The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-02-08 City Council Workshop for Application for Telecommunications TowersCity of Lake Elmo City Council Workshop Staff Report On the Application for a Telecommunications Tower at 9057 Lake Jane Trail North 2 December 2008 7 PM City of Lake Elmo City Council Workshop Staff Report On the Application for a Telecommunications Tower at 9057 Lake Jane Trail North 2 December 2008 7 PM City Council Workshop Tuesday, December 2, 2008 7:00 p.m. Telecommunications Tower Proposed for 9057 Lake Jane Trail 1 Staff Report 2 T- Mobile (FMHC) search area 3 Tower search area of 1,000 feet (city ordinance) 4 Memorandum from Thierry Colson, Senior Radio Frequency Engineer, T-Mobile Antenna coverage maps 5 Proposed/Existing coverage 6 Comparison (Composite) map 7 Existing/Potential coverage from water tower Site 8 Site Plan (larger) 9 Site Plan (smaller) 10 Air photo of setbacks 11 Memorandum of lease between property owner and FMHC 12 Letter from Attorney on site compliance with ordinance - November 6, 2008 Tower 13 Tower diagram 14 Tower landscaping plan Visual impacts 15 Photos of site without tower and with tower 16 Photo of site from edge of Sunfish Lake Park and across Lake Jane With and without tower 17 Photo of other sites within/near Sunfish Lake Park 18 Photos of 'tree' designed towers Regulations, Ordinances and Legalities 19 Letter from city attorney on FCC regulations and related items - November 24, 2008 20 Ordinance 150.110 through 150.126 related to wireless communications towers 21 Memo from Attorney Jennifer Schwie on siting cell towers 22 Public comments 1 City Council Date: 12.02.08 WORKSHOP No Action ITEM: Consider an application for a wireless 125 foot telecommunications tower Permit for 9057 Lake Jane Trail North REQUESTED BY: FMHC Corporation, Applicant Dan and Jean Olinger, property owners, 9057 Lake Jane Trail North SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Jerry Filla, City Attorney Jack Griffin, City Engineer Kathy Widin, City Forester Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The city council is being asked to receive information on an application by FMHC Corporation (T-Mobile) for a 125 foot wireless communication tower at 9057 Lake Jane Trail North, which is owned by Dan and Jean Olinger. Following receipt of the information, the council is being asked to discuss the request and to provide direction This is not a conditional use permit in the city's code. It is an antenna permit. Prior to the permit being approved, the applicant must demonstrate that the requirements of the permit have been met. The FMHC application states that this is the only wireless tower or antenna that T Mobil plans to build in the Lake Elmo Area in the next two years. The selected location is based on delivering service to the Lake Jane area. This wireless tower is preferable to co -locating on the water tower by public works on Ideal Avenue or the Xcel tower because it is only 1 mile from the existing Oakdale tower and it does not provide as much coverage in the Northeastern portion of the target area. The data in the FMHC application and representatives demonstrated that co -location on the public works site water tower #2 and neighboring tower sites were not feasible to meet its communications broadcast requirements. Telecommunication towers fall under FCC regulations regarding communication. These regulations are adopted to assure wireless communications are available to the public. Under state statute governing planning applications, the city must take action on this permit by December 24, 2008 unless the application deadline is extended by the applicant. The applicant is not going to extend the December 24, 2008 deadline. This report has more extensive background information and provides options beyond what the planning commission received on November 10, 2008. INFORMATION ON THE SEARCH, COVERAGE, SITE, TOWER, AND VISUAL IMPACTS Although it is difficult to predict for sure, an increase in applications for personal wireless services (telecommunications) towers is anticipated because of the increased reliance on cell phones in residences and businesses. The original towers were primarily located to serve vehicles on roads, often major roads, • PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF SEARCH AREA and TOWER SEARCH AREA The applicant searched an area around Lake Jane to determine where to locate service. This is search area is broader area than required by our ordinance, which requires that a search of 1,000 foot radius around a proposed site be made to determine if an antenna could be co -located. The latter search (required by ordinance found no tower opportunities). Neither search area captured the water tower at the public works building. 1 According to Thierry Colson, Senior RF Engineer with T-Mobile, The primary objective is to provide this new coverage link and compliment the existing coverage. It's also important to minimize the potential overlap in areas where the existing coverage is already an acceptable quality. Our target objective is around Lake Jane. Currently, there is very poor or no coverage. In response to a question about why not locate on the water tower on Ideal Avenue or the Xcel tower rather than construct a stand alone antenna, Colson raised two concerns. This location is only 1 mile from our existing site at the Oakdale water tower on Hadley Avenue North. Secondly, it does not provide as much new coverage in re —The the northeastern portion of our target area as our proposed FS site does. search area includes other areas that appear to meet the ordinance criteria. One site, the fire station #2 site was explored by the company. Although the applicant was told that he could meet with the city council on this site to explore the 7esiia it `oftfie site, -tiie staff-tl scoutaged tfiisToicatio`n due o roximity to Sunfish Lake Park based upon th_e..histoty of the city's decisions regarding the park. Following this discussion, the applicant mbved-tc-a-private-sector location. -- -- • PROPOSED SITE lNrl�P (Howe Cf (: Zcguk� I. S� 61-0 15 c- si.u- P��j�� 11 Qr The proposed site for the 125 foot tower is 13.13g acres m etJetl'� is zoned re fdeh i� G'I R-1 and RR (11 acres). The property is located near the intersection of Jamaca Avenue North and Lake Jane Trail and would be approximately 600 feet from Lake Jane. The Z property is located on is zoned residential and is over 10 acres in size; 10 acres is required by ordinance. Other structures on the site include a single family home. The property owners could subdivide the property into two parcels with the 11 acres of RR being the site of the telecommunications tower. The proposed tower location is is behind some trees and berms on the property. A simulation photo of the tower on the site is included in the attachments. A 40 by 40 foot (1,600 square feet) areas is proposed to be leased by FMHC from the property owners, contingent on the telecommunications tower being approved by the city for this location. There is also a proposed utility easement in the lease of 2,621 square feet for access. The height of 125 feet would accommodate two additional antennas for wireless communication at 85 feet and at 105 feet.. The tower is set back 225 feet from the west and south property line. The two closest structures to the proposed location of the tower are 323 feet (house) and 328 feet (fire station #2). The city attorney found that telecommunications tower is an allowed use for this site if all code conditions are met. • PROPOSED TOWER DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING The proposed tower is 125 feet tall, monopole design in dark brown•and with an accessory structure of 10 feet X 12 feet. The proposed monopole was brown, but the planning commission recommended a blue or a gray color to make it less visible. The accessory structure is brick faced with a dark brown metal roof. It is setback from the property lines. The city engineer reviewed the application and items noted by the engineer were submitted as part of the application. The fire chief reviewed the tower plans and found no health and safety issues with the design, The site will be landscaped. The city forester reviewed the landscaping plans and determined that it provided screening for this structure and surrounding area. The proposed chain link fence is designed at 76 inches, but would need to be 72 inches to meet the fence code. 2 • VISUAL IMPACTS FMHC (T Mobile) provided a simulated photo of what the tower would appear at 125 feet monopole from the Washington County landfill area in Sunfish Lake Park. (attachments). The visual nature of the antenna from the vistas within Sunfish Lake Park are a consideration in this decision because the city has taken action to protect the experience of park users to be as natural as possible including deciding not to locate the water tower and the public works building in the park. Most recently, the city entered into an agreement with the parks Minnesota Land Trust that assures the park will remain in a natural state into perpetuity. No design options on simulating a natural item like a tree were presented at the planning commission. An example is included in the attachments. ' SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE Federal Communicaitons Commissions (FCC) REGULATIONS GOVERNING WIRELESS PERSONAL SERVICES The city ordinance is subject to FCC regulations governing wireless communications. This is a summary of these regulations to put the city ordinance into context. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 704 (a) (7) B a paraphrased from attachment. Limitations on the authority of a city to regulate personal wireless services. - can't discriminate amongst providers of the service - can't prohibit the provision of personal wireless services - must act within a reasonable time on the request - any denial of a request to replace, construct or modify a personal wireless service - facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence in the written record (findings of fact) - no regulation can be based upon the environmental effects of radio emissions any person adversely affected by a final action may petition for the court relief INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REASONS FOR APPROVAL AND DENIAL ON A TELECOMMUNICATIONS PERMIT • APPROVAL - SUMMARY OF HOW THE APPLICANT MEETS THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS The city adopted an ordinance to permit personal wireless services to locate in certain areas of the city if certain permit requirements were met. After review by the planning director and the planning commission, the application was found to meet the ordinance requirements as set out in the city code Section 150.110 through section 150.126. Basic Requirements Zoned residential on 10 acres or more Authorization from property owner Agreement on property Engineering plans on structure Co -location opportunities Licensed by FCC 2 year plan Notify property owners within 1,000 feet Search w/n 1,000 feet of proposed site to co -locate Review of Tower Standards accordina Blend into the surrounding with color and architecture Location on site Monopole Height options • Height 75 ft or under • 75 to 100 feet (85 feet lowest FMHC) • 125 feet or over Setback from property line Other setback requirements related to commercial districts Fall zone Maximum of 125 feet for parcels 10 to 40 acres Lighting Signs and advertising Interference w. Public safety communication Prohibited subdivisions Accessory buildings Ground mounted equipment FMHC Aoplication On a 13.89 acre site in a residential zone Letter signed by property owner has been received Proposed lease in place with property owner contingent on permit approval Submitted and reviewed by engineer Can co —locate two more antennas on 125 feet — one at 85 feet and one at 105 feet Yes --- - -- Stated no additional towers required by T Mobile in next two years Done Done: no co -location opportunities emerged Planning commission did not make a recommendation for a specific color. The Council can specify that a blue or gray would be a better color than brown for the monopole. Accessory buildlna meets ordinance. Behind existing berm and larae trees Meets ordinance to be a monopole design; design alternatives not explored Applicant can't provide coveraae at 75 feet 85 feet would work for service above tree line, but ordinance requires 1 co -locator Applicant requests 125 provides fro 2 co -locators at 85 feet and 105 feet 145 required here; 225 exists to W and S property line Not applicable Not applicable due to setback: engineer identified Height reouirement met on the parcel size No liphtina ; may require FAA lighting — out of city control None Is planned on the tower Must meet FCC reaulations: so far approved 10 acre parcel cannot be subdivided to be less (13.86 parcel; 11 acres in RR) No plans to subdivide at this time; would not be permitted to subdivide below 10 acres on antenna site Brick faced with dark metal roof; fenced; required to have fence not exceeding 72 feet (not 75 as In plan) reauired Meets required brick and dark metal roof; landscaping