lyman Boulevard will be extended to the tower with parking available for several buildings. Security fencing will be provided. There will be no employees based at the site. City ordinances allow for the consideration of proposals for commercial communication transmission towers in the A2 District by conditional use permit. The ordinance only has one specific standard related to this use in that it requires that these towers either be designed to collapse progressively or they shall be set back from all property lines a minimum distance equal to the height of the tower. The current proposal is consistent with this requirement since the tower is designed to permit somewhat progressive collapsing to avoid a situation where a tower would topple as a unit, in addition, there are setbacks equal to or greater than the height of the tower provided in all directions. The ordinance also provides general issuance standards related to all conditional use permit applications. The proposal must also be judged against these standards and is done so later in this report. Staff has had an opportunity to work with cellular telephone towers in the past. A fairly comprehensive data package has been provided in support of the request by the applicant. Briefly, the cellular telephone system is based on the creation of a series of cells, whereby a mobile telephone user is shifted automatically from one cell to the next as they move throughout the system. A tower is located at the center of each cell. As the system grows and matures, the number of cells increases to handle a greater volume of calls and to enlarge the service area. In addition, as the system matures, the height of the towers decrease since the size of each cells gets progressively smaller. At a height of 125 feet for this request, it is considerably lower than others we have worked on in the past and it is significant to note that it will not require night time lighting to satisfy the Federal Aviation Administration. The siting of these towers is a highly complex science, whereby computer programs are used to determine the limited areas in which a tower can appropriately be sighted. In 6 6 Cellular Tower August 15, 1990 Page 3 this instance, the applicant has indicated that there is a half mile search area located in the western portion of the community. This search area is apparently further limited by the existence of two separate telephone companies which legally limit the ability of the applicant to locate further west into Chaska. The applicants have indicated the desire to have this antenna up and working before the U. S. Open next summer, since they envision that this event will generate an extremely high volume of cellular telephone use. The applicants have provided accurate information concerning use of the 911 system and it's utility, business as well as for emergency services. However, it should be understood that cellular telephone companies are not public utilities and do not function under laws that the standard ground line telephone companies operate under. This is not to diminish the importance of cellular telephone service, but only to indicate that we do not believe that this a utility that requires special consideration by the City. In many respects, the proposal is a reasonable one. As indicated above, the tower is relatively low as these things go, however, it is going to top out at about the height of a 12 story building. It is important to note though that the open lattice work design avoids the need for guy wires and allows for visibility through the structure in a manner that minimizes visual impact. For those members of the Planning Commission and City Council interested in dealing with similar towers, there is one located west of 494 and Baker Road, north of the Crosstown Highway. It has been our experience that it is relatively difficult to see this tower from a distance unless you specifically know where to look for it. This tower is approximately 60 feet higher then the one being proposed in Chanhassen. The proposed site is relatively secluded as it is wedged into a triangle adjacent to the railroad tracks and is bordered by mature trees to the south and west. It is impossible to provide landscaping to screen the tower but, if this proposal is approved, the City could require significant landscaping to screen the base of the tower and the equipment building from off site views. However, staff has a significant concern with this proposal and this is related to the future use of the site. The draft land use plan that is currently being prepared by the Planning Commission, envisions this site as being developed for low density residential use. This site is part of a low density residential component that extends from the railroad tracks up to and across Hwy. 5 around the Timberwood subdivision. We believe that towers of this sort are incompatible with residential development and in fact they are not allowed in the residential districts of the current Chanhassen ordinance. It is further believed that construction of this tower in this location would act to deter development of quality 1�i Cellular Tower August 15, 1990 Page 4 residential neighborhoods in this area and thus would be detrimental to the effective implementation of the draft land use plan. The data packet submitted by the applicant is incorrect when it states that the long term use of this land is residential and this matter has been discussed with their representatives on several occasions. Staff has requested that the applicant look at alternatives within their search area and suggested that there are two sites located west of Lyman and Galpin Boulevards that are proposed for industrial uses by the draft plan. Thus far, the applicant has not been able to work out an acceptable location on either of these properties and it appears that locating the tower further to the west in Chaska is impossible due to the service boundaries of existing telephone companies. Thus, while we have a situation where the tower is technically in compliance with current zoning, we believe it is incompatible with what will become the City's land use plan and therefore, staff is recommending that this proposal be denied. We believe that the standard conditional use permit findings would allow the city to uphold a denial. The following constitutes a review of the proposal against the general issuance standards for conditional use permits contained in the zoning ordinance. 1. "Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health safety comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city." * Finding - We do not believe the tower poses a danger to public health or safety. There is ample evidence indicating that the tower emits extremely low amounts of energy and will pose no health hazard. Setbacks provided on the site and security fencing should ensure that there is no physical danger. Arguably, the general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or city will be affected by the tower since this sort of use is generally regarded as less than desirable land use. However, we note that the nearest homes that will be impacted are located an extremely long distance from the site and direct visual impact will be minimized by the design. 2. "Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter." * Finding - in our opinion, this proposal is incompatible with the draft land use plan currently being developed by the Planning Commission. The existing 1990 land use plan has not designated this site for any use save for continued agricultural use thus it provides little guidance to this matter. We believe that the tower is incompatible with the low density residential uses 0 0 Cellular Tower August 15, 1990 Page 5 envisioned by the Plan and could adversely affect the implementation of the Plan in the future. Although we note that the plan has not yet been officially adopted and may well be changed to some extent before it is, we believe it would be prudent for the City to err on the conservative side and deny the request for this reason. 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 current character of this area is agricultural with encroaching industrial uses on the west. If this area were to remain undeveloped in the foreseeable future, staff would agree that the site is an acceptable one, however, we do not believe this to be the case. This standard encourages the City to examine the intended character of the general vicinity and in so doing we find it is incompatible with the proposed low density residential uses in the draft land use plan. 4. "Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses." * Finding - Based on supporting data, we do not believe this proposal will have any hazardous affects coming from the radio transmissions or from the physical tower itself. 5. "Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use." * Finding - The tower will be unmanned except for employees engaged in periodic servicing. There will be no need for new public facilities to serve the proposal. 6. "Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community." * Finding - As noted above, there will be no need for new public facilities generated by this proposal. We do not expect that it would have a major detrimental affect on the economic welfare of the community, however, to the extent that it would make residential development on C, Cellular Tower August 15, 1990 Page 6 adjoining property less than desirable, it could have an adverse impact. 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 proposal will not result in any increase in traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents or trash and to the best of our knowledge, it will not contribute to any hazards or television interference stemming from the radio transmissions. 8. "Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares." * Finding - The site will be served by a driveway to Lyman Boulevard and the proposal will not generate any increase in traffic. 9. "Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance." * Finding - The proposal will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of any major significance. 10. "Will be aesthetically compatible with the area." * Finding - Transmission towers by their very nature have a visual impact over a relatively large area. This impact is minimized by sighting and could be further minimized by additional landscaping if this proposal is approved by the City. The design and height of the tower tend to limit off site impacts. At the same time it cannot be denied that there will be a visual impact and that this will be made more to if residential development occurs adjacent to it. 11. "Will not depreciate surrounding property values." * Finding - Impact of the proposal on this standard is difficult to ascertain. It is reasonable to think that this will not have a beneficial impact on property values when surrounding properties develop, but at the same time 0 • Cellular Tower August 15, 1990 Page 7 any development that would occur in the future would take place in the knowledge that the tower was present. 12. "Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article." * Finding - The tower is consistent with the only standard provided pertaining to setback requirements. In summary, staff is recommending that this proposal be denied due to its impact upon land uses anticipated in this area by the draft land use plan. Should the Planning Commission and City Council determine that approval is warranted, we would recommend that a condition be added that would require a landscape screen around the base of the tower and equipment building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Conditional Use Permit #90-3 for SMSA Limited for a cellular transmission tower be denied for the following reason: 1. It is found that the location of the tower on this site is incompatible with the low density residential uses anticipated for this site by the draft land use plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission reviewed this request at their August 15th meeting. At the start of the meeting, the applicant indicated that upon further engineering studies of the site, they concluded that a 175 foot self supported antenna was required to meet their needs as opposed to the 125 foot antenna originally envisioned. The Planning Commission reviewed the application as revised with the 175 foot antenna. During discussion on this item, a number of area residents spoke in opposition to the antenna. They raised questions regarding visibility, impact on property values and potential health and radio interference problems. These questions appeared to have been answered to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission generally agreed with staff's assessment that this site was suitable for an antenna but disagreed with staff's recommendation that it be denied based upon the draft land use plan that is as of yet unapproved. They believed that there would be little or no impact on surrounding properties given the location and voted on a 5 to 1 vote to recommend it's approval. The Commission worked with staff to develop appropriate conditions of approval and these are as follows: 0 • Cellular Tower August 15, 1990 Page 8 1. Staff will approve the aesthetic design of the tower and building and the building should be consistent with other recently constructed telephone and public utility buildings in the area. 2. Staff will approve and document the tower shape and structure and that it's construction will follow that approval. 3. No other radio uses shall be approved the Conditional Use Permit #90-3 which Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Landscaping shall be installed as landscaping plan. A letter of improvements will be required before issued. without an addendum to will come in before the part of the approved credit guaranteeing building permits are 5. No lights or signage be placed on the tower or elsewhere on the site. The tower shall be painted a flat color so that it blends in with the background. Staff has reviewed city ordinances pertaining to towers and concluded that they are deficient in several areas. We are proposing to come back before the Planning Commission and City Council with revisions to this ordinance and in fact had hoped to do this at the Wednesday, September 5th meeting but were unable to do so due to scheduling problems. However, it should be noted that the problems staff sees in the ordinance would not directly address the issue raised by the Planning Commission. We would propose that the ordinance be changed so that towers only be allowed in agricultural districts that are not planned for residential uses in the future. However, as the City Council is aware, the new comprehensive plan has not yet been approved and even had this language been in place, based upon the Planning Commission's reasoning, the City would not have been in a position to deny approval of the tower. Staff continues to have reservations with the tower site based upon what we believe to be the ultimate use of this property. However, as noted previously, we do agree with the Planning Commission that if a tower had to be developed in the City, that at this point in time, this site is fairly well suited to the task. Therefore, we are passing along the Planning Commission recommendation for approval for your consideration. Should the City Council decide to deny the request, you should refer back to the original staff recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Conditional Use Permit #90-3 for SMSA Limited 0 0 Cellular Tower August 15, 1990 Page 9 for a cellular transmission be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff will approve the aesthetic design of the tower and building and the building should be consistent with other recently constructed telephone and public utility buildings in the area. 2. Staff will approve and document the tower shape and structure and that it's construction will follow that approval. 3. No other radio uses shall be approved without an addendum to the conditional use permit #90-3 which will come in before the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Landscaping shall be installed as part of the approved landscaping plan. A letter of credit guaranteeing improvements will be required before building permits are issued. 5. No lights or signage be placed on the tower or elsewhere on the site. 6. The tower shall be painted a flat color so that it blends in with the background. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 15, 1990. 2. Letter and data packet from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban dated July 16, 1990. 3. Brochure regarding Cellular Technology. 4. Copy of property owners notified of conditional use permit. Planning Commission • ting • August 15, 1990 - Page 24 1. Staff will approve the aesthetic design of the tower and building and the building should be consistent with other recently constructed Public telephone and public utility buildings in the area. 2. Staff will approve and document the tower shape and structure and that it's construction will follow that approval. 3. No other radio uses shall be approved without an addendum to the Conditional Use Permit #90-3 which will come in before the City Council and Planning Commission. 4. If other antennaes are to be installed, they should come back for review under the CUP guidelines. F. Lendscaping be installed as per the landscaping plan. 6. No lights or signage be used on this site. 7. The tower shall be painted a flat light color so that it blends in with the background. All voted in favor except Conrad who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Conrad: My reason is stated previously as I really like these uses in industrial areas. I don't see a need to make them out in stand alone ur.itE-. Absolutely do not see that need. This goes to City Council on September 10th so there are a few things that I hope the applicant heard and car, present to the City Council. You heard our concerns here and they're going to be, the Mayor's here tonight so he's listening. I think they're going to follor our comments and you may want to pay attention to a few of those to make it easier. 7.'11 euehl: What sort of information would you like on alternatives? Ellson: The things you said you didn't have any information on for example. When Bill was asking you about some of these and you didn't have much information at the time. I think that would be. Bill Buehl: I know we were contacted by... We will find that out. Conrad: And then work with staff closely okay. Thanks Bill. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 1010 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, FORTIER AND ASSOCIATES Public Present: Kevin P. McShane 180 South Shore Court Daryl P. Fortier 408 Turnpike Road II It • Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 23 0 Erhart: I would not vote for that. If that's what I thought it was, I wouldn't vote for that. It seems to me we're voting on this because, I'm Proposing this assuming that we're talking about a telephone building type structure that you see down on TH 101 that's made out of solid permanent material. If that's what we're looking at, then I almost... Wildermuth: But there again we have no ordinance. Erhart: Yeah I know but there's. Here's the ordinance. It says it shall be architecturally consistent with surrounding structures. Wildermuth: There are no surrounding structures. Trees. Erhart: To be honest with you, I'm going to withdraw my motion in favor of havir:z, it come back with some more information as opposed to just changing it. I' somebody else wants to do it. Ccn- d: Put you've made a motion. Erhart: Well nobody seconded it so. Conrad: Co you want to make another motion? Erhart: okay, yeah. I'll make a motion that we... Bill Buchl: Mr. Chairman, point of information. We are willing to construct whatever type of building you, architecturally... We've built many different types of buildings... Erhart: Paul, are you satisfied that you can take this from here? Krauss: It's whatever you're comfortable with. I guess I'd like some cuidelires. I mean do you expect a masonry brick building? Some of the newer utility buildings we're getting are reasonably attractive these days. Erhart: Okay, I'll proceed then and we can take a vote on it. That staff will approve the tower aesthetic design as well as the building and the building should be consistent with other recently constructed public telephone and public utility buildings in the area. And due to the fact that the surrounding buildings will turn out to be residential. So number 2 is staff will approve and document the -tower shape and structure and that it's construction will follow that approval. 3, that no other radio uses should be approved without an addendum to the conditional use permit which will come in before Council and Planning Commission. And the other conditions as staff has outlined. Landscaping per a plan. No lights and signage and that the tower will be painted a flat color. Conrad: Is there a second? Wildermuth: Second. Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #90-3 for SMSA Limited for a cellular transmission tower with the following conditions: 0 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 22 r� a 1,000 yards away. People can see it anyway but people see all sorts of things from their windows. They see electrical towers. Those big huge monsters and water towers and those big satellite dishes so I think this is not as bad as all those things or any of those things. I agree with the other commissioners on most of their comments. Particularly Steve's in support of this and I will recommend approval. Conrad: Thanks Joan. I'll be brief. I think there are, I have Preferences for this not to be there. I think everybody said that here and we're finding reasons that we don't think we can refuse it but preference is not to have it there. Therefore I agree with the staff report in terms of some of the conditions that it doesn't meet and that would be conditions 2, 3 and to of the staff report. Incompatability with the zoning. Whether it be today or the future. Incompatability with the character and aesthetically. I guess the biggest thing, and I think all the comments on the commission are very clear and I think I support or I understand what they're saying. I guess I haven't been convinced that the applicant has really tried alternative sites. If we have a chance to, I guess when this goes_ to City Council, I think it's real important that we understand that those have really been reviewed but I feel there's enough here to say no. I als_, feel that it takes some residential land away that I'd rather keep residential in the future so for those 5 reasons, I would vote with the staff report and against the proposal. Is there a motion? Erhart: A question on a motion. If you're looking for a positive motion, what does the staff prefer? Do you want to go back and look at conditions? Do you have some that you want to throw in at this point or are we looking for a positive motion? Conrad: It certainly sounds like the Planning Commission is. Erhart: If we go with a positive motion, do you want us to throw something out there and vote on it. Krauss: I could suggest some conditions if you'd like to consider those. Well you had Commissioner Emmings' concern that if other antennaes are to be installed, that it come back for review under the CUP guidelines. Landscaping be installed as per their plan. No lights or signage be used on this site. And that the tower be painted a flat light color so that it blends in with the background. Erhart: Okay, with that I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council Conditional Use Permit X90-3 for SMSA Limited for a cellular transmission tower with the following conditions. That the staff approve both the tower, the aesthetic design as well as the building that goes with it. I state that because previously we always have the opportunity to review telephone equipment buildings and the aesthetics. Krauss: Could we touch on that for a moment. As I understand it, this building is a fiberglass exterior, portable structure that would be brought in and tied down to some footings. The illustration that I saw, it's Painted outside to emulate brick. I don't know if that's what you're looking for. f Planning Commission eting • August 15, 1990 - Page 21 question and I'm not sure that I got that feeling from it but I don't really see a huge problem with it and I agree with Steve's idea as far as adding other uses but I don't know. I think if it's there before those houses go in there, it diminishes the property value from what? From what it is now? I really doubt that and if you're the one building on that lot, you're going in with your eyes open so I can't, I think the main reason that we were thinking of denying it was because of the property values and I don't necessarily agree that that's going to come across that way so I would vote to approve it but I sure want them to convince City Council that those other alternatives are definitely out of the question because they also were in that search site. Again, I'm not convinced that it's a definite no. Wildermuth: Paul, I want to congratulate you on an excellent report. Unfortunately I happen to disagree with it. I don't think we have a good basis on which to deny this conditional use permit. Virtually everything seers to be there. The one thing that I do think is missing on the part of the explanation given by the applicant is that I don't feel the alternate sites were explored very well or explained very well. The other concern that I have is that the proposed alternate site that we offered Paul, it was at about 1,000 feet so, or 1,000 yards so we're relatively close. It was a matter of apparently not being able to get together with the property owner. I think in support of the applicant's position, it is a low intensity land use. Anybody going in to build on a site somewhat adjacent to it knows the tower's there. I don't think it's going to be particularly de_ireable for a residential site in that little triangle because you're very close to some relatively high use railroad tracks. The railroad noise is probably going to be pretty objectionable. It looks like a reasonable land use other than the fact that we intended it to be something else in the 2CC0 Comp Plan. So to be consistent, I did favor making the lot a part of that industrial. To be consistent I guess I have to accept the application. Conrad: Joan. Ahrens: Does anybody know what the FAA requirements are for lighting on a 175 foot tower? Krauss: Over 200 feet requires lighting. Bill Buehl: That's correct. There will be no lights on this tower. Ahrens: It seems like the planes fly over awful low out there. I'd hate to have my house nearby if there's no lighting on that tower. Bill Buehl: We filed an application to get a notice of no hazard from the FAA before we build it as part of our required process... Ahrens: I'm going to recommend approval of this also. I drive by that one on Baker Road several times a week and I never noticed it was there until today when I was specifically looking for it. I think it's pretty unobtrusive. I think that this is a satisfactory area even to put it up even though there's potential residential around it. The alternative sites are so close, as everyone has said. It doesn't make any difference if it's • • VI Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 20 his house and that was something that was, that term implied that and nothing else as I remember it. But anyway all that aside, I think I'm going to vote for this thing and I'm going to tell you my reasons. First of all a tower is going in there before any homes might be developed around there so that somebody coming in is going to be able to see it. It's not something we're going to impose on people who are real close to the site. Timberwood is fairly close but I think it's far enough. All of those People that will be looking at the tower will be looking at it against a background of an industrial area which takes away a lot of it's impact to me. The only thing that I'd like to see as an added condition here. I don't think they should be allowed to put any additional, I think we should know exactly what they're going to hang on the tower. I don't think the tower will be that obtrusive. It's more the stuff that's on top of it and I'd like to know what's going to be on top of it exactly. You showed us one picture and that didn't bother me but I think it should be restricted to whatever. We should approve what's going up there. It should be restricted to that and it shouldn't be changed unless they come back. A1_=c, I don't think the tower should be allowed to be used for any other purpose. I don't know if they have any plan to do that but I don't think they should use it for any other. They shouldn't be subleasing it to someone else who wants to put something else up there unless we know what it's going on to. Krauss: One thing you may want to consider, and ordinances I've drafted in t..a Past have done this, is it basically takes the premise that if a tower's going to go up someplace, you might as well make the most efficient utilitization of it. You don't want penthouses and things up there that block out the sky but you may have a desire to encourage people to cc -locate so you do only have one instead of. Ellson: I think he's saying come through before you do that. Emmings: I'm not saying we wouldn't allow it. I'm saying we want to have a chance to approve it before it gets hung up because we might not want to. But other than that, I don't have any other comments. Conrad: Annette. Ellson: I believe that despite the height, that it isn't as objectionable as probably even telephone poles. I'm sure in the early days everybody wanted telephone but they didn't want those poles in their backyard. I think water towers and satellite dishes and things like that are a lot more obtrusive than this and I've seen people building right next door to that so there's no doubt in my mind people can build around it. I agree with Steve that especially if was there before the people come and I agree with Tim that we're right on the border of calling it industrial so I don't know that that much distance is going to make that thing. I'm not really convinced however that the alternatives that we suggested are totally out of the question. I have trouble believing that I don't know, that two Phone companies don't work well together or something like that. I'm not convinced that those other property owners are saying absolutely no. Is it just a cost effective way. This will be cheaper so they don't want to do that. I'd like to see that pursued maybe a little bit more before it goes to Council that absolutely, positively, our other ideas are out of the ' 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 19 Conrad: So the land itself is a buffer? Erhart: Yeah. I think the land itself overrides the visual impact on the tower. You know I would prefer to have it right in an industrial area. So you could put it on the other side of the line, would it change it that much? Just putting it over 300 feet? And combined with the fact that I think the ordinance clearly allows it and plus we're talking about a future ordinance change that may take a year to get it changed. I just don't think that we have enough basis for denial. That's my comments. Conrad: Steve. Emmings: Paul, if we accept their arguments that our ordinance might allow this, or does allow it, can we deny something based on a plan that's in the proce_s cr that would permit it when we know that plan is probably going to change? Have you talked to our City Attorney about that? Krauss: Yeah, I did ask him about that and he frankly is concerned that while he agrees that the intent is justifiable, that the language of the ordinance is one that a judge might rule against the City if it came up. You know I think that you're being asked to put blinders on in essence. You're sort of boxed in where you're saying you know that this area is cuing to change and you know that in all likelihood that it's going to chance to residential but you're not supposed to look at it. Well, planning is an ongoing process and you've been involved in this process for quite some time now and the result of that is on the immediate horizon. I guess I have a problem ignoring the fact that that exists, especially when the existing land use plan gives little or no definition as to what's in,tende' out there. It just drew a line and it's a great blank. Based on the attorney's recommendation though, we are going to propose language to reined; that. Now we really haven't talked about legally how should the City protect themselves on this. There is a possibility of moratoriums if we neEd to do that and then on and on. We will discuss this at length tomorrow. He did read the report and he did raise that concern. Emmings: Okay. Well that would be a concern of mine but I really, I think I was here when we worked through some of these ordinances that they presented and I'm really comfortable saying that I don't think that's what in our ordinance applies to this type of use whatsoever. When we said a telephone equipment building, I know we had in mind things that are connected by wires on both ends and here..we've got something now that's kind of, you know when is a telephone a radio and when is it a telephone? We've got something new that's kind of a hybrid and this is clearly not a telephone equipment building. At least as we contemplated that term under the ordinance. Also I question whether or not that tower is an.accessory use to that building. I think it's the principle use and that the building is accessory to the, actually I think they're both principle uses. I don't, one is no good without the other so calling it, I don't think, at least in my mind, that buys them nothing to call it an accessory use, if that's what they're doing. As far as the ground mounted vertical antenna, I was here when we drafted that ordinance too or put it in and I know that that did not deal with or include a tower like we're talking about here but we were talking specifically about, at that time,.we were talking specifically about, it came up because of a ham radio operater's tower at • • VI Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page IS Erhart: Can you show me what line is the ambiguity? Krauss: A couple of things. First of all when you go to telephone equipment buildings. 20-919. The intent there, and we've got the file upstairs and the intent there was to deal with regulated utilities. US West. NSP. Erhart: Isn't this regulated? Krauss: No, it is not. It's under different law. That's where, and there's a lot of misunderstanding about this. This is not an utility company. These are contracts that are up for bid in each metro area and there's two bidders or two operaters that compete for competition in each area but their rates are not regulated. They're not required to have mandatory service. They're not required to do any of those things that a regulated telephone company is. Erhart: Well, I don't want to get into that whole thing. Let's move down to Section 20-915. Where's the ambiguity there? Krauss: Okay, the ambiguity and possibly Jo Ann can explain this a little bit more. The intent was that, this is an overlaying conditional use in the residential district, that was supposed to account for ham radio operaters. There is a sentence in there that says in all residential districts only one is permitted per lot, satellite dish, amateur radio antenna tower, which is fine as far as that goes and then ground mounted vertical antenna. What is that? Well, unfortunately the definitions weren't adopted with the ordinance but the definitions and maybe Jo Ann can explain this. This is referring to another style of ham radio antenna tower. It's not 175 foot cellular telephone tower. Now at this point, the ordinance is ambiguous and it's tough to explain that unless you go through the background but that was the intent. Erhart: Did you want to get into it Jo Ann? Olsen: If you want me to I can. Erhart: No, I don't. I guess I take the same position as... I think after the last meeting we are obligated now to... I think we have an ordinance. I think the ordinance allows, no matter how you cut it, allows a radio antenna in this area and for that reason alone, I disagree with Your recommendation not to allow it but I think there's another point here too that I'd like to make and I think quite frankly, for the same reason that we have future proposals for rezoning this area, I think this radio antenna, considering the low surface area there and the high density of landscaping, it provides a really good buffer from a future residential area from industrial so I think there's some assets. My opinion would be to, I would recommend it's approval. Conrad: You said it acts as a buffer? Erhart: I think it acts as a buffer, yeah. I don't think the thing is very visual at all. 0 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 17 for the next year, there are several to lower them down, yes. We're kind industry but that is happening. that we are doing that. We are going of new at this too. It's a new Conrad: Are there other comments? Anything? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing- All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: We'll go around the Planning Commission for comments. Tim, we'll start at your end. Erhart: Paul, on the map, the area to the, you're concerned about future zonina. The area directly to the west of that south site, south of CR 18 and north of the tracks. What's that going to be? Krauss: Wall this is based of course on the draft that we're going to take to Public hearing. The way the draft is right now. Erhart: Can you draw a line, where's industrial and commercial? Krauss: This area is all residential. The area that is proposed not to be and also this area is residential. The area that's proposed not to be are these properties here, here, here and here. Erhart: Okay, those are all industrial. Krauss: On the current draft, yeah. Erhart: And you're basing your denial on the fact that that point down there, that penninsula is intended for residential? Krauss: Correct. Erhart: How do you weigh their interpretation of the ordinance allows this... Krauss: Those are some of the ambiguities of the ordinance that I eluded to earlier. I think possibly Jo Ann can expand on this but several years ago there was an attempt to deal with antennaes affecting, well ham radio antennaes and satellite dishes that were"the current rage and the language in there is not as explicit as we would like it and I think can be misinterpretted and through a series of misinterpretations extended back in the analogy that that's being used. I think it's a real stretch and the ordinance also provides that where there's conflicts within the ordinance, because ordinances are cumbersome anyway and there ofter are conflicts, the most restrictive determination is the one that shall apply and lastly, based on the advice of the City Attorney, I didn't get a chance to review this last bit of information with him yet this afternoon but I will, but in speaking to him previously, he advised us to clear up the ambiguities that we knew about already in the ordinance. To clarify that and we have an intent to do so. • • Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 16 questions that I have that, my concern that, I don't have a cellular phone but I'd probably like one and hope maybe someday to maybe get one and I see the technology is something that's growing and needed but with that I have a concern that 5 years from now and Bill, some of the other uses that you use for this like computers and things like this, are we going down the line and I guess these are the concerns that I have and the hesitency that I have saying that the City should endorse something like this. Are we going to be staring at a 200 foot tower or a 300 foot tower 5 years from now or multiple towers on that site? And then perhaps increasing power or something like that or maybe other uses for towers that may be coming into play where interference could be a factor. The real concern I have there was, I was in a home one time that was next to the ones on 35-W in Bloomington. My goodness, I walked into that home and just went down into the basement. I'm a real estate appraiser and walked through the basement and the pipes were literally singing country western music and it really was a concern. I know that you approach this whole area that this is not something that's going to interfere but I guess maybe right at this moment it isn't but is it going to sometime in the future and I guess that's my concern. I don't think anybody can maybe guarantee unless you really have some technology of what's going to be happening in the future. Dave Hellerman: I can tell you what we do know. First of all, I used to work at that station on 35-W a long time ago. That was before they liked country music but in any case, the nice thing about cellular system from the standpoint of your concerns is that as the system grows, the sites become lower and the power actually gets smaller because you want more and more smaller cells. That's how we increase the capacity so when we started out building this sytem, we were building towers of 300 to 400 feet. Now in some of the peripheral areas we're still doing that where we're covering for miles. Cologne is 250 or 300? 