1 CUP 275 West 79th StreetCITY OF
PC DATE: 7/18/00
8/15/00
CC DATE: 8/14/00
REVIEW DEADLINE: 8/19/00
STAFF
REPORT
Z
L>
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Request for a conditional use permit to construct a 79.5 foot m°nopole including
antennas and a site plan review to construct a 12 foot by 28 foot (336 sq. ft.) .
equipment build'ing.
275 West 79th Street
AT & T Wireless Services
2515 24th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55406
(612) 721-1660
Brown's Tire & AUto
275 West 79th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 934-2155
PRESENT ZONING:
BH, Highway and Business Services District
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
ACREAGE: .85 acres
DENSITY: N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant would like to install a wireless communication site on
property zoned BH, Highway and Business Services District. Towers and antennas are permitted as a
conditional use. The site contains a mUlti-tenant building with automobile-related uses.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or
not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the
City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be
approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
, :rio Ave ,I
AT & T Wireless Services
July 12, 2000 August 9, 2000
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On July 18, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item. By a unanimous vote,
the application was tabled in order for the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed height is required
for adequate service provision, submit photographs of the monopole in relation to St. Hubert's steeple
and demonstrate that this facility cannot be co-located with a future Sprint facility.
The coverage maps (Attaclunent 7) indicate that there is a gap in the service south of TH 5 along
TH 101. A 79.5-foot monopole will provide more coverage to this area than the lower, 55-foot tower.
Co~Tespondence regarding co-location between AT&T and Sprint is located in Attachment 8. The two
carriers cannot co-locate because the proposed towers are incompatible with each other's coverage
requirements. Photos showing the monopole's height in comparison to St. Hubert's Church steeple are
also attached.
The applicant has submitted an updated site plan illustrating a 79.5-foot monopole with antennas,
thus the report has been updated. All new information is in bold and all outdated information has
been struck through.
APPLICABLE REGULATION
Section 20-714 of the zoning ordinance permits commercial towers as regulated by article XXX as a
conditional use in the BIt zoning district.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a 80 79.5 foot monopole with
antennas and a site plan for a 336 sq. ft. equipment building for a wireless communication facility.
The zoning ordinance permits towers and antennas as a conditional use in the BH, Highway and
Business Services District. The tower is proposed to have three arms mounted at the top of the pole
that can support up to 12 antennas. The applicant has stated that only nine antennas will be installed
initially. Also, the monopole has the capacity to hold an additional three arms at the 55 foot elevation
that can accommodate up to 12 antennas for a co-locator. The monopole and building are to be
located to the east of an existing commercial building (Brown's Tire & Auto, Toll Welding and
Master Collision) that abuts TH 5.
The monopole and equipment building will be accessed via an existing drive aisle and cul-de-sac.
The site plan does not indicate any landscaping, however, the. applicant intends to plant shrubs around
the equipment building. The entire site is elevated approximately 8 feet above TH 5. The existing
landscaping along TH 5 will screen the equipment building.
The tower is north of TH 5, west of the pedestrian bridge, east of an existing commercial building
(Brown's Tire & Auto, Toll Welding and Master Collision) and south of the Chicago Milwaukee St.
Paul and Pacific Railroad.
Staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in this report.
AT & T Wireless Services
July 12, 2000 August 9, 2000
Page 3
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to install a 77-foot monopole with 3 arms at the top containing up to 12
antennas that are approximately 4 feet in length, 1 foot in width and 6 inches in depth. The monopole
is designed to hold an additional three arms with up to 12 antennas at the lower, 55-foot elevation.
The monopole and equipment building are to be located on a 46 foot by 19-foot concrete island 12
feet from an existing commercial building and directly abutting an electrical transformer.
As shown on the fbllowing table, the tower complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance
with the exception of the setback from the south property line. The ordinance requires it to be one-
half the height of the tower, including antennas. The setback that is shown is from curb to curb, not
from monopole to the property line.
TABLE 1
Proposed monopole compared to ordinance requirements
Ordinance
Tower Height 150 feet/maximum
Tower Setback
TH 5 40 feet/minimum Not Shown
East property line 10 feet/minimum 45 feet
Proposal
80 79.5 feet including antennas
The tower is to be galvanized and painted blue or "Attic Ice." This color is consistent with the
tower and antenna design requirements in the zoning ordinance. However, staff would like to
specifically recommend the brand be "Tnemac" and the color "Blue Elusion." This is the same color
used on the water tower in the Arboretum Business Park (southeast comer of TH 5 and TH 41).
In locating a telecommunication antenna, the applicant must demonstrate that the antenna cannot be
accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one-mile search radius.
However, towers less than 80 feet in height are exempt from this requirement. Since the monopole is
only 77 feet (79.5 feet with antennas), this applicant does not need to comply with this obligation.
The applicant has contacted NSP about locating a wireless communication facility on the existing
power lines. This placement does not work for either party for safety reasons. Roger A. Johnson,
Construction Supervisor with NSP, informed staff that antennas must be mounted below 50
feet on the 100 foot tall power poles because they must be a certain distance from the lowest
conductors. This height does not meet the needs of the applicant.
EOUIPMENT BUILDING
A 336 sq. ft. equipment building is to be installed in conjunction with the monopole. This proposed
structure is 10 feet in height, 12 feet in width and 28 feet in length. It is to be constructed of
prefabricated concrete and painted a color to blend in with the existing building. However, the HC-1,
Highway 5 Overlay District prohibits painted brick. Thus, staff is requiring that the equipment
building be constructed of textured block or brick similar in color to the existing building.
AT 8: T Wireless Services
July 12, 2000 August 9, 2000
Page 4
TABLE 2
Equipment building compared to ordinance requirements
Building Height
Building Area
Building Setbacks
South
East
Ordinance
1 story/maximum
400 sq. ~/maximum
25 feet/minimum
10 feet/minimum
Proposal
1 story
336 sq. ft.
Not Shown
The equipment building is shown to be 16 feet from the existing building. The building code requires
the mininmm setback to be 20 feet based upon the building classification.
As additional antennas are installed on the monopole, additional equipment buildings will be
required. All structures will have to meet zoning ordinance requirements.
PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION
The existing parking will be used. No additional parking spaces are required for this use. The site plan
does not indicate the number of parking stalls that will be impacted by this application. Therefore, staff
is recommending that the applicant demonstrate the number of parking stalls being impacted by the
installation the monopole and building on the site plan.
LANDSCAPING
Existing landscaping includes a continuous staggered row of evergreens that screen the equipment
building on the south. Currently, there is one dead evergreen near the proposed monopole and building
that should be replaced. The mature evergreen and deciduous trees obscure views from the properties to
the north.
The applicant has indicated that shrubs are to be planted around the base of the equipment building.
Staff recomlnends that a landscape plan detailing the species and site location be submitted to the City
prior to installation.
LIGHTING
Lighting is not shown on the site plan. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall
not display strobe lights unless the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority
for a particular tower specifically requires such lighting.
SIGNAGE
The applicant has not shown a sign plan. No signage, advertising or identification of any kind
intended to be visible from the ground or other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and
equipment information signage required by the manufacturer or by Federal, State, or local authorities.
AT & T Wireless Services
July 12, 2000 August 9, 2000
Page $
FINDINGS
The City of Chanhassen finds it necessary for the promotion and preservation of the public health,
safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the community that the construction, location, size, and maintenance
of wireless telecommunication facilities be controlled. Further, the City finds:
1. Towers and antennas have a direct impact on, and a relationship to, the image of the
community;
2. The manner of installation, location, and maintenance of towers and antennas affects the
public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the community;
3. A reasonable opportunity for the establishment of wireless telecommunication must be
provided to serve residential and business needs; and
4. Uncontrolled and unlimited towers and antennas adversely impact the image and aesthetics of
the community and, thereby, undermine economic value and growth.
Finding: A 80 79.5 fbot high tower at this location should not be injurious to the use and enjoyment
of surrounding property or substantially diminish property values. The Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul
and Pacific Railroad separate the residential property to the north from the proposed monopole and
equipment building. Mature, existing trees should help to partially screen the monopole fi'om
properties to the north. Further, so long as the permit and building code requirements are adhered to,
the proposed tower should not endanger the public health or safety.
Staff finds that the applicant has met the general standards for all conditional use and the design
standards for towers.
RECOMMENDATION
Slaff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2000-5 to permit an 80
foot monopole with antennas and a site plan for a 12 foot by 28 foot (336 sq. ft.) equipment building for
a wireless communication facility as shown on plans prepared by Ulteig Engineers, Inc. on June 16,
2000 and stamped received June 19, 2000 August 7, 2000, subject to the following conditions:
1. The monopole and equipment building shall comply with article XXX. Towers and Antennas
of the zoning ordinance.
2. The tower and all antennas shall be less than 80 feet in height.
3. The monopole color shall be the brand "Tnemac" and the color "Blue Elusion."
4. The applicant shall demonstrate that the monopole meets the required 40 foot setback from the
property line abutting TH 5.
AT & T Wireless Services
July 12, 2000 August 9, 2000
Page 6
5. The setbacks from property lines shall be shown on the site plan for the equipment building.
6. There shall be no artificial lighting or signage for the monopole.
7. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, including the
replacement evergreen tree along TH 5.
8. The applicant shall submit a letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her
successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet
reasonable terms and conditions for shared use, and so long as there is no negative structural impact
upon the tower, and there is not disruption to the service provider.
9. The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of building permit application showing the
height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas and the minimum
separation distances between antennas. A description of the tower's capacity, including the number
and type of antennas that can be accommodated should also be provided.
10. The equipment building shall be constructed of textured block or brick similar in color to the
existing building.
11. The site plan shall indicate the number of parking stalls that are impacted by the installation of
the monopole and equipment building.
12. The island around the antenna and equipment building shall be B-612 concrete curb and gutter
consistent with the existing parking lot.
13. A building permit is required to construct the building and monopole. The monopole must be
designed to include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice.
14. The equipment building must be a minimum of 20 feet away from the existing building to the
west. The west wall nmst be one-hour fire-resistive construction; opening or penetrations are not
permitted in this wall unless it is at least 25 feet from the other building, at a distance of 30 feet,
openings are permitted without restrictions.
15. The contractor shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan
review and permit procedures and also the code requirements for the buildings based on the
separation distance."
ATTACHMENTS
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Application and Letter
Site Plan and Elevations- UPDATED
Memo from Steve Torell dated July 5, 2000
Public Hearing Notice
Minutes from July 18, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
Coverage maps
Letter from David Hagen dated August 3, 2000
AT & T Wireless Services
July 12, 2000 August 9, 2000
Page 9
RECOMMENDATION
use permit.
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the conditional
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18 day of July, 2000.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
06/15/00 15:21 FAX 612 937 5739 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
002/003
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
· . 690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
CHANHAS~m~ vL~,~ u:PT
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
.~/Conditional Use Permit
Temporary Sales permit
.. Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit
Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
· _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Si:e Plan Review*
Subdivision*
Notification Sign
X~ Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
($50 CUPISPR/VACNARAN APIMetes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TO 'AL FEE $ OO..00
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
~'wenty-six full size .folded copies ot~ the plans must be submitted, Including an 8Y2" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
"* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each' application.
05/15/00 15:21 FAX 612 937 5739 CITY OF CItANItASSEN ~003/003
LOCATION ,2- ~7,,~ ~-'~', "7 ~"/~(~' 57&·
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~/'~ -/~ '~,~" 0/~
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
_ YES _~. NO
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASONFOR THIS REQUEST //~'~-- ~ [ '.x~,'/5~../~ ~, (; .~;..?¢-?,//,~?..~ % /.~..~.,4~'~ 't~'
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certily that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requiremen[s with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City shouk:l contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certlficate of Title, Ab~stract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signori this application,
1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines t'or submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional tees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct lo the best of
my knowledge. '~
The dry hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notitying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
Si~na~'~of Fee Owne¢ Date
A,~j:~'~ation Received on~""z/ (.~- j~ .~.,.~ Fee Paid ~~)'~ Receipt No. '7 31 '7'~
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
J~ not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
June 16, 2000
Wireless Network Services
Real Estate
Ms. Cynthia tL Kirchoff
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
AT&T
AT&T Wireless Services
2515 24th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55406-1218
612 721-1660
FAX 612 844-6604
Re: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless
Communication Site in Chanhassen, MN
Dear Ms. Kirchoff.'