plan reviewed and endorsed as orovidino screenina by forester 4 • DENIAL — LEGAL SUMMARY OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL CLAIMS FOR DENIAL, List of considerations that the courts have held are legitimate in determining whether or not to issue a cell tower permit. Making the case for denying a wireless communications tower is challenging. Here are some arguments that have proven to be successful and proven to be unsuccessful. Paraphrased from memo by Jessica Schwie, Attorney. Protection of historic buildings - Proven where there was evidence that tower could be seen from historic building nominated to the National Register of Historic places Not proven where the MN State Historic Preservation Office found no adverse effect on property Protection of protected lakes, riverways, wetlands or other preserved areas Proven through testimony of numerous citziens and organizatons that "focused on the incompatibility of a 185 foot tower on the river bluff extending noticeably above the tree line iwth extraordinary scenery of the National Scenic Riverway. National Park Service supported the position by demonstrating impact with a series of maps and photos. Not proven where proposed site was outside of the boundary of the National Scenic Riverway Negative impact on property values - Proven by local figures on value; not comment or real estate expert - Proven where tower isn't designed to blend in - Proven where tower w/n close proximity to apartment so view is of tower - Not proven based upon perceived fear Inconsistent with regional plan/local ordinances Proven where inconsistent with county zoning ordinances - Not provide where no regional study in place Unsafe Structure - Proven where documented evidence indicated danger of ice falling onto cars - Not proven where no engineering evidence that tower might fall Alternatives exist with less negative impact Alternative technology available - Proven that evidence of dropped calls was not due to lack of service but needed to correct the service by new antenna on existing facility Alternative locations exist with less impact: Proven when 7'" out of 8 preferred sites. '/a mi from historic district Proven where evidence provider could incorporate mutliple cell towers at a lower height to minimize visual impact Adequate servcie is already in existence obviating need of tower- - Proven on anecdotal evidence from residents that they had service Proven with RF engineering study showing servcie would not complete a voide and would only improve outdoor service 1 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION The planning commission held a public hearing on the application on November 109, 2008. property owners within 1,000 feet were notified of the application. One (1) person spoke in support of the proposal; four (4) persons spoke against the proposal. Two (2) letters were submitted not supporting the application. The planning commission approved the application by resolution because it met the ordinance requirements for a permit. Five commissioners were in favor, two against and one abstention. Approval was based upon the following findings: 1) That the applicant has submitted all required documentation for an application to install a new wireless telecommunications tower. 2) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the applicable city code provisions for wireless telecommunications towers. 3) That the proposed site meets all required setbacks and that the tower is within the maximum permitted height for a rural residential zone. Standard conditions were attached to this approval with the addition that the fence height be 72 inches consistent with city code. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS • PARKS COMMISSION. The park commission submitted the following statement about the proposal at its November 17, 2008 meeting: The park commission moved to recommend to the city council that the city council: 1) consider the need for the tower verses the benefits and impacts to the citizens of Lake Elmo, 2) to encourage the Council to explore a more appropriate placement for a tower that is located away from residential and natural areas, and 3) to consider the spirit and intent of the recently approved conservation easement over Sunfish Lake Park, which specifically was implemented to protect and preserve the natural characteristics of the park. • PUBLIC CALLS/EMAILS Approximately a dozen calls against the antenna and emails have been received at the city regarding the antenna proposal. (attachment) REQUIRED TIMELINE FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION Current review deadline. December 24, 2008. The city may deem it desirable to have more time to work with the wireless provider to find an alternative location than the December 24, 2008 date required under the state statute for determining . In this regard, the city has requested an extension to the 120 days for the application review from the FMHC. FMHC has denied that request. The options provided for the city to consider can be accomplished within this time frame of December 24, 2008, if the city is conscientious in following a strict timeline. Reasonable time. Federal regulations do not specific what a reasonable timeline for review of an application for a personal wireless service is. In the absence of any definition the Minnesota courts have relied on state statute "the 60 day rule" as a basis for timeliness. Moratorium. If the city wishes to review its ordinance to update it, the city may put a moratorium in place to do so. The updating must be done in a timely way. However, the city must not intend to use a moratorium as a vehicle to deny an application. A moratorium could be used to find an alternative location through ordinance amendments, if the 120 day review rule had been met. Specifically, the courts would be asking what has occurred in the regulations since the adoption of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the adoption of the city ordinance in 1998 that warrants this delay in considering the application. INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 7 OPTIONS A B C D Alternatives Description of option and w/n option alternatives A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 D-1 D-2 Approve 125 tower As submitted With new design e.9. 'tree' Approve 85 foot (height) With 1 co -locator With no co -locator With tree, not monopole, design and no co -location requirement Deny the application Identify alternative site w. denial ( see Attach 2) Hire radio frequency (RF) consultant Delay decision Identify alternative site (see attachment 2) Do an independent RF study Declare moratorium to study ordinance to determine coverage requirements; other factors I®LVSrF.OR ColialDERATIOII Comments Meets the ordinance requirements Design can vary; would look a bit odd at 50 ` above the tree line Applicant notes a co -location point is 85 feet Meets ordinance — determined not able to co —locate on 85 feet as noted by applicant Amend ordinance to eliminate co -locate A tree might disguise the monopole at this height above the trees Due to impairment on scenic vistas /area from within Sunfish Lake Park and history of city for protecting this park (e.g. no water tower, no public works building, Land Trust) Requires substantial supporting evidence. May require amending ordinance or moratorium to study — but moratorium cannot be used to deny the application Revaluate the data by FMHC and find alternative location using outside expertise at the city's expense; this may be expensive and a more difficult way to find alternatives Consider delaying the decision until an altemative site is located; ideally FMHC will extend the 120 day beyond Dec 24, if it is clear the city council is willing to work with the company to locate this device. IHire independent consultant to evaluate application claims and to determine alternative location Does not prelude other decision; is not a legal reason to delay the application without clear reasons for the relationship - moratorium cannot be used to deny the application 8 Approve on Dec 9 Approve on Dec 9 or later pending design If the co -location requirement Action on Dec. 18 to amend ordinance and approve application Action on Dec 9 and Dec 18 to amend ordinance Action on Dec 9 with supporting evidence of photos of vistas demonstrating a negative impact on the Sunfish Lake park experience as well as documenting the history of Sunfish role in city's natural heritage Dec 9 denial with intent to find alternative location December 9 denial and hiring of RF consultant To be determined On Dec 2 or at future meeting w. more information direct on alternatives; Act before Dec 24 unless extension granted by FMHC Assign to city engineer to find consultant Charge applicant Schedule public hearing for Dec 18 RECOMMENDATION This meeting is for the city council to receive this information and discuss what options based upon this information presented and gathered at the workshop. The report to the city council includes additional legal information and options that the planning commission had at its hearing and meeting on November 10, 2008 when it recommended approval oft the 125 foot tower that does provide service and meets the permit requirements in the ordinance. Based on additional information there may be opportunities to minimize the height and disguise the tower as a tree and/or if the applicant is willing to extend the timeframe beyond December 24 to work with the telecommunications providers to determine an alternative location or to approve the application as submitted. A moratorium on the ordinance is recommended to revisit the search area required by the city of 1,000 feet for co -location purposes. This applicant expanded the search area for its use, but it was not required. In addition, other factors may be useful to consider given that there are likely to be more applications for wireless towers in the future to reach homes and businesses not currently served or with low service. ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR WORKSHOP PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION Introduction and Report Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Jerry Filla, City Attorney, legal perspective Questions to presenters Mayor and Councilmembers Statement from applicant FMHC Communications representative Questions to presenters Mayor and Councilmembers Questions/comments to all presenters Mayor facilitates from the public Discussion Mayor and Councilmembers Direction City Council ATTACHMENTS SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS t ( i Memorandum From: Thierry Colson, Senior RF Engineer, T-Mobile USA Date: 3/31/2008 0 Li Re: Lake Elmo rirriib" "moo, MN (A1N0672C) WIA Java-- y-rt—'(^tom W1tt, I am the Senior Engineer responsible for the design and location of this proposed site. I have been doing wireless network design for 12 years, and have planned and built hundreds of sites. It is my intention to describe the goals and objectives of this particular location and to examine the other possible locations we've considered in this area. I have attached a map of T-Mobiles current site locations in the Lake Elmo and surrounding area. Also indicated on this map is the proposed T-Mobile Tower at the Fire Station N2. Our primary objective with this site is to provide new coverage in the City of Lake Elmo. It's important that this new coverage link and compliment the existing coverage. It's also important that we minimize the potential overlap in areas where the existing coverage is already of an acceptable quality. Our target objective is the area around Lake Jane. Currently in this area there is very poor or no coverage. I have attached a map that is a computer generated depiction of our current coverage in our target area. The color scheme represents the general strength of the signals generated by our network. The green areas are the strongest, and represent a signal strong enough to penetrate most commercial and Residential buildings. The yellow is typically strong enough to provide service In -car. The last signal level displayed is the grey, and indicates areas where the signal is strong enough for outdoor coverage. I have also attached a map using the same color scheme that depicts the coverage of our proposed site at the Fire Station. Comparing these two maps and the improvement in both the amount of our coverage and the strength of that coverage is very apparent. For reference, I've also attached a map depicting the coverage as it would be if we were to abandon the Fire Station location site, and collocate on the Water Tower or the Xcel tower. This plan has two drawbacks. This location is only 1 mile from our existing site at the Oakdale WT. on Hadley Avenue North. Secondly, it does not provide as much new coverage in the Northeastern portion of our target area as our proposed FS site does. The frequencies used by our equipment will be restricted to the bands as follows: Transmit : PCS B block (1950 to 1964), PCS C4 Block (1980 to 1985), AWS R3-E (2140 to 2145) Receive : PCS B block (1870 to 1885), PCS C4 Block (1900 to 1905), AWS R3-E (1740 to 1745) August 5, 2008 These bands apportioned to T-Mobile by the FCC are well isolated from other bands used by public safety communication systems. There have been no incidences of interference with public safety systems on our existing sites, or any interference with consumer radio, television, or similar services. Part of the license from the FCC states that we can not transmit outside of our assigned frequency blocks. One of the penalties listed is loss of our license. We take interference very seriously, and in the rare event that any interference occurred, we would work to correct it as quickly as possible. CONCLUSION I hope that this information will assist the Town in its decision -making process. Book forward to meeting with you and discussing the information included in this report as well as providing any additional information that you may require. Sincerely, Thierry Colson Sr RF Engineer i EXPLANATION OF COLOR KEY FOR COVERAGE AREAS GREEN AREAS The green areas are the strongest signal and are strong enough to penetrate most commercial and residential buildings. YELLOW AREAS: The yellow areas typically provide a signal that provides in - car coverage. GREY AREAS: The grey areas provide only coverage for out of doors. Procied by Thiery Colson, Senior RF engineer, T-Mobile, USA COVERAGE LEGEND In nulldIng Coverage IRCar Coverage outdoor Coverage 'Tat id St e COVERAGE LEGEND ® In-Bullding Coverage y n In -Car Coverage Iffi G t � Outdoor Coverage o0 _b t��ffind St L I M ■ 44. • — 17m St1 Site N672 Existin_Covera e .