485? Okay. But as we increase the density of our users, we're able to make the towers smaller and the towers lower because we don't want the cells to be bigger. We want them to be smaller and that's the direction that we're going in. So that while it's Possible that this area's growth continues at, by this area I mean Chanhassen, Chaska. If growth continues like we've been seeing, we may need more towers, they will be smaller and lower and eventually we'll be doing, we see a day when we'll be on top of 60 foot telephone poles. Something like that. Craig Harrington: Will higher buildings obstruct that where they may have to go higher? Dave Hellerman: No. What we're doing in areas that have a lot of buildings, we just end up going on the rooftops. Unfortunately there are no single buildings that ... but at some point that might become a realistic way to go but to answer you. We're not getting higher or bigger. We're getting lower and smaller as the system grows so I really don't see the Potential for what you're concerned with. Bill Miller: I have a question. Have you ever... Dave Hellerman: We are doing that. Yeah, we are currently in the middle. of a program to do that. We actually are doing on in Arden Hills where we'll be putting on the shorter one within the week but we do have planning 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 15 Jerry Gustafson: It doesn't matter how many users you've got. The same site will handle as many... Dave Hellerman: No. There's a limit on a site. Between 30 and 50 depending on how it's been figured internally. The site won't support an infinite number of users. Jerry Gustafson: So you're counting on a number of more users using telephones to call into that area and that's why you need the tower? Dave Hellerman: It's users in that area who want to use their portable or mobile telephone like yours. People can call land lines in that area. Is that what you're, or am I misunderstanding you? Bill Euehl: Mr. Gustafson, do you have a cellular phone? This Motorola, is that a cellular? Jerry Gustafson: Yeah. Bill Fuehl: And you're saying that when you're home you can call. Jerry Gustafson: No. Like when I'm in Hopkins where I work, I can call, when I leave, from inside my car and there's no antenna on the car or anything and I have no problem calling home. It's nice and clear. Dave Hellerman: That's going on the wires to your home. That's on the telephone wires into your home. I mean you're in Hopkins. Jerry Gustafson: No, no. I'm calling from inside my car. Dave Hellerman: Right. But the connection into your home ... that's on wires in this area. Ellson: The antenna's in Hopkins then? Dave Hellerman: The antenna is close to where he's calling. Ellson: What you need is the antenna from where you're placing the call from. Dave Hellerman: Right. From where you're serving the cellular telephone, correct. I apologize if I misunderstood: Jerry Gustafson: Well the only other comment I guess I'd like to make is I know people build houses next to objectionable sites and I don't understand why they do that. Put a $200,000.00 home next to a swamp or something. I don't know but to put something there that is objectional and then offer a residential area, you know put $200,000.00 homes on it, I don't think would be... I just don't think... Conrad: Good. Thanks for your comments. Other comments? Craig Harrington: I've just got a couple of quick questions. Craig Harrington. Maplewood Terrace in Timberwood Estates. A couple of 0 a Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 14 Jerry Gustafson: Yeah. I would like to address Mrs. Harrington and say that the Gustafson's. Conrad: As long as you give us your name and address. Jerry Gustafson: Jerry Gustafson. Mary Harrington: I spoke to your wife. Jerry Gustafson: And that we're not apathetic. Mary Harrington: Your wife was appalled. Jerry Gustafson: I have a couple of questions. Number one is, you know the tallest tower in Minneapolis years ago was the Foshay Tower so it's just full of antennaes. Why isn't there room for one more antenna on the water tower there in Chaska? Is one antenna, does that fill it up? Bill Buehl: Yeah, in this case it's way over on the edge of the search area. I don't think that water tower is in the search area. It's also in the United Telephone's district and I believe Cell One has the antenna right next to it and we would interfere with one another on the same frequency ban. You can't be that close. So we can't locate there because of frequency interference and telephone phone lines... prohibition. We would much rather be on the water tower if we can. We would rather not have to build a tower structure. Jerry Gustafson: I would think that would be ideal for you on the water tower. Bill Buehl: And we are on many water towers. Jerry Gustafson: The other thing is, I have a hand held telephone and I can call from like Hopkins to my home and I have no problem in reception or whatever. Why do we need a new tower right there? You can get into that little small area that you've got. Bill Buehl: I'm not sure what kind of telephone. Jerry Gustafson: Motorola that I just hold. There's no antenna on the car or anything. Just hold it. Bill Buehl: I should maybe let Dave answer that. Dave Hellerman: There are some areas where we have coverage problems in the area here. I can go through them on the map... The other thing is, as the system expands, we need more and more cells to provide the same quality of coverage as there are more and more users because what happens is you have more and more users on the same frequency and unless we have antennaes close to the users in this area, they won't be able to get the same interference free reception. That's kind of the growth we were discussing. We were discussing growth. So as we have more users, we need more sites to maintain the same quality of service. Planning Commission • eting August 15, 1990 - Page 13 away, you'd certainly notice it I would think. Or half a block or 2 blocks or 3 blocks. As far as decline of property values, I guess you can do all sorts of studies to prove numbers but I guess I'd just make the point that it has some effects. I can tell you I probably wouldn't buy a house that was right next to one which would certainly lower the potential value of that house. I guess I would agree with Paul's recommendation at least now to deny it and at least give time to investigate some of these things which I would like to investigate to make sure some of these things are accurate. I'm not denying that they are. I just want to look into it and see and to consider some of these other items and go without validating some of these things. I don't think it's consistent with the land use we talked about at the last comprehensive plan and it might also affect property values and tax values of whatever has to be put in there. That's all. Thank you. Conrad: Thanks Bill. Are there other comments? Mary Harrington: Hi. I'm Mary Harrington and I live up in Timberwood and I have the highest piece of property in Timberwood too and you bet your bippy I could see it if they put it over there. I'm about a quarter mile north of them. Of the 84 people who signed the petition for the surrounding area to be included as single family residential, if you will remember that month and a half ago, whenever it was, the petition was Presented that affected the area of that. Almost 50% of the folks were not from the Timberwood area but of the ones that are from the Timberwood area and the ones that are down on Galpin. I had a chance to speak to Mrs. Jerome Carlson and the Gustafson's and a few other folks. Some of these folks are on vacation at this moment. Oh, and some of them were very diseruntled and frustrated but did not wish to show up. Gotten apathetic here I guess but Mrs. Carlson said that if there's a petition out, that she wishes to sign it to the effect that we are not interested in having a tower that at the time, you know 125 feet. I own a 2 story house and so I said my 2 story house is 24 feet tall so if I'piled up 5 of my houses I would be that height of that tower. Now I've got to pile up 7 of them and I said that's nothing that I want in the surrounding area. I think it's not consistent with the housing area. There is some conditional use grandfathered in. Items across the street from it which nobody wishes to see go industrial in that little area either which is south of Jerome Carlson. The Gustafson's who are the closest property to this one, when they found out about it they did not get any notification on it and they didn't read the paper, they were appalled at the thought. They did not wish to see it either because I mean it's obviously visually going to be noticeable and it just doesn't seem compatible and the houses, I mean there's no way you're going to sit and put landscaping around this thing and block it off. I mean it's just too tall and I'd like to see this put into an area where the existing area is industrial existing at the present. Where something like this should belong. Conrad: Okay. Any comments? Jerry Gustafson: Can I speak from here? Conrad: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 12 Dave Hellerman: It would be during a tornado or something like that which you would... warning. Bill Miller: Don't we have tornadoes around here sometimes? Just kidding. The area that's going to be served by this you said was 3 miles? Dave Hellerman: Roughly. Bill Miller: So somebody in Minneapolis isn't going to ever be using something like. It's not something that could be used for a distant or someone who's in a Shakopee cell would never be tacked onto this one or something like that? Dave Hellerman: The idea of cellular is to limit the coverage of each cell so you can reuse the previous ... so our goal is to limit it to where it has to... Bill Buehl: I'd like to add that the cell will service the local community as much as users of TH 5 and the new planned TH 212. I believe they're very close to the coverage itself and cellular phones have become more and more popular and they're becoming an important factor that people consider when they look for a place to live. ...developments I've heard talked about in this area are the houses are ... cellular phone. Maybe you use cellular phones yourself. Bill Miller: No I don't. Bill Buehl: They're becoming more and more popular and they're going to be used for much more than voice transmission and if you don't have the circuitry in place. There are many appliances that you can plug into this circuit and it's like saying that cellular phones are for voice transmissions like that on the computer... Many, many uses coming down the Pike that circuitry... Conrad: Anything else Bill? Bill Miller: I think I'm about done. I'm just checking my long list here. Oh, and one last one. The trees in that little area. You said they were 112 feet tall? Bill Buehl: Yes. Bill Miller: That's not elevation of the trees there were 112 feet tall? Bill Buehl: Right. The power posts, that whole string of high power lines, those vary. They're around 100. Some are a little bit taller. Some are a little bit shorter. They're between 95 and_110. Bill Miller: Okay. As far as a couple of other things I guess. The fact that they're not noticed. I guess I'd make a point obviously that if under the comprehensive plan homes are built there, it's definitely going to be noticed by someone that's much closer. Maybe if you're 2,000 feet away you don't notice it every minute. I don't notice the Chaska water tower every day but people come visit us always ask us about it but if it were a block V1 ' Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 11 Bill Buehl: I don't know the details. Bill Miller: Why couldn't you get the... Bill Buehl: Most of our search area was in the US West Telephone service area anyway. Bill Miller: I'm just trying to see why. Bill Buehl: These are good questions. I can understand your concern. Bill Miller: I guess I have a question for someone up here. What does conditional use permit mean? Is that going to take too long to understand? Conrad: It just means we have conditions. Basically they can't have something unless they meet the conditions. Bill Miller: Does that mean that you have the power to stop this if you choose to? Conrad: If they don't meet the conditions. Bill Miller: Okay. Are the conditions, the conditions that exist the day they apply for it or can conditions be changed? I'm just wondering. Conrad: There's some vagueness in the conditions. Bill Miller: I have a couple more. Am I taking too much time? Conrad: Go ahead. Bill Miller: I saw what the tower. looked like. When you put up that picture of that one I guess you said was near 494. How tall was that? Bill Buehl: I believe, Paul you'd know. 160? Krauss: The one that I'm familiar with off of Baker Road's 185 feet tall. It sits down in kind of a gully. Bill Buehl: I don't really know. Bill Miller: I just want to make sure that we're looking at something that's really what we're going to see. You say there are no health affects or safety affects and you're certain that that tower wouldn't hit an extra 10 feet and smash a car going down the road down that 10 foot side? Bill Buehl: I'd like to refer the letter that I submitted. I think it's Pretty clear in there. Dave Hellerman: It takes a pretty severe natural event. They don't just fall over. If it were, and it's a long shot to go over. Bill Miller: Well I understand that but bridges do fall in once in a while and things do happen on occasion. 0 a VI Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 10 work. Couldn't get out of the area because we didn't have the capacity. Bill Miller: Well that happens to me everytime I go to LA too. That's nothing new. I know but that's not some deficiency right here. That's nothing to do with Chanhassen. Dave Hellerman: ...we're not always perfect and we do the best we can. Bill Miller: Why not use the Chaska water tower or something existing already that high with something smaller and less noticeable? Is there some problem with that? Bill Buehl: Because Cell One is already on that tower. That's their antenna right next to it. Bill Miller: Where? In Chaska? Bill Buehl: Yeah, the Chaska tower. Bill Miller: How about the one, do we have a water tower right up here somewhere don't we? Is something wrong with this one or does that have somebody on it already? Conrad: That's outside the area. Bill Buehl: It's outside the search area. Bill Miller: So that search area literally had to be that little 1,000 square foot piece of land? What if something was already there? What if that was already a big building? Mary Harrington: ...everybody's done back here, what would you have done then? Bill Buehl: We'd have to go through the conditional use permit in that district. Bill Miller: What if there was one big plant there? Do you put one right up in the middle of a plant? Bill Buehl: Oh yeah. We have many antenna sites right on top of the roof. Bill Miller: So you'd pop it right on top of somebody? Bill Buehl: And we also have sites currently in South Minneapolis in a very tense residential area. Bill Miller: You mentioned you couldn't make a deal or something like that with US Telephone to move it otherwise. What was the problem there? Bill Buehl: I'm not sure of the details. I just know that it was out of the question. Mary Harrington: Based on your side or based on their side? a 0 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 9 Bill Miller: I'm just trying to see the criticality of this issue. I'm trying to understand. Okay. Dave Hellerman: We've been working on this for quite a while. It's not something that came up yesterday that we have to do tomorrow. Bill Miller: Okay but when he said October, it sounded like all of a sudden. You know we're August. That's only 2 months. That sounded pretty serious. What is the area that's going to be served currently by this tower and how long is it going to last before you need another one? Dave Hellerman: This tower will serve approximately a 3 mile radius. Again there's some terrain considerations but that's roughly speaking, about a 3 mile radius. Bill Miller: And how many concurrent users is it going to be capable of? Bill Buehl: You've got 25 simultaneous calls. Bill Miller: Is that based on the equipment on the ground and then you can add additional units on the ground with one tower? I mean is it going to go 25, 50, 75 or are you going to have to have more towers? Dave Hellerman: We can expand this up to the point where it would cover about 50 calls roughly. Maybe a little more than that. That of course depends on the technology. There is technology today on the horizon that might allow us to serve a lot more calls without any physical change in the structure. That's what we're hoping. Bill Miller: So how long is this, when are you going to reach the 50 then? What is your plan say? When do you really need this facility right here and when is it going to be filled up? Dave Hellerman: The rate of growth of our whole industry is beyond, this whole industry has existed about 6 years. The rate of growth is surprising to all of us at various times you know so roughly speaking, and again without knowing what the future holds, we're doubling our capacity every 18 months. Something like that. I wish I could give you better estimates but it's all... Bill Miller: I understand. So what do you do in 18 months? What happens in 18 months? Dave Hellerman: Well we will be adding other cells. Whether the focus will be out here as much as in the city is something that we have yet to determine. I'll point out one other item that is important to us in that it gives some extra urgency to this particular project is the U.S. Open golf tournament is being held down the road next spring and that adds a little extra. That's certainly not the sole reason for putting our building in but it did put up the flags that we needed the capacity here. Those kinds of events put a lot of users on this. Bill Buehl: Bill, I'd just like to say one thing about... I tried making a call right up there by the McGlynn's Bakery site and my phone didn't 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 8 smaller and smaller all the time. Dave Hellerman: Yes, we certainly could get the same coverage with a lot of 50 foot towers. It would be, I'd have to see a map but it'd probably be on the order of 8 to 10 short towers and then we've got 8 to 10 facilities and we have to multiply the equipment by 8 to 10. The whole thing just gets. Bill Miller: I understand. I just wondered is it possible. Dave Hellerman: In theory, yes. It is possible. Bill Miller: Okay, and then another question. If the pace of technology and cellular telephone seems to be changing pretty quickly in general and I don't know a lot about it but I know a little bit about it and you know, for the next question is, how about the timing of what you're doing. Why are we needing to do this right now? I know you said you had to fill out your charter or whatever it was to fill out your area. What is the exact timing of when you have to fill that out? Is it next month? Is it a year? Is it 1999? 2014? And why do you have to do it right now? Bill Buehl: It's October, 1990. Bill Miller: So why did this come up so short, all of a sudden then if it's that near term? Bill Buehl: We would have liked it. Bill Miller: so by October, 1990 if you don't have something set in this cell you're going to lose something? Bill Buehl: Well we need to fill out our coverage... Mary Harrington: What happens if you don't? Bill Buehl: Then the, I guess the FCC would review our license but we're pretty much... Bill Miller: What about all these other areas that you showed not being. Bill Buehl: We have some coverage. Shakopee. Bill Miller: Yeah, that's what I was assuming. Bill Buehl: Right. There is. Bill Miller: So if you didn't put this up, you're not going to lose anything? Bill Buehl: You'll have poor coverage and no capacity. Dave Hellerman: There's a percentage criteria and I think you know, this isn't the only thing we're doing. We have you know quite a few projects that we're working on simultaneously. This is just one of them. V I • 0 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 7 Bill Buehl: Thank you. Conrad: Thank you Bill. It is a public hearing. Are there any other comments? Bill Miller: Most of these came up while he was speaking so they're not going to be very well done in order or anything like that. Conrad: Why don't you give us your name. Bill Miller: My name is Bill Miller. I live at 8121 Pinewood Circle in Chanhassen. I guess I just have some questions. You said there was no effect on television or radio reception. Is that within a certain distance or absolutely none? You're not going to start seeing lines on your television or something like that? Bill Buehl: Absolutely none. Mr. Chair, I'd like to defer that question to the engineers that are here from US West. This is Dave Hellerman, the Operations Manager in Minneapolis. Dave Hellerman: As far as interference, no. There is none. We have a lot of sites, we've never had any complaints. Interference with television or anything like that. Bill Miller: How about cordless telephones? Dave Hellerman: No. They operate on a much lower frequency. They're even more immune than television. Bill Miller: Okay. I guess the next question is, how do you determine the height? Why does it have to be 125, 175 and along that same line, why can't it be 60? Are there alternatives where you could put a 40 foot tower up if it costs twice as much? That type of thing. You can put a 50 foot tower on your roof but you can go out and buy a power antenna for your roof too that's a lot shorter. Dave Hellerman: Let me explain. The first order of magnitude for the tower is how large a circle we need to cover. Obviously the higher it gets the larger the coverage circle you'll get. In this case we have some Problems because of the hilliness of the terrain which Bill mentioned. I'm sure you're all aware of that. That's one of the things that makes this Property residential area, and there are some holes that don't get filled very well. Some low spots. That hilly terrain. It's beautiful. It's difficult to get radio waves across the perimeter so that when we started doing a specific program that does estimates of the signals strength every 100 feet. On a 100 foot grid and it found too many holes at 125 feet to get the kind of thorough coverage that we need so people when they're driving along in their cars up and down don't lose our signal. We just found that we needed a little more than we originally thought. The crude estimates that we started with. Bill Miller: Sort of going down the same line. Is the alternative to have several 50 footers then? I mean are there alternatives to putting up a 175 foot site? I mean if you're in a city, you've got all these cells getting Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 6 Bill Buehl: Well we would because your ordinance allows less setback if it can be shown that the tower collapses in a progressive manner. Conrad: And you didn't did you? Bill Buehl: Yes. This tower if it fails, it goes over ... the letter. Conrad: I read that and I guess I didn't get that same feeling. Bill Buehl: or the property simply needs to be expanded to 350 by 350 which the owner is willing to do so we're only 20 feet off. Conrad: But at this point in time, I guess I wasn't persuaded that you met that. Paul? Krauss: Mr. Chairman, clearly they're information in that regard could have been more timely but I've worked with similar towers in the past and I've seen films that have shown towers that have gone through tornadoes and they do snap in the middle and just fold over. In the past I've construed that to be consistent with that collapsing progressively designation. Bill Buehl: I might also add that the greatest and massive part of this tower is in the ground. There's very massive footings that go very deep into the ground with tons and tons of cement that holds it in place so I think we've met the requirement for the setback. Again, if needed we can expand the amount of property so that it doesn't go, even in a straight line scenario, it would be on the property. Then I'd like to address the depreciation of surrounding property values. The staff report indicated that the proposed residential development around this site would be deterred by this tower. I think there are many examples around the Twin Cities where people have built houses almost underneath taller antennaes. This is an array of antennaes in Eagan. These houses were built after the antennaes were constructed and you can see they're very much in full view of the antennaes. In this case, this is a picture taken looking north towards the residences. We tried to get as low as