AT&T Wireless Services of Minnesota, Inc., (ATTWS) desires to provide
coverage to their customers as they travel Highways 5, 101 and throughout the
commtmity of Chanhassen. In order to establish a strong signal within these
areas, it is necessary to locate a wireless site which would provide signal to all
of these areas. The proposed site is located behind Brown's Tire and Auto.
This property is zoned BH (Business Highway) which according to
Chanhassen's city code, section 20-1500 towers are allowed with a
conditional use permit. In addition to the enclosed application form, the
following supplemental information is provided.
In order to provide the necessary signal to the previously described area,
ATTWS needs to erect an 80-foot monopole to which our antennas would be
attached. The monopole is a steel-tapered pole and is placed approximately
six feet from the equipment building. This height would provide the
necessary signal strength for our customers and the residents of this area, and
connect t° the surrounding ATTWS sites. By providing such service to the
community, ATTWS believes they are enhancing the public health, safety and
general welfare of the community. Locating a monopole at this site would be
compatible in appearance with the existing character of that area and will not
be hazardous to the existing uses in that area.
The proposed monopole and equipment building is an unmanned structure,
only requiring power and phone service to be brought to the site. Both of
these services are located in the immediate area and will not require any
additional public facilities services.
USA
PROUD PARTNER
AUG-O~-~000 15: 5~
ULTEIG ENGINEERS INC
571
1168
P.02/02
~ PRDPDgED
LOCATION
ANTENNA
30°
W
~Z
W
D_~-
[]
270° ~
FUTURE ANTENNA
MOUNTING PIPE
13
5
N
FUTURE ANTENNA
LOCATION
150°
OHnNBP.BLE .ANTENNA CONFIGURATIm
PLAN VIE~/
FI FVATI[]N - MnNnpnl F
AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES OF MINNESOTA, INC.
ANTENNA CONFIGURATION 101/5 SITE
ULTEIG Ei~'~.!NEER$, INC.
E20f EAST RIVEi~ ROAD
SUITE
MINNEAPOLIS, MIMtfE,~OTA ~421
PHONE (t;~ ~7-2~0 . _FAX
~Ttv~ ~ NONE ....
R£VISID~
""~ A, EVANS
CITYOF
690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147
Cha,hassen, M in,esota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
General Fax 612. 937. 5739
E, gi,eeri,g Fax 612.937.9152
£ttblic Sari'ty Fax 612.934.2524
Web tt,w~ci, cha,hasse,.m,.,s
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner II
Steve Torell, Building Official
July 5, 2000
Review of a request for a conditional use permit by, AT&T
Wireless Services, to construct a 12' x 38' equipment building and an
80-foot monopole.
Plmming Case: 2000-5 CUP
I have reviewed the request for the above project and have the following conditions:
1. A building permit is required to construct the building and monopole; the
monopole must be designed to include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice.
2. The equipment building must be a minimum of 20 feet away from the existing
building to the west. The west wall must be one-hour tire-resistive construction;
opening or penetrations are not permitted in this wall unless it is at least 25 feet
from the other building, at a distance of 30 feet, openings are permitted without
restrictions.
3. The contractor shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures and also the code requirements for
the buildings based on the separation distance
g:safety/sthnemos/plan/at&t.275w79th
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL
Conditional Use Permit
for 80' Monopole with Antennas
and Equipment Building
APPLICANT: AT & T Wireless
LOCATION: 275 West 79th Street
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant,
AT & T Wireless Services, is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a 12' x 28' equipment
building and an 80 foot monopole with antennas to be located at 275 W. 79th Street.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is dosed and the Commission discusses project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 6, 2000.
W 78th
St
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
WILBAR PROPERTIES INC
C/O AL KLINGELHUTZ
8600 GREAT PLAINS
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTCHER_.~___~
690 CITY_ff_~X/-TE~ DR PO BOX 147
C~ASSEN MN 55317
Use template for 5160®
BRIAN P & COLLEEN S NUSTAD
7791 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN HRA
690 CITY CENTER
CHA~ MN 55317
VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE
3499 DABNEY DR
LEXINGTON KY 40509
GRACE DEVELOPMENT LLC
18202 MINNETONKA
WAYZATA MN 55391
BLOOMBERG COMPANIES INC
PO BOX 730
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GERALD W & LOIS A SCHLENK
225 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN HRA
690 CITY CENTER D.I~PO'BOX 147
CHANHASSE~-''''~ MN 55317
G L B PROPERTIES LLC
1831 KOEHNEN CIR
EXCELSIOR MN
55331
GERALD SCHLENK, JEAN VON BANK
& MARY GOETZ
225 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTH CHRUCH
275 EAST LAKE DR PO BOX 388
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
AMERICAN LEGION-CHAN POST 580
7995 GREAT PLAINS
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL J SORENSEN
25648 200TH ST
BELLE PLA1NE MN
56011
GARY L BROWN
1831 KOEHNEN CIR WPO BOX 474
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
AMOCO AMERICAN OIL CO
PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT
200 EAST RANDOLPtt M C 2408
CHICAGO IL 60601
CHURCH OF ST HUBERT
8201 MAIN ST
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
HOLIDAY STATION STORES INC
4567 80TH ST W
BLOOMINGTON MN 55437
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTCI4ER
690 CITY CENTERT3R PO BOX 147
C .HA..~NHASS EN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTCHER
690 CITY CENTER 'DR"PO BOX 147
CHANHAS-S EN MN 55317
PAUL G EIDEM &
ANDREA F GRIFFITH
7727 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
THOMAS & CHRISTY STODOLA
21101 OAKDALE DR
ROGERS MN 55374
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTCHER
690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147
CHANHASSEN' MN 55317
CHRISTOPHER & D ANNA COX
222 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTCHER
690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN W & PAULA J ATKINS
220 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
Planning Commission Meeting- July 18, 2000
A bituminous parking area 10-12 feet wide shall be paved along both the west and east sides of
the proposed building to provide parking areas. The plans will need to be revised to address this
parking and drive aisle expansion requirement.