�..y�....a, vvva..-n:111M4 4fu Sr ; S9rd St 1 ±4,■ 9 cqj. 1711181 Proposed Coverage FS N2r-s eE E. Kf $ eat'e Ri E4lCk. COVERAGE LEGEND In -Building Coverage j In -Car Coverage L � a M Outdoor Coverage — CoU&Q-A6E 0.40 GG' Site N672 ExistCovers e m s1 e E COVERAGE LEGEND $ In -Building Coverage y n In -Cat Ooverage ouldoov Coverage E COVERAGE LEGEND In-Gulltling Coverage In -Car Coverage Outdoor Coverage 171A8tN Site N672 ExistinaCoveraje F iI none i uuuuIII UAi II, Proposed Governs_WT 1- A REV DATE 1 7/30/06 ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL. 2 11/10/55 UPDATED SURVEY DATA 1 / 1 1 / 9y/ / / / / 1 1 I / 1 I / I I 1 II 11 I 1 I I I co 1 1 I I '/ C%ISITNNGOBERMD c. 8)fzi 121 �I in II L. 1cm I I I I I I /' I I I 1 I I 1 i0 1 / 1 ' ? 1 y 1 1 1'I I g 1 1\ 111 1 1 1 III 11 I 11 r I I 1 11 11 // 1 11 1 I x II I I 11\ 1\\ �I II II I I I x II I1 \ \ \ 1 I I 1 1 1 \\ \\ \ 1\ II 1 �{ L.\ \ \ I 1 /� 1\ \ \ \ \ 1 x x --x x / X \ . \ \\ o \ \ \ \ \ \ \�� \\ \ 1 1 e\ \\ \\ o3 \ n \ \ \ \\ \ �\ \ \ �h \ \ \ \ \\ '\ AA \ \, 9�\\ \\4� \\\ \\ \\\ `\ ---- ----C\ ---\ - \ \ \ \ \ \ ` \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ T-MOBILE e'-O' IIICH CHVNUNK FENCE w/ (3) STRANDS BM(BWIRE (PRCNIDED BY CONTRACTOR) T-MOBILE 10'1412' EQUIPMENT BUILDING w/ BRICK FACE & STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF r TENDED. D6CRIPTON / / / 2 / / / I / / ( / // / / / / ; /// / f / / / / / ir- 1 I I 1 / / II / I/ / %l/ 1 /! 1 rN CP MSIALL DEFERENCE CM8(805 f FUTURE COLCGTOR T-1,013ILE ANTENNAS FACING 24G FUTURE Cl/LOCATOR 1 / - /39'-0' t-MOBILE FENCED AREA\\_^-.�'�'I''' Ti-MOBILE ANTENNAS ACING U C1 ri T-MOBILE E911 CPS ANTENNA T-MOBILE 15'-0' WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT T-MOBILE STEEL PACK FOR ELECTRIC METER w/DISCONNECT & TELCO HOFFMAN ENCLOSURE w/BOP TERMINAL (PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR) 1-MOBILE 2'-0' WIDE WAVEGUIDE BRIDGE (PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR) JT-NOBLE ANTENNAS FACING 120 T-MOBILE 125'-0' MONOPOLE 1-MBRIIE LOW PROFILE ANTENNA MOUNTING PLATFORM w/ HANDRAIL (PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR) �—x 40'-0' T-1/001LE LEASE AREA ENLARGED SITE PLAN •T••1VIobi1e \\ EXISTING CONCRETE BLOCK \ RETAINING WALL \ SCALE: I/4' I'-0' (0 22'.347 MINNEAPOLIS MARKET NOTICE: THIS DRAWING HAS NOT BEEN PURUSNEO ANO IS THE SOLE PROPERII 0P T-MOBILE - MINNEAPOLIS EIR MARKET EDIAL USE E ONLNT Y, AND ITHE NORCONSEOEROTIONR FOR N OF ME LOAN OF THIS DRAWING, THE BORROWER PROMISES AND AGREES TO RETURN R GPM REQUEST MDT AGREES THAT D WILL NOT BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, LENT OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. NOR P.m.! USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN WHICH B 15 FURNISHED. CE1511N0 COMPACTED DIRT ACCESS ROAO3 1 J/ 1\ T-MOBILE 12'-0' WIDE GATE w/ SNOW GTE (PRODDED BY CONTRACTOR) I \ I NOTED 110. I aerobe certly that this plan specification, or report was der direct an and prepared oI aGma WM, Lloenae8 Pot eissai En9l0IMer 0LVALL, % under the lows of the Slate of Mlnneeole. B. GEIS1ffW 0- M wi I MANUAL C.LMRS DAos - W50 no ❑ 17852 exec.= W C. MILLER MPRDVF0 M CYLM MNY41 DWG Olt UPDATED - YES 1) NO 0 w¢ 7/30/08 wrz 8/1/0B wrz NOTES 1. 1-MOBILE MONOPOLE TO HAVE A COTE-1EN BROWN WEATHERING STEEL FINISH. 2. T-MOBILE EQUIPMENT BUILDING SHALL HAVE A BRICK FACE AND A DARK COLORED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF. 3. UNCSCAPING TO BE INSTALLED 00 CONTRACTOR AT Litt OIRCONON. LAKE ELMO - OLINGER PROPERTY Al N672 ENLARGED SITE PLAN 9057 LAKE JANE TRAIL NDRTH LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA SCALE I DRAMS NUMBER AS MREO A1N672-C2 REV 2 MODEL PONIED - YES 1] No 0 qW TILT Non A11187202.OW0 C8 Q E%5 LAKE JANE TRAIL NORTH '�pF-WAY 1 FOISTING PRO E* I L a e IS ee wze �_�I I BINMINOUS •.h�iBL>Fs L; { DRNEWPY 41, _ 618 C' \\- 'Fj l21f wlAa 1 \gyp¢ ha iitedi-T / R � E%ISTINO� \ �\ COMPACTED DIRT rofaA r�— 1 �• -;we 1 - ; ,�(T// \.HBO 9qI IL,"N‘�` ' I ? `i 04NB` N. B.B \\ AL11 7� IIISWIG k 111010,- I Ii I'lgi 1ppl L ssa)47) 4/ II IGIi EXISTIN700 G I _ II � Wei III,I/��I�M M sssal ljl,lry'11 a 4 as IIILI N lef 11rIi_ v. j I`jh L/ 1 IIII`MtSP.B } 4 /,r.5,., N III I I\ T. 1 \ Ak �i) ji eA1Y..1 ¢ �WNILLE IW 0. MOARE,CTo NT g 1 L RELY DAYL REVISION DLUMFl1N 1 I1/308I ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL 2 8/1B/08 UPDATED SURVEY DATA RV FN 0I INSTALL REFERENCE DRAWNIR T-MOBILE 40' % 40' LEASE MLA w/ EOUiPMEN1 BUILDING SITE PLAN • T • •Mobiles MINNEAPOLIS MARKET SCALE: 1' w 50-0' (0 221041 NOTICE: THIS DRAWING HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED ANO 15 THE SOLE PROPERTY OF T-MOBILE - MINNEAPOLIS *MEET MO 15 LENT TO THE BORROWER FOR THEIR CONFI0ENR0L USE ONLY, AND IN CCNsmrRABON OF THE LOAN OF THIS DRAWING, THE BORROWER PROMISES MID AGREES 70 RETURN N UPON REDUESI AND AGREES THAT 11 WILL N01 BE REPRODUCED. COPIED, LENT OR DTHERRISE DISPOSED OF DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, NCR .Wneum USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN WHICH R I5 FURNISHED. PON Pecan W. hereby earthy 0000 this pi00 specification, s, or repott woo prepared by a me ounder my direct Mpenielee and that dolt' Licensed MeneoWnal Engineer Ip¢pw[C M under the Iowa M the Stole of Mlnneeota. J. GEISTFELD CUMIN BY M x MIHAEL HACHEf C. HILLER I WITHAL C18NBE5 MAR - Inn NDn ANA Hasa Du0R AmmrM wrz MO 091 0BM1EP - YES Ef NO 0 „mommm n NOTES 1. 1-MOBLE MONOPOLE 10 RAVE A CORE -TEN BROWN WEATHERING STEEL RN15H. 2. T-MOBILE EQUIPMENT GUILDING SUNS NAVE A BRICK FACE AND A DARK COLORED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF. 3. LANDSCAPING TO BE INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR AT CLIP DIRECTION. Dr5L 7/20/00 wrz B/1/08 wW 9057 LAKE JANE TRAIL NORTH LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA SCALE I DRAWING NUMBER AS NOTED Al N672-C1 MODEL 7FDA1ED - YES O NO 0 CARD FIE Mt LAKE ELMO - OLINGER PROPERTY A1N672 SITE PLAN IREV 2 A1NO72C1.Rq O 11 £'t yse% Kelly Jane Swenseth FMHC Corporation 2901 Metro Drive, Suite 225 Bloomington, MN 55425 Office: 952-831-1043 Cellular: 218-791-0382 kswensethnfmhc.com 2,882' from base of tovAt 90�574 akke`Jane Tail N Lake Elmo;IMN556421 2 Site Number: AIN0672 Site Name: Ona0er Markel: Minneapolis 4' n1067 . -p Memorandum of Lease Drafted By: Vicky Sampah T-Mobile Central 2001 Butterfield Rd Downers Grove, IL. 60515 1 Cround Lease - vorsioo 3.31..06 MEMORANDUM Or LEASE Assessor's Parcel Number: Between Daniel Olinger and Jean Olinger, a husband and wife ("Landlord") and T-Mobile Central LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Tenant") A Ground Lease with Option (the "Lease") by and between Daniel Olinger and Jean Olinger, a husband and wife (`"Landlord") and T-Mobile Central LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Tenant") was made regarding a portion of the following property: See Attached Exhibit "A" incorporated herein for all purposes The Lease is for a term of (5) years and will commence on the date as set forth in the Lease (the "Commencement Date"). Tenant shall have the right to extend this Lease for four (5) additional and successive (5) year terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have respectively executed this memorandum effective as of the date of the last party to sign. LANDLORD: Daniel Olinger .. By: r-tlkartorj((/ Printed Name: Daniel Olinger Title: Husband Date: LANDLORD: Jean Olinger By: t�J . t' . Printed Narne: Jdag Olinger Title: Wife Date: 5'--°'b' TENANT: T Mobile/antral LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: PrintedName: Hossein Senehr Title: Date: Printed Name: Site Number. AIN0672 Site Namo: Olinaar 2 Market: Minneapolis Area Director of NetworlcEngineerina & Operations Oh. Io r tt Ground Lease —version 'Notary Klock for Landlord) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) as. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON This instrument was acknowledged before me on (/ Dated: INJR w,d• 5 , 2002 PATRICA A. CONUN NOTAAYPUEUC•MMINESOTA MY COMMISSION EM OM2010 (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) Notary Public - A Print Name Pc&k'ncA ,A. CeYus..�t3 My commission expires 1 t,zan ,7408 by Daniel Olinger, husband. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON This instrument was acknowledged before me on 019 5n,2464y Jean Olinger, wife. Dated: ( I th C;t co$ PATRICAA.CONUN N OTARY P U S UO.14I NISI OU gYCOMMISSION E%R OOINO (Use this space for notary stamp/Seal) Shy Number: AIN0692 Mat Mama: Olinger 3 Makin: Minneapolis 9....\t „pc. - Cervt\tr Notary Public p } Print Name AJorzYnd.c fit• CR1 it-il My commission expires t.';%. 2.a'b Ground Lease— version 630.06 Octant block for Tenant,. STATE OF jiaazda y7 ) ss. COUNTY OF frj I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Hossein Sepehr is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Director of Network Engineering & Operations of T- Mobile Central LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposed mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Sciati 4 n V Y A„.) pI r 0 Notary Public �Y Print Name c� cl��0.r�a,ms My commission expires Vt37 1 p Ats. AA AAA, Ad 4,44440 VERNA S GARRISOP r Notary Public M Minnesota MY Commission Expires dal uivary 3 .200 (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) Site Number: AIN0672 Site Nemo: oliageer 4 Market: Minneapolis Ground Lease — version 6.30,06 Memorandum of Lease Exhibit A Legal Description The Property is iegally described as follows: `•'>;hat.patt et Oa Suet 186.00 feet of the West 405.O0.4est; t`c et.G,auernm 140,t rtehip 24 North, Range 21 Wen, Washington 0vunby. `KLi? atfl*f� lii#g t1* he' 1714.$2 feet thereoof, ss measured at a right ant As tg.tfle:A utl1.:; ;i..4x;.;, .y¢.t' 5, der,teitlittg 1.87 .acres/mute or'ioss,' WXd fl c[�fsa*4d wiete4t344; ef'the above described tract 1ririg 33.00 feet each sale 64 the following d jinei• : . •.goemeneing at the Southwest corner of said 0gveunment,L.ot 51 thence Worth 01 ',4*2:'aiiuutes 37 seconds West, bearing ovientsd..;ta_ kij -. q '8tpn Qotij ty Qoordtaate..,�, 'PeOh Fop¢+ atong She Weat line ofof-taid-0-0Viiii*W1;4tta 4dst:anfie of I.942400'See 1;tlie;8eritexline of Lake Jane trall,as preeetltly. trautted•.sgtd the paint oi' beginn rtg; Arstud,North 82 degrees 06 miitlttep 53' eeeettds sAtiAAptOdeaid center 4na 218 31 4454 4444045it1 44050 f,$ atmmtg, said-aettat Itut thid;: :`Ca BCt 544t'turtve,concgive.,to the soutk,Jge =atxad:ius o€ 3a26.21. feet and a central angle of,027degrees 45 minutes,10 seconds, 4 i of 188.:84 Beet to the aast'Iine of the Telest'405.00 feet of said 6ov0iwlent tog 5„ ilatd.cciater lime there terminate. Site Number: AIN0672 Site Namo; Olinger 5 Market: Minneapolis Ground Leaao - version 6$t06 o"F i:hw'.sc let*:;: ::.tit+at^" cps bed. cente IsetitteiL UAL., 7415 WAYZATA 9,OULEVAitp 1 MINNEAPOLIS MN 65426 l 952.546.6 5'7 I www.ernsurveysom August 1512008 PROPOSED LEASE TRACT, ITI1LITY tic ACCESS EASEMENT DESCRIPTIONS FOR: T-MOBILE USA, INC, SITE A1N0672-Lake Elmo, MN "Daniel Olinger PROPOSED LEASE TRACT DESCRIPTION! An area.