we could to show you what the view would be above these trees. This tree is about 112 feet so we're about half again higher than that tree. But still you can see that the closest residence is one in these trees, cannot see the tower. The closer you are if you have trees around it, of course you can't see the antenna. By the time you can start seeing the antenna, you're far enough away where it would be just a very thin line on the horizon. Again the areas in the Twin Cities, okay this is White Bear Township where new housing developments are going up right next to a tower much taller than the one we're proposing and very much within view. Also in our packet you included a letter from Peter Patchin that did a study for us on ... tower and is very conclusive that the presence of antennaes does not depreciate the value of residential or industrial property. Again there's another picture showing houses that are very close to that tower in Eagan which is a much higher tower and transmitter facility and these are much newer houses that were built there after the antenna was put up. Are there any questions? I'd like to reserve the right to respond to comments... Conrad: We usually always let that happen, yes. It • Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 5 building and then an antenna as an accessory use of that building permitted in all districts. Permitted under a conditional use permit so even if this was a residential area, we would still be here going through this same process which is an application for a conditional use permit. The next standard that I need to address is that the facility will be designed, constructed and operated and maintained so it will be compatible with the appearance of existing intended character of the general vicinity. Again this is this area. The essential character of this area is formulated by the railroad tracks, the county highway, the ag land and the many industrial uses across the road. This tower will have a thin profile as you can see here and many times after these towers are up, they aren't noticed by people in the area. I think Paul eluded to that in the Minnetonka area. In fact I challenge you to when you go to work tomorrow or look around where you live. If you start looking up, you'll start noticing many antennaes you didn't know where there and we've had many People tell us about that experience. The top of the tower will look more like this. This is the antenna ray that we'll be using instead of the one I showed earlier. This dish will not be there. This is a Cell One antenna at Baker Road and 494. This one is 160 feet right off 494. I'm sure many of you drive by this as you drive into town to go to work or other uses. The facility, the next standard, the facility will not be hazardous or disturb existing or planned neighborhood use. Cellular is a very low Powered system. This graph shows the millowatts per square centimeter which is this power density measure. This is the American National Science Institute standard of what's a safe level of exposure to these millowatts Per square meter. It's just again a higher density measurement. As you can see, Cellular has a very low powered system. Your cordless phone, the ones you can use in your home right now with an antenna on inside your house, has more power density than Cellular phone. Hand held CB has more than twice as much. You're in much more danger if you stand 2 feet from your microwave oven in your kitchen than you will experience from this cellular. The next standard is the cellular facility will be served adequately by streets, police, fire protection. Conrad: Bill, excuse me. A lot of these staff is in support so you're telling us stuff that they've already agreed. Bill Buehl: But they don't agree with some things. Conrad: And I think you should hit those but the ones where you're in agreement, you know. Bill Buehl: Okay. Well I'd like to enter my presentation into the record but I'll skip over those parts. Okay, I'll skip down to the surrounding property values. Is there any more questions on the site plan? I'll skip over that part Mr. Chair if you desire. Conrad: The only thing that I'd suggest is you're saying that you meet the setbacks and you don't based on the height of the tower that you're now proposing. Bill Buehl: At 125 or 175? Conrad: At 175 you don't. 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 4 The pink areas are in this case industrial districts. We're in an ag district where this type of facility is permitted by conditional use as Paul told you. Also, Section 20-919 requires that telephone equipment buildings be landscaped. Have a hard surfaced driveway and meet all setbacks which we do with this proposal. This is a site plan of our 2 1/2 acre site. These are existing trees which will stay. These are trees that we propose to plant in a landscaping plan. This is the building and this is the tower right here. On this plan we were still operating under the proposal of 125 foot tower which easily meets the setbacks for tower height setbacks. The setbacks are supposed to be equal to the tower height by the ordinance unless it can be shown that the tower collapses in a progressive manner and in this case, this is a self support tower. But if we go to the 175 foot tower, we're still, we have a 330 x 330 x 330 parcel. We would only be 10 feet over the line if it were to fall in a straight line. These towers don't fall in a straight line. It's a self support tower and it's much stronger than a guide tower and if the tower ever would fail, if it would take a direct hit from a tornado or some other great catastrophic event such as that and even then if it failed, they're built to go over instead of falling over. One link that's not quite as strong as the rest and the tower just crumples on itself. So still we could meet the setback of the requirements even with the 175 foot tower on the parcel that we have at this time. I need to go through the compliance and issuance of standards of a conditional use permit. I'll do this as quickly as I can. I'd like to show the distance away from the surrounding structures. This is an aerial that 1 inch equals 200 foot aerial photo. Our site is here. Can everybody see that? It's probably hard to see. The closest building is across in the industrial park. It is 1,050 feet away. This is the closest structure. The closest residence is 1,100 feet away so we're fairly far away from any existing structure. The standard is that the facility will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood. Again this is a safe structure. It's a tower that is one of the safest built. It is a self supporting. I do have a letter from the manufacturer of the tower that outlines the collapsing pattern. I saw in our packet that we submitted that we had submitted a letter regarding a guide tower. This letter regards the self support tower and should be entered. The next standard, the cellular facility will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. The only comprehensive plan in force at this time is the 2000 plan which still earmarks this as agricultural. That's the only guide that we could go by for this project so we are a Permitted conditional use in an agricultural zone so again this is the current plan. It's zoned agricultural and the comprehensive plan zones this as agricultural. Even if this was a residential zone, as Paul eluded to, it's my interpretation of the Statute that it's still a conditional use. I'd like to pass these out to all the members. Mr. Chair if I may. This is an abstract of your ordinance given telephone equipment buildings. There's 3 parts of the ordinance that I'd like to address. First of all, Section 20 at the top. 20-919 provides a telephone equipment buildings are allowed in all zoning districts as a conditional use. That includes residential, ag, industrial, every zone so in this case, this is a telephone equipment building. It has telephone switching and cellular telephone radio that will be in the building. This is what it looked like. And also the next Section 20-915 allows antennaes shall be permitted as accessory uses within all zoning districts so we have a telephone equipment V 1 • 0 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 3 complete coverage in every area. We have some coverage but not all these covered so we are trying to fill in some of this grid that we need to fill in in order to fill out our coverage area. And in order to locate the cell many aspects are taken into account. Topography is very important. Existing towers. Especially AM towers. We have to be aware of all frequency and airwaves that are being used. We look at existing water tanks if we can. There's one very close in this search area. However Cell One already had that water tower and we could not locate it there because of the interference problems so many factors are taken into account and exactly what's in that cell, where we're going to locate the tower. In this area here, a close up of that map I showed you earlier that you couldn't read very well. We have existing antennaes in Shakopee, Shorewood, and out by Cologne. Now we have coverage problems in here because of the terrain. This is a topographic map. You can see that it is a very hilly area and you're well aware of that living here but we needed to locate a cell inbetween these two and drift this way a little bit and this is the area that it was very clear that this was the place that the cell had to be located. This shows the search area. The more exact map of where our engineers and where the computer indicated where we needed to locate the antenna. This circle shows only where the antenna needs to be located. The coverage area would be much larger of course so you can see that it's centered right here in this agricultural area. The city of Chaska here. The city of Chanhassen over here. We had another factor in this in that we could not work with United Telephone who owns the land line system on this side of the solid black line. We had to stay in the US West service area with our antenna. We need to hook up this system to a land lock system to transmit to all the landlock phones so again it shifted the search area right into this area and it's a very small area as almost all our search areas are. Once the search area is decided and a specific site is chosen, as in this case a specific site was chosen on the Volk property, more tests need to be done to get a more exact equipment proposals. In this case the height of the tower. The number of ... type of antenna were all factors that need to be finalized. For this application we were under the impression that 125 feet was going to be tall enough to give us effective coverage. We had to get our application in on by a deadline I believe August 7th but we could not have our final engineering runs done by that time. Now we learned in just this past week that our engineers are telling us the most effective size would be 175 feet so I'm asking that we can amend our application for a conditional use permit to go to the 175 feet instead of 125 feet. The reason for that is we just couldn't get enough... So here is a picture of the coverage area. I'd like to get some notes over here. I don't know if you've driven by this area. This is looking basically northeast. Much of the search area is shown by this slide. You can see it's agricultural in nature. There are some larger lot developments to the north. That's Ridgewood and to the east. Krauss: Timberwood. Bill Suehl: I'm sorry, Timberwood and the one to the east was. Krauss: Sunridge Court. Bill Buehl: But the site does meet all of the local zoning requirements. It is in an agricultural district. The orange area shows the ag district. • • Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 2 little green ban over on the left and that indicates that it's at a higher frequency than all the television and radio channels. What this means from an electromagnetic spectrum perspective is that cellular phones will not interfere with those users that in lower frequency. However, it's possible sometimes that these lower frequency users will interfere with the cellular phone so it's really our problem and we can solve that with filters. I should also say that with me are many members from US West New Vector Group so we have construction engineerings and operations people with me and if you have detailed questions, I'd refer them to those people but I'm trying to kind of give you a fly over of some of the technology. Cellular is very different than the conventional mobile telephone systems. This slide shows a conventional system in a metropolitan area. The old way was to find the highest building you could find like the IDS building. Put your antenna on top and serve your users in a large, cover the metropolitan area with one antenna. The drawback where you couldn't serve as very many users. The cellular system gets it's name from the creation of cells that are laid in a grid pattern across the metropolitan area. The reason that the cellular system can handle more calls is not because of the quality of radios but because of the magic of computers. Each one of these cells is created by an antenna in the middle of each cell. Each cell can handle about 25 simultaneous calls. As you get into the interior of the metropolitan area, all you need to do is make your cells smaller. They still handle 25 simultaneous calls and you can get down to where your cells might only be 2 or 3 blocks in an area. We're not at that point now. The Chanhassen site is dealing with an area in Minneapolis out in this area. So that's where the name comes from. The way it works, maybe you already know this or you have.a phone in your car or a hand held phone. When you're within range of the antenna that's in the cell, then you can talk to the system. The system then can talk to any phone in the world so you can be standing out in the field or in your tractor or in your car and talk to any other landline phone or any other cellular phone in the world as long as you're near an antenna and have coverage. As you move from cell to cell, the computers automatically switch you to the antenna that can give you the best reception. So this is the cellular phones from a series of cells across the metropolitan area. The importance of this is that the cellular grid system gives a blueprint. There's a blueprint of the grid system of the metropolitan area. The importance of that grid system is that it allows us to build the least amount of antennaes and therefore have the least'amount of land use impacts. If we cannot place a cell antenna where we need it, then we may have to go find two other sites to cover the one coverage area that we could have done with one site if we have to move the antenna. So that's the importance of the cell system. This shows the system that's currently built by US West New Vector in the metropolitan area. I don't think we're going to get much out of this graph but here's St. Paul. Here's Minneapolis. This is the area that US West New Vector Group and Cell One, by Federal law there have to be two carriers, are licensed. In one aspect, these little red dots show existing antennaes that are up in the Twin Cities area. US West New Vector has about 33 at the present time and the one important aspect of the license is that in order to retain the license, US West New Vector must fill out their coverage area so we're getting a lot of pressure to hold our license. We must fill out our coverage area. So that's where the pressure is coming from. And this is a mature system where we have antennaes in all your cells and you have complete coverage. In the Twin Cities we don't have 1I • 0 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15, 1990 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner One; Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer; and Dave Hempel, Enginner Technician PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CELLULAR TELEPHONE FACILITY (ANTENNA TOWER AND EQU_I_PMENT BUILDING) ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND THE CHICAGO MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD. MINNEAPOLIS SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. Public Present: Bill Miller 8121 Pinewood, Timberwood Craig Harrington 8140 Maplewood Terrace, Timberwood A. H. Michels 247 -3rd Avenue So., Minneapolis, MN Bernie Wong 7128 Bristol Blvd. Jerry Gustafson 8341 Galpin Blvd. David Hellerman 2112 Minnehaha Ave. So., Minneapolis Robert Davis 5612 Brookview Avenue, US West NewVector Lloyd L. Quinton 2421 -161st Avenue S.E., Bellevue, WA James Frady 6720 Southcrest, Edina, US West NewVector Ed Hasek 6570 Kirkwood Circle Mary Harrington 8140 Maplewood Terrace, Timberwood Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Ladd Conrad called the public hearing to order. Bill Buehl: Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Buehl. I'm with the planning firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban and we represent US West New Vector Group which is the general partner of the Minneapolis SMSA Limited Partnership. I brought with me some slides that I would like to use in my Presentation. I think it will make my presentation go faster instead of trying to use these boards. What I'd like to do first is to review what cellular telephone service is because many of the technical aspects of this telephone service impact on where we can locate this antenna so I'm going through this only to illustrate why we need to locate the antenna where we are proposing to locate it now. US West was created from the break up of AT 8 T and I'll show you this just to show you the market area of the US West New Vector. This is a slide showing the electromagnetic spectrum. I show you this because I understand there was some comment on the concerns that there might be interference with this antenna with other frequency users. As you can see on the slide, the cellular phone frequency is that 0 CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS .300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612 339-3300 16 July 1990 Mr. Don Chmiel, Mayor and Chanhassen City Council Members City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Proposed Cellular Telephone Facility on the Volk Property Dear Mayor Chmiel and Council Members: This letter accompanies an application for a conditional use permit to locate a cellular telephone facility on the Volk property adjacent to the Chicago, Milwaukee Railroad. The application is in the name of Minneapolis SMSA Limited Partnership, of which US WEST NewVector Group, Inc. is the general partner. US WEST NewVector Group, Inc. is one of the regional holding companies formed as a result of the break up of AT&T. Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. has been authorized by US WEST to act as its representative for planning and zoning matters. Specifically, we propose to construct a single 125 foot self -supported antenna and a 12' x 30' prefabricated equipment building. The base of the tower and equipment building will be enclosed by a six foot high chain-link fence. The site will be accessed by an asphalt drive connecting the site to County Road 18/117. THE CELLULAR PHONE SYSTEM The primary users of cellular telephone service are members of the business community and the public sector. The phone becomes a useful tool leading to increased productivity. Doctors, builders, salespersons, business owners and executives all benefit by using cellular phones. Additionally, cellular is extensively used in the public sector principally by fine and police departments. Cellular allows police and others to conduct discreet communication in the field. Citizens can contact "911" to report accidents, fires or other emergencies. The cellular phone system interfaces fully with the "911" 0 City of Chanhassen, 16 July 1990 0 Page 2 emergency reporting system. Mr. James R. Beutelspacher, 911 Project Manager for Minnesota, recently wrote, "the unimpeded growth of cellular service is an important adjunct to 9-1-1 emergency reporting". His letter is attached for your information as Exhibit E. CELLULAR GRID SYSTEM Cellular service provides subscribers with office quality phone service by developing a grid of antennas arranged in a geographically hexagonal pattem. Each hexagon is a "cell" created by an antenna and serves as the link between the customer and the system while the customer is within that particular cell. Each cell can only handle a certain number of calls simultaneously. As the number of customers increase, the grid must be changed to handle the appropriate number of simultaneous calls. This usually means that more cells need to be created within the same area resulting in a new grid pattern of smaller cells. A new antenna must be constructed each time a new cell is created. As the grid matures and more cells are added, antennas are made shorter because of each cell's smaller coverage area. Antennas are also constructed to expand the grid of coverage to the new areas. The antenna in Chanhassen is being proposed to expand cellular phone coverage in Chanhassen and adjacent communitio.. The cellular mobile phone system operates on a specific set of channels set aside by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The filtering of spurious signals is very tightly controlled. Cellular telephones operate within a very strictly controlled set of allotted frequency between 835 to 897 megahertz. US WEST NewVector Group is currently operating over 160 cellular antennas around the country with no case of television or radio interference reported. SEARCH AREA CRITERIA We have been working for several months to locate an antenna site in the Chanhassen area to solve cellular phone service coverage needs. Many factors go into the selection of a location for an antenna site. These include market factors, technical considerations, cellular grid, zoning and land use compatibility, landowner willingness to sell, land forms of the surrounding area, and accessibility to roads. All of these factors taken together create a narrow site search area for location of the antenna. The technical aspects