HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2009-005RESOLUTION NO 2009-005
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
A. On August zfi 2oo8i the City received a completed original application from
FK4H[ Corporation ("FK4H[") as agent for T'Mobile/ requesting a wireless
telecommunication tower permit pursuant to City Code Sections 3.50.zzn —
z5o.z26.
7-Mobile is proposing to build 8zz5 foot monopole to locate antennas
fora wireless telecommunication facility. The tower and the facilities
will be available for z additional carriers toco-locate their antennas on
the monopole and their ground equipment on the 40x4o fenced
compound with the accessory ground equipment to be located within a
shelter that complies with Lake Elmo's Tower Ordinance requirements.
C. FMH[ proposed to construct the zu5 foot tower on property located at 9057
Lake Jane Trail, Lake Eirnc\ which i5 zoned rural residential and is greater than
ten (zn) acres in size ("[}lingerPropertY").
D. The plans submitted with the application were dated August z, 2oo8 and
consisted of the following drawings which are incorporated as Exhibit A:
z. Project information and general notes drawing no. A:LNGral-
z. Site Plan drawing no. AzN672-C:4
3. Enlarged Site Plan drawing no.AzNRr2-C7,
4. Landscaping Plan drawing no. AzN67z-C3iand
5. Antenna information and tower and tower elevation drawing no.
E. On October 28, 2008, the City's Consulting Engineer, TKDA, submitted a memo
indicating that it had reviewed the application and suggesting conditions for
approval ("TKDA Report") which is attached and incorporated as Exhibit B.
F. The FMHC application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public
hearing on November 10, 2008. The Planning Commission considered the
memorandum, comments and recommendations of the City Planner, the
comments and materials presented by FMHC; the comments and materials
presented by the public; and recommended approval of the wireless
telecommunication tower application subject to the conditions contained in the
TI(DA Report.
G. At various Council meetings, applicant and T-Mobile representatives:
I. Provided propagation maps illustrating coverage areas for towers which
were 125 feet and 75 feet in height, but did not provide propagation
maps for heights in between 75 feet and 125 feet;
2. Indicated a willingness to revise the height of the proposed tower from
125 feet to 3-io feet but stated it would not allow the review period to
extend beyond February 10, 2009',
3. Indicated that there could be ways to serve the required area other than
by one tower on the Olinger Property but did not define the other
options/
4. Stated that the required coverage could be provided by a number of
shorter towers instead of one taller tower;
5. Stated that a 3.io foot tower would allow T-Mobile to provide the
required coverage but did not provide proof that a shorter tower could
also provide the required coverage.
H. On December 9, 2oo8, the City Council adopted Ordinance o8-03-3. relating to
wireless telecommunication towers. The Ordinance became effective on
January 8, 2009 and amended the City's wireless telecommunication tower
regulations to emphasize that wireless telecommunication towers should be
constructed in a manner that allows the towers to blend in with the surrounding
environments, emphasize the priority of the site locations for wireless
telecommunication towers; and 'to allow the City to waive collocation
requirements when necessary to permit the construction of a wireless
telecommunication tower that better blends into the surrounding environment.
Dn January 20, 2oog, FMHC, after discussions with the City Council, submitted
-evised tower plans. The plans depicted a i3.o foot tower with a canister-style
I
mounted antenna. The revised plans were dated December so, 2oo8 and
consisted of the following drawings which are incorporated as Exhibit C:
1. Project information and general notes drawing no. A:LN672-T2-
2. Site Plan drawing no. AiN672-Cl.;
3. Enlarged Site Plan drawing no. AiN672-C2'
4. Landscaping Plan drawing no. Ai.N672-C3, and
5. Antenna information and tower and tower elevation drawing no. A1N62-
ki.
J. On January 28, 2oog, FMHC submitted a letter indicating a willingness to amend
its application.
K. On February 2, 2009, the City received a report prepared by Richard A. Comi
from the Center for Municipal Solutions, attached and incorporated as Exhibit
D, which includes an analysis of the City's regulations, the original FMHC
application and the proposed amended FMHC application ("Comi Report"). The
Comi Report concluded that the applications submitted was not in compliance
with the City's regulations for the following reasons:
I. "Documentation that demonstrates and proves the need for the Wireless
Telecommunications Facility to provide service primarily and essentially
within the City. Such documentation shall include propagation studies of
the proposed site and all adjoining planned, proposed, in-service •
existing sites that demonstrate a significant gap in coverage and/or if a
capacity need, including an analysis of current and projected usage. The
actual intended transmission power stated as the maximum effective
radiated power (ERP) in watts should be used in this analysis. If the
maximum power is not used, an acceptable explanation why it has not
been used should be provided.
2. "in the case of a new Tower, the Applicant shall be required to submit a
written report demonstrating its meaningful efforts to secure shared use
• existing Tower(s) orthe e• alternative buildings or other structures
within the applicants search ring. Copies of written requests and
responses for shared use shall be provided to the City in the Application,
along with any letters • rejection stating the reason for rejection.