£or lease,tract pinposes over, under and actoss that part of>"iavernment Lot.5, Section 10, Township 29 Nortib,:Range21 West of the Fbutth Prnroipal Mori Washington,:ivlinnesota described. as follows; Catirineircing at the southwest cornerof saidGovernment. Lot 5; thence;North00 degrees- '53:minutes 21 seconds West, bearings based'on Washington County Coordinate Grid, alongthe west line of said Government Lot 5 a distance of 1543.70 feet; thence on a bearing of East a distance of240.17 :feebto the point of beginning of the.lease tract to be ,described; thence on a bearing of North a distance of 40;00 feet; thence:on.abearing of .East a distance of 40.00 feet, thcnee on a bearing of South a digtanoe of 40.0.0 feet; thence on abearing of West a distance of 40.00 feet to said point of beginning: Said lease tract contains 1,600 square feet. PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIPTION: An easement for utility purposes 100Q,feet in width, over, under and across Qovenunent Lot'5,. Section 10, Township 29 North, Range 21 West .of the'Fourth.Principal Meridian, Washinggton,'M' innesota. The center line of'said easement' is described as follows: Commencing at the 'southwest corner of said Govetxunent Lot 5; thence North 00 degrees 53 minutes 21 seconds West, bearings based on Washington CountyCotrrdinate'Grid; along the, west line of said Government Lot 5 a distance .of 1543.70 fret; thence.on.a bearing of East a distance -of 295.17 feet; thence on a,bearing of South a distance. of 5,00 feet to the point ofbeginning of the center line to'be described; thence on a bearing, of West a:distance of262;08 feet to the east lineof Jarnaoa Avenue North and said center line. there. terminating. Said utility easement contains 2,621 square feet. Sheet I art Sheets land survoyars pinta Ie7¢ 741.5 WANZZfl ecut.evimc I 1.4h4NEkpQLIS 1414,5542b 1 StS2.e54t.6a30 1 wwvr.eEnsurvby.com Egon. pleIci S Nowak, Inc. PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT An easement for access. purposes 15.00 feet iirrvidth,.over,.under and across Government Lot.S,-Section 10, Township 29 North, Range 21 West of the Fourth Principal.MSdian, Washington, Minnesota. The center line:of said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of -said Government' Lot 5; thence. North'00 degrees' 53 minutes 21 seconds West,.bearings based on Washington County Coordinate Odd, along the west line of said'Government list 5 a distant* of I543.70 feet; thence oix'aj beating of East a distance of 287;67-feet to the point of 'beginning of the center line to be described, thence on a bearing of North a distance: of 52.77 feet; thence northwesterly a distance of 31..20' feet along a tangential Curve, concavelo the sotithwest,having a radius of32.50'feet and a central angle, of 55 degrees 00 miisutuw00 seconds; thence North, 55 degrees, 00 minutes 00_seconds West, tangent to.seid curve, aadistianee of19.35 feet; thence westerly a distance of 36.79 feet along a:tangential ourve, coneavc'tathe south, having a radiusbof 32.50 feet and a central.angle e164 degrees.51 nannies 53 seconds,; thence South 60 degrees'08 minutes "07 seconds West, tangentto the last described curve, a distanceof 32.54 feet; thence westerly a distance.of 15,.04 foci along a tangential curver concave to the north, having a radius af 32.$0 feet and aeentral angle of 26 degrees 31 minutes 04 seconds; thence South86 degrees 39 minutes 11 seconds West, tangentty the. last described curve, 'a distanee of 148:85 feet to the east line of Jamaca Avenue North and said center line there't©rminatin'g. Said access and utility easement contains 5;048 square feet.. Sheet 2.of 2 Sheets v.m....nerguateument9asn. Aram. F:1EFNWROJI337371A1N0672 Legels,doc land surveyor° since 1872 Warren E. Peterson Jerome P. Mlle Daniel Witt Pram Glenn A. Bergman )ohn Michael Miller Michael T. Oberle Steven H. Bruns" Paul W. Palming" Sonia R. Ortiz Amy K. L. Schmidt Ben 1. Rust Jonathan R. Cuskey tared M. Goeriitz PF12AM�BERGMAN November 6, 2008 Kyle Klatt City Planning Director City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave. North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: Wireless Telecommunication Tower Lake Jane Trail Kyle: Suite 800 55 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101.17) 8 (6511291.8955 16511 228-1753 facsimile www.pfb-pa.com (651)290-6907 jfIIIaapfb-Pa.coml Although wireless telecommunication towers are not listed as a permitted, conditional or accessory use in the agricultural or residential zoning districts of the City, this type of use is allowed in those zoning districts if located on parcels greater than ten (10) acres (City Code Section 150.113(C)); or if located on parcels less than ten (10) acres if the tower and support facilities are located within 100 feet of the right of way of a public utility transmission line (City Code Section 150.112(A)). However, the applicant must comply with the provisions of City Code Sections 150.110-150.126. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, JPF/jmt F:\users\Jessicalierry\LE\Carrespondence\Klatt Ltr.! L62008.doc 'ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN —R A NEV DATE I 7/30/OB 2 B/18/LAB 6 T-MOBILE 4'-O' GH LIGHTING RDD T-MOBILE ANTENNAS FACING 240 L 7-MOBILE 2'-O' WIDE WAVEGUIDE BRIDGE (PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR) 7-MOBILE 6'-0" HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE w/ (3) STRANDS BARBWIRE (PROVIDED Bf COMRACTOR)- I PEYISID0 NESCRIIMDII ISSUED FOR PROPOSAL. UPDATED SURVEY DATA 1 1 6 T-MOBILE ANTENNAS FAOKG 120 T-MOBILE LOW PROFILE ANTENNA MOUNTING PLATFORM w/ HANDRAIL (PRTMDED BY CDNCTRACTOR) FUTURE COLOCATOR ANTENNAS FUTURE COLOCATOR ANTENNAS 7-MOBILE 125'-0' MONOPOLE SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/13'-1'-O' (0 22'04') Re M BP T-MOBILE 1O'e12' EQUIPMENT BUILDING w/ BRICK FACE k STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF MSIALL M15Mptt MAWM85 T-MOBILE 4'-0' HIGH 7-MOBILE ANTENNAS UCNTING ROD FACING 249 1/2' JUMPER CABLE (TYP) T-MOBILE 0'-0" HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE w/ (3) STRANDS BARBWIRE (PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR) MMN CND BAR T-MOBILE 2'-0' WIDE WAVEGUIOE BRIDGE {PROVIDED sr CONr5AC10R)" T-MOBILE ANTENNAS FACING 120' INN (IYP) (2 PER SECTOR) T-M061LE LOW PROFILE ANTENNA MOUNTING PLATFORM w/ HANDRAIL (PROVIDED BY CONCTRACTOR) T-MOBILE 125'-0' MONOPOLE T-MOBILE E911 CPS ANTENNA : Pemeamswal nernmea mai _ now _ _a �LI maw mom tWNies new tmas meen ENLARGED ELEVATION • T • •Mobiles MINNEAPOLIS MARKET SCALE: 1p^.1'-0' (0 22'x34' Y0. (DEGREE) WPC SEVIER� 1 EIW15091312UB LNA/TMA PER SECTOR 0 2 E1W200V512UR LNA/EMA PER SECTOR 0 3 EIW10OV512UB LNA/TMA PER SECTOR 120 4 ELW200V312U0 5Wt/IMA PER SECTOR 120T 5 ETNIBINS12J0 LNA/TM4 PER SECTOR T 240 R ETW200VSI2UB LNghMA PER SECTOR 240 NOTICE: IRIS DRAWING HAS NOT BEEN PUBNSHED AND 5 THE ALE PROPERTY OF 1-MO&LE - MNINEAPO0S MARKET µ0 IS LENT TO ME BORROWER FOR THEIR CONFIDENTW. USE ONLY, AND IN CWLSIOERAT0N OF THE LOW OF Mls GROWING, THE BORROWER PROMISES AND AGREES TO RETURN R UPON REOUESI AND AGREES THAT R WILL NOT Se REPRODUCED, COPIED, LENT OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, NOR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN WHICH R I6 FURNISHED. LNA REQUIREMENTS NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL SET ALL T-MOBILE ANTENNAS TO ZERO DEGREES ELECTRICAL DOWNTILT AT TIME OF INSTALLATION. 2. T-MOBILE RF ENGINEERS WILL THEN SET TO PROPER TILT AT SITE TURN -UP. NOTES 1. T-MOBILE MONOPOLE TO HAVE A COTE -TEN BROWN WEATHERING STEEL FINISH. 2. 7-MOBILE EQUIPMENT BUILDING SHALL HAVE A ERICK FACE AND A DARN COLORED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF. 3. LANDSCAPING TO BE INSTALLED BY COMPACTOR AT CITY DIRECTION. T-MOBILE 10'x12' EQUPMEM BUILDING w/ BRICK FACE & STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 1 hereby &frilly ibol this plan specification, or report aas prepared by me or der my MeupEMelon ecl and that I am NAY LMeaeed Praleeebnol Engineer I Mwweat O era under the Jews of the Stale of Minnesota. J. 00375ED 7/30/06 N0.1 TYPE Al 1MBX-6516-REM A2 1MBX-6516-112M A] TMBX-8510-R2M B1 TMBX-8518-REM 82 IMBX-851B-REM 133 TMBX-6516-R2M C1 TRIM-6516-REM C2 TMBX-8516-REM C3 TMBX-6516'R2M Nw[m ea ANTENNA AND COAXIAL CABLE REQUIREMENTS ANTENNA COAXAL CABLE I SECTOR pppp5NTIsI CONNECTION IENGII DNA. COLOR CODE (35070SI IDEDM£5)I 1 aIV 0 0' 0 12a 120 1201 240' 240 240 0 0' O u' 0 0' R1 170' 7/6' RED R3 170' 17/6' TRIPLE RED 114 170' 7/8. QUAD REO R2 170' 7/6' DOUBLE RED R5 170' 7/8' (5) RED RC 170' 7/8' (5) RED Y1 17a 7/5' YELLOW Y3 170' 7/8' TRIPLE YELLOW Y4 1170' 7/8' QUAD YELLOW Y2 1170' 7/8' DOSILE rams 15 170' 7/8' (5) YELLOW Ye 170' 7/6' (6) YELLOW 81 117a 7/13' BLUE B3 1170' 17/8' TRIPLE BLUE B4 170' 17/8' WAD BLUE 02 17D' 17/8' DOUBLE 012E B5 1170' 7/8' (5) BLUE B8 1170' 7/8' (0) BLUE • FOR MORE INFORMATION REFER TO STANDARD DRAWING E55. IINOTE: T-MOBILE COAX CABLE rail BE AVA COAX CABLE. NOTES: 1 NSNA CABLE SD BEEN lMONOON ESE PLAN. CABLEIENCIHB LISTED ARE APPROXlMEAND ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE USED FOR FAB8CA110N. DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS ACTUAL ANTENNA CABLE LENGTHS REQUIRED MAY VARY FROM LENGTHS TABULATED. 2. ALL ANTENNA/COAX CABLES TO DE COLOR CODED AT THREE (3) LOCADONS USING 1/2' WIDE PVC ELECTRICAL TAM. A TOP OF TOWER (ANTENNA LEVEL) B. SASE OF TOWER C. AT FITS CABINET CONNECTION POINT 3. ANTENNA/COAX CABLES .SHALL LNIUZE GROUND KITS GROUNDED AT THREE (3) POINTS OF TOWER AS FOLLOWS: A. 1014 OF TONER (ANTENNA LEVEL) ONE END MECHANICALLY CONNECTER TO TOWER. B. BOTTOM OF TOWER, ONE END MECHANICALLY CONNECTED TO GROUND BAR. C. AT B15 CABINET CDNKE0110N POINT. 4. ANTENNA SECTORS SHALL BE MEASURED WITH TRUE NORTH AS SHOWN ON THE STYE PLAN. MAGNETIC NORTH IS 2.5' EAST OF TRUE NORTH. E911 ANTENNA REQUIREMENTS ANTENNA 1 COAXIAL CABLE ML I COLOR CODE 1/<' I TYPE I(DECNEES) I um' II I CPS LL (58532) I - 20' ha. SECTOR x IOERWE51 WHIR* RA DOWNTILT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS COAXAL CABLE 1 TYPE ATC13-001 SERIES we 17852 wort Are&vu BATE SD NO 0 IWI FILE UPDATED - Yrs 0 ND ❑ CHEW= '2 EMI Tixxw xwm MICH4EL H4CHET C. MILLER !Menem er 8/1/08 DER a ITO' 1/4' COLOR CODE LAKE ELMO - OLINGER PROPERTY A1N672 ANTENNA INFO. & TOWER ELEVATION SCALE As NOED 9057 TAKE JANE TRAIL NORTH LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA DRAWING NUMBER Al N672-A1 IREV 2 Al No72A1 awo 5 MODEL u9W1m — YEs 0 no ❑ CAM NM NO.: B DECIDUOUS TREES YAM II 11 LIMN" MN" 1-1M= 121F-1 II II I —II IIsI I11_I-11=I1 II,I NAS 7 NOTE TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STAIONO RE ILLUSTRATED. N (5 THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION TO STAKE TREES, HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSIRGN THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD, SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA. WIRE - 3' U 1211' INTERVALS (TYPO 16' POLYPROPYLENE R POLYRIHYEENE (40 MIL, 1-1/2' WIDE STRAP TYP.) TREE WRAP TO FIRST BRANCH MULCH - 4' DEEP SHREDDED BARK. DOTBALL TO 5R ON SUBGRADE GING - ONE PER WIRE PUNTING SOIL - SEE SPEC, TOPSOIL 2" x 2" x 24' WOOD STAKE SET AT ANGLE 500 SUBGRADE REYI DAM 3 19/24/3B ADDED LANDSCAPING PLR REVISION CFSCRAMN DS9N ENK RR FN OP ) ��-x / I T-MOBILE 10'x12' - EOUIPMEHT BUILDING W/ BRICK FACE METAL OOF SEAM METAL ROOF 1 T-10B1LE 125'-D' MONOPOLE 1 (10) 3-MOBILE BLACK HILLS SPRUCE (4' TALL AT TIME OF PLANTING) (PRENTO AND INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR. AT CITY DIRECTION) CEXISIING COMPACTED DIRT ACCESS ROAD, 4 \ T-MOBILE 8'-0" HIGH CHMNUNK //�� FENCE w/ (3) STRANDS BARBWIRE �(PRONOED BY CONTRACTOR) l EXISTING CONCRETE BLOCK 1 RETAINING WALL \ LANDSCAPING PLAN SCALE: 11B''I'-0' (0 22"x34") CONIFEROUS TREES NOTES' CONIFER TO HAVE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ND MULCH TO BE IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STARING ARE ILLUSTRATED R 15 CONTRACTOR'S OPTION TO STAKE TREES, HOWEVER. ME CONTRACTOR I5 RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB P0S00N THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. NSTALL REFERENCE DRAWINGS I DOUBLE STRAND 14 CA. WIRE - 3' 10 1211 INTERVALS (TYPO 16" POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYR1HYLENE (90 MIL, 1-1/2' WIDE STRAP TYP ) 6'-0" STEEL STAKE FLAGGING - ONE PER WIRE MULCH - 4" DEEP SHREDDED BARK ROOTBALL TO 51T ON SUBGRADE PLANTING SOIL - SEE SPEC SOD TOPSOIL 2" x 2' x 24" WOOD STAKE SET AT ANGLE SUBGRADE NOTES I. T-MOBILE MONOPOLE TO HAVE A COOS -TEN BROWN WEATHERING STEEL FINISH. 2 T-MOBILE EQUIPMENT BUILDING SHALL HAVE A BRICK FACE AND A DARK COLORED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF. 3. LANDSCAPING TO 8E INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR AT CITY DIRECTION. (REFER TO DWG. A1N972-C3 FOR MORE INFORMATION) SHRUB 15" (MIN) aigigenk �`- T If"WaaLilt t' u= 11 c R irr�.naIl=n—n_ Ii=Ti=`n:=1 '6Rn=nr110i11=lizndn • '1' • 'Mobile r MINNEAPOLIS MARKET 1401E HAND LOOSEN ROOTS OF CONTAINERIZED MATERIAL (TYP) SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING. SHRUBS TO SR ON SUBGRADE MULCH - 4" DEEP SHREDDED BARK LANDSCAPE FARRIC - SEE SPECS. PLANTING SOIL - SEE SPECS. 4" P.V.C. EDGING REFER TO PLAN FOR GROUND COVER SUBGRADE CENTERING OF SHRUB IN BED TO TARE PRECEDENCE OVER DIMENSION FROM EDGE. IWS:E: 1MS DRAYNNO HAS NOT BEEN PUBISHED PNO 5 111E SOLE PROPERTY 0P T-MOBILE - MINNEAPCLIS MARKET MP 5 LEANT TO 111E BORROWER FOR THEIR CONFgDRAL USE ONLY, AND IN C0N510ERAWBN OF TUC IAAN OE THIS DRAWING. 