of fitting a new cell site into the grid pattern dictates a small search area for new antenna sites. The search area is further refined by topographical features and a sophisticated computer modeling that takes into account existing antenna sites, predicted coverage of the new cell and FCC service area requirements. Federal Aviation Administration regulations must also be followed in locating and constructing antennas. The search area in Chanhassen that resulted from this type of analysis, is illustrated on Exhibit C. It is an area one-half mile diameter centered over the Volk Farmstead. n u City of Chanhassen, 16 July 1990 0 Page 3 Once the search area has been defined by these technical constraints, zoning and land use factors can be addressed. We have been in contact with the City's Planning and Zoning Staff to review the appropriate locations in the area but have found none better than the proposed site that meets all of the technical criteria as well as land use, zoning and comprehensive plan designation. Telephone antennas are conditional uses in the A2 District and the City's approved comprehensive plan calls for industrial uses in this area (see Exhibit D). The cellular telephone system does not have the power of eminent domain and we must deal with willing sellers. LOCAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS Section 20-574 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance allows commercial communication transmission towers to be located in the A2 District as a conditional use. Section 20-572 lists utility services as permitted uses in the A2 Zoning District. Because of the deregulation of the telephone company and the many separate companies that now provide that service, there will be multiple companies serving any one community. The installation and operation of cellular telephone facilities are regulated by the FCC and US WEST NewVector Group, Inc. must obtain permits and provide service indiscriminately to the public. Section 20-919 requires telephone equipment buildings, which are allowed in all zoning districts, to provide landscaping, a hard surface driveway, meet all setbacks, and receive the appropriate access permit from the County. The building must also be architecturally consistent with surrounding structures. All of the above is included in our proposed cellular telephone facility. The antenna which is 125 feet tall will be setback from all property lines in excess of 125 feet. STATEMENT ON THE COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL ISSUANCE STANDARDS The facility will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or City. The antenna is located a safe distance away from surrounding buildings. The closest building is in the Crosby Park Industrial Complex located directly to the south of the site, approximately 1,000 feet away. The closest residential building is located at the corner of County Road 18 and 117 and is 1,100 feet away from the facility. The 125 foot self -supported antenna proposed on this site is one of the safest in design. As indicated in the enclosed letter from Pirod, Inc., (Exhibit F) failure of a self-supporting tower is extremely rare in such instances as a direct hit from a tornado. In the rare event of failure, the pattern of failure is a "bowing over" of the upper portion of the tower against the base of the tower. The cellular facility will be consistent with the objectives of the City's comprehensive plan. The proposed use is considered an essential service and is permitted by conditional use in the A2 District. The comprehensive plan for this area indicates industrial uses similar to the adjacent industrial areas of Chaska. 0 City of Chanhassen, 16 July 1990 Page 4 The facility will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so it will be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The essential character of the area is formulated by the railroad tracks, county highways, agricultural land and the many industrial uses across County Roads 18/117 from the site. A power substation is located further to the south. Heavy woods to the north, east and south separate the site from existing development. The tower itself will be thin in profile and located adjacent to the stand of woods to be preserved on the site. The building is relatively small and will be fully landscaped to minimize its utilitarian appearance. With landscaping and the siting of the facility adjacent to woods, the cellular telephone facility will blend in with the backdrop of the surrounding scenery. The facility will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The neighboring uses being industrial and agricultural will not be disturbed by the presence of a cellular phone antenna. The cellular phone facility permits enhanced mobile communications for both the public and emergency services. This type of service has been an essential ingredient in communities reacting to emergency situations, as well as flexibility in personal and business communications, all of which is a benefit to the businesses and residential neighborhoods in a community. Cellular is a low power system. The amount of energy generated from a single cellular phone channel is typically about ::e same as a 100 watt light bulb. This is less energy than is generated by a cordless telephone, which is in use in many homes today. There is no disturbance to televisions, radios, pacemakers or other sensitive equipment. The mobile cellular telephone system has become an essential part of the public communications network. The quality and capacity of local cellular service will be an important factor that future residents will evaluate in selecting where to live. The peak hours of use are during rush hour when users are on their way to and from work. Currently cellular coverage is patchy along low lying highway corridors and this facility will alleviate those coverage problems and enhance the capacity of the system to accommodate additional numbers of users. In addition, the FCC regulations dictate that US WEST NewVector Group fill in the service areas to meet coverage and user demands as part of their licensing requirements. The cellular phone facility will be served adequately by streets, police, Fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools. The facility requires street access for maintenance purposes only and will have minimal requirements of police and fire protection. In fact, the 911 emergency facilities of the system (all 911 calls are free) greatly facilitates the highway patrol's responses to emergencies. The site will remain primarily in its natural state and not create additional runoff from the site. No utilities are necessary since the site is unoccupied and will not create a demand for additional educational facilities in the school system. Obviously the facility will pay its fair share of taxes to support those facilities. The facility will not create excessive requirements for public facilities or services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. In fact, the facility will provide a needed service and help Chanhassen attract new residents and businesses who enjoy enhanced communication services. 11 City of Chanhassen, 16 July 1990 9 Page 5 The facility does not create excessive traffic, noise, fumes, glare, odors, rodents or trash. The operation of the antenna and adjoining facilities will not be an occupied use, therefore, there will be no measurable impacts on local traffic. A parking space will be provided immediately adjacent to the equipment building for maintenance personnel. Maintenance personnel are expected to visit the facility on an average of once or twice a week. No trash is stored on the site and all equipment is inside the specially designed equipment building. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations do not require lighting of structures less than 200 feet in height. The proposed antenna is 125 feet and will not require any nighttime illumination. The facility will have a vehicular approach to the property which does not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. The access point is approximately 200 feet from the railroad crossing and 600 feet from the intersection of County Road 117 and County Highway 18. There is less traffic created by the facility than a single family home and there will be no problems of congestion. There will not be a destruction or loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. The site has left all of the major elements intact and is further enhanced with the site landscaping. The facility will be aesthetically compatible with the area. The site itself will be landscaped and maintained in a natural state. The antenna tower will appear no different than structures commonly found in the industrial area to the south or on agricultural properties with wind -generated equipment. The tower will have no moving parts and because of its location directly adjacent to the stand of woods, we feel the overall effect is an aesthetically pleasing tower installation. The proposed facility will not depreciate surrounding property values. The existence of cellular telephone antennas has been shown not to negatively affect property values even in residential areas. A copy of a letter by Peter J. Patchin, an appraiser, is attached as Exhibit G and contains his opinion that cellular phone antennas do not depreciate surrounding property values. Mr. Patchin studied antennas in both industrial and residential settings. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed facility meets all standards provided for by the City. In addition, the specifics of the landscape enhancement plan provides for additional beautification of the site. The perimeter landscaping requirements have been met by the retention and preservation by the significant stand of trees left on the site. Additional evergreen trees will be planted around the access road and facility to provide a year round sense of enclosure. Since there is only one vehicle parking stall, the western side of the parking area will be screened with shrub plantings. There is additional landscaping proposed along the access road and along the right-of-way of County Road 117 to break up the views of the facility. The remaining site will be planted with grass and wildflower species for overall beautification. Much of the area will be left in its natural state. The landscape planting will be installed after completion of all construction activity. The landscape installation will include a one year guarantee and a maintenance period including watering to ensure proper growth in the fust year. City of Chanhassen, 16 July 1990 Page 6 I hope your questions about cellular telephone facilities have been answered. I will be happy to furnish any additional information you may request. Sincerely, DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC. C. John Uban, ASIA Vice President Enclosures: Check for Application Fee in the Amount of $150.00 Site Plan Landscape Plan Exhibit A - Aerial Photo of Proposed Site Exhibit B - Surrounding Property Map Exhibit C - Search Area Map Exhibit D - Land Use and Zoning Map Exhibit E - Letter from James R. Beutelspacher, 911 Project Manager Exhibit F - Letter from Pirod, Inc. Exhibit G - Letter from Peter J. Patchin, Appraiser I I i R. f r t *t z t Y, 4100 ✓ `,�. R ty,-.y, 9p,' 4�ii�J``'.y��hd. �` � �.. •��, y�fk'4 J�'H'i F �; ' .'. N'y 11 A �w � IA Aerial Photo 0004* 0000 0 100' 200NORTH l Exhibit A Z O D 2 I� Im Y rIn NO. \ j I!m`/ �4_l., 60 56 00 r fj mr 71 h MVV 1 \+Q f tv AF _ - _ , \ �� \ �, ,,.�'a X9• y � Iwo � \ — _ _ � l o � � \ zo ArN i AD \7 Search Area Lake Hazeltine V! LFL--� 0 500 1000NORTH Exhibit C P1 Industrial idustrial PID 2 Z W a m N N = Q Z = Q U = OIC 'Io f O U1t �U P1 Lake Hazeltine tate H-JL� . . .... jam/ IndAistrial b �,— - T _.. — - Proposed Cellular Phone Antenna Site Industrial Land Use & Zoning Current as of July 1990 LFI-- —001+�J\ 0 500' 1000 NORTH Exhibit D STATE OF MQVNF_40TA s1%8t ,.. Department of Administration 1 nt erTech nologies Group Stn Cenannlal Office Building SSA Cede, Svect SL Paul. Minneww SSlNfi (6111P -69Yf1 November 1, 1989 Mr. Ron Sanders Regional General Manager U.S. West Cellular Opus Gateway, Suite 410 9800 Brenn Road East Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Sanders: I am writing to thank you for your continued cooperation in providing the best possible 9-1-1 service to your subscribers and to express my support for further cellular growth. As you know, the public safety community began receiving 9-1-1 emergency calls from cellular users from the start of cellular service. The 9-1-1 system improves the level of public safety service to the community by allowing faster and easier emergency reporting. Cellular service enhances that capability by allowing 9-1-1 calls '. )m the scene, regardless of landline telephone availability. It provides the opportunity for on -the -spot emergency reporting. Your effort to help route cellular 9-1-1 calls to the proper public safety answering point and advise your subscribers about 9-1-1 availability has been a significant help to public safety. In 1986, the Golden Valley State Patrol dispatch center answered about 300 cellular 9-1-1 calls per month. This year, well over 2,000 calls a month are responded to. That increase indicates both your success in selling cellular telephones, and your help in educating your subscribers about 9-1-1. Many of those 9-1-1 calls reported emergencies located away from conventional telephones, so cellular saved precious time. The mobility of cellular service complements the universality of the 9-1-1 system to provide a real benefit to the community. It has been a pleasure working with you to bring the benefits of 9-1-1 and cellular service to the communities of Minnesota. Minnesota is proud of our accomplishment of statewide 9-1-1. Your efforts at eventual statewide cellular service is appreciated and encouraged. The unimpeded growth of cellular service is an important adjunct to 9-1-1 emergency reporting. We look forward to further joint efforts to provide this service to more Minnesotans. Sincerely, 4 �'Z' ///, -- mes . Beutelspac ter State 9-1-1 Project Manager Business Technologies Division mf cc: John Shardlow DSU Incorporated Minneapolis, Minnesota Exhibit E October 10, 1989 Ingo Mr. John Shardlow DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW AND UBAN, INC. 300 First Avenue North Suite 210 Minneapolis, MN 55401 RE: Guyed Tower for U.S. West Cellular, Indianola Tower Job A-107244 Dear Mr. Shardlow: UC[ 1 6 1gcc; P.O. BOX 128 PLYMOUTH, INDIANA 46563.0128 (219) 936-4221 FAX (219) 936-6796 Thank you for your inquiry relating to tower design practices and predicted type of failure. The national design code (EIA Standard RS -222-D) requires that the factor of safety of guy wires be greater than the factor of safety in the tower structure itself. For towers 700' or less, the miniwum factor of safety on wires is 2.0, while the minimum factor of safety on tower members is 1.25. For towers over 1200' tall, these values are 2.5 and 1.66 respectively. For heights between 700' and 1200', the values are calculated by linear interpolation. The purpose of this disparity is to insure that failure of the structure is predicted before failure of the wires. Structural failure would therefore be predicted to result in collapse of the tower like a "carpenter's rule" in the general area of the base of the tower. The foregoing is with specific reference to tower failures induced by extreme weather conditions. However, tower failure can also result from human misadventure or vandalism. Therefore, security fencing is advisable to protect against accident or vandalism. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact US. Sincerely, TA.- , Myron C. Noble, P.E. President MCN:lah Exhibit F Patchin & Associates, Inc. Valuation Consultants 14300 Nicollet Court, Suite 240. Bumsville. Minnesota 55337 (612) 435-5999 U.S. West New Vector Group, Inc. 3350 151st ?venue S.E. P.C. Box 7329 Bellevue, WA 98008 RE: MIN - B, B1 Credit River Township Scott County, Minnesota H.E. Xing: Gentlemen: At your request I have investigated the potential market value impact of the proposed cellular communication tower which is to be located on the Minneapolis Gun Club site on Judicial Road. The proposed tower is to be 350 ft. tall, single pole, with guy wire s,pport. The specific purpose of this study was to estimate the market value impact, of the proposed tower, upon properties in the surrounding neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood is of a predominantly rural character with scattered single family dwellings and small farms located on large acreage lots. The present Scott County zoning is A-2 Agricultural District. This zoning is intended for current use as agricultural, but with a gradual transition to single family residential. The minimum lot size under this zoning is 10 acres. Exhibit G 0 0 The investigation as to market value impact included the inspection of sites with the same type of tower as is proposed. Those sites were: 12666 Dakota Ave. So. Savage, Minnesota Industrial area with single family bluff top homes, immediately to south. 1929 Eagle Creek Blvd., Shakopee, Minnesota Light industrial area between Canterbury Downs and the Haver Addition, a single family residential area overlooking tower site. 14950 Chippendale Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota Located next to City of Rosemount water tower in a predominantly residential area. A review of market data in these neighborhoods revealed no measureable value impacts. Contacts with well informed real estate brokers .nd assessors familiar with these neighborhoods revealed no value impact. Further, I reviewed appraisals I have made of properties lying in close proximity to towers and found no value impact. My conclusion is that given the subject location, there should be no measureable value impact upon neighborhood properties. PETER J. PATCHIN & ASSOCIATES Sincerely, Peter J. Patchin, MAI, CRE, ASA President Enc: Appraisal Qualifications of Peter J. Patchin Peter J. Patchin & Associates. Inc. 0 CERTIFICATION (Real Estate) 0 I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 4. My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this report. 5. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the S`andards of Professional Practice of the AL.,rican Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. 6. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 7. The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's and RM's who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. Mr. Patchin is certified under this program through September 15, 1990. 8. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. Other appraisers, signing this report, who made a personal inspection of the property were as follows: none. 9. No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this report, except as noted herein. Pte, 9 - �t�cr ¢ 1&0g Si ature ' Date Peter J. Patchin & Associates, Inc. • QUALIFICATIONS OF • PETER J. PATCHIN, AS APPRAISER EARLY HISTORY Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 1934. Elementary and secondary educa- tion in Edina, Minnesota public schools. BUSINESS EXPERIENCE Cargill, Inc., Production Trainee, 1956-57. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Topographic Mapping, 1957-59. General Mills, Inc., Staff Engineer, 1959-61. Patchin Appraisals, Inc., Staff Appraiser, 1961-65. Vice President, 1965-81. Peter J. Patchin & Associates, Inc., President, March, 1981 to present. EDUCATIONAL WORK Kansas State University, B.S. Degree, with honors, 1956. William Mitchell College of Law, 1977-78 AIREA Courses 1A-1, 1A-2, 1B-1, 1B-2, 1B-3, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 7, all passed during 1980, Litigation Course in 1985. Original AIREA course work passed 1964 through 1968. Currently attends two to three appraisal seminars per year, one to three days duration each. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Member, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (MAI) Senior Member, American Society of Appraisers Real Property & Business Enterprise - Intangible Property Designa- tions (ASA) Member, American Society of Real Estate Counselors (CRE) Affiliate Member, Minneapolis Board of Realtors Certified Business Appraiser (CBA) - Institute of Business Appraisers 1979 Licensed Real Estate Appraiser - State of Nebraska PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS "Gross Multiplier vs. Capitalization Rates" 1971, Pages 88 - 95. "Depreciation Methods and Market Experience" October, 1980, Pages 503 - 510 "Grain Elevators, Three Approaches To Value" July, 1983, Pages 392 - 400 - Valuation, November, - The Appraisal Journal, - The Appraisal Journal, "Common Sense About Cash Equivalency" - The Appraisal Journal, July, 1985, Pages 340 - 346 "Valuation of Contaminated Properties" - The Appraisal Journal, January, 1988, Pages 7 - 16 COURT EXPERIENCE Qualified in District Courts New York Qualified in U.S. Tax Court, District of Wisconsin in Minnesota, Michigan, Montana, and State of Minnesota Tax Court, Federal Court, Peter J. Patchin & Associates, Inc. 6 0 QUALIFICATIONS OF PETER J. PATCHIN (Continued) APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE Specializing in the appraisal of industrial, commercial and special purpose properties, primarily to estimate market value on land, buildings, machinery and equipment and intangible assets. Appraisal experience on various types of properties include the following: development lands, park lands, industrial river channel lands, utility easements, office buildings, warehouses, factory lofts, shopping centers, hotels, restaurants, service stations, apartment buildings, grain elevators, flour and feed mills, breweries, malt plants, food canneries, bakeries, dairies, bottling plants, schools, churches, hospitals, machine tools, graphic arts plants, iron foundries. Intangible asset experience includes leasehold interests, patents, trademarks, copyrights, mailing lists, goodwill, as well as the valua- tion of the entire business enterprise. APPRAISAL CLIENTS INCLUDE Aetna Life & Casualty Co. Bay State Milling Co. Burlington Noz.hern, Inc. Cargill, Inc. Certain -teed, Corp. Control Data Corporation Farmland Industries, Inc. Garnac Grain Co. General Mills, Inc. International Multifoods, Inc. Jefferson Company K Mart Corporation Krause - Anderson Companies Louisana Highway Commission Medtronics, Inc. Metropolitan Airports Commissic Minneapolis Community Development Aqency Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Mennel Milling Company North Dakota State Tax Commission Northern States Power Company Pillsbury Company Ralston Purina Company Soo Line Railroad 3M Corporation U.S. Internal Revenue Service University of Minnesota *The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's and RM's who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. I am certified under this program through September 15, 1990. Peter J. Patchin & Associates, Inc. US WEST Cellular US us Inc., one of the ST Cellular n regional companies crea ed by ST �odivestiture of AT&T in 1984. 