The contractor and all sub-contractors should be aware access to the water tower site will be
restricted. It will be necessary to contact the City's Utility Supt. A minimum of 24 hours in
advance to access the tower. In addition, the city will require the engineering firm of AEC to
inspect and supply a written report to the city of all welding/construction activities involved with
installation of the antennas at the cost of the applicant.
10.
The city has a private driveway agreement with these property owners, which should be reviewed
by the City Attorney's Office to see if the easement permits access rights to other parties.
11. That the applicant must provide opportunities for co-location.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 12' X 28' EQUIPMENT
BUILDING AND AN 80 FOOT MONOPOLE TO BE LOCATED AT 275 WEST 79TM STREET,
AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Warren Dunlap
Christopher & Dee Cox
Paul Hume
AT&T Wireless
222 West 78th Street
7727 Frontier Trail
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this issue.
Peterson: Cindy what, me being color blind and all. What color are the NSP power towers?
Kirchoff: Grayish bluish. The sky.
Peterson: What do we do about ongoing maintenance for the monopoles? Kate, you've got the policy
there. The ordinance. But like the NSP towers are generally pretty crappy looking.
Aanenson: Yeah. My understanding is through the, they do have an ongoing corporate agreement with
NSP for them using that and they are painting those as far as when we negotiate service agreement.
Franchise. That's the word I was looking for. Thank you. Franchise agreements. With this, it'd be the
same thing. It'd just be having to monitor those. Generally we get calls with that kind of issue but it will
take some maintenance. Ongoing.
Peterson: So I guess to clarify my color question, are they the same color? If they are the same color,
why wouldn't we want them the same exact color?
28
Planning Con~nission Meeting- July 18, 2000
Aanenson: Well I'm not sure of the water tower. They're the exact same color either. They are in close
proximity. Can you discriminate? You can check with the applicant to see if that's something you'd like
to do.
Peterson: I'm just thinking, the monopole looks more like a NSP tower than it does a water tower so.
Aanenson: We can recommend that they use a similar color. I don't think that would be a problem.
Peterson: I mean it's one perspective. Other questions?
Kind: Mr. Chair, along those same lines. The brand, I can't pronounce it. Tnemac. Is that a galvanized
material so we won't have that rusting problem that the NSP towers seem to have?
Kirchoff: It's my understanding no. That paint lasts for 8 to 10 years.
Kind: Is there an advantage to specifying that it should be a galvanized material?
Aanenson: l'm not sure as far as reflectivity. I mean that's what we have on the pedestrian bridge. It's
non peeling, is that what you're looking at?
Kind: Yeah.
Aanenson: That's an option.
Kind: I feel like there's a pole in town, and I couldn't come up xvith where it was located, that is out of
that material. And it seems to blend, be pretty light colored. Seems to blend pretty well.
Aanenson: l'm not sure if the one down on Park Drive, if that's painted.
Kind: That's the one. Is it on a public works?
Aanenson: Correct, it's behind there.
Kind: I was not crazy.
Aanenson: Well we could research that for you. That's some issues that you have as far as color and
maintenance between now and council and give them some good rational reasons for what it should be.
Kind: Personally I think that was pretty invisible and looks to me like that's going to be maintenance
free.
Aanenson: Well that's a decision we made on the bridge too. It does tend to disappear. Based on the
proximity, like Craig was saying, is it going to stand out more or less and that's something I guess we
could look at. Get some other color renderings for the council to review.
Peterson: Okay.
29
Planning Colmnission Meeting - July 18, 2000
[llackowiak: Mr. Chair I have just one other quick question. How are you measuring the tower height
and why is the variation between 80 and 77? I was confused.
Kirchoff: Okay. The ordinance says the height of a tower shall be measured from the ground to the top
of the antennas. And in the staff report it says the 77 feet, it should be actually 79. After talking with the
applicant today, and what was in the staff report was that the antennas are 4 feet in height. Essentially
they're 2 feet.
Blackowiak: 2 feet up, you know. Yeah.
Kirchoff: Right. Standing above.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. And that's all I have here I guess, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions of stafP.
Conrad: Yeah Mr. Chair. Cindy, this picture, are there more poles sticking out from the main poles than
just what we see?
Kirchoff: Yes. There's 3. There's 3 arms.
Conrad: So do ! see 2?
Kirchoff: Yes.
Conrad: And so how many more do I get? 4 more?
Kirchoff: Well but the design of the pole, and maybe the applicant can address this more but the design
of the pole can hole 3 more arms.
Conrad: So there's, the report I like. I like all the pictures in there. That's pretty neat. I'll wait for the
applicant.
Peterson: Other final questions for staff?.
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. Tell me about the same picture that Ladd just brought up. This is not
proportionate to the rest. It's the height, or is it? I have a hard time believing that that's a 80 feet height
there.
Peterson: I think the applicant can probably.
Sacchet: Maybe the applicant can address that. It's the height of the photograph I believe and how that's
out of proportion size.
Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward.
Warren Dunlap: My name is Warren Dunlap. I consult AT&T Wireless services. I'd like to explain
why we need something here. AT&T does not have a presence in your community. Currently it has a
very weak signal which tries, we're attempting to cover your community. I don't know hopefully
30
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
somebody here is a customer of AT&T's. But the Engineers feel that we need to locate something in this
conm~unity to give it a stronger signal and be sure we can reach into our other sectors or other sites that
we have in the area, in the adjacent communities. To answer some of the questions that were brought
out, first of all the photo, to my knowledge is not to scale. I believe that building, the owner said was
ahnost 30 feet in height. To the peak of that roof. The other question regarding the arms. There is in the
packet, I'm not sure if you have it here. There's this drawing. This is looking down on it. We initially
start out with 3 arms on the top. We have 3 arms and at the end of each of these arms are, would be 3
antennas. Currently in our older system we have 2 antennas on there and we're going around replacing,
putting up a third one. AT&T plans for future expansion in their system. They would either put in this
type of arm coming off at the same level, or else they would expand this cross arm and put all 4 antennas
so we'd have 12 antennas as a future loading. Again, referring back to the staff report, this is the same
type of scenario which we would allow co-location down below. Not everybody uses the type of arms.