111E BORROWER PROMISES AND AGREES TO RETURN R UPON REQUEST AND AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT BE REPRODUCED, COPIED. MO R OTHERWISE DISPOSED Of 88ECRY OR INDIRECTLY, NOR ammo. USCG P0R ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN WHICH IT 15 FURNISHED. otai 2 CALL 40 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING GOPHER STATE ONE CAL PLANT SCHEDULE CODE A I - O1 10 COMMON NAME BLACK HILLS SPRUCE TWIN CRIES AREA 651-454-0002 MN TOLL FREE 1-8CD-252-1166 SIZE LANDSCAPE NOTES ROOT BARB REMARKS I STROIGHT LEADER I v I 1. REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR DIMENSIONS AND 511E DATA. 2. REFER TO GRADING PLAN FOR RASES, EROSION CONTROL, AND RESTORATION R GRAD8 AREAS. GENERAL NOTES 1. INWSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL U1N11 LOCATIONS' ON PROPERTY EMU 114E GENERAL COMPACTOR AND BY CALLING GOPHER STATE ONE CALL (651-454-0002) PRIOR 10 STAKING P1AM LOCATIONS. 2 COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRULRON AND PLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE. 3. WHERE EXISTING TREES AND/OR SIGNIFICANT SHRUBS MA551NG5 ARE FOUND ON SITE, WHETHER SHOWN R THE DRAWING 0R NOT, THEY SHALL BE PROTECTED AND SAVED UNLESS NOTED TO BE REMOVED AND/R ARE IN AN AREA TO BE GRADED. ANY QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER PLANT MATERIAL SHOULD REMAIN OR NOT SHALL BE BROUGHT 10 RiE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO REMOVAL. 4. ALL EXISTING TREES i0 REMAIN TO DE FERTILIZED AND PRUNED TO REMOVE DEAD WOOD AND DAMAGED 0R RUBBING BRANCHES. 5. BB TREES ANO SHRUBS ARE BALLED AND BURLAPEO. 6. NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTINTICNS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLF55 APPROVAL 5 REQUESTED OF ME LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID AND/OR QUOTATION. 7. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AMERICAN STROARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. 6. ACCEPTANCE. ANY CTOR IS RESPONSIBLE F VAND.WSM ORNG MAINTENANCE OF ALL NEWLY DAMAGE WHICH OCCUR PRIOR TO OWNER OAICEPTANCE SNHALL BEE OF OWNER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONRACTOR. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A WRBRN REQUEST FOR THE OWNER ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION 10. WARRENIT FOR LANDSCAPE (ATERASS SNAIL BEGIN ON THE 411E OF ACCEPTANCE BY 111E LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AFTER 1HE COMPETION OF PLANTING OF ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS. NO PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED. 11. COM RACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROWN ONE CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DATE OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE WITH ALL REPLACEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT N0 ADDINONAL COST TO 111E OWNER. 12. AREA OF DISTURBANCE FOR SEEDING SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED AT CONCLUSION OF CONSTRUCTION. 13. SEED SHALL BE APPLIED AT 3L05/1000 S.F. AND IMPREGNATED INTO THE Sot ANO COVERED WITH A STRAW MULCH. PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS 1. PLANTING BED PEPEBATIONT ALL MASS PLANTING BEDS BTRL BE TILLED 1O A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 10". AMENDMENTS SHALL DE APPLIED AFTER CULTIVATION. 2. BACKFILL SOIL: USE SOIL EXCAVATE() FROM PLANTING HOLES AND PROVIDE AMENDMENTS. REMOVE ALL DEBRIS INCLUDING ROCKS LARGER THAN 3' DIAMETER 3. FERTILIZATION: ALL PWTT MATERIALS SHALL BE FERTILIZED UPON IN51AL1ATI0N WEIN DRIED BONE MEAL OR 01HER SPECIFIED FERTN.IZER MIXED IN WITH THE PIAMING 501L PER THE MANUFACTURER'S INSIRUCIICNS. 4. MULCH MA1FMIel' AS SPECIFIED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS MASS MULCH ALL PLANTING BEDS TO 3' DEPTH MIER FIBER MAT WEED BARRIER MT N0 FIBER MAT WEED BARRIER. ALL EVERGREEN AND DECIDUOUS TREES TO RECEIVE 6" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH WITH NO MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK. 5. NG TO THE DETEE AILS. ITMM IS 'ME CONTRACTORS SHALL BC TIE RESPONSIBILITY O TAKE VERY STEP 7D STAKE NECESSARY TO MAINTAINOR GUY THE TREES THETREES AND SHRUBS IN AN UPRIGHT AND PLUMB CONDITION AT ALL TINES UNTIL TIE END OF THE PIAM GUARANTEE PERIOD ESPECIALLY WHERE VANDAUSM, SOIL OR WIND CONDITIONS RE A PROBLEM. 6. TREE WRAPPING: WRAPPING MATERIALS SHALL BE QUALITY, HEAVY WATERPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR TINS PURPOSE WRAP NI_ DECIDUOUS 1MES PLANTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TO 12-1 AND REMOVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER 5-1. 7. RODENT PROTECTION PROVIDE OH ALL TREES, EXCEPT SPRUCE UNLESS ORIERNISE SPECIFIED. 8. PIAM1110 PLAN: ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE LOCATED CAREFULLY AS SHOWN ON TIE PPS. PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PUNT SCHEDULE IF DISCREPANCIES IN BWNTITIES EXIST, SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES. RESPECT STATED DIMENSIONS DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. PLANTING NOTES 1. NO PLANTING 10 BE INSTALLED UNTIL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEOATE AREA 2, ALL PLANT MATERIAL LOCATIONS MUST BE RENEWED AND APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ANY AND All. DIGGING. 3. IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PERCEIVES ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE PUNT SELECTIONS BBR CONDEMNS, 0R ANY OTHER SITE CONDITION OR GUARANTEE. THEY SHALL BRING THESE WHICH DEFICIENCIEBE 10 111E ATTENTION OFAFFECT TTHE�LANDS�ERAIRCHITEECCT PROR�TO INSTALLATION. 4. ADJUSTMENTS LANDSCAPE IIANLOCATION A F ARCHITECT MUST LA T MATERIALS MAY BE NEEDED IN FIELD, SHOULD ANAIMUS1MENT RE AD 5. All PLANT TO BE INSTALLED A5 PER PLANTING DETAILS. 6. ONE SHRUB PER TYPE AND SIZE IN EACH PLANTING BED AND EVERY TREE SHALL BE CLEARLY IOENTIRED (COMMON 0R LATIN NOMENCLATURE) W1111 A PLASTIC TAG WHICH SHALL NOT BE REMOVED PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE 7, REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO PRPEBTY FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. Monti m. I hereby certify tlol this plan specification. or report was prepored by m ma or under my doeM supervision und that I am duly Uceneed Professional Engineer I omega nder the loss 0f the State of Minnesota. R. RUDDY en 144 MICHAEL HACHEY IMANUAL GRANGES MADE - YES El Ha Of 17862 0Nm#0 00 APPRN0O RE IFUND AFFFVN ma FILE MAIM - Yss U m 0 erz 9/24/06 VAN EMU MR LAKE ELMO - OLINGER PROPERTY A1N672 LANDSCAPING PLAN 9057 LAKE JANE TRAIL NORTH LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA CANE DRAWING NUMBER ASN01E0 A1N672-C3 Al 1 I REV k 3 i3 1 MD0a DREAM - yrs ❑ NO 0 ODD OLE NO., A161672C3.0W0 I rei few Type: Original Photogra Site Address: 9057 Lake Jape City: Lake Elmo 'State:MN: Site Number:A1N0672 •;;_: VNWP'eeccipltpnj�. ., :_:s;t rmaMaed l2 : o of =ke Jgocnt!eut ? n'81Na" View Type: simulated Photog Site Address: 9057 Lake Jan - Oily: Lake Elmo State: MN Site Number: Al N0672 View DescdptiapA 9f ng, . , localio&of proposed 125' fill etipW toiver;j of Lake Jane About 2600' awev = Peak $'.o"f d er "•' fia.phtttograph,-, (reesj/005Tj4ke Jarje Trall'Noit 86i A .State MN aC7lpyep L"' irtg west at.looatioti OF' l,1 5LSn ie fpwerb0T01.06046t1, Spe Ate • Photograph': $he Address::g057 Lake Jane Treil'Noith tithe tit4Miliber: AYN067?, VIO:Dtesi+riptjon: Looking wept allocation of 090660125' nipnpole tower from Sunfish Park eoopt 1?90' away. Page 4 bf 4 I SUNFISH LAKE PARK PHOTOS (Arrows indicate approximate location of tower) I Photo 1 — Western Edge of Park/Landfill Boundary Photo 2 — Northem Edge of Park/Exterior Trail I Photo 3 — Access Trail to Western Entrance to Park Photo 4 — Fire Station No. 2 Parking Lot ANTENNA TOWERS DESIGNED AS TREES FROM WEB SITE Warren E. Peterson Jerome P. Filla Daniel Witt Frain Glenn A. Bergman John Michael Miller Michael T. Oberle Steven H. Bruns" Paul W. Fahning• Sonja R. Ortiz Amy K. L. Schmidt Ben I. Rust Jonathan R. Cuskey Jared M. Goerlitz PERSON. FRAMC'BERGMAN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION November 24, 2008 Susan Hoyt City Administrator City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave. North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: Telecommunications Act of 1996 Local Zoning Authority Susan: Suite 800 55 East Fifth Street St Paul, MN 55101.1718 (6511 291-8955 (651) 228-1753 facsimile www.pfb-pa.com (651)290-6907 ifilla(mnfb-oa.com ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEDGE The Telecommuni ations Act of 1996 (Act) was adopted by congress to "promote competition and ree-uce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of neW telecommunication technologies". Generally, the Act conveys exclusive jurisdiction over these matters to the Federal Communications Commission, but re:;erves zoning authority for local units of government. Sections 704(a)(7i of the Act is entitled "Preservation of Local Zoning Authority" and reads as folloWn: A. Gen ral Authority. Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this ct shall limit or affect the authority of a state or local government or i ntrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, cons ruction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. B. Limitations. (i). The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof: I. Shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and F:\users\Jessica\Jerry\LE1Cc rrespondence\Hoyt Ltr 50-I 1.24: v2.doc 'ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN Susan Hoyt November 24, 2008 Page 2 II. Shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service. (ii). A stale or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct or modify personal wireless facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. (Hi). Any decision of a state or local government or instrumentality thereof to duly a request to replace, construct or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidemce contained in the written record. (iv). No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless servi«:9 facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequGncy emissions to the extent that such facilities to the extent that such acilities comply with Commission's regulations concerning such emis; ons. (v). Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by state or local government or instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph, within 30 after such action or failure to act, comrrence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall year and decide such action in an expedited basis. Any person advewely affected by an act, or failure to act by a state or local government, or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the court for relief. C. Defiri dons. For purposes of this subparagraph: (i). The term "personal wireless service" means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services; (ii). The term "personal wireless service facilities" means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and (iii). The term "unlicensed wireless service" means the offering of telecommunication services using duly authorized devises which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the Susan Hoyt November 24, 20C$ Page 3 provision of direct -to -home satellite services. (As defined in Section 303 (v). In regard to the Iirriltations that prohibit local governments from adopting regulations that prohibit personal wireless services; that require local governments to review applications within is reasonable time; and that require local governments to make written findings su 1ported by substantial evidence when it denies a request, I offer the following comnlents: A. Reau lations/Citv Actions that Prohibit or Have the Effect of Prohibiting. 1. The City's current tower regulations allow personal wireless service facilities in a number of locations which should give service providers a number of siting options. Any amendments to the City's tower regulations should be viewed with this limitation in mind, 2. In order for the City to be able to determine if a denial of an application will have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless service, the City must receive engineering data as part of the application. If the data establishes that a proposed site is the only location where the personal wireless facility can be located, it could be argued that a denial of the application prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service. B. Review of an Aoolication within a Reasonable Time. 1. Currently there is no specific (days/months) timeline contained in the federal regulations, 2. In the absence of a specific federal standard, a court would probably look to state standards that apply to review of other actions by local governments. The Minnesota Standards are contained in Minnesota Statutes 15.99 which, by its terms, applies to "applications related to zoning, septic systems, watershed district review, soil and water conservation district review, and expansion of the metropolitan urban service area, for a permit, license, or other governmental approval of an action". 