Loading...
6 Conditional Use Permit -.:.-..;Q, CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: Nov. 14,2000 b CC DATE: Dec. 11,2000 REVIEW DEADLINE: 01/23/01 (This represents 120 day deadline) CASE #: 2000-6 CUP STAFF REPORT - ., ë ) j . ë PROPOSAL: Request for a conditional use permit to install a communication tower and site plan approval for a 75' monopole and equipment platform, Sprint PCS. LOCATION: 7700 Quattro Dr., NW comer of 77th Street West and Quattro Drive, Lot 1, Block 1, Quattro Addition APPLICANT: Loucks Associates 7200 Hemlock Ln., Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369-5592 (763) 424-5505 Beddor Enterprises 7951 Powers Blvd., Suite 201 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: lOP, Industrial Office Park 2020 LAND USE PLAN: OfficelIndustrial ACREAGE: 0.023 acres, 1,000 square feet DENSITY: NA ( - ~ J SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for a conditional use permit and site plan approval to locate a telecommunication tower and communication antennas behind a building located within the office industrial park area in eastern Chanhassen. The tower is approximately 75 feet tall. The six foot antennas in three groups off our antennas are centered at a height of 72 feet., Notice of tbis public bearing bas been mailed to all property owners witbin 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. ~'" ~ 11111 - "C ctI o :5 77th St ..... co .... . ~ ~« - CI Sprint Tower - Quattro Drive November 14,2000 Page 1 APPLICABLE REGULATION Section 20-221 through 20-237 Conditional Uses Section 20-915 Antennas, satellite dishes and amateur radio towers Section 20-287 Communication transmission towers Section 20-907 Height Regulations Section 20-794 of the zoning ordinance permits commercial towers as regulated by article XXX as a conditional use in the lOP zoning district. Section 20-1500 through 20-1522 (Article XXX) regulates towers and antennas. BACKGROUND In November 1996, the City of Chanhassen adopted Ordinance 259 pertaining to towers and antennas. This ordinance provided criteria for the design and location of wireless telecommunication facilities in the city. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a telecommunication facility and site plan for a 75-foot monopole with antennas, two 35 square sq. ft. by six foot tall (120" W x 42" D x 72" H) base transceiver stations (BTS) on a 15 foot by 15 foot equipment platform, and a fence enclosure. The zoning ordinance permits towers and antennas as a conditional use in the lOP, Industrial Office Park District. The tower is proposed to have three arms mounted near the top of the pole that can support up to 12 antennas. The monopole has the capacity to hold additional antennas at a lower elevation for co-locators. The monopole and building are to be located on the west side of an existing storage building down a hill from the rear ofthe Lyman Lumber yard. Since tbe original submittal oftbe plans, tbe applicant bas submitted revised plans for a tower that is shorter, 65 feet. Staffis recommending approval with conditions outlined in this report. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to install a 75-foot monopole with 3 arms near the top containing up to 12 antennas that are approximately 6 feet in length, 1 foot in width and 6 inches in depth. The monopole is designed to hold additional antennas at a lower height. As a general rule, a 20-foot separation is required between antennas. The monopole and a 225 square foot equipment support platform for the BTS units are located within a 580 square foot area enclosed within a six-foot tall chain link fence. Sprint Tower - Quattro Drive November 14,2000 Page 2 As shown on the following table, the tower complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. That is, it meets all height and setback requirements. TABLE 1 Proposed monopole compared to ordinance requirements Ordinance Proposal Tower Heie:ht 150 feet/maximum 65 feet Tower Setback 77th Street West 40 feet 185 feet Quattro Dr. 40 feet 280 feet North Property Line 1 0 feet 125 feet West property line 10 feet 24 feet In locating a telecommunication antenna, the city has requested that the applicant demonstrate that the antenna cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one-mile search radius even though towers less than 80 feet in height are exempt from this requirement. The applicant did inquire about locating at the City of Eden Prairie Water Tower, two NSP electric transmission towers on Highway 5, and at the Gary Brown site on Highway 5. The City of Eden Prairie only permits antennas on the top of their tower, which does not meet the radio fTequency needs for Sprint. Additionally, there is no room at the top for more antennas. The NSP towers and the Gary Brown site are outside the Sprint search area and would also not meet the radio frequency needs for Sprint. PARKINGIINTERlOR CIRCULATION The existing parking will be used. No additional parking spaces are required for this use. Access to the site will be provided via a sidewalk that runs to the north side of the buildings on the property. LANDSCAPING Existing landscaping includes trees around the perimeter of the site as well as scattered behind the building. The applicant is proposing the planting of two conifers on the south side of the enclosure. The existing vegetation as well as the location behind the building and at the base of the hill should adequately screen the site fTom off-site views. LIGHTING Lighting is not proposed 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. Sprint Tower - Quattro Drive November 14,2000 Page 3 SIGNAGE The applicant is not proposing a sign. 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. GRADING No proposed site grading has been shown on the plan; therefore, staff is recommending that a detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan be prepared and submitted for staff review and approval. Issues that will have to be addressed with the submittal include the finished elevation of the equipment platform and monopole foundation and the need for any retaining walls along the proposed sidewalk in the north half ofthe site. UTILITIES It appears no municipal services are required. Two proposed private utility easements will have to be recorded with the site plan. DRAINAGE Staff feels it may be somewhat premature to comment on the proposed site's drainage impacts without a grading plan. Staff is also concerned with how the proposed sidewalk will affect the existing drainage patterns on the north half of the site. Currently, the west half ofthe parking lot on the north side ofthe existing building drains through a curb cut in the northwest comer of the lot. This area will have to be addressed on the grading plan. STREETS No streets or driveways have been proposed for this site. The only proposed access is from a concrete sidewalk on the north half of the site. However, a 12-foot wide gate opening is shown on the south side of the site. If this gate opening will be used as an access, it must be shown on the grading plan. FINDINGS When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use, Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: The proposed communication tower will not be detrimental to general welfare of the neighborhood. The proposed tower and accompanying equipment building would be compatible with the uses in the industrial park. 2. Will be consiste~t with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Sprint Tower - Quattro Drive November 14,2000 Page 4 Finding: The proposed use is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, ordinance requirements for Highway 5 Corridor District, the lOP district regulations, and the tower ordinance. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Finding: The proposed tower and accompanying equipment building would be compatible with the uses in the industrial park. The location minimizes adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting standards which attempt to screen and or camouflage towers fTom adjacent public and private property. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: The proposed tower will not be hazardous to existing or planned neighboring uses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: The proposed development is provided with adequate public services. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: The proposed development will not require excessive public services. The proposed tower will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Finding: The proposed tower should not create conditions that are detrimental to persons, property or the general welfare of the community. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: The proposed development will not interfere with traffic circulation. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Sprint Tower - Quattro Drive November 14,2000 Page 5 Finding: The proposed development will not destroy or damage natural, scenic, or historic features. Finding: The proposed development should not depreciate surrounding property values. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The proposed tower will be aesthetically compatible with the area. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: The proposed development meets standards established for communication towers. Planninl! Commission Update The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 14,2000, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions of the staff report with modification to condition five to clarify that the southerly gate will only be used for access between the two buildings and the addition of three conditions. The tower shall be designed to be capable of accommodating future co-location. Confirmation of rejection by Eden Prairie of the site on their water tower. The two conifers proposed on the landscaping plan are other than Colorado Spruce. The Planning Commission was somewhat concerned that the proposed reduction in the tower height would limit the ability of co-location of other antennas on the site. As a solution, staff is recommending that the tower be designed such that it may be extendable in the future to accommodate an additional antenna above the proposed antenna. In addition, the tower should be built to accommodate an additional antenna on the proposed tower below the proposed antennas. In essence, at least two additional antennas should be able to be attached to the tower. The city has received a copy of a letter from Jean Johnson to Roger F. Behrens dated 11/27/00 confirming the denial of use of the Eden Prairie water tower. In addition, staffhad had conversations with the City of Eden Prairie and was advised that the tower could not accommodate additional antennas. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Conditional Use Permit #2000-6 to permit the installation of a communication tower and site plan approval for up to a 75 foot monopole tower and equipment Sprint Tower - Quattro Drive November 14,2000 Page 6 platform, Sprint PCS, plans prepared by AEC Engineering, dated 8/30/00, revised 11/1/00, subject to the following conditions: I. A building permit is required to construct the platform and tower; the tower must be designed for an 80 MPH wind load and include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice. 2. The plans must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. The contractor shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan for staff review and approval. 5. The proposed use for the 12-foot wide gate opening must be shown on the grading plan and will be used for access through the passage between the two buildings. 6. The tower shall be of a color that blends in with the sky. 7. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an addition user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use shall be submitted to the city. 8. The tower shall be designed to be capable of accommodating future co-location of antenna below Sprint's proposed antenna. 9. The two conifers proposed on the landscaping plan are other than Colorado Spruce. 10. The tower shall be designed and constructed such that it is extendable in the future to a sufficient height to attach an additional antenna above Sprint's proposed antenna." ATTACHMENTS I. Development review Application 2. Statement of Compliance with Standards and Criteria for Conditional Use Permits for Towers 3. Letter ITom Ayman Ibrihim to Dave Hagen dated 9/14/00 4. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 5. Planning Commission Minutes of 11114/00 6. Letter ITom Jean Johnson to Roger F. Behrens dated 11127/00 Sprint Tower - Quattro Drive November 14, 2000 Page 7 Application of Louck's Associates for a Conditional Use Permit #2000-6 and Site Plan approval for a 75 foot tall telecommunication tower and communication antennas. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION INRE: On November 14, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Louck's Associates for a conditional use permit and site plan approval for the property located at 7700 Quattro Drive. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed conditional use and site plan that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony ITom all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Industrial Office Park, lOP, District. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Office/Industrial. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 1, Block 1, Quattro Addition. 4. Section 20-232: a. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare ofthe neighborhood or the city. b. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Sprint Tower - Quattro Drive November 14, 2000 Page 8 c. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. 1. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. J. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. I. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Sprint Tower - Quattro Drive November 14, 2000 Page 9 RECOMMENDATION 5. The planning report #2000-6 CUP dated November 14, 2000, prepared by Robert Generous, Matt Saam, and Steve Torell is incorporated herein. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the conditional use permit. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 14th day of November, 2000. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman ATTEST: Secretary g:\plan\bg\development review\sprint tower cup 7700 quattro.doc Sent ~y: LqUCKS ASSOCIATES ,INC.; 612 424 5822; Sep-13-00 12:57; Page 2/3 ClTV OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1!1OO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Loucks Associates on behalf of Qprlnt ~pectrum L.r. ADDRESS: 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suitt!! 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369-5592 TELEPHONE (Daytime) 763/424-5505 O~NER: Reddor Enterprises ADDRESS: 7951 Powers Boulevard, Suite 201 Chanhassen, MN 55317 TELEPHONE: 952/474-023] _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permtt 2- Conditional Use Permit 5400 _ Vacation of RO~lEasements _ Interim Use Permij _ Variance _ Non-contorming Use Permtt I _ We~and Alteration Permtt _ Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ SIgn Permits .1L.. Sign Plan Review $2~ 0 L Notilication Sign $150 _ Site Plan RevieW" j ...L ESæ FeeslAnomeyCost- U PRNACNARlWAP/Metes a . $400 Minor SUB) _ Subdivision' . TOTAL FEE $ 850.00 A list of all property owners wllhln 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the 8JJpllcatlon. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full slze!2!slm copies of the plans must be sUbmitted,lncludlng an 8Yz" X 11" reduced copy of transparençy for eech plan sheet. .. Escrow will be required for other eppUcatlons through the development COntnlct NOTE - When multiple applications 1118 processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. By: LOYCKS ASSOCIATES ,INC.; 612 424 5822; Sep-13-00 12:58; Page 3/3 ~OJECTNAME SpJ'int PCS Antenna Site )CATlON 7700 QuanTO, Chanhassen. MN ;GAl DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block. 1, QuattTo Addition ETlANDS PRESENT X YES NO )TALACREAGE 1,000 square feet ~ESENTZONING lOP - Industrial Office Park ::OUESTEOZONING no change ~ESENTLAND USE DESIGNATION Office Indust:rial ::QUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION no change :ASON FOR THIS REQUEST Ci¡mmercial towers an', conditional use in tbe TOP Industrial Jffiee Park District per Section 20-814 of the Cbanbassen City Code ,ìs application must be completed in IuD and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information Id plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Belore filing this application, you should confer with the Planning 3partment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written ¡tice 01 application deficiencies snail be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of appUcatlon. lis Is to certify that I am making application for the described aCllon by the City and that I am responsible for complying with \ City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party whom e City should contact regarding any mailer pertaining to this application. I have etlached a copy of proof of ownership (either IPy of OWne(S Duplicate Certificate of Title, AbstraCl of Tille or purchase egreement). or I am the authorized person to make is application and the fee owner has also signed this applicatIOn. win keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission 01 material and the progress of this application. I further 1derstand thl! addttlonal fees may be charged for consutting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimete prior to any Jlhorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are trUe end correct to the best of y knowledge. he city hereby notifies the applicant that development revieW cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing , iQuiremjlnts and agency review. Therefore, the city Is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day dension lor development rl!l/Î8W. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review densions are approved by the appUcant. t¡-IJ--06 Date 9- J J- (flJ Date pplication Received on j "I' H/'-O" .' Fee Paid ,~ ReceIpt No. D LA) 20'1 l1e applicant should contact SI8If for a copy 01 the staff report which will be available on Friday prtor to the meeting. I not contacted. . copy of the report will be mailed to the IIJIPllcanfs .ddreas. Statement of Compliance with Standards and Criteria For Conditional Use Permits for Towers September 2000 Section 20-814 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance indicates that commercial towers are permitted by conditional use in the IOP Industrial Office Park District. According to the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, certain general and specific standards and criteria must be met in the issuance of a conditional use permit for a commercial tower. On behalf of Sprint Spectrum L.P " Loucks Associates is requesting a conditional use permit for a commercial tower of a parcel of land located at 7700 Quattro Drive in Chanhassen. The purpose of this memorandlUD is to identify standards and criteria that must be met in issuance of a conditional use permit for a commercial tower and to explain how the proposed monopole conforms to those requirements. I. General Conditional Use Permit Standards Section 20-232 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance sets forth general standards that must be met before the City can issue a conditional use permit. Following are a listing of those standards and a statement as to how the standard is met: a. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed antenna site will enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare by improving wireless telephone service to the area while not having a detrimental impact on the community. The antenna site will be screened ITom view from the Quattro Drive to the east by the industrial building located on the front of the lot and ITom 77th Street to the south and the industrial use to the north by an existing stand of trees and brush. The parcel of land west of the parcel on which the antelma site is proposed is occupied by a llUDber yard and its high elevation as compared to the antenna site effectively screens the antenna site from view from most of that parcel. A monopole, the least obtrusive type of tower, is proposed and the antennas will be arm-mounted to minimize the mass at the top of the monopole. b. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. The proposed antenna site will be consistent with the objectives of the comprehensive plan because it is located on a parcel of land designated for industrial and office on the comprehensive plan and is surrounded by parcels of land that are designated the same and industrially used. c. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. As indicated previously a monopole, the least obtrusive type of tower, is proposed and the antennas will be arm-mounted to minimize the mass at the top of the monopole. Existing vegetation, buildings and grade differential will effectively screen the antenna site ITom view from adjacent rights-of-way and parcels of land. The closest abutting use is a wholesale lumberyard to the west with a significant amount of outdoor storage of lumber products visible from 7¡th Street and from adjacent parcels. e. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The abutting parcels ofland in all directions are developed with and zoned for industrial uses. A wholesale lumberyard occupies the adjacent parcel closest to the proposed antenna site. No smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents or trash will emanate from the antenna site and noise coming from it will be imperceptible at property line. Electric and telephone services are the only utilities required on a continual basis and both are adequate in the area for the antenna site. The public street will be used to access the antenna site and one or two vehicle trips per month to the site will occur. The antenna site will be finished with aggregate placed over weed barrier fabric and this finish will retain the rate of storm water runoff from the site. The antenna site will require levels of police and fire protection similar to other similar utility installations. The site will generate no waste and will require no refuse disposal, sanitary sewer or water service. f. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the commw1ity. As indicated above the site will generate no waste and will require no refuse disposal, sanitary sewer or water service. After construction is complete, one or two vehicle trips to the site per month will be required. Police and fire protection will be similar to that required for other similar utility installations. g. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents or trash. Levels of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents or trash from the antenna site will not be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare. h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property, which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or sUlTounding public thoroughfares. 2 Existing vehicle approaches will be utilized and as indicated previously the antenna site will generate one or two vehicle trips per month after construction is completed. This increase in traffic will not create congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. 1. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. There are no natural, scenic or historic features of major significance in the area and solar access on adjacent parcels of land will not be impacted due to the relatively small shadow that will be caste on adjacent properties from the monopole and arm-mounted antennas at the top. J. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. As cited previously the parcel of land on which the antenna site is surrounded by industrial uses and the adjacent parcel closest to the antenna site is occupied by a wholesale lumberyard with a significant amount of outdoor storage. k. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Again the uses surrounding the parcel on which the request is being made are industrial and these uses are consistent with the zoning. Studies have indicated that communication towers have no impact on the value of adjacent properties. In this case, the base of the antenna site is well screened ITom adjacent roadways and uses by vegetation, grade differential and building. The antennas at the top of the monopole will be attached to t-arms mounted to the monopole and therefore the aesthetic impact on surrounding properties will be minimal resulting in no impact on property values. 1. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. As indicated in the next section of this statement, this proposed tower will comply with specific conditional use permit standards for towers. 2. Specific Standards for Towers Article XXX of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance sets forth specific standards that must be met in the issuance of a conditional use permit for a tower. This section of this narrative lists those standards and describes how the proposed tower meets those standards. a. Setbacks Section 20.1505 requires that a tower meet certain setback requirements including the setback requirements in the underlying zoning district, except that: I. in industrial and business districts the rear setback need not be complied with if the abutting property is zoned industrial or business; 2. the tower may not be located on an easement; 3. the tower shall maintain a minimum setback often feet ITom all property lines; 4. towers shall be setback the height of the tower from adjacent parcels developed guided or zoned residential; 5. towers shall be setback one-half 3 the height of the tower from planned public rights-of-way; 6. towers may not be located between a principal structure and a public street; and 7. a tower may not be located in a wetland or a wetland setback. In this case the proposed tower is setback 24 feet from the rear property line, 125 feet and 185 feet from the side property lines and 280 feet from the front property line. The subject parcel is zoned lOP Industrial Office Park and the setback requirements in that zone are 10 feet from the side and rear lot lines and 30 feet from the front. The parcels of land abutting the subject parcel on all sides are zoned lOP Industrial Office Park and thus the rear setback need not be complied with, even though it is. The tower is not located in the 20 foot easement that abuts the rear property line and will maintain a setback of at least ten feet ITom all property lines. Abutting parcels are used, guided and zoned industrial so the one-half tower height setback does not apply. The tower is located to the rear of the principal structure and a "utilized" wetland crosses the north edge of the property. The tower is not in the wetland and since the lot was of record before December 14, 1992 no setback from the wetland is required. b. Design Section 20-1509 requires that towers, antennas