Some of them use, what we call a crow's nest or a platform. But in either case co-location would be
allowed. I don't have any other comments but I'd be happy to answer some questions. The only other
comment I wanted to address is I believe the pole is set back. I'll have to check with the surveyor on this,
but the property line on this particular property is the same as the right-of-way line for Highway 5. And I
believe that would be 40 feet. I will check that though and provide that information to the staff. If
there's any other questions?
Peterson: Questions of the applicant?
Sacchet: Mr. Chair I have a question of the applicant. One of the conditions that we have in front of us,
that staff put on this is that instead of constructing the building with prefabricated concrete, that's a little
more aesthetic, ls that an issue for you?
Warren Dunlap: No sir. No, we can do that.
Sacchet: Thanks.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: I guess a request. I really like the rendering, the photos. Wondering if you could provide City
Council with some longer views because immediately when I thought oh, monopole and I was thinking of
where I live and where I drive into Chanhassen. I was thinking about how it might look in terms of the
whole downtown area and particularly old St. Hubert's and steeple. And if we could have a photo that
would show how that would relate to the downtown like from 5 and Powers and maybe from the other
side entering Chanhassen from the east at 101 and 5 for example.
Warren Dunlap: I think that'd be possible. I was with the person when he took these photos. We went
to the west side of the town up on that rise I guess where the railroad goes under. I think he has to have a
special lens. This was used with a digital camera. We'll have to get a 35 mm out and get a wide angle to
do that, but I think that can be done.
Peterson: Ladd.
Conrad: One more Mr. Chairman. On one of our, the pieces in the packet there were some specifications
from Vahnont and I just, are you familiar with?
Warren Dunlap: I'm familiar with Vahnont, yes.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
Conrad: Okay. Halfway down it says proposed antenna loading scenario. I'm trying to understand if
that's what you just said a few minutes ago. There are three 13 foot wide curved T-arms. Is that what
you said?
Warren Dunlap: Yes.
Conrad: You said there might be 6. They start with 3 at the top.
Warren Dunlap: Well we start with the 3 arms and off the ends of those arms is a pipe mount and that's
what we mount our antennas to.
Conrad: And those are the 12 antenna mounts?
Warren Dunlap: That's where we can mount off the 3. We'd have 4 on each of those arms.
Conrad: Okay. The proposed, there are 3, this document says three 13 foot wide cured T-arms at the top
of the pole which would be at the 80 foot level, or whatever. Then three 13 foot wide curved arms again
mounted at the 55 foot elevation. Is that what you're applying for? Is that it's capability?
Warren Dunlap: No sir. Well, the staff is saying that we need to have the pole for co-location purposes
at our height and then at a 55 foot height also allow for another carrier to come in. Whether they use the
arms or not, that's up to them. We use those arms as I said, where they arc out from the pole. There
would be 3 of them. And we've stuck with that design and we've been able to put all the antennas we
need at the ends of those arms. In this particular drawing here that came with the packet, it shows 3 other
arms. That would be an option to hold the 12, the total of 12 antennas.
Conrad: So from the center park, are these arms 6 feet out or are they 13 feet out?
Warren Dunlap: I believe they'd be 6 feet out. We do have to keep certain separation between our
sectors so they're not, the signal is not cross talking. That's part of how we do that. I don't believe the
arm from the pole to the end of the pole would be 13 feet. I don't believe they're that long. I've seen
them on the ground and they're more like the 6 foot length.
Conrad: Okay.
Peterson: Do you have any idea, or can you prognosticate, how many of your monopoles now are co-
located?
Warren Dunlap: Actually AT&T, I've had a little bit of history with the company in this market. AT&T
was purchased by McCaw. This type of pole which we're talking about here and those type of arms, was
first done here in this market. It was designed here in this market. And the poles were always, always
overly designed for loading purposes, So what happened was, other carriers did come to us when the
communities decided to co-locate and we were the only carrier. There were only two cellular carriers
and we were the only carrier at that time who could put them on there. So when we designed our system
we designed it for our loads and in this case we'll also say we need for another 12 antennas at this
area .... And then they always put in a safety factor and all of that is put into the pole as it's designed at
the manufacturer.
32
Planning Commission Meeting- July 18, 2000
Peterson: So you're saying you have a number of them that are already co-located?
Warren Dunlap: Yes sir.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have a couple questions. First, will this ever get any taller than 77 plus 2 for
the arms?
Warren Dunlap: No. We don't need it any taller. Now you may find somebody coming in here that
would request, they want to go above our antennas. They want to put 20 feet onto it. The pole will not
be designed for expansion. If that came about, they would have to come to us and say, can this be done?
We would say, go do a tower analysis. Here's all the loading criteria. The manufacturer would have to
give AT&T assurances that it can be done before we would even allow it and then they'd have to get
permission fi'om you folks.
Blackowiak: Okay. Kate, would that ever happen?
Aanenson: Well, if they couldn't find another site and they wanted to go on that site, they would have to
work out something because they've got the primary position to accommodate both. There's another
issue too I think and that's the setback from Highway 5 to go higher. I think we're getting close to the 40
foot. They have to have half the distance and at .80, they're almost there now .... variance, if they want
to to keep it on one site or something like that but what he's saying is structurally they're not building it
to go higher so.
Blackowiak: Okay. I just want to make sure it's not really, really tall. And then the second thing is,
there's currently a water tower site approximately halfa mile as the crow flies from this site you're
proposing on West 76th. Did you look at that for co-location opportunities?
Warren Dunlap: Is this the water tower?
Blackowiak: No. This is a different one. Not the one we just talked about.
Warren Dunlap: No, no. I mean it's the one right back up...houses?
Blackowiak: Yeah.
Warren Dunlap: Yeah, I did. And it wouldn't accommodate what we need to do. It looks pretty loaded
to me on the ground. You know you have a number of buildings already, it appeared to me to be in their
back yards so I did go look at it but it was not in the area that I was instructed to search at. My search
area is basically right there along the Interstate. Or excuse me, along the highway. From about the area
around the dinner theater to just past where I'm at. So I had very limited area to work in.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I was just curious if you even tried that because.