3. The Minnesota Supreme Court, in Calm Waters, LLC vs. Kanabec Board of Commissioners (756 N.W.2d. 716; S. Ct. Susan Hoyt November 24, 2008 Page 4 9/25/08), was asked to determine if a county's review of a subdivision application was covered by Minnesota Statutes 15.99. In a concurring, albeit nonbinding opinion, Justice Dietzen, who had extensive experience in municipal and land development law before becoming a Justice, addressed the issue and concluded that subdivisions were related to zoning and therefore governed by Minnesota Statutes 15.99. It's likely that the Minnesota sixty day rule would be applied to a local government's review of a personal wireless service facility permit application, even though this type of action is not specifically enumerated in Minnesota Statutes 15.99. 4. What is the relationship between the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 15.99 and the City's authority to adopt a moratorium? a. If a city is adopting or amending its comprehensive plan or official controls, it can adopt an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens (Minnesota Statutes 462.355, Subd. 4(a). "Official Controls" means ordinances and regulations which control the physical development of a city, county or town, or any part thereof, or any detail thereof and implement the general objectives of the comprehensive plan. Official controls may include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes and official maps (Minnesota Statutes 462.352, Subd, 15). b. However, the interim ordinance may not extend the timeline for agency actions set forth in Minnesota Statutes 15.99 with respect to any application filed prior to the effective date of the moratorium (Minnesota Statutes 462.355, Subd. 4C). For purposes of Minnesota Statutes 15.99, "agency" means a department, agency, board, commission, or other group in the executive branch of state government; a statutory of home or charter city, county, town, or school district; and metropolitan agency or regional entity or any other political subdivision of the state. Susan Hoyt November 24, 2008 Page 5 5. Although federal courts recognize a City's authority to adopt a moratorium, if necessary to review the impact of federal regulations on local control, the courts will apply the following criteria when determining whether the adoption of a moratorium would unreasonably extend the review: a. What length of time has lapsed between the adoption of the ACT in 1996 and the implementation of a moratorium? b. What are the circumstances which caused the local governmental unit to adopt a moratorium? c. Was the moratorium adopted before or after a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing personal wireless service facilities was enacted? d. Is the moratorium a de facto denial of an application and is the adoption of a moratorium the product of open and local hostility? C. Decision to Denv must be in Writine and Su000rted by Substantial Evidence. Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion (Sprint Spectrum, LP vs. Jefferson County, 968F Supp. 1457; N.D. Ala. 1997). The City has the burden of proof (APT Minneapolis, Inc. vs. City of Maplewood (N.O. 1997-2082, 1998 WL. 634224; D. Minn. 1998)). There is a relatively recent case which might be instructive as the City reviews revisions to its regulations and/or an application for a personal wireless service facility permit. In APT Minneapolis, Inc. vs. Stillwater Township (Fed. Supp. 2d. 2001 WL 1640069; D. Minn.), the Minnesota Federal District Court was asked to determine if Stillwater Township acted appropriately when using the adoption of a moratorium as a reason for denying APT's application for a conditional use permit to construct a personal wireless service facility. Briefly the facts were as follows: 1. APT had a significant gap in coverage in a certain area of the township. The coverage gap resulted in dropped calls, poor quality calls and inability to start and answer calls. 2. APT engineers determined that it was necessary to locate a tower at a specific site in the Township. Susan Hoyt November 24, 2008 Page 6 3. APT signed a lease with the private property owner. 4. APT had approval from the FCC. 5. APT applied to the Township for a conditional use permit which was required by the Township regulations. 6. The Township planner recommended approval (on three occasions). 7. The application was reviewed by the township staff and planning commission between 6/5/00 and 10/5/00. The Township planning commission acknowledged that the application complied with its regulations but recommended that the town board adopt a moratorium. 8. On October 11/12, 2000, without taking action on the application, the town board adopted a moratorium for the following reasons which were presented by citizens at public hearings: a. The National Parks Service wanted a visual impact review. b. The Minnesota Historical Society recommended a review of the tower impact on buildings within the area. c. Technologies may have allowed alternative structures and heights to fulfill the communication need. d. Substantial and organized residential opposition. e. Regional interests required a coherent tower policy on a multi - jurisdictional basis within the St. Croix River area. 9. On October 26, 2000, the Township board denied the application for a conditional use permit because it had adopted a moratorium. 10. 0n November 13, 2000, the township was sued by APT. APT alleged that the Township's actions had the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service; that the Township did not review the application within a reasonable time; and that the Township's actions were not supported by substantial evidence in the written record. Although the court concluded that the Township board had provided written reason on the record contained, it did not think that the record contains substantial evidence because the concerns of the National Park Service had been satisfied; the Susan Hoyt November 24, 2008 Page 7 concerns of the Minnesota Historical Society had been satisfied; the applicant established that modifications based upon new technologies were not feasible in this particular case; the aesthetic concerns, decrease in property value concerns, and health affect concerns of residents were too generalized; and discussions for developing a region wide plan were still in the preliminary phases. Based upon all the circumstances in this case, the court concluded that the adoption of the moratorium by Stillwater Township was "more for purposes of delay then for legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence" (APT, Supra, at p.15). The City should proceed cautiously in determining whether to adopt a moratorium in this case, and if the City takes action on the current application for a personal wireless service facility permit, it should be sure to provide written reasons for its actions based upon substantial evidence contained within the record. Very truly yours, Filla JPF/jmt General Provisions 15 (B) Wind generator permits may be revoked by an affirmative vote of 3 Council members for noncompliance with the conditions of the permit, (1997 Code, § 1385.06) WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER PERMIT § 150.110 PURPOSE AND INTENT. The wireless telecommunication tower permit regulations are intended to: (A) Reasonably acconunodate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the general public; (B) Minimize adverse visual effects of wireless telecommunication towers, antennae, or accessory equipment through careful design and siting standards; (C) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failures through structural standards and setback requirements; and (D) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers, structures, and/or buildings for the location of new wireless telecommunication towers in order to reduce the number of the structures needed to accommodate wireless telecommunication services. (1997 Code, § 1390.01) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) § 150.111 PERMIT REQUIRED. No person shall install a wireless telecommunication facility or any portion thereof, at a height greater than is allowed for structures in the underlying zoning district without first being issued a wireless telecommunication tower permit. (1997 Code, § 1390.03) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 150.112 PROHIBITED AREAS. Wireless telecommunication towers shall not be allowed in the following areas: (A) Residentially zoned parcels of less than 10 acres unless the wireless telecommunication tower and ground facilities accessory thereto are located within 100 feet of the right-of-way of a public utility transmission line; 16 Lake Elmo - Land Usage (B) Open space easements or conservation easements; and/or (C) Airport impact zones without consent of the F.A.A. (1997 Code, § 1390.03) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 150.113 ALLOWED TOWER SITES. Applicants for a wireless telecommunication tower permit shall make a reasonable effort to locate the towers and accessory ground facilities in the following areas: (A) On an existing public utility power line support structure, within an existing public utility power line right-of-way, or within 100 feet of the right-of-way; (B) On publicly owned property, as approved by the City Council; and/or (C) On agriculturally or residentially zoned parcels greater than 10 acres. (1997 Code, § 1390.04) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 150.114 APPLICATION. Applications for a wireless teleconmunication tower permit shall be submitted on forms provided by the City Planner, which shall include the following information: (A) A sketch drawn to scale acceptable to the City Planner and City Engineer which illustrates: (1) The parcel on which the tower and accessory ground facilities; (2) The buildings located and to be located on the tower parcel; (3) The buildings located within 100 feet of the perimeter of the tower parcel; and (4) Access easements as necessary to the tower parcel. (B) A sketch drawn to scale or a photo image acceptable to the City Planner and City Engineer which illustrates the relative size of the proposed wireless telecommunication tower or existing structure on which the antenna will be located compared to structures located within 100 feet of the perimeter of the parcel on which the tower is located and which illustrates the visibility of the tower from adjoining parcels located within 100 feet of the perimeter of the parcel on which the tower is located. The City Planner may also require a visual impact demonstration including mock-ups and/or photo montages and plans for painting the tower; General Provisions 17 (C) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which: (1) Describes the wireless telecommunication tower height and design including a cross-section and elevation; (2) Certifies the wireless telecommunication tower's compliance with structural and electrical standards; (3) Documents the height above grade for the mounting positions, which can be used for co -location and the minimum separation distances between the co -location positions; and (4) Describes the wireless telecommunication tower's capacity to support antennae, including an example of the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated on the wireless telecommunication tower. (D) A 2-year plan for wireless telecommunication facilities to be located within the city shall be submitted by the applicant. The city acknowledges that the plans are fluid and in all likelihood will change depending upon market demands for the service. The city will maintain an inventory of all existing and reasonably anticipated cell site installations. The applicant shall provide the following written information in each 2-year plan and the plan must be updated with each submittal for a new wireless telecommunication tower permit as necessary: (1) A description of the radio frequencies to be used for each technology; (2) A list of all existing sites to be upgraded or replaced, and proposed cell sites within the city for these services by the applicant; and (3) A presentation size map of the city, which shows the 2-year plan for cell sites, or if individual properties are not known, the geographic service areas of the cell sites. (E) The cost of mailing addresses for all property owners of record located within 1,000 feet of the subject property to be complied by the city; (F) An application fee in an amount prescribed from time to time by City Council resolution as necessary to reimburse the city for costs incurred to process the wireless telecommunication tower permit application; (G) Confirmation that the applicant is properly licensed by the F.C.C., or is the authorized representative of a wireless telecommunication provider properly licensed by the F.C.C.; (H) Written authorization from the property owner describing the area which will be subject to the tower lease and acknowledging that the property owner will be responsible for removal of the wireless telecommunication tower, antennae, and tower accessory equipment which is unused or abandoned for 12 consecutive months; 18 Lake Elmo - Land Usage (I) Documentation of the steps to be taken by applicant to avoid causing destructive interference to co -located previously established