and supporting cables and structures be designed to blend into the surrounding environment through use of color, camouflaging and architectural treatments and shall have a galvanized finish or be painted a non-contrasting color. That section also requires that a monopole design be used unless the City Council determines otherwise. The proposed tower will have a galvanized finish, will employ arms rather than a platform to reduce the mass at the top of the tower, will be screened at the base with existing and proposed landscaping and will be of a monopole design, c. Co-location Section 20-1510 requires that the City Council, before approving a tower, find that the antenna site either cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower within one-half mile of the proposed tower or that an agreement cannot be reached to locate on an existing or approved tower within one-half mile of the proposed tower, if the proposed tower is less than 120 feet in height. Towers of less than 80 feet are exempt from this requirement. New towers are required to be designed for the applicant's antennas and the antennas of at least one other user at varying heights. The tower proposed is less than 80 feet in height, nevertheless Sprint has determined that its antelma site cannot be accommodated on existing structures near the proposed tower. Enclosed is a letter from Mr. Ayman Ibrahim, Sprint's Radio Frequency Engineer for the site, indicating that three existing and one approved structure were considered and rejected for the antenna site. The City of Eden Prairie indicated that the top of the water tower is the only place the antennas may be attached and that there is no room at the top. Mr. Ibrahim indicates that this location was analyzed anyway and explains in his letter why it will not work. Mr. ¡braham's letter also explains that NSP towers and an approved AT&T tower along Highway 5 were considered and 4 ~.' rejected because of their distance from the search ring. The proposed tower will be designed to accommodate a second carrier. d. Lil!hting Section 20-1511 requires that towers not be illuminated unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other state or federal authority. The tower is not proposed to be light. e. Signs and Advertising Section 20-1512 specifies that no signage or advertising is permitted on a tower, except warning or equipment information signage required by federal, state or local regulation. No signage or advertising is proposed on the tower. f. Accessorv Utilitv Buildings Section 20-1513 indicates that utility buildings and structures for antenna sites may not exceed one story in height and four hundred square feet in size, must be architecturally designed to blend with surrounding environment and must use compatible materials such as wood, brick or stucco for associated support buildings. No utility buildings are proposed. A 15-foot by 15-foot platform to which the base station equipment will bè attached is proposed and this platform is less than four hundred square feet in size. The platform will be well screened from surrounding parcels of land and roadways and therefore will blend with the surrounding environment. g. Landscaping Section 20-1514 requires that ground mounted equipment be screened from view by suitable vegetation unless non-vegetative screening is more compatible. Removal of existing vegetation is to be minimized through site selection and layout and landscaping is to comply with standards set forth in Article XXV of the Zoning Ordinance. The location on the subject parcel for the antenna site was carefully selected to minimize the removal of existing vegetation and to take advantage of the screening effect of that existing vegetation. Some small trees and brush and one 4" Box Elder tree will be removed for the antenna site. Colorado Blue Spruce trees are proposed on either side of the south-facing gate. The table in Section 20-1176 of Article XXV of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance specifies buffer yards required between adjacent uses. "Bufferyard A" is required between similar adjacent uses but no bufferyard is specified between industrial uses. The bufferyard between the proposed tower and the adjacent industrial properties to the rear and side exceeds "Bufferyard A". Section 18-61 (d) of the Chanhassen Subdivision Ordinance sets forth standards for evaluating site plans for tree preservation. The ordinance indicates that for sites with a base line 5 canopy of20 to 39% which is what this site has, a canopy of 14% must be maintained. The tree canopy after completion of the project will exceed 14%. 3. Conclusion The plan for the proposed antenna site complies with the general standards for the issuance of a conditional use permit as well as the specific standards for antennas and tower. 6 Sprint PCS@ 51111th Ave. S., Suite 120 Minneapolis, MN 55415 September 14,2000 Dave Hagen Loucks and Associates 7200 Hemlock Lane Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Dear Mr. Hagen, This purpose of this letter is to illustrate the reasons behind our RF (Radio Frequency) Department's rejection of four sites as being candidates for MS03XC872 search ring in Eden Prairie. The four candidates in question are: Candidate A. Eden Prairie Water Tower Candidate B, Eden Prairie NSP tower 29 Candidate C, Eden Prairie NSP tower 27 Candidate H, AT&T Brown Candidate A was rejected due to the high height of the antennas. The required height for adequate coverage and capacity relief need is ITom 75' to 80'. We were asked by the city to utilize the position on top of the tower, which is located at approximately 150'. The primary objective of the site is to provide capàCity relief to the surrounding sites. If the antennas are located at the higher position, the coverage will overlap with that of the surrounding sites as plot (A) illustrates. The -80 to -90dBm signal strength range need be located approximately half way between the site in question and the surrounding sites in order to realize the capacity relief needed. The coverage of this candidate at the 150' position will dictate that the mobiles will always be in s<!ft handolf. Soft handolf is the state when a mobile handset maintains two or more connections at the same time during a conversation yielding more utilization (inefficient use) of network resources. Candidates B, C, and H were rejected due to the fact that they are outside the search ring radius. As you know the search ring center location is the optimal position of a site that the RF department specifies during the radio design phase. It is understood that in many cases a site at that position may not be feasible. Therefore we have to allow for a bigger search area in order to provide flexibility to find a site. This is why a search ring radius is specified. Our search ring is a quarter of a mile in length. As illustrated in plot (B) candidates B and C are located about 0.4 mi. &om the center of the ring whereas candidate H is located about 0.8 mi. &om the center. The further a candidate is &om the center, the higher the probability of coverage overlap. As eXplained above overlapped coverage reduces the capacity relief needed. Plea><: call me at 612-204-3326 if you have any questions. .l'-~ / -an j¡j@ifnf> Minneapolis RF Engineering - , I # \ \ ~, \\~. "'- - I " --- ',---..-- ~ ~' ~ ~ U> U> 0 ~ ~ " " ' X x \ n ~ \ '" ~ -.J ru ' ru < ¡;¡ ~ ..... II .. II .... I .. II .. .. mil . .. .. i- . t . '" " ~'-- .. .. - . .. 11100 n ~ ro ! 1 ~ ~ c.~ nßl~~~~ an....·.-+.. ro ::I 0 3 co ~:JQI"'~~ n c.""J :J (TO!"':: µ\O ....""]':0 '-J.. ~~g ~æ 1:00 a. (JI g~ CD a ~ '" " r~ "' o~ , " 0i'i o '" c " rtru o ", '" a- 0" rtø , o ., or r æ n o '0 ~ n:J ~ ::r~ " ,a " 0 ,,. ~o o '" '" ru ru ;; --- - IiIII . -<ru ,or Crt,. o Z u>u m 00-< '0 ~ < ~ ru ""', 0," o~ <Ort ,. . "0 <0' .. 0 o ~H o ru,. 00 0' 00 o rt o o o ~ H , n NonCE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 890 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSALI CondItI... U.. P_lt _d SIte ..... ~plVY8ll for a c-.......catlon T_ anti 75' _opo" .... ...ul....._t pIatf_. APPUCANTr Loucks "-_late.lSplfnt Pes LOCATION: 7700 Quattro Drift NOTICE: You are Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal In your area. The applicant, Loucks AosicateslSprlnt PeS, Is requesting a conditional use permit to install a communication tower and slta plan approval for a 75' monopole and equipment platform on property zoned lOP, Industrial Off ca Park and located at thIJ northwest comer of 77th Street West and Quattro DrIve. 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 closed and the Commission discusses project. QuestIons and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting,. please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 937-1900 ext. 141. 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 November 2, 2000. 1/1#1 'I p.l III; )/¡o Smooth Feed Sheets™ Use template for 5160® :urrent Owner :hanhassen, MN 55317 Current Owner Chanhassen, MN 55317 Current Owner 18780 W 77TH ST Chanhassen, MN 55317 :urrent Owner :8401 77TH STW :hanhassen, MN 55317 Current Owner 18400 77TH ST. W. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Current Owner 18800 W 78TH ST. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 :urrent Owner '700 DELL ROAD :hanhassen, MN 55317 Current Owner 7700 QUATTRO DRIVE Chanhassen, MN 55317 Current Owner 7660 QUATTRO ROAD Chanhassen, MN 55317 :urrent Owner '640 QUATTRO RD :hanhassen, MN 55317 Current Owner 7600 QUATTRO RD Chanhassen, MN 55317 ~ WAYTEK INC POBOX 690 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 14 07-116-22 34 0019 BANTA DIRECT MARKETING GROUP 18780 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 61 07-116-22 31 0045 RONALD BERMEL & SUSAN BERMEL 18769 TWILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 61 07-116-22 32 0099 WOODROW & KATHLEEN FRANKLIN 18925 TWILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 61 07-116-22 32 0103 RONALD CARLSON/TRACY JOHNSON 18821 T~ILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 14 07-116-22 34 0017 VYTIS DEVELOPMENT LLC 18400 77TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 61 07-116-22 TWIN CITIES 723 11TH ST GLENCOE MN 31 0002 & WESTERN RR CO E 55336 61 07-116-22 31 0047 R R KIRSCH & S M KIRSCH 18711 TWILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 61 07-116-22 32 JAMES E BURROUGHS 18873 TWILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 0101 55346 LYMAN LUMBER CU POBOX 40 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 14 07-116-22 34 0020 BANTA DIRECT MARKETING GROUP 18780 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 61 07-116-22 31 0046 C K SUMNER & S K SUMNER 18743 TWILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 61 07-116-22 32 0100 JOHN E BENIK 18899 TWILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 14 07-116-22 31 0070 MAGELLAN ACQUISITION CORP 1,3900 SCIENCE PARK~ PORTLANO OR 9722~ ) 14 07-116-22 34 0018 BEOOOR ENTERPRISES 7951 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 61 07-116-22 31 0044 GALEN V & LISA J MILLER 18795 TWILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 61 07-116-22 31 GALE E & PATRICIA 18679 TWILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 0048 L MOUG 55346 61 07-116-22 32 0102 JEO E & DARA J PERSSON 18847 TWILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000 REOUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A COMMUNICATION TOWER AND 75' MONOPOLE AND EOUIPMENT PLATFORM LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 77TH STREET WEST AND OUATTRO DRIVE. 7700 OUATTRO. LOUCKS ASSOCIATES AND SPRINT PCS. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. Do we know that 60 foot does not accommodate co-location? It's the common sense wise I came to the same conclusion. I mean if we're saying they need to be at least 20 feet apart, then nobody's going to want to put in an antenna up at 40 foot in that location. 45 foot. While 55 foot generally is still a used height, but do we have some solid data on that Bob? Burton: Any questions for staff'? Generous: In discussions with their engineer they said that they can go closer and there is an opportunity but 1'd wait for them to make a presentation. Generous: Same reason as City ofChanhassen doesn't. It's a maintenance thing. It could have significant impact on the structural integrity of the tower itself. Plus painting, maintenance things. It makes it more difficult and more expensive to paint your towers. That's why we're looking at, when we, the City ofChanhassen will be doing at least two more water storage tanks in the future and as part of the design we may look at designing the exterior of those towers so that they can be located in over on those rather than on the top. Sacchet: Okay. Kind: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Do we know the reason why Eden Prairie doesn't allow them on the stem of their water tower? Kind: Because water towers just seems like the ideal location to me. Generous: Oh yeah. And then also we're becoming more aware ofthat. You know this wasn't an issue when we... Kind: I like my cell phone so. Burton: Any other questions? Conrad: One that's sort of a tangent to what we're talking about. The City, I think we recommended to the City Council that the Gary Brown tower not go through, and their reaction was? They approved it. Generous: They approved it. They didn't want to. Conrad: They just felt they had to. Generous: Right. Because it complied with the ordinance. Conrad: Okay, and this one would too and we really don't have, that one also was primarily servicing the Eden Prairie area for a void as I recall. Little bit ofChanhassen but again we continue to have all the 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000 towers that service primarily Eden Prairie. At least the last two. We shouldn't have any more here. Not here. You know, and I don't know how we put an end to it but, given they're legal but whatever we do tonight should say there shouldn't be any more. At least in the real close to the downtown Chan area. I don't know what everybody else thinks but we're not, obviously not wild about them and especially when they're not really serving our community as much as they are a different community. So the other communities that we don't have, they can't do it or doesn't fit. I don't know. And it's not that I don't, you know it's not that I don't want to serve all their residents. I don't care where the boundaries is but again, there should not be another tower going up. And so Bob your point is, this tower better be able to service others without being an objectionable eyesore to, you know it's going to be close to Eden Prairie residents so I think it's a compromise but there should not be another tower in this area. Burton: Any other questions? Sacchet: Yeah, one more quick question. You were talking about this 12 foot wide opening to the south, and I think the plan actually shows some sort of an access. Do we know, is it something we still need to find out more what they want to do with that? Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay, I'If save that question. Burton: LuAnn. Sidney: Well I'm still questioning why Eden Prairie wouldn't allow the antennas on the water towers. Is it actually that you drill into the side of the water tower and that's going to cause problems? So you'd have to really redesign a water tower to be able to use one? Generous: Yeah. Initially you would want to design it so that you'd have these couplings. Of course when you do that the couplings will probably be at the wrong height and... That's what we're talking about when we do future bids for construction that we let the cell companies know that we're going to be building this and help them with their design for heights. So, but that only helps us in the future. It doesn't help us now. Sidney: And there's no way to use an existing water tower and retrofit some kind of. Generous: Sure. You can always do that. You can engineer anything. Sidney: Right. As you know, how much does that cost though and is that an option because it seems like building a tower is an expensive thing to do. But if you could convince the city that we'll give you a certain amount of money for use of the water tower and then a certain amount that you invest in refurbishing a tower. I don't know. It seems like that would be an option, unless there's some engineering problem. Generous: Maybe the applicant can address. Burton: Any other questions for staff? Okay, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Can you please state your name and address? . 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000 Roger Behrens: Good evening members of the Planning Commission. My name is Roger Behrens. I'm at the law finn ofFaegre and Benson. I'm representing Sprint PCS tonight on their application for a monopole at 7700 Quattro Drive. By way of background, Sprint PCS...personal communications, services by building, and nation wireless network using wireless technology and what's proposed before you tonight is an example of that wireless technology. Sprint has made actually every effort to find the best location for this particular site for this particular monopole, taking into consideration their radio frequency needs as well as land use decisions as well. In fact I want to take you on a little journey tonight showing you the other locations they have looked at and have tried and show you some of the radio frequency issues that were associated with those sites and why they were not chosen as opposed to this one. This site tonight as you know complies with the zoning ordinance. The setbacks are at least double. In some cases they're more than 8 times the required setbacks and it also meets the height requirements of the code. Before I begin, as staff pointed out, we're proposing a 65 foot monopole plus the antenna and a lightning rod. The commission recommended a 75 foot pole. We're actually almost there with the 65 foot pole when you take into account the lightning rod. Under the ordinance anything is essentially included on