1 84 WEST US WEST NewVector Group offers a full range of mobile communications, including cellular phone systems, as well as a comprehensive line of communications services for other cellular operators. US WEST NewVector Group is licensed to provide cellular telephone some add tion] market area that includes the fourteen western states illustrated below, p local markets, such as the San Diego Metropolitan Area, that lie outside this area. The corporate headquarters for US WEST NewVector Group is located in Bellevue, Washington. US WEST NewYector 14 -State Market Area L'S WEST NewVector Group US WEST Cellular L'S WEST Paging Introduction to Cellular Technology elephones were only available to a privileged few who were willing to In the past, mobile t tolerate the considerable limitations of a system that utilized only 12-20 channels and often had poor voice quality and spotty coverage. These systems operated with one centrally located high-powered transmitter to communicate with all of the mobile units in the service area. This technology did not make large-scale service practical, because each of the system channels could handle only one call at a time. Channels could not be reused because the transmitted signals were strong enough to interfere with one another. Conventional System Cellular System The current cellular telephone technology was developed by Bell Laboratories to respond to these problems. This system consists of many low -powered antennas erected in a honeycomb pattern of "cells" that invisibly blanket the service area. 0 0 The cellular system consists of a cellular phone that both transmits and receives radio signals. From the mobile phone, calls are sent to a central computer called the Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO). The MTSO connects the cellular phone transmission with the local telephone company system which completes the call. From Cell To Central Computer To Local Call Anywhere (MTSO) Telephone Company in the World As a caller drives from one cell to another, the call is automatically handed off to another cell by computer. The cells are also overlapped to insure calling success even during the busiest hours and days of the month. The system is engineered to provide excellent signal strength and clarity. In addition, all NewVector cellular service systems are compatible with each other, so when a caller travels into another city, the system still works. 'on MTSO �I As you drive from one cell to another, the computer automatically hands off your call to a new cell. Relationship With Neighboring Systems All cellular systems are compatible, so when you travel to another city which has cellular service, your cellular telephone still works. This is called roaming. As cellular mobile systems expand throughout the nation, many major highway corridors between cities will be covered with additional cells. 0 0 Cell Site Selection Cellular telephone service is expanded in a given area to provide better service to cellular customers. This can be done in two ways: extending the coverage to new areas or increasing the capacity of the system within the current service area. The decision to expand the system depends on a number of factors. First, the number of current customers within the area and the capacity of the current system are analyzed to identify the need to expand. Second, the quality of service within the area is constantly being evaluated, both electronically at the switching equipment, where every can is monitored and any service failures are recorded, and through feedback from customers. Once the decision has been made to expand or improve service, the engineers at US WEST NewVector prepare a preliminary design analysis. The topography and terrain features within the service area are entered into a computer, along with a series of variables, such as antenna height, available frequencies, and equipment characteristics. From this information the en- gineers determine a search area for the optimum location and height of the antenna to maximize service within the cell. When this technical analysis is complete, a search area map and other requirements are provided to the real estate and site selection consultants. With this information, the real estate acquisition consultant applies various criteria to identify and rank potential sites. The following is a summary of these cell site selection criteria: CGSA Cellular Geographical Service Area. The boundaries of the entire system are determined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Cell sites must be located so that radio signals from the system stay within the boundaries of the CGSA. The Cellular Grid. Within the CGSA, individual cell sites are placed on a hexagonal grid pattern. This pattern provides coverage for the largest area with the fewest sites and, therefore, fewer land use impacts. This pattern also facilitates future "cell splitting", or "sectorization". Topography, Land Forms and Other Constraints. The computer analysis conducted by the engineers takes into consideration the hills and valleys within the service area. Basically, a line of sight relationship is needed between the antenna and the cellular telephone to insure quality service. There are often land features within a search area that limit the options for site locations. Features such as bodies of water, swamps and steep slopes may prove impossible to build upon, and since cell sites must be periodically maintained, they must be accessible to technicians year-round. Therefore, we need to find sites near the center of the search area, at the optimum elevation, and accessible by existing roadways. Sites with existing or proposed high-rise buildings nearby must also be avoided because of the potential for "shadowing" within the service area. Since all of the cell sites work together (calls are automatically handed off from one cell to another as the driver travels between coverage areas), one antenna may not be lowered or raised without affecting the performance of that cell and adjacent cells. The combination of these factors results in the identification of well-defined "preferred locations" within the search area. 0 0 FAA And Existing Radio Conflicts. In addition to the engineering constraints noted above, the site location must not interfere with either Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements, or existing radio transmitters operating at high frequencies. FAA regulations protect air space zones and flight paths surrounding airports and the locations and heights of all antennas are reviewed to insure that they do not violate these safety zones. Also, when certain AM and FM radio broadcast towers are located in close proximity to cellular antennas, it can degrade the performance of the signal by creating interference. Consequently, the placement of a cell site in close proximity to AM or FM towers must be thoroughly analyzed. Zoning and land Use Compatibility. Whenever feasible US WEST NewVector strives to acquire property that is properly zoned and adjacent to compatible land uses. Sites adjacent to existing tall power lines, microwave facilities, antenna farms, water treatment facilities, and similar uses are selected when they meet the other technical requirements of the system. When circumstances result in compatibility concerns, a concerted effort is made in the design process to screen facilities and otherwise mitigate these problems. Property Availability. Due to all of the engineering and design constraints described above, it is often difficult to find sites that meet all of the requirements. It is often impossible to find vacant land or building space for sale or lease. In most cases, more than one site is evaluated prior to selecting the most favorable location. The following hypoythetical illustration summarizes some of the site selection constraints. 0 0 Public Safety Questions In recent years there has been concern over possible health effects from radio frequency (RF) energy. This energy is around us every day, coming from commercial radio and TV, radar, amateur radios, and other sources. The frequencies used by the cellular phone network are the same ones assigned previously to certain UHF TV channels, and so have been in the airwaves for many years. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has established a standard for safe ex- posure levels to RF energy. That standard is compared below to other household sources and a typical cellular phone antenna. Cellular antennas transmit relatively short distances and operate at very low power levels. As the hypot- hetical illustration suggests, the amount of en- ergy from a single cellular phone channel is typically about the same as a 100 -watt light bulb. While there may be between eight and fifty channels operating from one cell site, the channels rarely all transmit at the same time and each operates at a different frequency. a rE C N Z 0 ANSI I Foo, Hand HOW C dl. 500 Fen SWM rd Gan a CB Radb phone Irem a Mkrrnaae Cellular Oven Mt<nna Comparison of RF Energy, Cellular Antennas vs. ANSI Standard & Household Sources The power from a single cellular channel is about the same as an ordinary light bulb. Some antennas in the cellular phone network are microwave relay antennas that transmit and receive telephone messages from cellular sites to the wireline telephone network. The signal between these antennas is in a directed beam, so the dispersion of RF energy outside this narrow beam is insignificant. Even directly beneath a cellular antenna, the exposure is about half that of an ordinary cordless phone, or less than one percent of the ANSI standard. Cellular Does Not Interfere With Other Transmissions To maximize the capacity of the system, cellular antennas transmit at very low power. T6 allows the same frequencies to be used simultaneously in non -adjacent cells. US WEST NewVector Group operates hundreds of cell sites in fourteen states and has never experienced any interference problems with other transmissions. Radio frequencies are a sort of precious na- tional resource for which there is a tremendous and growing demand. The Federal Communi- cations Commission (FCC) regulates the use of radio frequencies throughout the United States. The graphs illustrate the broad range of frequencies and the narrow segment of this spectrum that constitutes radio and television frequencies and those allotted to cellular phone transmissions. Uua Cellular Phones Gamma Violet vwR I AM R., X Ran light InGarN Mia9vare i fFM Radio 1019 1017 1015 EIECnIOMAGN C S 109 Phones WO ..k713 109 100\ IDS 105 N CMnncls 2-6 108 109 Frcg9vy/He 11 Cellular Glossary Cell. A small geographic area served by a low -powered transmitter, 2 to 10 miles in radius. Cell Site. An installation containing the transmitters, receivers and control equip- ment necessary to connect the cellular phone system and the conventional wireline telephone network. Cell Splitting. The division of a larger cell into several smaller cells to provide more channels within the same geographical area, and therefore provide better service. Cellular Geographical Service Area (CGSA). A specific geographic area, within which a cellular system serves cus- tomers. Mobile customers are expected to subscribe to cellular service within a given CGSA. Digital Radio Link. A radio signal used to connect telephone circuits from a cell site to the central switching equipment (the MTSO). Electronic Switching System. A computer that automatically routes calls within the cel- lular system, located at a central site. Hand -Off. The automatic switching of a signal from one cell to another, which occurs within a fraction of a second. Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO) Also known as the MTX or "Switch". The interface between the cell sites and the conventional wireline tele- phone network. It serves as the central co- ordinator and controller, as well as housing the switching equipment for a cellular tele- phone system. Radio Common Carrier (RCC). Firms licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide a variety of radio services to the public, including dis- patch and paging services. Many RCC's now own cellular licenses. US WEST NewVector is an RCC licensed by the FCC. Roaming. The ability to operate a cellular mobile telephone in a mobile service area other than the one from which service is subscribed - for example, being able to use your cellular phone in Minneapolis, even though you subscribed originally in Seattle. Sectorization. An engineering refinement of a cell's transmission antennas, which im- proves call quality by reducing cross- talk/interference. This is done by splitting the coverage of the cell site into three equal sectors, by means of directional antennas. Wireline Telephone Network. The con- ventional local telephone network which transmits calls over wires rather than radio waves. The FCC has ruled that wireline companies or their affiliates may apply for cellular licenses in those areas where they currently provide wireline service. 0 • Chaska Investment Limited Partnership CFD Charles W. Watson 2870 Wheeler Street North Roseville, MN 55113 Lake Hazeltine Dr, Lim Part C/o Robert P. Kult 16600 West Glendale Drive New Berlin, WI 53151 Earl J and Delores Holasek 8610 Galpin Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Merle and Jane Volk 135 Mound Avenue Tonka Bay, MN 55331 Preferred Products, Inc. Corporate Tax Department P.O. Box 990 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Not.••-. La -� �' Jul. _-_•, • Chaska Investment Limited Partnership CFD Charles W. Watson 2870 Wheeler Street North Roseville, MN 55113 Lake Hazeltine Dr, Lim Part C/o Robert P. Kult 16600 West Glendale Drive New Berlin, WI 53151 Earl J and Delores Holasek 8610 Galpin Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Merle and Jane Volk 135 Mound Avenue Tonka Bay, MN 55331 Preferred Products, Inc. Corporate Tax Department P.O. Box 990 Minneapolis, MN 55440 oc' • Chaska Investment Limited Partnership CFD Charles W. Watson 2870 Wheeler Street North Roseville, MN 55113 Lake Hazeltine Dr, Lim Part C/o Robert P. Kult 16600 West Glendale Drive New Berlin, WI 53151 Earl J and Delores Holasek 8610 Galpin Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Merle and Jane Volk 135 Mound Avenue Tonka Bay, MN 55331 Preferred Products, Inc. Corporate Tax Department P.O. Box 990 Minneapolis, MN 55440 R. Hartung/W. Otto 400 S. Oak Street Waconia, MN 55387 Michale & M. Greer P.O. Box 5362 Minnetonka, MN 55343 M. Foster/K. Olsson 13982 Mount Terrace Minnetonka, MN 55345 Blair & S. Bury 15959 Tonkawood Dr. So Minnetonka, MN 55345 0 0 James & L. Leirdahl 13050 Dahlia Cir. #116 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 J. Dockendorf/C. Connors 13703 85th Ave. N. Maple Grove, MN 55369 Russell & E. Chance 15561 N. Hillcrest Court Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Steve & J. Hackbarth 1470 Scenic View Chaska, MN 55318 Mark & N. Bielski 8140 Pinewood Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 James & B. Roeder 8101 Pinewood Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Alan & K. Hebing 6290 Painters Circle Mound, MN 55364 Gestach & Paulson Const 414 Chestnut Street Chaska, MN 55318 Debbie Iverslie 2040 Oakwood Ridge Chanhassen, MN 55317 Marin Hahn 3528 Idaho Avenue New Hope, MN 55427 Stanley & C. Rud 2030 Renaissance Chanhassen, MN 55317 Curtis & J. Beuning 12055 41st Ave. N. Minneapolis, MN 55411 Richard & E. Larson 8141 Pinewood Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 J. Soderlind/C. Murray Apt. #112N 11011 Anderson Lakes Pkwy. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Todd & S. Paetznick 2320 Timberwood Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Sunil & A. Chojar 7480 Longview Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 M. Sand/D. Theis 6827 Charis Court Eden Prairie, MN 55346 James & D. Castleberry 2051 Oakwood Ridge Chanhassen, MN 55317 David & G. McCollum 2050 Renaissance Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert & R. Lawson 5729 Zenith Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55410 Andrew & S. Richardson 8120 Pinewood Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 William & L. Miller 8121 Pinewood Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Craig & M. Harrington 8140 Maplewood Terrace Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gregory/B. Vandervorste Gregory & J. Sorenson John & L. Thonander 8141 Maplewood Terrace 11188 Westwind Drive 12121 Meadow Lane W. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Minnetonka, MN 55343 0 0 B. Foley/J. Werner Robert & N. Krocak 2061 Timberwood Drive 2218 A 22nd Ave. S. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minneapolis, MN 55404 Brian & L. Klingelhutz Michael & J. Cochrane 2031 Timberwood Drive 1751 Sun Ridge Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Marlin D. Edwards Gerald & K. Alvey 8950 Audubon Road 1831 Sun Ridge Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dean Feltmann Howard & L. Johnson 8241 Galpin Blvd. 8250 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gerald & L. Gustafson E. Jerome Carlson 8341 Galpin Blvd. 8280 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dale & M. Wanninger Thomas & M. Schmitz 8170 Galpin Blvd. 8190 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chan Land Audubon I Ltd. Ptnshp. 200 West Hwy. 13 c/o Jon Blanchar Burnsville, MN 55337 7900 First Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55420 Dave & K. Maenke 2041 Timberwood Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Donald & M. White 8850 Audubon Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Michael B. Neville 5751 Thomas Circle Minneapolis, MN 55410 Roger & G. Schmidt 8301 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Patrick & K. Minger 8221 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lawrence & F. Raser 8210 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 0 • CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF HEARING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) Vicki Churchill, the duly qualified and acting Planning Secretary of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, on oath and deposes and says that on she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of hearing in the City the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addressess of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer of Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. SCANNED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, August 15, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the application of Minneapolis SMSA Limited Partnership for a conditional use permit for the construction of a cellular telephone facility (antenna tower and equipment building) on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located just east of Galpin Blvd. and north of Lyman Blvd. and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St Paul, & Pacific Railroad. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner Phone: 937-1900 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on July 26, 1990) Chaska Investment Limited Partnership CFD Charles W. Watson 2870 Wheeler Street North Roseville, MN 55113 Lake Hazeltine Dr, Lim Part c/o Robert P. Kult 16600 West Glendale Drive New Berlin, WI 53151 Earl J and Delores Holasek 8610 Galpin Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Merle and Jane Volk 135 Mound Avenue Tonka Bay, MN 55331 Preferred Products, Inc. Corporate Tax Department P.O. Box 990 Minneapolis, MN 55440 :s ilo :. ai UID � J�1,•'_ _. Chaska Investment Limited Partnership CFD Charles W. Watson 2870 Wheeler Street North Roseville, MN 55113 Lake Hazeltine Dr, Lim Part c/o Robert P. Kult 16600 West Glendale Drive New Berlin, WI 53151 Earl J and Delores Holasek 8610 Galpin Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Merle and Jane Volk 135 Mound Avenue Tonka Bay, MN 55331 Preferred Products, Inc. Corporate Tax Department P.O. Box 990 Minneapolis, MN 55440 :s ilo :. ai QC ----mow _ : frfl M L Chaska Investment Limited Partnership CFD Charles W. Watson 2870 Wheeler Street North Roseville, MN 55113 Lake Hazeltine Dr, Lim Part c/o Robert P. Kult 16600 West Glendale Drive New Berlin, WI 53151 Earl J and Delores Holasek 8610 Galpin Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Merle and Jane Volk 135 Mound Avenue Tonka Bay, MN 55331 Preferred Products, Inc. Corporate Tax Department P.O. Box 990 Minneapolis, MN 55440 0 R. Hartung/W. Otto 400 S. Oak Street Waconia, MN 55387 Michale & M. Greer P.O. Box 5362 Minnetonka, MN 55343 M. Foster/K. Olsson 13982 Mount Terrace Minnetonka, MN 55345 Blair & S. Bury 15959 Tonkawood Dr. So Minnetonka, MN 55345 J. Dockendorf/C. Connors 13703 85th Ave. N. Maple Grove, MN 55369 Russell & E. Chance 15561 N. Hillcrest Court Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Steve & J. Hackbarth 1470 Scenic View Chaska, MN 55318 Mark & N. Bielski 8140 Pinewood Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 James & B. Roeder 8101 Pinewood Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 James & L. Leirdahl 13050 Dahlia Cir. #116 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Alan & K. Hebing 6290 Painters Circle Mound, MN 55364 Gestach & Paulson Const 414 Chestnut Street Chaska, MN 55318 Debbie Iverslie 2040 Oakwood Ridge Chanhassen, MN 55317 Marin Hahn 3528 Idaho Avenue New Hope, MN 55427 Stanley & C. Rud 2030 Renaissance Chanhassen, MN 55317 Curtis & J. Beuning 12055 41st Ave. N. Minneapolis, MN 55411 Richard & E. Larson 8141 Pinewood Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 J. Soderlind/C. Murray Apt. #112N 11011 Anderson Lakes Pkwy. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 0 Todd & S. Paetznick 2320 Timberwood Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Sunil & A. Chojar 7480 Longview Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 M. Sand/D. Theis 6827 Charis Court Eden Prairie, MN 55346 James & D. Castleberry 2051 Oakwood Ridge Chanhassen, MN 55317 David & G. McCollum 2050 Renaissance Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert & R. Lawson 5729 Zenith Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55410 Andrew & S. Richardson 8120 Pinewood Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 William & L. Miller 8121 Pinewood Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Craig & M. Harrington 8140 Maplewood Terrace Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gregory/B. Vandervorste Gregory & J. Sorenson John & L. Thonander 8141 Maplewood Terrace 11188 Westwind Drive 12121 Meadow Lane W. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Chan Land Audubon I Ltd. Ptnshp. 200 West Hwy. 13 c/o Jon Blanchar Burnsville, MN 55337 7900 First Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55420 B. Foley/J. Werner Robert & N. Krocak Dave & K. Maenke 2061 Timberwood Drive 2218 A 22nd Ave. S. 2041 Timberwood Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minneapolis, MN 55404 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Brian & L. Klingelhutz Michael & J. Cochrane Donald & M. White 2031 Timberwood Drive 1751 Sun Ridge Court 8850 Audubon Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Marlin D. Edwards Gerald & K. Alvey Michael B. Neville 8950 Audubon Road 1831 Sun Ridge Court 5751 Thomas Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minneapolis, MN 55410 Dean Feltmann Howard & L. Johnson Roger & G. Schmidt 8241 Galpin Blvd. 8250 Galpin Blvd. 8301 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gerald & L. Gustafson E. Jerome Carlson Patrick & K. Minger 8341 Galpin Blvd. 8280 Galpin Blvd. 8221 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dale & M. Wanninger Thomas & M. Schmitz Lawrence & F. Raser 8170 Galpin Blvd. 8190 Galpin Blvd. 8210 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chan Land Audubon I Ltd. Ptnshp. 200 West Hwy. 13 c/o Jon Blanchar Burnsville, MN 55337 7900 First Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55420 `J 0 KOHLRUSCH SCOTT/CARVER ABSTRACT CO., INC. 128 EAST THIRD AVENUE P.O. BOX 355 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 (612) 445-1050 According to the records in the Office of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, the following is a list of owners within 500 feet of the following described property: That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, which lies Easterly of the center line of County Road No. 117, and Northerly of a line parallel with and 65.00 feet Northwesterly of the center line of the East bound main track of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad. Chaska Investment Limited Partnership CFD Charles W. Watson 2870 Wheeler Street North Roseville, MN 55113 Lake Hazeltine Dr. Lim Part C/o Robert P. Kult 16600 West Glendale Dr. New Berlin, WI 53151 Earl J. & Delores Holasek 8610 Galpin Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Merle D. & Jane Volk 135 Mound Ave Tonka Bay, MN 55331 Preferred Products, Inc. Corp. Tax Dept. P.O. Box 990 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Dated this 25th day of June, 1990 at 8 a.m. Wade Kohlr sch Licensed Abstractor /jai W -n NMED 6RC- TAX SYSTEM - 04/26/90 08:14:22 -------------_.CARVER-.COUNTN-- .__. ... NAME ADDRESS LEGAL MODELER TA901L PAGE 1256 ADDRESS -----OI-ST--T/C-SCM--SRI--SP2--SP3-SP4 SP5 SP6-SP7-SRB-SP srssrrwrwrsr wwrtrrrrrrrstrssrrrrwtttts 0002670. P -R I- 1711 MN 55331 0002062 PRI RICHARD HARTUNG G 2506 6300 112 064 WALLACE OTTO 400--S011TH-.t7AK-S.T....____._._ WACONIA, MN 55387 _._..505-.. _... 509 _507-._.._.____4 PLT -258 ERA ACRE LOT -009 SLOCK- 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520010 PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOO ESTATES ow4-1$- ow -ANESL-G-LINDA J-{€IROAHL PRM - 2506-6-300-112-064— ---505sag 502 -L9.9 -1--R--25..8520020 — 112 13050 DAHLIA CIR 0116 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520070 PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES _S-OLSSON-_....__.-_.___. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55343 ----------- ....._.-_-.__..___.__._ -__�----------�--- LOT -002 BLOCK -001 -----'_.._�__2c----_ 2.80 AC -------------- 0019545 --'==-...... .T'------------ PRI TODD 0 C SANDRA J PAETZNICK '_------------ 2506 6300 -- 112 064 ���__ _ 505 509 - 507 1991 R 25.8520030 2320 TIMBERWOOD DR LOT -002 BLOCK -002 3.90 AC MINNETONKA, MN 55345 PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES ------ ---GNANNASS�N.--NM�531-7----- ----- -- ------._._.----._ -10-T-003810CK-_001-- 2�7^ •[- 0002062 CON RICHARD HARTUNG 6 PRI GESTACH E PAULSON CONST. 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 WALLACE OTTO R 25.8520080 -- - __ _=cc__------------------ -------- 0005039 .. _.__.-�.._=-a-------------------------- PRI MICHAEL A C MICHELLE L GREER 2506 6300 .-._+----- 112 -_-_ 064 -- __ 505 509 507 ___---... 1991 .-_ R 25.8520040 - -- - P.O. BOX 5362 - - - - - PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES 0002062 CON RICHARD HARTUNG C 07-nnr RI nrK_nn, _anAJ 2_,6.Q-AJC-- 0002062 0002062 CON RICHARD HARTUNG L WALLACE OTTO ---.------------------------------------- 0007850 WALLACE OTTO GESTACH C PAULSON CUNST. -------------------- 2506 6300 112 --------- 064 ..------------------------ 505 509 507 --...,.-......-:-,.-----.------.----.--- 1991 .--------------- ---------------- -. ._-�- _----- _- _---_ ��-----_--- �_------�_-_- _�-_----.-._._- 0005055 PRI ALAN M C KRISTINA M HEBING 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520050 6290 PAINTERS CIRCLE LOT -004 BLOCK -002 PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES CON ._.MOUND*_NN---5$364.._.-_-___..._._._-_--_______ ____--._- -.. _._-__—.__—__-__.LOT-A05 -R, nrw-001- 2.b0 -AC—___ ------------------------------ 0012191 PRI SUNIL C AMRIT CHOJAR 7480 L ONGV1E 4 ..DR_.__.... -. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 0062 CON RICHARD HARTUNG 6 -_ WAUAC€-OT-TD-- 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520060 ._.__ _.... PLT. -2 5052 _J IMBERWOOD.-ESTATES-.- LOT-001 TATES_._LOT-001 BLOCK -002 2.60 AC --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0058258 PRI MARK J FOSTER C 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520070 . _KAREN _S-OLSSON-_....__.-_.___. _.-.-___._._-__._._.-_ _..__._.________.-..___.. ....._.-_-.__..___.__._ ...PL.Tn2.5H52.._TIMBERWOOD. ESTATES 13982 MOUNT TERRACE LOT -002 BLOCK -002 3.90 AC MINNETONKA, MN 55345 0007850 PRI GESTACH E PAULSON CONST. 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520080 414 CHESTNUT STREET PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES CHASKA, MN.__.55318- -- - - - - - - LOT -003 BLOCK= -002... _.__ .4.40. -AC ---- 0002062 CON RICHARD HARTUNG C WALLACE OTTO ---.------------------------------------- 0007850 PRI GESTACH C PAULSON CUNST. -------------------- 2506 6300 112 --------- 064 ..------------------------ 505 509 507 --...,.-......-:-,.-----.------.----.--- 1991 R 25.8520090 -. 414 CHESTNUT STREET PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES CHASKA* MN 55318 LOT -004 BLOCK -002 3.20 AC 000262 CON RICHARD HARTUNG C ----------------------------------------- WALLACL OTTU _____________________________________________________________________________________ SCANNED „KC TAX SYSTEM .--_... __ _..... ... _ .--- _. _ __. _. _ _._.. __ __-_.__ __. .... _ _ __._._. ____CARVER -COUNTY_..._..__.-___._____. _..... 04/26/90 08:14 22 NAME ADDRESS LEGAL MODELER TA901L PAGE 1257 -T-AXPAYER-- NAME -6-ADORE SS--- ._ ___ _ __.__-.. -DIST -T/C SCM -SP1 SP2- SP3-3P4 SPS -SP6--SP7--SPB-SPL-YEAR-R-PARCEL -PL --LEGAL------------- NEW HOPE. MN 55427 r;;tlrttsMrrilrrrrrrltrrYr►r;;s;sttt ss4t LOT -011 BLOCK -002 2.50 AC ” _______________ 0007850 PRI GESTACH-C-PAULSON,CONST. 25066300 112--064-- - --- 505-- 509.507---- 1991-A-25.8520.100..._..._. 414 CHESTNUT STREET PRI - ee -2506 6300 11 064---- -- PLT -25852 TIMBERW000 ESTATES CHASKA, MN 55318 2050 RENAISSANCE COURT LOT -005 BLOCK -002 2.50 AC -0062062--CON--I ICHARO-HAR TUNG_.C_.._..-__....___... " .s CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 WALLACE OTTU 2.50 AC -----_ _____ ____-------------------_-----_____----_----__------------ ___________ _______________________ 0006378 PRI--MARK-J-SANO. .-&--0OUG.-THF-IS - -___________ 2$06- 6300-112 -064 -- - -.- - 505..__.... ...509 -.SO -7 - 19-9.1..A_Z5.852m.1in_.____. .6827 CHARIS COURT PLT -25852 TIMBERW000 ESTATES EDEN PRAIRIEP MN 55346 LOT -006 BLOCK -002 2.50 AC WALLACE OTTO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -0019938--PRL-BL.A.I.R.._B .L... SHARON._L -BURY .._-.-__25D6-6300-112_..-064-__._..__.__.._-._._505._...___509...507____-.1391-8_.25.. Ali? .012OA._..___._�_.._— — 15959 TONKAWOOD DRIVE SOOT PLT -25852 TIMBERW000 ESTATES MINNETONKA, MN 55345 LOT -007 BLOCK -002 2.60 AC t0062-4CON R C-HAR-D-HARTUNG_{_____-_.-- WALLACE OTTO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- -------------------- ------- ------- 0016006 RR1 -OF BYS.E L-1 YE.0.S11 E--- ----- . ----.2506-63.00. I12- U64------ ..- SOS _ ..50.9_ 507--199L-R-2S.a852A13D_-__.. 2040 OAKWOOD RIDGE PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ----.--��--------W-----�------------------�-.--.,....................�W...-a....--.-..:.,u.....n....-______----------------mss--- LOT -008 BLOCK -002 2.50 AC ...._ 0058748 PRI JAMES C DOROTHY CASTLEBERRY 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520140 2051 OAKWOOD RIDGE PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES _-. _. _.._____.._1HANHA S.SEN.._.MN.__.5531-2 - _._.___._. ____.. _...,.__...._ _. _..________._._._ LOI:Q0.9._HLOC.Ka00.2 0007850 CON GESTACH L PAULSON CONST. "I OOD26b2 a' RRI -1-TCM R JlARTUNL--F--- WALLA OTTO 2506- 04-11 064 a- r�� �5�05-500 507 GtINP.O t C-��'1��[.(./1 �bA-ti0'I-D -1991-J�25f852IIL50 _ PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520160 400 SO H OAK ST. I 37Q,3 8S /`iUt '�i.0 G'L27Lt„ 5.5 6 LOT-OLO BLOCK -002 2.50 AC a. __.._._._..WAC Aa --MN . 5.5387..._-._ __ _ ____._—FLT.-25852-TIMBERWD00--ESTAIES-- 3O 0020043 PRI MARTIN G HAHN 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520160 ___... _._--3528--IDAHO AVENUE-.__-_. __--__.__.___ — _._ __ _ ____._—FLT.-25852-TIMBERWD00--ESTAIES-- •� NEW HOPE. MN 55427 LOT -011 BLOCK -002 2.50 AC ” _______________ ________________ __-------------------_--_----_ ____-_ -_____--_____-- __---- 603 PRI - ee -2506 6300 11 064---- -- --------__----______-_____-__-__ -. 5.05.. 509 507 - 1991 -R 25.8520170.... " 2050 RENAISSANCE COURT Qawcoe.q AW 7V,&+ / PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES " .s CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 LOT -012 BLOCK -002 2.50 AC 0007870 PRI RUSSELL L C ELAINE S CHANCE 15561 NORTH HILLCREST COUR --. _ __.EDEN -.PRA.IRIE..11N--55344 ------------------------------------ 0019931 PRI STANLEY E L CHRISTINE E RUD ----2030 RENAISSANCE---------- CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 PRI.-ROBER.T.-M.-..G ROBERTA.L LAWSON 5729 ZENITH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS• MN 55410 2506 6300 112 064 -------------------------- 2506 6300 112 064 ------------------------ 2 506, -&30AD. _______________________2506,-630D.. 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520180 PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES LOT -013 BLOLK.e002.--..2.60 AC. ---- ----------------------------------------------------------- 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520190 LOT -014 BLOCK -002 2.60 AC ------------------------------- --------------- ------------- 505... 509 507-.---1991-R_25.8520200..._.._.._..... ._._...__,._...... _._ PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES LOT -015 BLOCK -002 2.60 AC ---------------------------------- ,:. v SCANNED + 0 ,:. v SCANNED + 0 TAX SYSTEM -_. __ -. - -_._.. CARVERCOUNTY 6/90 08:14:22 NAME ADDRESS LEGAL MODELER TA901L PAGE 1258 AYER-- NAME S ADDRESS - - ---- DIST T/C SCM - SP1._SP2 SPI SP4 SPS-SP6 SR7-SRB-SR9--YEAR-A?,.. FARC -EL 4 - LEGAL - - -- --- - rr«wwrrwwrrrrrwrrr««srr«wsrrws«ssrrw «rsr 0012212- PRT -STEVEN E- t-JOLENE HACKBAKTH _- 2506 6300. 112 064 ----- - ...505_. 1470 SCENIC VIEW CHASKA, MN 55318 -GOO 2062--CON-RICHARD --MARTUNG------------- -' "-"- WALLACE OTTO 0008925 -PR1-CUR-ILS.E-L-JEAN-F-.-BEUNING-- 12055 41ST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55411 IW874 PRI ANDREW C SUSAN RICHARDSON 8120 PINEWOOD CIRCLE ____..CHA44ASSEN4.._MN....._5531-7..---- ------------------------------------- 0015169 PRI MARK A C NANCY E BIELSKI CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 509 507-- --1941--R-. 25.95202.10..... -- PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES LOT -016 BLOCK -002 2.50 AC 2506 6300- -112----064-.__-._.. ___.._.. ___5-05._ .-_ 509- SOL -.---.-1.491-8__25.9520220 PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES LOT -001 BLOCK -003 2.70 AC -- u -->s- 2506 6300112 064. 2506 6300 112 064 ----------------------- &91.1-..PR.I-RICHARD-C-ELIZABETH-NYE-LARSON-2506 6300.112..- Ab4.. 8141 PINEWOOD CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 0058912 PRI WILLIAM P C LANA L MILLER 2506 6300 112 064 8121 PINEWOOD CIR _5531.2 505 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520230 PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES _. ---SOL_.DtI2 i[DtK.-A03..__.___-.2.50_AL- 509 507 1991 R 25.8520240 __.__ .PLT-25BS2--I MUQWDOD-ESTATES-- LOT-003 BLOCK -003 2.50 AC ..._.505.... PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES LOT -004 BLOCK -003 2.50 AC 505----T509S507 a 1991R 25.8520260 PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES .2..50 AC ----------------------------------- 0059341 PRI JAMES J C BONITA J ROEDER 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520270 ----8-101-P4NEW000 Cl-RCLE--_.__-------- _. _...-..._-..__.___-.--PLT..-258-52"-TL BER4000.-ESTAIES-- CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 LOT -006 BLOCK -003 2.60 AC ----------------------------- --------------------------- 71-1- -----------------711-PRI-JEFFR.EY._S--SQDERLINO C _.___2506 6300-112___464_.-_ __._._._... _.5.05 509_.1!17.._.- 11011 ANDERSON LAKES PKWY PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES CRYSTAL M MURRAY APT C112N LOT -007 BLOCK -003 2.60 AC EDEN- -PRAIRIE«--MN-S--5-344-.._. 0002062 CON RICHARD HARTUNG t WALLACE OTTO -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ----------- 0006387 -- ------0006387 PRI CRAIG C MARY HARRINGTON 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520290 8140 MAPLEWOOD TERRACE PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES .{HAN WASS EN r- MN- ---55-5317_____.._._.__.__ __ _. _ ____. ___.. _. _.. __.________-.50-AL-- 0006399 PRI GREGORY C B VANDERVURSTE 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520300 8141 MAPLE.WOOD.._IERRACE--. - - -- - ---_-- --- - -- - - - - -----PLT-2585.2--T1MBERW000_. ESTATES - -- -_____. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LOT -009 BLOCK -003 2.50 AC --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0058749--PRI GREGORY -G t JULIE R-SORENSEN 2506 6300 112 064 --- - 505 509 507 -.1991 R 25.8520310 -. --.- - -- - -------- 31188 WESTWIND DR PLT -25852 TIMBERWOUD ESTATES EUEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 LOT -010 BLOCK -003 3.20 AC _. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 000e378 PRI MARK J SANU C DOUG THEIS 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520320 ESTATES LH17 CHARIS PLT -25d52 TIMOERWOOO LOT -011 uLOC•-001 2.80 AC (COURT fIIIN VMLIN I• MN S•�l44 SCANNED tt /Z419U 08:14:22 NAME '-LAKVtri.._LUUNfY--_.._____.__._._ ..-- ADDRESS LEGAL MODELER TA901L PAGE 1259 MINNETONKA, MN 55343 112 064 CON--R-ILHAR),-HAR.TUNG-L-._.____ 509 507 TAXPAYER — -NAME-G-ADDRESS------ ---- -- DIST T/C SCH SPI SP2-SP3 SP4 SP5 SP6 SP7 SPS -SP9-YEAR-R--PARCEL- 0----LE4CAL------- 1p ie 00 -7128 -PR i --B Rr4DLEY-�f©iEY.-d —_____..2.406 -6300 -1}2 ---Ober_.-_ � JUDITH A WERNER 11002062 CON R.ICHARfi-- HARTUNG --9---. --- 2061 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE WALLACE OTTO .------------ ..--CHANHA SSEN�-MN--------------------------------------------------------------- --------- e --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2506 6300 112 064 ._.._. 1. 5084 -PRI JOHN-C--fi-L8RIE-E-4HONANDER-- 2506-6300 112- 064 -- __ 505- -509-307-- tt 12121 MEADOW LANE WEST PRI BRIAN G LOU ANN KLINGELHUTZ MINNETONKA, MN 55343 112 064 CON--R-ILHAR),-HAR.TUNG-L-._.____ 509 507 3-0002062 WALLACE OTTO -------------------------------------------------------------- 1p ie 00 -7128 -PR i --B Rr4DLEY-�f©iEY.-d —_____..2.406 -6300 -1}2 ---Ober_.-_ � JUDITH A WERNER 2061 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE ie iv .------------ ..--CHANHA SSEN�-MN--------------------------------------------------------------- _— – _–_C.MANHA$$ENe _MN 5 5 A 1. 7 _ - 0007875 PRI ROBERT S G NANCY J KROCAK 2506 6300 112 064 ._.._. ---221 d-A-22ND-AVENUE-SOUT4- _. _ _____ MINNEAPOLIS• MN 55404 :a PRI — RICHARD HARTUNG G 2506 6300 112 064 ae 0005089 -PR -I DAVE-d-L-KAREN-K.MAENKE - - - --.-2506-6300- a. 2041 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE 55317 of ��---YCHANHASSEN9_MN - --509 PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES fa LOT -012 BLOCK -003 2.60 AC I. PLT -25852 TIMBERW000 ESTATES LOT -013 BLOCK -003 2.80 AC •--------------------------------------------------------- 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520350 --__--- 01 T_25852..'.,IMBERNOnD_jESIAIE.S._ LOT -014 BLOCK -003 3.00 AC --------------- ------------- -------------------------- .505 509 -5a? ------- ------ ----- 505....____.504507 _1991_R.25..85203A0_ PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES LOT -015 BLOCK -003 2.50 AC ------------- ------ :1 0005222 PRI BRIAN G LOU ANN KLINGELHUTZ 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520370 y 2031 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE PLT -25852 TIMBERW00D ESTATES _— – _–_C.MANHA$$ENe _MN 5 5 A 1. 7 _ - .. ._.._. ... _. _ _____ nn16 m OCK–DOA _1-L .__-2.5n _AC 0002062 PRI — RICHARD HARTUNG G 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8520380 400DIT 400 SOUTH OAK ST. )5w5) TfYwFw Yl1D0 FCTATFO WACONIA9 MN 55387 .50 AC OUTLOT A t 0002062 PRI RICHARD HARTUNG G 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 __---------- R 25.8520390 WALLACE OTTO _--------400-SOOT+1-OA*-$�.-------------'-----`---- PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES WACONIA9 MN 55387 --- ------- -- --2.,S0.JIC -------------------- ----- ----------------------- OUTLOT 8 0002062 PRI --RICHARD -HA.R.TUNG L_.._ _._.- .. ._- 2506 6300--112..-06&._._._ --------------------------------------------------------- .._._._ .505.._._.._...509 507 --- WALLACE OTTO ._144LA2.5..85.ZII440_.___ . 400 SOUTH OAK ST. PLT -25852 TIMBERWOOD ESTATES WAC17N1A♦ MN 3-538 A- _. 5.00 AC - - _ L--- .I __- 0014524-P -._ RI -..... ----- ---------- CA VER COUN......--------------------------- 600... ST- FIIURIH STR$K -------------- --- --- -------------------- ----- --� CHASK N 55318 - 0007645 PRI MARLOW K PETERSON 2515 6300 276 062 287 505 1180 EASANT VIEW __..______-"A. A.RSRN.–DIEL.—Ssaf T 509 507 1991 R S 271 OF -LBTS-10 BLK 2 P 15 BLK.,,t 3.33 AC 2 3.--14-9- 15 29 139 14 9 50030 5855 TOURIST PARK SCANNED W ' ---MOUND. MN 553b4 -..-- I -------------------2-5-1-5---------------.PRI E HOMESINC 25156300 276 062 28) 505 3FAR MHILLCI0. -MN -55364. --------------- --------------------------------------- ------ ----- 0019106 PRI STRAT FORM PERTIES INC. 2515 6300 276 062 287 505 .__... _ .3918 FARMHILL.. RCLE MOUN Dr MN 55364 509 507 1991 R25.80 5806 STRATFORO RIDGE LOT....003.... 8LOCK 002 ..._..... _. .35 A --------------------- 9 __ ______ _________ i9 507 1991 R 25.8060140 .........._ __.___- .___._.. PL -T--25806 STiIA-TFORO-RIDGE—_ LOT -004 BLOCK -002 .35 A -------------------- PRI STRATF.ORD. PROPERTIES.-iNC.. .2515 .6300_216 _..... 87 ._505_.. _ 504.SD_1-._.__.__. 1-441_-R_25..8.II6015 D_..--- ----- ..__...-_ _. _.. _ 3915 FARNHILL CIRCLE PLT -25806 STRATFORD RIDGE MOUND, MN 55364 LOT -005 BLOCK 002 -40 0019106 PRI STRATFORD PROPERTIES INC. 5 6300 276 3915 FARMHILL CIRCLE MOLlUDo-lAM-- --- 5.5364...._....._.-... STiIATFORD- Ri1ES--INC. 3915 FA.%WILL CIRCLE MUU MN 553b4 --------------------------- 0002620 PRI MICHAEL J C JOANNE COCHRANE -.._ -1-751 --SUN Ad DG€-GOURD"--- CHANHASSENr MN 55317 --2515-6300 276--062-F97--- - 2506 6300 112 064 00-1-4348 -P-kI-.DONALD-G-L-MARSHA M MHITE--.-2506-6300 1IZ--064-- 8850 AUDUBON ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 0019709 PRI MARLIN D EDMARDS 2506 6300 112 064 8950 AUDUBON RO --CHANHASS-EN..-a1N-.55317...... _._ ._- __._._..._.. _. _.. --------------------------------------------------------------" 02628 PRI GERALD L L KARLA R ALVEY 2506 6300 112 064 -i-8d1--SUNK-DOGE-GOURT._-._.___.--_..—. 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8060160 PLT -25806 STRATFORD RIDGE OUTLOT A — Gm258_06 STRATFORD RIDGE "----------------------------------------------------------- 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8080010 ALT-2%An8--S"N-RSOGE-------- LOT-001 BLOCK -001 505 505 PLT -25808 SUN RIDGE LOT -002 BLOCK -001 509 507 1991 R 25.808UUJU PLT -25808 SUN RIDGE 509 507 1991 R 25.6080040 ... _.. R- T.25808 -SUN 9 tZ4f -- SCANNED r t♦ �;. Tib �;.