3. "The City, as opposed to the construction of a new Tower, prefers
locating on existing Towers or others structures without increasing the
height. The Applicant has not submitted a comprehensive report
inventorying existing Towers and other suitable structures within the
I
applicants search ring, unless the Applicant can show that some other
(
distance is more reasonable and demonstrate conclusively why an
existing Tower or other suitable structure cannot be used.
4. "Provided documentation that such shared use shall consist only of the
rninirnunn Antenna Array technologically required to provide service
primarily and essentially within the City, to the extent practicable, unless
good cause is shown.
5. "Provided documentation justifying the total height of any Tower,
Facility and/or Antenna requested and the basis therefore.
Documentation in the form of propagation studies must include all
backup data used tn perform a1 requested height and a minimum often
(:Lo') feet lower height to 8!lnvv verification of this height need. Such '
documentation will be analyzed in the context ofthe justification of the
height needed to provide service primarily and essentially within the
Citytoth2extentpracti[abl2,UnleS6gDod[auSeiSshOvvn.
6. "Provided RF information applicable to this She and expand the
supporting data as outlined in this report.
7. "Provided proper engineering analysis and certifications for the State of
Minnesota for structural and electrical as stated in the ordinance.
8. "Provided corrected letters from the landowner as addressed in this
report.
g. "Provided the correct the applicant information to either have the
wireless provider as the applicant or provide written authorization from
the provider."
L. On February 3, 2oog, FHMC submitted a memo in response to the Comi Report
(FHMC Responsive Memo), attached and incorporated as Exhibit E.
M. The FMH[ application was reviewed by the [hv Council on December 2, 2ooEL
December 4, 2oo8/ December 8, 2008, January 6, 2oo9 and February 3, 2009�
The City Council considered the memorandum, the comments and
recommendations of the City Planner; the comments and materials submitted
by FMHC; the comments and materials submitted by the public; and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission. The City Council expressed
concern that the tower, as proposed, would not reasonably blend into the
surrounding environment.
2.0 Reasons for Denial. Based upon its review of the FMHC application, the City's
regulations, the various reports submitted in connection with the application, including
Ii
the Conni Report, the [hv Cound[fiDdS that the FMHC application does not cOnQp|«
with the City's regulations for the following reasons:
A. The design standards applicable to wireless telecommunication towers state
that the tower should be designed (i) To blend in with the surrounding
environment through the use of color and architectural treatment; and (a) Be 8
monopole, unless the City Council determines that an alternative design will
better blend in with the surrounding environment., One of the purposes ofthe
City's Wireless Telecommunication Tower Permit Regulations is to minimize
adverse visual effects Of wireless telecommunication towers, antenna, or
accessory equipment through careful design and site standards. Neither 125
foot tower with 8 1ovv profile platform and antennae array, nor a 3-10 foot tower
with a canister system for antennas adequately blends the tower in with the
surrounding environment.
B. According t0 the statements OfFMH{� their proposed tower could be shorter
and of a different design while still accommodating T-Mobile's service
objectives for this portion of the City. Although FK4H[ submitted revised plans
on January 20, 2Oo8, which depicted 8 zzO foot tVvv2r with a canister style
mounted antennas and represented that it would treat or paint the revised
tower a5 deemed appropriate bythe City Council, the proposed revisions, when
compared tothe original application, were considered substantial and the City
[Dundi concluded that such revisions amounted to a new application which
would need tobereviewed by the planning commission.
C. The City could not accommodate the review of the revised plans, includirloo
Planning Commission review before expiration the agreed upon review peril
and FMHC indicated that it wanted a decision on its original application befo
expiration of the agreed upon review period.
D. The City's regulations contain a priority listing for tower sites. The applicant has
not sufficiently demonstrated an inability to use existing towers or structures.
Secondly, there is City owned property adjacent to the Olinger PrnperLY, which
should have been explored as a possible site. This option was never presented
to the City Council for review.
E. Applicant has not provided documentation that demonstrates the need for the
proposed wireless telecommunication tower in order to provide service
primarily and essentially within the Lake Jane neighborhood hood of the City.
F. Applicant had not a provided written report demonstrating meaningful efforts
to secure shared use of existing towers, structures or other sites within the Lake
Jane neighborhood.
19
G. Applicant has not submitted a comprehensive report inventorying existing
towers, structures or other sites within the Lake Jane neighborhood that could
be used for the proposed wireless telecommunication tower and has not
demonstrated conclusively why existing towers, structures or other sites within
the Lake Jane neighborhood could not be used.
H. Applicant has not provided documentation to justify a tower height Of 3.25 feet
or possibly 3.io feet.
Applicant has not provided RIF information for the proposed site as outlined in
the Comi Report.
J. Applicant has not provided electrical and structural engineering analysis and
certification as outlined in the Comi Report.
K. Applicant has not provided corrected letters from property owners as addressed
in the Comi Report.
L. Applicant has not provided authorization from the property owner and/or from
T-Mobile as addressed in the Comi Report.
3.0 Based upon the above reasons, the application of FMHC is denied.
Date: February 3, 2009
F:\users\Jessica\Jerry\LE\Resolution -Denying Application.via.doc
N
/y
By:
De an Johnston
Mayor