the antenna. However we would like it to read a maximum of 75 feet to allow more flexibility there. Because the lightning rod could add anywhere from let's say 4 to 7 feet to the pole. Now to begin, there's two issues when trying to detennine a site for radio frequency purposes. One is a coverage issue and one is capacity. The coverage issue is a little bit easier so I'll begin with that. And when I say coverage, I'm simply meaning the range, the area that the signal would cover for purposes of making calls. This proposed facility would improve the existing marginal strength and service reliability on Highway 5, near Highway 101 as well as throughout the area shown on this plot. Okay, the center area there is the areas of the strongest frequency and it kind of extends out by the yellow and red. Our site would be of course in the center there. To show you a general layout of the radio frequency areas, in other words the gaps I should say that are currently existing in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie, I'll go to this map here. The white shows where the areas are a little to no adequate frequency. The green areas are sufficient frequencies. You can see this is where our proposed search, the center of the search ring would be, is that dot there in the center, if you can read that and you can see the gaps that we have to fill. It's the white areas there. So that's essentially the map that Sprint was looking at for coverage. That's the first concern with radio frequency and this site had to fill in those gaps as much as possible. The second issue, as I mentioned, was capacity. Now capacity's a bit more complex. Capacity involves the overloading of existing antennas. When traffic overloading occurs, calls are blocked and customers simply can't make calls. Their calls are dropped. Without such traffic overloading, the existing site or blockage of calls will cause of course more dissatisfaction with customers. If the new antenna site were located too close to another existing site, it will fail to achieve what's called signal dominance. That means the existing site would not essentially switch over to the new site and the calls would drop or cause that existing site again would be over capacitated, ifthat's a word. Likewise if it's too far, the signal won't switch over either so essentially the capacity issue is actually involved in the location as much as the coverage issues. And at this point I will try to take you through a tour of the sites that we viewed, which both had capacity and coverage issues as well. And the first one I'll go over is the Eden Prairie water tower that we were discussing tonight. Again, Sprint made an effort to put an antenna on that water tower. Not on the top because on the top, for reasons I'll explain later, it causes capacity issues. But they tried to put it in an area not on the top and it was rejected by the city earlier. Let me show you the plot now. Okay, you can see in this box here. That's our proposed site. Spot, dot A there was the Eden Prairie water tower. The problem with putting this site on top of the water tower is that would be 150 feet high. That would not work because the, while the signal would interfere with the other existing sites, I should leave this map up there. Again, if it's at the top, 150 feet in the air at the Eden Prairie water tower, it would cause interference with these existing towers and again as I mentioned before, it would cause, it's a little close to this site here which I believe is 7825 Fuller Road in Eden Prairie and this site over here I believe is 1455 Park Road in Chanhassen. Again, because it's so high it 16 .. Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000 would go to a greater area and would cause capacity problems in both sites I and 2 there, so that would not work. And again Eden Prairie would not let us go lower than that on the water tower. That was rejected by the city. Another candidate that we used was the Eden Prairie NSP tower located on 781h Street, east of Highway 101. And I'll show you the plot issues with that. This was another capacity issue. As you can see, Point B there was the NSP tower, and again it's too close to the Chanhassen site and the Eden Prairie site, again causing capacity problems and dropped signals. Sprint also looked at another NSP tower at 78th Street east of Highway 101. And again as you can see it's getting lower and lower and closer and closer to the other two existing sites, causing the same capacity problems I mentioned before. And finally Sprint looked at the AT&T Brown site located at Great Plains Boulevard and Highway 5. And again that's at Point H and again that's too close to the 4550 Chanhassen site there, again causing the same capacity problems I had mentioned earlier. Again, the point of that little tour was just to show the two radio frequency issues that Sprint was dealing with in selecting this site. It was very intentionally selected and fortunately it also works from the land use perspective as well for reasons that I'll show you now. I have a couple of photo sims here for you to look at. Again this is, the first one I'll show you. This first one is a view from Highway 5 of the site, and as you can see, where's the antenna? Where's the antenna? Very hard to see. I'll point it out to you. It's right there in the center. As you can see there's adequate trees and other things obstructing it very well. I think it's a very well hidden site, so like I say, it's an ideal site from a land use perspective, as well as a radio frequency perspective. I'll give you another view as well from Dell Road and 77th Street. And the tower, you can make it out right along there. Again, I think the view is very well hidden by the existing trees in the area. And finally we took a view of the residents over in Eden Prairie, just northwest of the site. What was done here, on the bottom picture a red balloon. Now this antenna is not going to be red. Was hung at 65 feet above the ground where the site would be, and this photograph was taken and I will attempt to point out where the red balloon is on this picture. Okay, the red balloon is right there. Kind of hard to see. We actually traced where the antenna would be here. Up to that, where the height of the red balloon would be. As you can see, the wooded as there I think disguise it quite well. We actually attempted to put, simulate the monopole there. As you can see, that's where the actual monopole would be when constructed. Again, it's a wooded area from the residents and it makes it quite well hidden. Finally I'd like to point out that the antenna, the 65 foot pole is co-locatable. Another user can go lower than 65 feet. The problem with this site if we go higher than 65 feet, it would call, there was a capacity problems that I mentioned before. 65 feet is adequate to cover our coverage gap that I showed you on that first block. If we go higher, again it creates capacity issues for the same reason that the Eden Prairie water tower was bad at 150 feet. Other than the wording of the 75 feet, we would ask for a maximum of75 feet. We agree with the staffs findings of the staff report and the conditions that the staff recommended as well, and would be willing to again problem the grading plan and there's seven total conditions I should say that staff recommended and Sprint is willing to go through with all seven. Thank you and I can answer any questions that any of you may have. Burton: Any questions of the applicant? Deb? Kind: I've got a question or two. What is the distance for co-location between users? Is that the right word? I don't know. Between you and your competitors. What's the distance? Roger Behrens: Within the pole? Kind: Are we talking 15 feet or 20 feet? There seems to be not an agreement on what that figure is. Roger Behrens: I think that depends, I would say 15 to 20 feet I think is fairly accurate. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 14,2000 Sacchet: I have questions. First of all, thanks for taking us through this tour things. I have to say though, I don't buy your rationale for Band C. I'm not an RF engineer but it's, they're so close to where this tower is. I think the reason that I see is that it's closer to where your hole is in your coverage but that's besides the point. That's just, needed to air that. I think the locations are very nicely tucked away. I mean there's absolutely no question there. Now you're saying you want your's at 65 and I think it's common sense wise, you couldn't have antennas at 50 or 55 in that location. I mean you'd basically be interference with the house and all that. Would you agree with that? Kind: So here's my question. If the pole was built at 85 feet, I hate to be advocating a taller pole so this is a what if scenario. That doesn't stop you from putting your stuff at 65 feet, but at least it would be at a height that would be perhaps more reasonable that someone could co-locate in the future. Roger Behrens: What Sprint could do, and I can verify this with them, is allow. We can build the 65 foot pole with a structure which could support an additional extension on the pole for another user to use. They would come before you of course with a permit to build on that pole, and Sprint could provide a letter, actually it was a condition of the staff report for you saying that they won't allow them to co-locate on the pole. Kind: Right. Roger Behrens: Lower or higher too. As it is now, it's perfectly fine to go lower. Kind: I like that idea. Okay. That's aliI have. Roger Behrens: I don't know the answer to that question. Another user could very easily fill in their coverage gaps if it's going away from the trees. It depends on the other users coverage plots. They'd have to take you on a tour as well I think in that situation. Sacchet: Yeah. Now my main question really for you is this 12 foot gate on the bottom and the passageway to the south. Because I don't get it. I really don't because for one thing I don't see why there needs to be a path all the way down to the road because there's a path between the buildings. And then there's a berm down by the road with landscaping on it, so what's the point of that southern gate and why is there kind ofthe sort of path and it's not quite a path? What's the intent there? Roger Behrens: That's to provide access for maintenance on the tower, which occurs I would say once a month. Once every 2 months I believe. Sacchet: So why wouldn't you go between the two buildings? Why are you right there? Why all the way to the road? Roger Behrens: This is Joanna Dumera of Sprint. Joanna Dumera: We tried to negotiate that with the landowner to go between the buildings as the access. He currently stores trailers there and he was unwilling to move his trailers. So we created a walkway access. Sacchet: Well to the north is the walkway, but to the south it looks like an access with vehicles. Is that correct? I mean you would need a 12 foot gate for walking access. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 14,2000 Joanna Dumera: That is probably for the construction or for, we do have a construction easement agreement with him during, like if we need to do.. . replacement or anything along those lines, we have the...and he'll move the trailers for a period of time. And that access, that gate would be solely for the construction and maintenance issues where we would have to bring in heavy equipment. Sacchet: So that's just when you construct it and then very rarely after that? Joanna Dumera: Right. Sacchet: And you're saying the owner doesn't want you to go between the buildings for that? Joanna Dumera: We can go between the buildings for that occasion only. For our standard maintenance, just to go out and service the site, he does want us to use the walkway along the north edge. Sacchet: So I want to be real clear about this. So for your standard maintenance the walkway's sufficient? Joanna Dumera: Yes. Sacchet: So the only reason why you would need access to the] 2 foot gate is when you would, to change something massive that you need to get there with a vehicle? Joanna Dumera: Correct. Sacchet: And for that you're saying you do have the permission to go between those buildings? Joanna Dumera: Correct. Sacchet: So you don't really need that path all the way to the south? Joanna Dumera: Yes we do. Sacchet: Why? Joanna Dumera: Well I'm not sure what you're talking about with a path. I believe that is just an easement. Roger Behrens: That is just a utility easement. Sacchet: That's a utility easement, not a path? Roger Behrens: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Joanna Dumera: No, I don't believe that we had planned any improvements. Sacchet: Okay. So in terms of vehicular access, you would go between the buildings and then that's just an easement. Yeah, that was what I'm trying to find out. " 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000 Roger Behrens: It's described as an easement on the plans. Sacchet: Easement for? Roger Behrens: Utility. Private utility easement. I'm assuming electrical. Joanna Dumera: Right, electric and telephone. Sacchet: Good. Well I wouldn't want one there. No, that answers my question very well. Thank you for catching that. I believe that's my question. Thank you. Roger Behrens: It kind of looks like a path because the gate's right there. I see how it can be confusing but... Joanna Dumera: There's actually no path there. Burton: Okay, any other questions for the applicant? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I guess I still am wondering about the water tower and what, did someone just call up Eden Prairie or what was the process of them, how did you go about approaching Eden Prairie about the water tower? Roger Behrens: I was not there for that occasion. I believe we did a full fledged application. This is Dave Hagen of Loucks and Associates. Sidney: Did it go before a Planning Commission and City Council and variance or what was the process? Dave Hagen: My name is Dave Hagen and I'm an employee of Loucks Associates and we're a consultant and contractor to Sprint in building out their wireless system in the Twin Cities. I personally made contact with a number of people at the City of Eden Prairie to seek their approval to attach the Sprint antennas to their water tower. I talked to the public, or attempted to reach the Public Works Director directly. Left a number of messages. Didn't receive responses back from him. Did talk to a person who works on wireless communication issues with the City, Jean Johnson, their Zoning Administrator and was told by Jean after she checked with other people within the city that they had no interest in leasing space on the tower below the reservoir. That the only place they would consider leasing was on the top as Mr. Behrens indicated and that there was neither space for antennas there nor would that work for Sprint to put the antennas in that location. Sidney: Yeah, I guess I would like to see some kind of documentation concerning that. Dave Hagen: I did seek documentation from them in writing and was told that they wouldn't provide that. I did confirm my conversations with them in an e-mail to the Community Development Director for the City ofChanhassen. I think, I don't know if you have that in your files. If not, I can provide that to you. My e-mail confirming my conversation. And the Community Development Director indicated that she felt that would be adequate documentation that the City would not allow us, the City of Eden Prairie would not allow us to be on that water tower at a location that would work. So we did thoroughly check that alternative out. That's always Sprint's preference to use an existing structure wherever possible. 20 : Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000 Burton: Other questions? Okay. Thank you. I'd like to open this matter up for our public hearing. May I have a motion please. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the puhlic hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Anybody wish to comment on this matter? May I have a motion? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Commissioners, any comments? Sacchet: Yeah, I can start. I'm pretty clear about this. I really don't have a problem with that tower there. I think it's a great location for the tower. I agree with some of the comments we heard before that we start having a little more of those type of towers than is necessarily desirable but I consider that an element of our time and I think it's a good location for a tower. I did take exception to the fact that bringing it lower impacts the potential for co-location but I wouldn't insist that it be taller for that reason because technology changes so fast that I mean I feel we're just way out of our league trying to make conditions in that context. That'sjust my personal opinion on this. However, where I don't think it's out of our league is, the'Colorado Spruce is not a good choice of conifer. I think we would want something that lasts longer than the Colorado Spruce so I would sayan evergreen other than Colorado Spruce. There are two plantings on the south. I'm happy to hear that that's not a path, but an easement because that I would not agree to. And I wonder whether I would want to add.. .condition number 5 condition that says the proposed use for the) 2 foot wide gate opening must be shown on the grading plan. I would like to clarify that. It's for access from between the buildings, just to clarify it's not going to be access from the south side. From this route there all the way, which makes common sense. But I mean that context I'm inclined to recommend approval of this. That's where I'm at. Burton: Okay. Deb or Ladd, do either of you have comments? Kind: Sure Mr. Chair. I would really like to see the applicant pursue this more with Eden Prairie. I don't know, it bugs me that to me, was clearly their first choice from what I've gathered. Which by the way this is the best wireless presentation we've had. Good job. As far as my understanding of it. It was far better than the other previous ones but