public safety communications facilities; and (J) A detailed landscape plan, which indicates how tower accessory equipment will be screened. (1997 Code, § 1390.05) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) § 150.115 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW. (A) Upon receipt of a completed application, the City Planner shall schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission which shall be preceded by 10-days mailed notice to the record owners of property located with 1,000 feet of the parcel on which the tower will be located. (B) The Planning Commission shall make recommendations to the City Council regarding the issuance of the wireless telecommunication tower permit and, in particular, in regard to the following: (1) Compliance of application with the city regulations and development standards; and/or (2) Proposed conditions, as necessary, to prevent the wireless telecommunication tower, antennae, and tower accessory equipment from becoming a nuisance to surrounding property owners. (1997 Code, § 1390.06) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) § 150.116 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW. (A) Upon receipt of Planning Commission recommendations, the City Council shall review the application. The City Council may approve the application subject to conditions, table its review until a date certain, or deny the application for a wireless telecommunication tower permit. If the application is approved by the City Council, a wireless telecommunication tower permit and a building permit shall be issued upon the execution of a wireless telecommunication tower agreement. (B) The agreement shall be signed by the applicant and property owner and the terms of the agreement shall include the following: (1) A list of the conditions of approval to the wireless telecommunication tower permit; (2) A statement indicating that failure to comply with the conditions of approval shall result in the removal of the wireless telecommunication tower, antennae, or tower accessory equipment; (3) A statement indicating that the expenses incurred by the city to enforce the provisions of the wireless telecommunication tower agreement shall be reimbursed by the applicant; General Provisions 19 (4) A statement, which requires the applicant to utilize the procedures established by the P.C.C. to resolve any complaints received relating to interference allegedly caused by the wireless telecommunication tower; and (5) A statement indicating that a wireless telecommunication tower which has not been used for 12 consecutive months shall be deemed abandoned and may be required to be removed in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures as for hazardous and substandard buildings (M. S. § § 463.15 through 463.261, as they may be amended from time to time). (1997 Code, § 1390.07) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) § 150.117 CO -LOCATION REQUIREMENTS. Except as hereinafter provided, antenna utilized to provide wireless telecommunication services shall be located on existing towers or structures which exceed 75 feet in height and which are located within 1/4 mile of the antenna site being proposed by the applicant. In the event that co -location is not possible, the applicant must deinonstrate that a good faith effort to co -locate on existing towers and structures was made but an agreement could not be reached. (1997 Code, § 1390.08) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 150.118 EXCEPTIONS TO CO -LOCATION REQUIREMENTS. The City Council shall waive any or all of the co -location requirements if it is determined that: (A) The antennae and/or tower accessory equipment would cause the structural capacity of an existing or approved tower or building to be exceeded, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved tower or building cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate the antennae or tower accessory equipment at a reasonable cost; (B) The antennae and/or tower accessory equipment would cause interference materially impacting the usability of existing antennae or tower accessory equipment as documented by a qualified radio frequency engineer and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost; (C) Existing or approved towers and buildings within the applicant's search radius cannot or will not accommodate the antennae and/or tower accessory equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified radio frequency engineer; and/or (D) Other unforeseen reasons make it infeasible to locate the antennae and/or tower accessory equipment upon an existing or approved tower or building. (1997 Code, § 1390.09) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) 20 Lake Elmo - Land Usage § 150.119 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. All wireless telecommunication towers erected, constructed, or located within the city, and all wiring therefore, shall comply with the requirements set forth in the Uniform Building Code. (1997 Code, § 1390.10) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 150.120 TOWER STANDARDS. (A) Wireless telecommunication towers shall comply with the following standards unless the City Council grants a variance as necessary to reasonably accommodate the wireless telecommunication tower. Variance procedures shall be processed according to the zoning code. (B) (1) Design. (a) To blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color and architectural treatment; (b) To be of a monopole design unless the City Council determines that an alternative design would better blend into the surrounding environment; (c) All proposed wireless telecommunication tower shall be designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least 2 additional users if the tower is over 100 feet in height or for at least 1 additional user if the tower is between 75 feet and 100 feet in height; and (d) Where possible, all proposed wireless telecommunication towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at various heights. (2) Setbacks from lot lines. (a) In all residential zoning districts, wireless telecommunication towers shall be set back 1 foot for each foot of tower height plus 20 feet. (b) In all zoning districts, towers may encroach into the rear or side yard setback areas, provided that the rear or side yard property line abuts a commercial or business zoned property and the wireless telecommunication tower does not encroach upon any easements. (c) Wireless telecommunication towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street. General Provisions 21 (d) A required setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public street varied, at the sole discretion of the City Council, to allow for the integration of a wireless telecommunication tower with an existing or proposed structure such as a church steeple, power line support device, or light standard. (e) A required setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public street varied upon providing the city with a Licensed professional engineer's certification that the wireless telecommunication tower is designed to collapse or fail within a distance or zone shorter than the required setback distance. (3) Height. (a) In all residential zoning districts, the maximum height of any wireless telecommunication tower including all antennas and other attachments, shall not exceed 1 foot for each 1 foot the tower is setback from a residential dwelling unit up to a maximum of 195 feet for parcels of 40 acres or more and 125 feet for parcels between 10 to 40 acres in size. (b) In all non-residential zoning districts, wireless telecommunication tower and antennae shall not exceed 195 feet in height above ground for a freestanding wireless telecommunication tower, and 195 feet in height above ground as measured by the lowest ground elevation adjacent to a building on which the tower/antenna is located, including all antennas and other attachments where the zoning district is adjacent to a residential zoning district. The setback from a common lot line shall be 2 feet for each 1 foot of tower height. (1997 Code, § 1390.11) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 150.121 LIGHTING. At night, wireless telecommunication towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means. (1997 Code, § 1390.12) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 150.122 SIGNS AND ADVERTISING. The use of any portion of a wireless telecommunication tower for signs other than warning or equipment information sign is prohibited. (1997 Code, § 1390.13) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99 22 Lake Elmo - Land Usage § 150.123 INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATION. No wireless telecommunication facility shall interfere with public safety telecommunications. All wireless telecommunication towers/antennas shall comply with F.C.C. regulations and licensing requirements. (1997 Code, § 1390.14) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 150.124 PROHIBITED SUBDIVISIONS. Where a wireless telecommunication facility has been located on a residentially or agriculturally zoned parcel greater than 10 acres, except when the facility is located within a power line easement, or within 100 feet of the easement, the parcels shall not be further subdivided unless the resulting parcel on which the wireless telecommunication facility is located continues to be more than 10 acres in size. (1997 Code, § 1390.15) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 150.125 ACCESSORY UTILITY BUILDINGS. All utility buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment. (1997 Code, § 1390.16) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 150.126 GROUND -MOUNTED EQUIPMENT. All ground mounted equipment accessory to a wireless telecommunication tower shall be enclosed in a building with brick walls and have a dark colored standing seam metal roof and be further screened with sufficient trees, as determined by the City Planner, and shrubs to substantially reduce the visual impact. (1997 Code,§ 1390.17) (Ord. 97-24, passed 1-21-1998) Penalty, see § 10.99 ALARM SYSTEMS § 150.140 PURPOSE AND INTENT. (A) The purpose of §§ 150.140 et seq. is to encourage security, fire, or medical alarm users and alarm businesses (including, but not limited to, sales, installation, and/or monitoring) to maintain the operation reliability and the proper use of alarm systems so as to limit unnecessary police, fire, and emergency medical responses to false alarms and alarm malfunctions. 'Jerry Fitla - Considering a Cell Tower Permit.doc Page 1 Considering a Cell Tower Permit? by Jessica E. Schwie Wireless communication facilities allow cellular phones, pagers, wireless faxes, and wireless internet to work. FCC Fact Sheet, http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/factl.html (visited Aug. 9, 2006). Antennas placed within a defined area comprise a cellular system, and the number and location of antennas within a given area affect the service available. Service areas are carved into cells and at least one cellular antennae is placed per cell. Where there are no existing structures high enough to accommodate an antennae, telecommunications companies must build a tower. Shannon L. Lopata, Note, Monumental Chanties: Stallina Tactics and Moratoria on Cellular Tower Siting., 77 Wash. U. L.Q. 193, 196-197 (1999). Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("TCA"), 47 U.S.C. § 332, in order to provide a "pro -competitive, de -regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications market to competition." H.R. Rep. No. 104-458, at 1 (1996) (Conf. Rep.); APT Minneapolis, Inc. v. Stillwater Township, 2001 WL 1640069 (D. Minn.); Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Town of Easton, 982 F.Supp. 47, 49 (D. Mass. 1997). As a part of the Act, providers are under a federal mandate to provide coverage. While the federal government seeks to expand wireless services, the TCA balances the need for unified federal policy with the interests of local governments in retaining appropriate use of the land through local land use controls. See Voicestream Minneapolis v. St. Croix County, 342 F.3d 818, 829 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 207-08 (1996)). As to the local review of' a permit application, the TCA requires that: • review take place "within a reasonable period of time." 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii). In addition to the timing requirements provided for in federal statute, Minn. Stat. §I5.99 provides a specific time period of review which is applicable to cell tower applications. American Tower v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. 