Warren Dunlap: I did go look at it.
Blackowiak: Oh I meant just to do a search. Put your equipment up there and check signal strength or.
33
Planning Commission Meeting- July 18, 2000
Warren Dunlap: We look at it for, you know I take the coordinate readings on it and then I turn that into
the RF person and he runs it with his, in his computer to see how it works with the rest of the surrounding
area and if we can't make a connection to another cell site. That's one of his criteria to throw it out.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks.
Kind: Mr. Chair, along those lines. When you co-locate you share the tower but you have to have your
own equipment building? You don't really co-locate in each other's buildings?
Warren Dunlap: No. That' s a no-no. They don't even do that. They have a paging company and the
paging company was bought by another company and they have kicked them out of buildings.
Kind: Because I know it's a site that Alison was talking about that there is a building down below that's
I think probably...
Warren Dunlap: The cellular and the PCS, one of the differences the cellular carriers have a lot more
band width and therefore it takes more radios, therefore their buildings at bigger. PCS people, a lot of
times have smaller buildings or just platforms with outside cabinets. In this market, AT&T has opted not
to go to outdoor cabinets because if you do that in the winter time you may have one radio that failed and
when you go to fix it and you open the outdoor cabinets, you may have 4 or 5 racks of radios that fail so,
because of the temperature. So that's why they like that, and the technicians like to be indoors in the
winter.
Peterson: Alright, any last questions of the applicant?
Kind: Oh yes Mr. Chair, I have one more. I'm interested in your opinion about material for the pole
itself. Galvanized versus...
Warren Dunlap: They are galvanized and we normally paint them what we call an attic ice. It's a very
light blue but you know, I overheard what you were saying. We'd be happy to contact that carrier and
find out if that color.
Kind: So the material itself is galvanized and, I supposed it doesn't guarantee anything but it's not likely
to rust like those NSP towers did?
Warren Dunlap: Yeah, I don't believe I talked to the man at NSP right before they had the crew out to
paint it and I don't know why they don't use galvanized poles but he did say, you know they were going
to paint this particular pole and he said it takes 30 days to cure because of some real heavy paint that
whatever, but the pole can be galvanized and painted. That doesn't cause a problem.
Kind: Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Motion and a motion for a public hearing please.
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward.
34
Planning Cmmnission Meeting - July 18, 2000
Christopher Cox: My name is Christopher Cox.. I live at 222 West 78t~' Street in Chanhassen. I've been
a Chanhassen old town resident for roughly 8 years. I have seen 78th Street come through. We tore down
all the telephone poles. We ran all the electricity underground. Everything west of 101 is underground.
Everything north of Highway 5 is underground. This pole, I've seen the diagrams that they have here,
it's very, very close to the current pedestrian bridge that crosses Highway 5. You can't see it in the
picture I don't believe. This is, when we say 77 feet, I think 8 stories. This is 8 stories. Now yeah, right
across the highway, right on the other side of Highway 5 we have NSP poles running down. There's our
electricity coining right in. Can you see those poles as you drive eastbound on 78t~' Street? No you
cannot. The highest thing in downtown and in old town Chanhassen is the church tower. I stood in front
of the Chanhassen Dinner Theater right in front of, right at the entrance and I turned around and I saw the
church, then I saw Brown's Tire and Auto and I could picture 8 stories. ! would implore you to think, if
you're familiar with the area, east of 494 and County Road 6 in Plymouth. There are 3, 2 or 3 radio
towers. They're different. They look like erector sets. They're not a pretty little monopole like what
we've got going on here. But there's 3 of them. How do you know when you're at County Road 6? You
know you're at County Road because you can see those poles. They are a landmark. Anywhere you've
ever seen one of these poles, it's a landmark right there in front of you. You know when to turn right, it's
Chanhassen. There's the pole. I do not want to hear that in the future. I don't want to hear people say,
take Highway 5 til you see the pole and hang a right. I don't want that there. It's probably going to be
right out my bedroom window. You're going to see it. I think it's going to over stand the highest
landmark that's been there since the 1800's. We've rebuilt the old town area. We've made a lot of it
more beautiful. We've taken down the ugly construction so that we can see the trees. So that we can put
this pole up and see it instead? I disagree with the location. There's another water tower. It's not in
Chanhassen. It's in Eden Prairie. It's less than a half a mile from where this present location is. It's just
on the other side of the railroad tracks. It would be another opportunity for co-location. I feel that this
would be a poor location to have an 8 story tower. Thank you very much.
Peterson: Thank you.
Paul Hume: Chair, I'm Paul Hume. I live at 7727 Frontier Trail. I had a few questions for the
contractor. The diameter of the antenna, you're only talking about 13 feet wide antennas. What is, is it
going to be something that's 20 feet wide, 80 feet up in the air? That's one of the questions I had. And
as far as the location, wouldn't it be better to have a location in a business district, perhaps on south of
Highway 5, West of 17 where there's already a lot of businesses located and it's a half mile from where
the current site is? Another question I had is, they had mentioned a 55 foot height for a carrier coming
in. Why couldn't they use the 55 foot height instead of the 80 foot height? IfI could get those questions
answered.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mrs. Cox: Hi. My husband just gave all the factual things here. I'm Dee Cox. I live at 222 West 78th
Street and more or less I would just like to reiterate the plea that we have put so much effort into trying to
keep old town old and pretty and then to see this come along, you know I think it would dwarf everything
and I think it would detract from that. My husband did some photography with the digital camera from
different sites in the city and I'd just like to show you them. This red line in there, we don't know height
wise...but that gives you an idea of what you're going to see. Also we have AT&T Wireless Services
and they do work out here so we're not hurting. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
35
Planning Commission Meeting- July 18, 2000
Christopher Cox: I'd just like to add one additional comment pertaining to the photograph that I
submitted to you. That is from westbound Highway 5. It's about in the nature of Lotus Lawn and
Garden, as you're looking towards Chanhassen. I also took additional photographs from 78th Street, from
the Dinner Theater. As you heard earlier tonight, 10 days isn't a heck ora lot of time. ! didn't have
enough time to really go through the photographs that I captured and to really try and, all I can do is
guesstimate with the tools I have. I can't survey this stuff. I don't have all the tools available to truly say
you know, here I am driving down 78th Street and that's almost where that's going to be, isn't it? This
is a guesstimate. It's not factual. I do have some other photographs. I do believe that we are all going to
be staring at this thing every day. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Would the contractor like to comment on the size, to answer one of the questions?