that's besides the fact. The Eden Prairie water tower is bugging me. That that was not pursued fully and I don't know if it makes sense to, what our step would be here. To say that this is Plan B for them or how to approach that. I'd be interested in my fellow commissioners comments on how to approach that. Because I do agree with Vii that of all the sites that we've looked at recently, that this Quattro site is acceptable and the visibility from the neighbors is great so, those are my comments. Burton: Ladd. Conrad: I think we have to be convinced that this site can have co-location on it. I'm not at this point in time. Burton: LuAnn. Sidney: Well I'm still bothered by the water tower issue and I guess, I still don't feel comfortable that what was done. You know if they said well we did go to City Council and City Council of Eden Prairie " 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 14,2000 rejected it, then I'd feel better about it but we stop with staff and that was it. I guess I need more infonnation about that. I would like more infonnation and I think the, Ladd's comment you know, making sure that it is co-locatable. We can co-locate on it is important so I don't know if we have enough infonnation right now to really send this forward. I don't really feel comfortable. Burton: Okay. Well my comments are that I think it's a good plan. It fits well here. I guess I'm close to Vii. I'm okay with actually the 6S foot monopole. The applicant actually suggested a condition where the structure could, must be able to support an extension for co-location and I think that would be important as a condition to include and that would solve the co-location issue for me. I personally am satisfied with their explanation regarding the Eden Prairie site and my recollection was that Bob said that Chanhassen wouldn't allow this either on our towers if somebody came in. 'Is that right Bob? What you said earlier. And it seems to make sense to me that if it doesn't work, it can only really work on top on the older towers and these aren't configured for antennas below the water, whatever you call it. I don't know what you call it. The under side of the tower. Kind: The stem. Burton: Okay. So I think I'm convinced that Eden Prairie is not going to work so with that in the condition, that the structure should be able to support co-location, I would favor approving this. Kind: Mr. Chair, I have a question of Bob. If Sprint had come to our staff requesting a location on the stem of a water tower, would you have strongly discouraged them from creating an application and coming before the Planning Commission? Generous: I wouldn't, but Teresa would. Burgess, our Public Works Director is the one that is advocating that when we do future designs that we incorporate these type of couplings or what have you in the design because of this attachment can have an impact on the maintenance. Kind: Did Teresa review this application and does she agree that the Eden Prairie water tower is that same type of water tower as what we have? Generous: I don't believe she's reviewed this. Saam: No, I reviewed it. I have no information on the Eden Prairie water tower. I don't know if it's an older one. Newer one. Kind: Because there's no reason given to the applicant as to why it could be on the stem. The reason was just that they weren't interested from what I gathered. Generous: I believe that was, the same thing our Public Works Director said no on the bottom. You can go on top but. Burton: And you can't force the City to allow you. Generous: It's like any lease agreement. Kind: Thank you. Burton: Any other discussion? Then we need a motion. 22 .. Planning Commission Meeting - November 14,2000 Conrad: I make the motion but Bob, before I do, what is the staff's recommendation at this point in time? What you put in tTont of us was a 75 foot monopole. And have we changed it to 65 Bob? What is it? Generous: I sort of liked their idea of pennitting it to be expandable up to the 80 foot so that, that would seem to satisl'y some of my concem about the co-Iocatability of it. Conrad: So is that copied some place that says expandable or how do you want? Generous: No, we would have to add that as part of the motion. Conrad: So do we need that number in the motion? Generous: I don't think necessarily you do. If there's a maximum height you would want it to, you would want to put that in there. Because under ordinance you can go up to 120 feet. Conrad: So ifI ride with your motion, the way you've worded it at 75 feet Bob, you can probably bring it back to the City Council with a different number if that makes sense. Generous: If we can find out what the... Conrad: Yeah, okay. I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use pennit number 2000-6 to penn it installation of communication tower and a site plan approval for 75 foot monopole and equipment platfonn Sprint PCS, prepared by AEC Engineering, dated 8/30 subject to the conditions in the staff report with condition number 8 stating, the tower be designed to be capable of being added to for future co-location. Condition 9...rejection by Eden Prairie of the site on their water tower. Kind: Oh, I should second that motion. Sacchet: I'd like to add to condition 5. The proposed use for the 12 foot wide gate opening must be shown on the grading plan and will be used for access through the passage between the buildings. Existing buildings. Conrad: Okay. Sacchet: That would be a change to number 5. And then I'd like to further add a condition number 10. That the two conifers proposed for landscaping are other than Colorado Spruce. Burton: Well, do you want to say what they would be? Sacchet: No. I think that's sufficient. 1 think in another motion we looked at, that's what it says so 1 think that's enough. Burton: Okay. Ladd, do you accept those? Okay. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Kind: I seconded it. I'll second the friendly amendments too. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 14,2000 Burton: Okay. I wasn't sure if we needed to do that if you accepted it but, that's fine. I don't know the procedures. \ Conrad: Only ifI don't, then you vote on them separately. But as long as I do. Burton: I don't think we have to. But in any event we can vote on the whole package. Conrad moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2000-6 to permit the installation of a communication tower and site plan approval for a 75 foot monopole and equipment platform, Sprint PCS, plans prepared by AEC Engineering, dated 8130/00, subject to the following conditions: ' 1. A building permit is required to construct the platform and tower; the tower must be designed for an 80 mph wind load and include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice. 2. The plans must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. The contractor shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan for staff review and approval. 5. The proposed use for the 12 foot wide gate opening must be shown on the grading plan and will be used for access through the passage between the buildings. 6. The tower shall be of a color that blends in with the sky. 7. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use shall be submitted to the city. 8. The tower be designed to be capable of accommodating future co-location. 9. Confirmation of the rejection by Eden Prairie of the site on their water tower. 10. The two conifers proposed for landscaping are other than Colorado Spruce. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REvUEST FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF TO OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL (On FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6400 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, FIRE STATION NO.2. CITY OF CHANllASSEN. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Tell me there are no questions. 24 Sent By: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES ,INC.; 612424 5822; 612-949--6æ3 EDEN PRAIRIE PCl..IŒ Oec-1-00 2:47PM; Page 1/1 624 P1i11 DEe 01 . æ 12: 47 City of Eden Prairie PubJlc Safety Sent/c. PaIice Department TOD (9:>2) 949-11399 Fllx (1152) 949-6203 8080 Mitchell Ad. . Eden Prairie, MN 51i344-??99 . Telephone /95:» 949-6200 November 27, 2000 Roger F. Behrens Faegre &: Benson 2200 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Mpls., Mn. 55402-3901 Re: SprÌnt Application at 7700 Quattro Drive, Chanhassen, Mn. Dear Mr. Behrens; For the past few months I have been fOllowing the proposed siting ofa monopole for Sprint in the location noted above. The 65 foot high tower will have visibility to some Eden Prairie residents during the Winter, but the monopole will be screened by trees during the Summer. Sprint did contact the City of Eden Prairie regarding use of the Hidden Ponds Water Tank at Dell Road. The top of this tank is full with numerous communication companies and the City views side mounting as inappropriate. Respectfully, Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator -" ."---: _. .--."-...