2001 y. " • the governmental entity maintain a "written record" and give reasons for any denial "in writing." § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), (iii); • any basis for denial may not: • be related to the environmental effects of radio frequency, §332(e)(7)(B)(iv); • discriminate or have effect of unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I); Jerry Fllla - Considering a Cell Tower Permlt.doc Page 2 and/or • prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, § 33(c)(7)(1)(I1). Because federal statute regulates cell towers, federal courts have original jurisdiction over lawsuits challenging the denial of a permit to erect a cell tower. The Eighth Circuit has recently issued its first decision under the TCA in USCOC of Greater Iowa, Inc, v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Des Moines, F3`" 2006 WL 2873046 at *3 (8'h Cir. Oct. 11, 2006). The court in USCOC confirms that it is the permit -seeker who carries the burden of proving that governmental entity's decision to deny a permit was either discriminatory, has the effect of prohibiting cell towers, or is unsupported by substantial evidence. USCOC, 2006 WL 2873046 at *2. Review of the governmental entity's decision is limited to the record that was developed before, and that makes up, the governmental entity's decision. Id. To the extent that there is, conflicting evidence in the record, the covet shall not second-guess the decision of the governmental entity; but rather, it should defer to the decision of the governmental entity. USCOC, 2006 WL 2873046 at *3. The following is a list of considerations that courts have held are legitimate in determining whether to issue a cell tower permit. • Protection of Historical buildings • Proven where there was evidence that tower could be seen from historic building nominated to National Register of Historic Placed. Voicestream, 342 F.3d at 829; see also Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, 244 F.Supp. 2d 108 (I;.D.N.Y, 2003). • Not proven where letter from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office stated that project did not adversely affect historic properties in the area. APT Minneapolis, Ina, 2001 WL 1640069 at *3. • Protection of protected lakes, riverways, wetlands or other preserved areas. • Proven through testimony of numerous citizens and organizations that "focused on the incompatibility ,of. a, 185-foot tower on the river bluff extending noticeably above the tree line with extraordinary scenery of the National Scenic Riverway." Voicestream, 342 F.3d at 831-32. Among the numerous groups and individuals opposing the plan, the National Park Service (NPS) presented maps and other photographic evidence that the proposed tower would be visible and interfere with unique scenery of the locality. Id. at 832. • Not proven where proposed site was outside of protected boundary for Jerry Filla - Considering aCell Tower Permit.doc Page 3 National Scenic Riverway. APT Minneapolis, Inc., 2001 WL 1640069 at *3 • Negative impact on property values • Proven where real estate expert provided analysis for the area based upon local figures, Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 762 (I Ith Cir. 2005), but not proven by either mere comments, or even by real estate expert who relied upon an analysis for two other cities. Id. • Proven where "the proposed tower was not designed to blend in with its surroundings," Minnesota Towers, Inc. v. City of Duluth, 2005 WL 1593044, 8 (D. Minn. 2005); but no proven where proposed tower was to be constructed as flagpole. PrimeCo Pers. Commo'ns v. City of Mequon, 352 F.3d 1147, 1152-53 (7th Cir. 2003). • Proven where proposed tower was within in feet of apartment complex; and, thus limiting views from the complex to almost exclusively the tower itself. USCOC, 2006 WL 2873046 at *3. • Not proven where basis for reduced value was based on perceived fear of health effects from facility. AT&T Wireless Services v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F. Supp.2d 1 148 (S.D.Cal. 2003). • Inconsistent with regional plan/local ordinances. • Proven where inconsistent with county zoning ordinances that attempt to minimize adverse visual effects. Voicestream, 342 F.3d at 831-32. • Not proven inconsistent where no regional study in place, it was only being contemplated. APT Minneapolis, Inc., 2001 WL 1640069 at*3. • Unsafe structure is proposed. • Proven where evidence indicated danger of ice falling from tower onto cars parked in parking lot below tower; and, in close proximity to residential building. USCOC, 2006 WL 2873046 at *3, • Not proven where there was no engineering evidence that tower as designed might fall over. USCOC of New Hampshire v. City of Franklin, 413 F.Supp.2d 21, (D.N.H. 2006). • Alternatives exist with less negative impact • Alternative forms of Technology exist obviating need for tower. • Proven where evidence indicla'ted that although there was evidence of dropped calls, there was evidence that poor service was a result of ! Jerry Filla - Considering a Cell Tower Permit.doc Page 4 nearby facility not operating at capacity or corrected by new antenna or additional antenna supported denial. Nextel of New York, Inc. v. City of Mount Vernon, 361 F.Supp.2d 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). • Alternative locations exist for proposed tower with less impact, • Proven where proposed location was seventh out -out -of eight preferred site locations and was 1/4 mile from town's historic district. Cellco Partnership v. Town of Grafton, 336 F. Supp.2d 71 (D. Mass. 2004); see also USCOC, 2006 WL 2873046 at *3. • Proven where evidence that provider could incorporate multiple cell towers, just at lower heights, thus minimizing the visual impact. Voicestream, 342 F.3d at 824. • Adequate service is already in existence obviating need for tower. • Proven through anecdotal testimony of residents that they had service. MetroPCS, Inc. v. City of San Francisco, 259 F.Supp.2d 1004, aff'd in part, rev'd in part and remanded, 400 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003); see also USCOC, 2006 WL 2873046 at *3. • RF engineering showed that service would not complete a void, it would only improve indoor service. VoiceStream PCS I LLC v. City of Hillsboro, 301 F.Supp2d. 1251 (D,Or. 2004). Many governmental entities encourage providers to co -locate on existing towers, or to locate on existing governmental structures. Even though a governmental entity may encourage providers, by ordinance or othervyise, to, locate on governmental structures, at least one court has concluded that the governmental entity does not have to lease government -owned property in order to afford service. Omnipoint Communications' Enterprises, LP v. Township of Nether Providence, 232 F.Supp.2d 430 (E.D. Pa. 2002). However, where a governmental entity interferes with a provider's attempt to locate on existing towers or governmental structures as it is encouraged to do, the court will closely scrutinize any decision to deny a permit. See USCOC, 2006 WL 2873046 at *3. Finally, it had been previously feared that an improper denial of a permit carried with it the danger that the governmental entity could be subjected to compensatory damages and attorneys fees. The United States Supreme Court has recently ruled that a violation of the TCA is remedied only by the issuance of the requested permit; it does not permit compensatory damages, nor attorney's fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Cal. v. Abrams, 544 U.S. l 13 (2005). Susan Hoyt From: Weiss, Cynthia L (STP) 6Q, Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 3:02 PM To: Susan Hoyt Subject: Just say no to cell tower on Lake Jane Dear Miss Hoyt, My family resides on Lake Jane Trail and we love just about everything about my neighborhood. The closed landfill was an initial concern, however, up to this point our well water has been fine. The landscape is beautiful and I couldn't ask to live amongst better folks, Recently a neighbor mentioned the threat of a cellular tower being built on Lake Jane Trail and Jamaca. I couldn't imagine why anyone would want to install a tower across from a beautiful lake within a residential area. I understand this will be a topic of discussion at your next council meeting. This tower would be a money maker for the person who owns the land, however, the rest of the neighborhood would suffer as studies indicate cell towers cause a loss in real estate value. We already live with the potential landfill outcomes and I fear the cell tower placement positioned at this location (with it's buzzing, eye soar appearance) would truly have an adverse effect on our neighborhood. Please do not allow the cell phone tower to be built in my neighborhood (Lake Jane Hills). I am sure there are open fields minus homes and a lake within Lake Elmo where they could build a cell tower with little concern or protest. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. I truly hope you will represent my family and my neighbors wishes on this issue. Just say No. Sincerely, Cynthia Weiss 8687 Lake Jane Trail Lake Elmo, MN 55042 FCC Info: httn://wireless.fcc.aov/sitina/environment comoliance.html 1 Susan Hoyt From: Todd Williams S , 'i Sent: Monday, Nove er 7, 2008 10:31 AM To: Susan Hoyt; Steve DeLapp; Nicole Park; Elizabeth Johnson; Dean Johnston; Anne Smith Subject: Cell Phone Tower Ordinance I have been followoing the controversy about the location and form of cell phone antenna towers for some time. I am not familiar with all the details of the various court rulings, and whether they apply here. But here are my thoughts about what a proper compromise should be: 1. In general, the cell phone coverage, provided by cell phone antennae, is a useful public service. However, the presence presence of antennae, and their supporting structures, should not adversely affect the lives of neighbors any more than absolutely necessary. 2. I assume that the antennae themselves would extend no more than 10 feet above any supporting towers. Further, I assume these antennae are made of metal rods or tubing no more than 1 inch in diameter. On that basis, the height of towers should be no more than the height of nearby structures or trees. Therefore, a tower disguised as a silo should be no higher than other silos in the area. A tower disguised as a tree should be no higher than nearby trees. If the antennae themselves are larger than I assume, then the heights of the antennae themselves should be limited to the surrounding structures or trees. 3. The location of towers is a key issue. Where possible, antennae should be mounted on existing structures, thereby reducing the need for additional, separate towers. Suitable existing structures include water towers, buildings, silos, etc. Where an antenna allegedly "must" be located near existing homes, such as in the present Lake Jane case, that antenna should be no higher than the minimum needed. This minimum must be supported by verifiable documentation provided by the applicant. Further, if a new tower is needed for this antenna near existing homes, the new tower must be disguised to fit into the existing neighborhood. Therefore, a tower disguised as a silo would NOT be appropriate for a residential neighborhood. A tower disguised as a pine tree would be appropriate for that neighborhood. On the other hand, a tower disguised as a pine tree might not be appropriate for a farm location. 4. I do not know the technical details of antenna height vs area coverage, but in general I favor more, shorter towers (each disguised appropriately for its neighborhood) as opposed to fewer, taller towers. Please act to ensure our City ordinance includes the above limitations and protects our neighborhoods. Thank you. Best regards, Todd Williams R. eCEIVEI) 7,3 Ms. Kelli Matzek, Planner City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue N Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Dear Ms. Matzek; 8989 Lake Jane Trail N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 November 2, 2998 Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the planned erection of a new 125-foot Wireless communication tower on property at 9057 Lake Jane Trail N, We will be out of town should the matter be discussed on November 10'h as is planned, so will not be attending the hearing, Although we are in close proximity to this proposed tower, we have no objection to its construction and wish to have this noted. However, we do wish to be kept informed as to when and if construction is expected to be completed. Sincerely yours, Paul 11. Pallmeyer From: SDiederichs [ s' ; f" Ang] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:00 AM To: Kelli Matzek; Susan Hoyt Subject: Proposed cell phone tower south of Lake Jane Hello Susan and Kelli, I cannot adequately express via email my total disapproval of a 125 foot cell phone tower proposed in a residential area. Placing that kind of structure, along with an 8 foot high fence with 3 strands of barbwire, is clearly not appropriate on Jamaca avenue next to homes and Lake Jane. I am all for technology and a cell phone user, but placement of towers must minimize adverse visual impact, not introduce health/hazard concerns, and certainly not negatively impact property values. Certainly there has to be a less intrusive place for this tower. Finally, we moved to Lake Elmo 16 years ago to get away from lights, noise, and to enjoy the character of Lake Elmo. The fact that this proposal even sees the light of day is unsettling. Thanks for your time and hope to see you at the meeting on November 10th, Steve Diederichs 4235 Ivy Court Lake Elmo, MN 55042