� •. `(."F _ . y .Lf' ., j. DRG -TAX--SYSTEM- . _.. -. _CAFVER.. COUNTY- OUNTY 04/26/90 04/26/90 08:14:22 NAME ADDRESS LEGAL MODELER TA901L PAGE 1246 TAXPAYER ----NAME C ADDRESS----------6000-----DIST--T/C-SCH_ SRI--SR2--SP3 SP4 SPS SP6-SP7 -SRS-SP9-Y-EAR-A--RARLEL--JA-__....LELAL-0000-- ----- ° ttt4tttiiiiit##i###tt###R#t##°#Viitiiiti ° --.---CHANHASSEN., -MN 55317- - - _._._- __- --LOT-004 Al rlrK=-6_ ° ______________________________—_-_-_____----_--_________--_---__-___________--_----__-------_---------6660___---------_-__-22--- 0001218 PRI MICHAEL B NEVILLE 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R 25.8080050 _----475-1--TMONAS-CIRCLE -..0000._...0000 -- --- -i4.-i-2-4808-SUN-AID66---- 1O MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55410 LOT -005 BLOCK -001 u --- 0066__ ____________0660 0000- _0JU7321-PR1....VI 6666___ -A..-3EACOM. _25D6_6340 ___0666- LIZ -9-- .6666........_. - -6666--91----- -405-..._......509-507-. 11-_-- ------_______-00 ---_-----9-- ------ 991_--.25.810...---- 1� 300 D FOOT TRAIL PLT- 810 SUNNY SLOPE ADDITION CHANHAS • MN 55317 LO 01 BLOCK -001 C�167 PR ERT E ISTIN REBERTUS 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 25.81 0020 1B 32 EE FOOT AIL PLT -2 810 SUNNY SLOPE ADDITION 1° 66.6....6.-CHANN Na -11N__- 5317_ 6666___-._ _... ..666.6___.. _.._"6666 ...... 666.6..- � -000.6.. _... - 0000- _ -----._ LOS- 2-.9L0CM-AII1-.6....66..6 .. 0010120 CON THE BANK AY 2A TA 3O TRUSTEE O ARFN CH a v 0019637 DRI KYLE D E ESLI TI DS OM 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 07 1991 R 25.810 30 340 OEERFOT TRA PLT -258 0 SUNNY SLOPE ADDITION '_• — rHANHA.SSE °... MN 553 7 ... _ _ _. __LOT_ 003_.BLOCKr_DD.1 ° 99990______-L----- 0000 6-6300- --- ----- ----------------- ----- ---- ---_--991---25_810_ --_----__-_________--- z° 0017922 PRI RICHARD L:'1: LINDA C NELSON 506 6300 112 064 5 509 507 1991 R 25.81000 0 —wn nr JRE 0 LL--_ -__ _-_- PLI>a258 ;DAL— �d .. CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LOT -004 LOCK -DOL ao 9---__9999999999999 ------------999-99999911-2 A002D13-P$L10E.1lLN�... INDA_.P._SHARKEY-_-_._-2506.__ ------------- 0-0 _-06/4........ __.___..._.50S.-_... -----999-------------------------992---- --- .5A9_5D.L.._._.143LA-2.S�fl10D 1-----9992------------ al 380 DEERFO T TRAIL PLT -2581 SUNNY SLOPE ADDITION a' „ CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LOT -005 OCK-001 34 0018724 PRI DOUGLAS C E KATHERINE AAMOLO 2506 6300 064 505 509 507 u.u.�-6600-0600-- 1991 R 25.810006 400 DEERF00 TRAIL PLT -25410 SUNNY SLOPE ADDITION m 5.531.7----0000 ----------- 999999921-------1--- ----------------------- __ -__.. _.._- _1_111_12222---99_11111-99-2---1-----9 _ __.._. ..----..IDT.-0L16_B OrK--IIDL.-_--- na 0 530 PRI RICHARD R E ILL M MADORE 06 6300 112 064 5 509 507 9---11111122---0000-- 1991 R 25.810007 .o 6.....6.6.6 381-D$ER--F00 TRA -I4, — ..6.6 6 6 _ _ .SLOgE_ADIIIUON— . --------------------- CHANHASSEN, N 55317L0 11-------- ----------------------------------------------- T-007 B OCK-001 0020042-- PRI --SCWT A --4-K N-K--W-I H----2506-430-0---112 .-064. --- --._......505 .504-R..2S.8.10008 ------------ ----1--9-999 992 --- ..6.666_... _._.. -------- .._ 66.66... 361 DEERFOOT TRPLT-25810 SUNNY SLOPE ADDITION <a CHANHASSEN, 5317 LOT -008 BL CK -001 ° 0017534 PRI KEN E KATH LTER 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1991 R R` 8100090 �° 341 DEER OT RAIL PLT- 10 UNNY SLOPE ADDITION .0 -- -_1____ CHANH EN, M .. 55317 ---- 1_1__1__ LOT -009 Kr O 1 '0 0007533 _________1____________________________1__0606 PKI N E KAREN IRKS 2506 6300 112 064 --121__-______1_1___1_11__1_1_11__1_____ 505 509 507 12__________------ 1991 R 25.8100100 �- - 31 DEERFOOT RAIL - _ PLT -258L NNY E ADDITION CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LOT -010 810 K-001 „, 00202 8____9____----1_1_999_9908--0--------------------09_90990_9_0__0999999909-------__-----__ 9-__-------- ---- Pkl 6KI..JKr G L KA�ULL A MALLIN 2506 6300 112 064 505 509 507 1941 R 25.UIJUl LO ue1rF.IJT T AIL PLT -:•.1110 Y NY SLOPF A001TTON .. u.w•..0 ': ':•. Yq �S ,II LU, -..11 n JL -001 SCANNED M,AAd 1 sSS3'7 lLltllll� Lid ,-7qaa , �Q� 'LAWN AND 535-3630" LANDSCAPE r, - m �. Id . VCS _ 1171"f . �I /3 ,,,7qoC ' f SCANNED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Cf1Y OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednes- day, August 15, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the application of Minneapolis SMSA Limited Partner- ship for a conditional use permit for the construction of a cellular telephone fa- cility (antenna lower and equipment building) on property zoned A2, Agri- cultural Estate and located just east of Galpin Blvd. and north of Lyman Blvd. and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St Paul, & Pacific Railroad. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hotus. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and expfes i their opinions with respect to this pro+ poral. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner Phone: 937.1900 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager Thursday, July 26, 1990; No. 476) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota ) )SS. County of Carver ) Stan Rolfsmd, being duly swum, on oath says that be is the pub] ¢berof the newspaper known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Villager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) This newspaper has complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended.'' (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. i W, was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as pan of this Affidavit. Said notice was wt from the columns of the newspaper specified Printed below is a copy of the laver case alphabet from A to 7, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz By: to olfs ene eager Subscribed and sworn before me on thiscnt[r day of J ( 1990 RTHOU"' M. LAW NOTMY PUBLIC 40, HENNEPIN COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 9199 i otary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space ............ $6.68 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ........................................ $6.68 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ........................................... $5.56 per column inch SCANNED CITY O�HaI�BaSSEN PHONE: (6SE; 93 INSN�553107 RECEI VED OF DATE DESCRIPTION PERM/LIC. AMOUNT FUND SOURCEI OBJ FROG. l ^....e • `• �.n TOTAL AMOUNT ��i ��, CHECK [D.— CASH ❑ LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION• CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Minneapolis SMSA Limited OWNER: Merle D. Volk Ptns p. ADDRESS 3350 - 161st Ave. S.E. ADDRESS 16925 Carver Co. Rd. 40 P.O. Box 7329 Bellevue, WA 98008-1329 Carver, MN 55315 Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) 612/339-3300 TELEPHONE 612/448-1874 REQUEST: Zoning District Change Zoning Appeal Zoning Variance Zoning Text Amendment Land Use Plan Amendment x Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Review PROJECT NAME Cellular Telephone Facilit Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Final Plan Subdivision Platting Metes and Bounds Street/Easement Vacation Wetlands Permit 0 PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION industrial REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Industrial PRESENT ZONING A2 REQUESTED ZONING A2 USES PROPOSED 125' self-supporting tower with equipment building SIZE OF PROPERTY 2.5 acres LOCATION East of Co. Rd. 117, immediately north of the Chicago, Milwaukee Railroad Line, Chanhassen, MN REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST To provide cellular telephone coverage for this area of Chanhassen and Chaska. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, which lies easterly of the center line of County Road No. 117, and northerly of a line parallel with and 65.00 feet northwesterly of the center line of the east bound main track of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad. SCANNED City of Chanhasse0 6 Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS: 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 City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances. Signed By '� hw dDate l /V Applicant C. John Uban for US WEST NewVector Group, Inc. general partner for Minneapolis SMSA Limited Partnership The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described. Signed BY .>��� %�� Date 7 17- Fee Owner Merle D. Volk Date Application Received Application Fee Paid City Receipt No. * This Application will Board of Adjustments meeting. be considered by the Planning Commission/ and Appeals at their SCANNED ARBORETUW UTT RC P A� RO.0 `\ • Tub RM SOD 4AV P•. S 000 o aE 0 0 SIM i -A2 _1 0 0 l01MEST NEW VECTOR GROUP Introduction to Cellular Technology Prepared By: Real Estate and Zoning SCANNED 0 0 US WEST Cellular US WEST Cellular is a division of US WEST NewVector Group, a subsidiary of US WEST Inc., one of the seven regional companies created by the divestiture of AT&T in 1984. US WEST NewVector Group offers a full range of mobile communications, including cellular phone systems, as well as a comprehensive line of communications services for other cellular operators. US WEST NewVector Group is licensed to provide cellular telephone service to a market area that includes the fourteen western states illustrated below, plus some additional local markets, such as the San Diego Metropolitan Area, that lie outside this area. The corporate headquarters for US WEST NewVector Group is located in Bellevue, Washington. US WEST NewVector Group US WEST Cellular \\ EST Paeims US HEST New f cctor 14 -State dfarkct Area Introduction to Cellular Technology In the past, mobile telephones were only available to a privileged few who were willing to tolerate the considerable limitations of a system that utilized only 12-20 channels and often had poor voice quality and spotty coverage. These systems operated with one centrally located high-powered transmitter to communicate with all of the mobile units in the service area. This technology did not make large-scale service practical, because each of the system channels could handle only one call at a time. Channels could not be reused because the transmitted signals were strong enough to interfere with one another. Conventional Se tcm Crllulur Spirem The current cellular telephone technology was developed by Bell Laboratories to respond to these problems. This system consists of many low -powered antennas erected in a honeycomb pattern of "cells" that invisibly blanket the service area. 0 0 The cellular system consists of a cellular phone that both transmits and receives radio signals. From the mobile phone, calls are sent to a central computer called the Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO). The MTSO connects the cellular phone transmission with the local telephone company system which completes the call. From Cell To Central Computer To Local Call Anywhere (MTSO) Telephone Company in the World As a caller drives from one cell to another, the call is automatically handed off to another cell by computer. The cells are also overlapped to insure calling success even during the busiest hours and days of the month. The system is engineered to provide excellent signal strength and clarity. In addition, all NewVector cellular service systems are compatible with each other, so when a caller travels into another city, the system still works. MTSo al As you drive from one computer automatically to a new cell. Relationship With Neighboring Systems cell to another, the hands off your call All cellular systems are compatible, so when you travel to another city which has cellular service, your cellular telephone still works. This is called roaming. As cellular mobile systems expand throughout the nation, many major highway corridors between cities will be covered with additional cells. Cell Site Selection Cellular telephone service is expanded in a given area to provide better service to cellular customers. This can be done in two ways: extending the coverage to new areas or increasing the capacity of the system within the current service area. The decision to expand the system depends on a number of factors. First, the number of current customers within the area and the capacity of the current system are analyzed to identify the need to expand. Second, the quality of service within the area is constantly being evaluated, both electronically at the switching equipment, where every call is monitored and any service failures are recorded, and through feedback from customers. Once the decision has been made to expand or improve service, the engineers at US WEST NewVector prepare a preliminary design analysis. The topography and terrain features within the service area are entered into a computer, along with a series of variables, such as antenna height, available frequencies, and equipment characteristics. From this information the en- gineers determine a search area for the optimum location and height of the antenna to maximize service within the cell. When this technical analysis is complete, a search area map and other requirements are provided to the real estate and site selection consultants. With this information, the real estate acquisition consultant applies various criteria to identify and rank potential sites. The following is a summary of these cell site selection criteria: CGSA Cellular Geographical Service Area. The boundaries of the entire system are determined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Cell sites must be located so that radio signals from the system stay within the boundaries of the CGSA. The Cellular Grid. Within the CGSA, individual cell sites are placed on a hexagonal grid pattern. This pattern provides coverage for the largest area with the fewest sites and, therefore, fewer land use impacts. This pattern also facilitates future "cell splitting", or 1.sectoriza t i o n". Topography, Land Forms and Other Constraints. The computer analysis conducted by the engineers takes into consideration the hills and valleys within the service area. Basically, a line of sight relationship is needed between the antenna and the cellular telephone to insure quality service. There are often land features within a search area that limit the options for site locations. Features such as bodies of water, swamps and steep slopes may prove impossible to build upon, and since cell sites must be periodically maintained, they must be accessible to technicians year-round. Therefore, we need to find sites near the center of the search area, at the optimum elevation, and accessible by existing roadways. Sites with existing or proposed high-rise buildings nearby must also be avoided because of the potential for "shadowing" within the service area. Since all of the cell sites work together (calls are automatically handed off from one cell to another as the driver travels between coverage areas), one antenna may not be lowered or raised without affecting the performance of that cell and adjacent cells. The combination of these factors results in the identification of well-defined "preferred locations" within the search area. 0 0 FAA And Existing Radio Conflicts. In addition to the engineering constraints noted above, the site location must not interfere with either Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements, or existing radio transmitters operating at high frequencies. FAA regulations protect air space zones and flight paths surrounding airports and the locations and heights of all antennas are reviewed to insure that they do not violate these safety zones. Also, when certain AM and FM radio broadcast towers are located in close proximity to cellular antennas, it can degrade the performance of the signal by creating interference. Consequently, the placement of a cell site in close proximity to AM or FM towers must be thoroughly analyzed. Zoning and Land Use Compatibility. Whenever feasible US WEST NewVector strives to acquire property that is properly zoned and adjacent to compatible land uses. Sites adjacent to existing tall power lines, microwave facilities, antenna farms, water treatment facilities, and similar uses are selected when they meet the other technical requirements of the system. When circumstances result in compatibility concerns, a concerted effort is made in the design process to screen facilities and otherwise mitigate these problems. Property Availability. Due to all of the engineering and design constraints described above, it is often difficult to find sites that meet all of the requirements. It is often impossible to find vacant land or building space for sale or lease. In most cases, more than one site is evaluated prior to selecting the most favorable location. The following hypoythetical illustration summarizes some of the site selection constraints. Existing Tower / \ \ ) Water Tank Within Search Arra _ \\'Jl Outside Search Area Existing Tower a�f.� '1 eO� Water Tank Outside Search Area 7 t ` Within Search Area Airspace /one --- --� � 0 0 Public Safety Questions In recent years there has been concern over possible health effects from radio frequency (RF) energy. This energy is around us every day, coming from commercial radio and TV, radar, amateur radios, and other sources. The frequencies used by the cellular phone network are the same ones assigned previously to certain UHF TV channels, and so have been in the airwaves for many years. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has established a standard for safe ex- posure levels to RF energy. That standard is compared below to other household sources and a typical cellular phone antenna. Cellular antennas transmit relatively short distances and operate at very low power levels. As the hypot- hetical illustration suggests, the amount of en- ergy from a single cellular phone channel is typically about the same as a 100 -watt light bulb. While there may be between eight and fifty channels operating from one cell site, the channels rarely all transmit at the same time and each operates at a different frequency. C Ilular I ANSI I Foa, H.—I HWJ C-11... VIII Fq, "c d"d Ir. f H R,d MA fr,, ]ti.. w.ree Cellul:v ME- t ; Some antennas in the cellular phone network are microwave relay antennas that transmit and receive telephone messages from cellular sites to the wireline telephone network. The signal between these antennas is in a directed beam, so the dispersion of RF energy outside this narrow beam is insignificant. Even directly beneath a cellular antenna, the exposure is about half that of an ordinary cordless phone, or less than one percent of the ANSI standard. Cellular Does Not Interfere With Other Transmissions To maximize the capacity of the system, cellular antennas transmit at very low power. This allows the same frequencies to be used simultaneously in non -adjacent cells. US WEST NewVector Group operates hundreds of cell sites in fourteen states and has never experienced any interference problems with other transmissions. Radio frequencies are a sort of precious na- tional resource for which there is a tremendous and growing demand. The Federal Communi- cations Commission (FCC) regulates the use of radio frequencies throughout the United States. The graphs illustrate the broad range of frequencies and the narrow segment of this spectrum that constitutes radio and television frequencies and those allotted to cellular phone transmissions. f Cellular Phones I� r e ,:._ L:" In , 'I-"-" a I, n.,.. "19 1017 IoO 11111 1011_ 109 100 , 103 ELECTROMAGNMIZ SPFC RLM N Freq.e y/Hz Cellular Phone \ �l',ff T Ch, 1,7.,! IM Ratlio NCM1annel._o my 108 107 Frequenry/Hz 0 Cellular Glossary Cell. A small geographic area served by a low -powered transmitter, 2 to 10 miles in radius. Cell Site. An installation containing the transmitters, receivers and control equip- ment necessary to connect the cellular phone system and the conventional wireline telephone network. Cell Splitting. The division of a larger cell into several smaller cells to provide more channels within the same geographical area, and therefore provide better service. Cellular Geographical Service Area (CGSA). A specific geographic area, within which a cellular system serves cus- tomers. Mobile customers are expected to subscribe to cellular service within a given CGSA. Digital Radio Link. A radio signal used to connect telephone circuits from a cell site to the central switching equipment (the MTSO). Electronic Switching System. A computer that automatically routes calls within the cel- lular system, located at a central site. Hand -Off. The automatic switching of a signal from one cell to another, which occurs within a fraction of a second. 0 Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO) Also known as the MTX or "Switch". The interface between the cell sites and the conventional wireline tele- phone network. It serves as the central co- ordinator and controller, as well as housing the switching equipment for a cellular tele- phone system. Radio Common Carrier (RCC). Firms licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide a variety of radio services to the public, including dis- patch and paging services. Many RCC's now own cellular licenses. US WEST NewVector is an RCC licensed by the FCC. Roaming. The ability to operate a cellular mobile telephone in a mobile service area other than the one from which service is subscribed - for example, being able to use your cellular phone in Minneapolis, even though you subscribed originally in Seattle. Sectorization. An engineering refinement of a cell's transmission antennas, which im- proves call quality by reducing cross- talk/interference. This is done by splitting the coverage of the cell site into three equal sectors, by means of directional antennas. Wireline Telephone Network. The con- ventional local telephone network which transmits calls over wires rather than radio waves. The FCC has ruled that wireline companies or their affiliates may apply for cellular licenses in those areas where they currently provide wireline service.