Warren Dunlap: The antennas that go on there will be approximately 4 to maybe 5 feet in height. 1 foot
width, 6 inches in depth. You may see bigger ones in other areas but what we're trying to do here is to
serve an area in height. Deternfines how far these go. And the location is critical so we can make the
connection within the system. If you move too far away you don't have as strong of a signal so that's
basically how areas are located. The only other comment ! have, it's 80 feet in height. The power lines
that are there are about 100 feet in height. We didn't locate on the power lines. It's a safety issue for
AT&T and for NSP and the other point there is the property that would allow us to get access to the
highest location is currently owned by Northcott and they are not interested in leasing anything because
they have their own plans for development. If it was something that AT&T was interested in, but as !
said, it's a safety factor. Safety issue for them. I think that's what I had written down. If there's other
questions.
Peterson: Thank you. Motion to close public hearing.
Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Kate are we already co-located on the one off of Dell Road, on the city property?
Aanenson: You mean the one in Eden Prairie?
Peterson: Yeah.
Aanenson: Yes. We tried to. Just so you know, there is another user looking in the Quattro area. We
did contact Eden Prairie and I did meet with their zoning officer who works for the police department.
They will not be allowing any other users, even through their own negotiations on that so that's not an
acceptable option. As the applicant just said, we looked at trying to use Northcott. It's got the high
visibility. We could put the panels on. They wouldn't give a lease agreement. They searched this area.
We've worked with them over several months trying to find the acceptable, trying to mitigate the impact
of, it's going to be visible from somewhere. I don't know how you can resolve that. Certainly when
you're in this corridor of the downtown. It's the same issue. We're looking to see one in a couple weeks
on Quattro.
Peterson: My concern, and we had the same concern the last couple of the ones we had is, we've got this
person sitting back in headquarters with a PC saying you've got to have, it's got to be in this block. They
don't test anything outside of that block and how accurate is that analysis?
Aanenson: Well if you want to table this for their RF study, you can certainly recommend that.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
Peterson: For the what?
Aanenson: For their RF study to see exactly what they studied and where their zones. What the gap
they're trying to cover. That's acceptable from additional information. You can look at the study and
see where their gap is.
Peterson: It's important enough where I don't feel overly comfortable unless you make us feel
comfortable, particularly me comfortable that the due diligence has been done versus just saying this is
where it has to be and they haven't looked at.
Aanenson: Sure. Let me just go back to the previous one at Holy Cross. We're not capable of reading
that. I'm not an electrical engineer. We had to hire a consultant before. We can look at that and give as
best information as we can but no one on this staff is qualified to read that.
Peterson: Well that's what I'm saying but, and I don't know whether or not the city wants to hire a
consultant every time to do this but it may be an important enough issue that we should consider it so I'm
not asking you as a staff to do that but get the information that you feel comfortable.
Aanenson: No, what I'm saying is, we can get that and give it to you in layman's terms as best we can.
Give you some other information to see where they're at. Give you some additional information. That's
fine. Then the council will have it too.
Peterson: If you told me that, if we move it a halfa mile at a 1% degradation of signal, than I haven't got
a real problem at all doing that. But if it's 50% in a half mile, I just feel under informed to make a
decision like this. That's my problem. And I don't know whether you can inform me.
Blackowiak: I'd like to add Mr. Chair too that since we're seeing one on Quattro Drive, which is again
less than a half a mile from this proposed site, ! think it would be smart for us to wait and make sure that
we're not just plopping them in along Highway 5 to suit whichever applicant. I mean we should have
some method to our madness and take a look and see if we can't consolidate that are coming in at the
same time.
Aanenson: We had talked about that. I think additional information would be helpful.
Kind: Mr. Chair I have one more request. Could you also review whether the 55 foot height would be
acceptable and maybe in this particular downtown sensitive location we do not allow for co-location.
Your opinion on that I guess. Because I think 55 feet would be quite a bit better. That roof is pretty tall.
Aanenson: That's going to come back as part of their study, what height they need to get that, as Craig
was saying, their distribution so we can look at that. Because your gap is going to be less if you're
higher up, but we'll look at all of that. I think those are good questions. That's the same process we
went through with Holy Cross. If you're at different heights, what's your gaps.
Kind: And then if 55 feet is no good, then it really isn't co-locating. It's not offering co-location.
Aanenson: It doesn't meet their needs. It may meet somebody else's.
Kind: Okay, I get you.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000
Sacchet: Mr. Chair, would it also be possible to be very clear, assuming we would stay with this
location, to have the height of those NSP poles as a reference point?
Aanenson: Right. I think that was an issue we got before that you want at least, even before it got to the
City Council you want better clarity as far as the siting of this from different perspectives.
Sacchet: I think that would be an important context. IfNSP poles are 100 feet high and they're dotted
along the highway, they're not to me certainly nearly as aesthetic as a monopole. So I think that would
be a good reference point.
Peterson: Okay. I'll entertain a motion.
Kind: Mr. Chair, ! move the Planning Commission tables the application for Conditional Use Permit
#2000-5.
Conrad: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? If we do table this, the next one is
coming up at the next meeting? Just for the applicant's?
Aanenson: As soon as they can turn it around. I'm not sure what their timeframe is. They may not be
on.
Peterson: Well we need to give the applicant some direction so I assume you'll meet with the applicant
and discuss in detail what.
Aanenson: Right. The RF study. The better pictures. The colors, alternatives.
Peterson: Then offer the right timing.
Aanenson: Yes.
Peterson: Okay.
Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table the Conditional Use Permit
#2000-5 application. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL FROM BRINN AND BOB WITT TO STAFF'S
INTERPRETATION OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF A LAKESHORE SETBACK
VARIANCE, 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD.
Cindy Kirchoff and Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff'?.
Conrad: Mr. Chair just a clarification. Didn't we turn this down the first time?
38
_//TI I"
494
· ·11
C,4 %' OF CHA "JItASSEN
0
EXISTING
MINNESOIA CELLULAR TELEPHONE CO.
MINNESOfA
Best Server
CelICAD II v4.5
008
// Chaska
LAT:44-SO-S3N LON:g3-35-29W
GE: 9651t
SfN:V4 OR[N:45 'TN TXHT:]O0
ERP:59.00 W ANT:PD10189
DT:OM HW:5 LD:100
STN:V50RTN:IT0 'TN TXHf:100 It,
ERP:IO0.O0 VI ANT:PD10177
DT:OM HW:5 LD:100
STN:V60RTN:255 'fN fXHf:185
ERP:80.O0 W ANT:PD10189
Df:OM HW:5 LD:100
~. Shorewood
[A1:44-54-25S [ON:§3-31-5~VI
GE:IO011t
STN:V40RfN:75 'TN TXHf:97
ERP:88.00 VI ANT :PD10177
Df:OM HW:5 LD:100
STN:V50RTN:200 'IN TXHT:164
ERP:106.00 VI ^NT:RWA80015
DT:OM HW:5 LD:IO0
· STN:V60RTN:320 'TN ~XHT:163 tt
ERP:330.00 VI ANT:PD10177
D1:OM HW:5 LD:100
Canterbury Downs
LAT:44-47-25N LON:93-2?-14-W
GE: 7641t
STN:V40RTN:O 'TN TXHT:198 It
ERP:114-.O0 VI ANT:BCRIO-O
"= DT:OM HW:5 LD:100
~ Legend incomplete. See report
THRESHOLDS OVERLAYS
(>: dBm)
<=- 7::~ Primary
Secondary
H)'droiogy
BrA
Miles
2.00 4.00
SCALE: 1:250,000
6.00 8.00
07/23/00 1,3:49
WITH NEW SITE
MINNESOTA CEI_LULAR fELEPHONE CO.
MINNESOfA
Best Server
CelICAD II v4.3
OO8
Chasl~a
LAT:44--50-53N LON:93-35-29W
6E: 965ft
SfN:V40RfN:45 'TN fXHf:lO0 ft
ERP:59.00 W ANf:PDlO'!89
Df:OM HW:5 LD:100
STN:V50RTN:170 'IN TXHf:IO0 ft
ERP:100.00 W ANT:PD10177
Df:OM HW:5 LD:100
ERP:80.O0 ~/ ANT:PD10189
Df:OM HW:5 ID:lO0
Shorewood
[Af:44--54-25N [ON:93-31-59W
GE:lOOltt
SfN:V40RfN:75 'fN TXHf:97 ft
ERP:88.00 W ANf:PD10177
Df:OM HW:5 [B:100
SfN:V50RTN:200 'fN fXHf:164
ERP:106.00 W ANT:RWA80015
Df:OM HW:5 LD:100
STN:V60RfN:320 'TN TXHT:163 ft
ERP:330.O0 t'/ ANT:PD10177
Df:OM HW:5 LB:lO0
Canterbury Downs
' I~"' LAT:44-47-25N LON:93-27-14W GE: 764ft
SIN:V40RTN:O 'TN fXHT:198 it
ERP:114.00 W ANf:BCRIO-O
Df:OM HW:5 LD:100
~* Legend incomplete. See report
.- 'IHRESHOLDS OVERLAYS
(>= dBm)
~', Prirnol y
~.,,,,,,. .. Secondary
RECEIVED
,,,,_q 0 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
.', / L__~ SCALE: 1:250,000 08/0¥00 09:27
-New .~ite with 55' Monopole
~en~ ~y: LOUCK$ ASSOCIATES ~ INO.j 612 424 5822j Aug-3-O0 10:11; Page2/2
."h.,i n
M irm,~aF, c~hs. MN
August 3, 2000
Mr. Warren Dunlap
AT&T Wireless Services
2515 24th Avenue South
Mimxeapolis, Mir~n. 55406
fax
Re: Sprint interest in proposed AT&T Site at Gary Brown property in Chm-,hassen
Dcar Mr. Durflap:
You have asked me to write a letter to you concerning Sprint PCS's interest in
collocating on the monopole that AT&T .is proposing to build on Gary Brown's p.rope~ty
in thc northeast quadrant of Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard in Chanhassen. My
understanding is that the proposed monopole wi[[ be 80 feet tall and that AT&T's
antennas will be at the top. Sprint has no interest in this site based on it's
determination that a Sprint antenna site at the proposed AT&T site would not
accomplish the customer service objectives for the site.
This determination was made based on a field inspection of the location of thc
proposed site with Mr. Gary Brown who expressed interest in leasing additional land to
Sprint if necessary to allow Sprint to collocate on the tower. During the field inspection 1
secured geographic coordinmes of flxc site with a global positioning system instrument
which I later lbrwarded to Spfint's Radio Frequency Engineer. The Sprint Ek~gin¢¢r
rejected the site on the basis that its location is too tar southwest o'l' the search area to
meet the customer service objectives for the Sprint antcmm site, regardless of the height
at which Sprint's antennas would be attached.
If you have any questions about this letter please call.
Sincerely,
David Hagen
Project Manager/Broker
Copy: Cynthia Kirchol.'l; City of Chmflmssen
LOUCKS
Mi. nc;q.-',lis.
Paul
Cellular Division
AT&T Wireless Services
2515 24th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55406
612 721-1660
FAX 612 721-4770
Hi Warren,
I have looked at the Sprint location in Chanhassen. There are several problems
with that tower. First of all, the Sprint location loses 30 feet in ground elevation from our
current property. Also the Sprint location is about a mile away from the Hwy 101 & 5
intersection. The biggest problem of all is that we would only be at 50 feet on the pole.
Once you deduct the 30 feet for the loss in ground elevation, we don't have anywhere
near enough height to get us over the trees and buildings. If you have any other questions
or concerns, please don't hesitate to give me a call.
Regards,
Joe Beck
Senior RF Design Engineer
AT&T Wireless Services