Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-1996• MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 24, 1996 7:00 P.M. AGENDA SESSION 1 Review of Minutes: July 10, 1996 (enclosed) 2. Citizens Requests and Comments from the Floor 3 Discussion of a request for a variance to encroach five feet into the required front yard setback, a conditional use permit to construct a church on an R-1, Single Family Residentially zoned property, and a development review to construct a 2,002 square foot church, Stahl Construction Company, 3025 County Road H, Planning Case No. 452-96. 4. Discussion of a request for a PUD amendment to increase parking, Everest Property Management, 5251 Program Avenue, Planning Case No. 453-96. 5. Discussion of Ordinance No. 588, an ordinance amending the development contract language of Chapter 1006.06, Subdivision 4 of the Municipal Code. 6. Materials for Telecommunication Ordinance revision. 7. StaffUpdate 8. Adjourn ************************************************************************ APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU ************************************************************************ • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 10, 1996 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:05 p.m. on July 10, 1996. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Miller, Brooks, Johnston, Brasaemle and Chair Peterson. (Commissioner Stevenson joined the meeting late). Commissioner Obert had an excused absence. Motion/Second: Miller/Brasaemle to approve the minutes of June 5, 1996, as amended. 4 ayes 0 nays 1 abtsention (Commissioner Johnston abstained because he was not in attendance at the June 5th meeting.) • 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call Approval of Minutes: June 5 and June 19, 1996 Motion Carried Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve the minutes of June 19, 1996, as amended. 3 ayes 0 nayes 2 abstentions (Commissioner Johnston and Chair Peterson abstained because they were not in attendance at the June 19th meeting.) ALSO PRESENT: Acting Community Development Director Pruitt and Recording Secretary Benesch. Motion Carried Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 10, 1996 Page 2 There were no citizen requests or comments from the floor. The public hearing regarding the variance request from Gerald and Jane Wall opened at 7:10 p.m. The applicants, Gerald and Jane Wall, were present. Acting Director Pruitt reviewed the request noting that the applicants are requesting a variance to encroach two feet into the required thirty foot setback for a corner lot in order to build an approximate 352 square foot addition to their home at 7441 Park View Terrace. Acting Director Pruitt also explained that the applicants provided the following hardship statement, "We'd like to build a family room addition onto our one level home. We live on the corner of a cul-de-sac and are limited to only one direction in which we can build. We feel the two extra feet will enable us to create a functional living space". Acting Director Pruitt assured the Commission that the proposed addition is in conformance with all applicable zoning regulations other than meeting the required 30' front yard setback. She noted that the applicants have been made aware that the addition will need to be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building appearance with the original dwelling unit. The contingency contained in Resolution No. 457-96 was noted stating that whenever, within one year after granting the variance the work as permitted by the variance is not completed, the variance shall become null and void unless a petition for an extension is granting by the Planning Commission. 4. Citizen Requests and Comments From the Floor 5. Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 457-96 Regarding Variance Request by Gerald and Jane Wall, 7441 Park View Terrace, Planning Case No. 444-96 • • • • • • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Mr. Jim Smith, 7427 Park View Terrace, addressed the Planning Commission expressing his support regarding this request. (Commissioner Stevenson arrived at 7:15 p.m.) The public hearing for Gerald and Jane Wall, 7441 Park View Terrace, closed at 7:15 p.m. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to approve Resolution No. 457-96 regarding the front yard setback variance for 7441 Park View Terrace. 6 ayes 0 nays The applicants were informed at this time that the Planning Commission is the approving body and that their variance request is complete with the exception of the building permit for the addition. The public hearing regarding the variance request for Thomas A. Pick opened at 7:17 p.m. The applicant, Thomas A. Pick, was present. Acting Director Pruitt began the public hearing by explaining that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a six foot high privacy fence around a corner yard property at 2725 Sherwood Road which is a two foot variance from the 48" in height allowed by Code. She noted that the applicant's property is on a corner, thus, 4' in height is allowed by Code along both Red Oak Drive and Sherwood Road. She explained that the applicant is requesting the 2' variance for reasons of safety, specifically, the safety of his child and any other children that may be visiting, pets and automobile traffic along Red Oak Drive. The applicant attributes the safety concerns to a July 10, 1996 Page 3 Public Hearing for Gerald and Jane Wall Closed Motion Carried 6. Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 460-96 Regarding the Variance Request of Thomas A. Pick, 2725 Sherwood Road, Planning Case No. 446-96 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting large mound on the edge of his properly along Red Oak Drive. With a fence only 4' high, the applicant feels the situation could create a haza`rd for children and pets and, therefore, is requesting a 6' high fence which he believes would provide adequate protection. Acting Director Pruitt informed the Commission that since the public hearing notices were sent, Staff has received several inquiries from residents. She noted all but one were in support of the fence and the only call opposed to the fence was from Mrs. Vogt, 8135 Red Oak Drive, who was unable to attend the public hearing due to medical reasons. Mrs. Vogt is concerned that a fence only a few feet back from the property will create a visual hazard and will create a problem with snow removal blocking the street. Acting Director Pruitt continued by explaining that staff explained to Mrs. Vogt that the fence would be located behind the house and that the Code allows a 4' fence in the same area. Acting Director Pruitt noted that a revised resolution had been distributed to the Planning Commission. The contingency contained in Resolution No. 460-96 was noted, again stating that if the work is not completed within one year, the variance shall become null and void. July 10, 1996 Page 4 • Mr. Don Nelson, 2717 Sherwood Road, who lives adjacent to the Picks, addressed the Planning Commission expressing that he is in favor of the fence. He explained that he has seen people drive across the yard at least a couple of times a year and is concerned for the safety of Mr. Pick's child. Chair Peterson, who also lives next door, expressed that he too is in favor of the fence. • • • • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting The Planning Commission inquired as to whether or not there was sufficient area for snow removal. Acting Director Pruitt assured the Planning Commission that the fence will be far enough back so as not to cause visual or snow removal problems. The public hearing was dosed at 7:27 p.m. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brooks to approve Resolution No. 446-96, as amended, approving a height variance for a fence at 2725 Sherwood Road. 6 ayes 0 nays The applicant was informed at this time that the Planning Commission is the approving body and that their variance request is complete with the exception of the building permit for the fence. The applicant was not present. Acting Director Pruitt reminded the Commission that the applicant was present at the Agenda Session. Acting Director Pruitt explained that the applicant, Herbst and Sons, is requesting an extension to a previously approved variance to attow-the construction of an addition to an existing facility at a 5' yard setback where a 20' setback is required by Code, and if the variance is granted, a development review to construct an 80' by 80' (6,400 square feet) addition to the north of their existing building at 2299 County Road H must be approved. She continued to explain that Herbst and Sons was granted a variance in 1992 to allow the construction of an addition to their existing facility at a 5' side yard setback where a 20' setback is required. The variance, however, expired one year from the date of issuance, or July 10, 1996 Page 5 Public Hearing for Thomas A. Pick Closed Motion Carried 7 Consideration of Resolution No, 458-96 Regarding a Variance Request by Herbst & Sons Construction Co., 2299 County Road H, Planning Case No. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 18, 1993, and in order for the Planning Commission to consider this request, a variance extension must be granted, then a development review process would begin. Acting Director Pruitt informed the Commission that Short -Elliott -Hendrickson, the City's Engineering Consultant, has reviewed the site plan and found the expansion should have no negative impacts on the drainage system. She also noted that, based on the discussion at the June 19th meeting, parking appears to be adequate for the site. Acting Director Pruitt noted that a revised resolution had been distributed to the Planning Commission. The contingency contained in Resolution No. 458-96 was noted stating that the variance shall become void if the work is not finished within one year of issuance. The Planning Commission inquired whether or not this proposed variance request is similar to the previously approved variance and Acting Director Pruitt replied that she had been in contact with Paul Harrington, former Community Development Director, who stated that this request is very similar to their previous request. She also noted that the addition would be used for storage of items and equipment currently stored outside and that the addition would line up with the existing building. The Planning Commission then questioned whether or not it should be a new variance, not an extension of the previously approved variance since the variance expired in 1993. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Johnston to approve Resolution No. 458-96 as amended approving the variance request of Herbst and Sons Construction Co., Inc., 2299 County Road H. July 10, 1996 Page 6 • • • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6 ayes 0 nays Again the contingency contained in Resolution No. 458-96 was noted. Acting Director Pruitt also noted that the application must enter into a development agreement with the City of Mounds View. The parking situation was briefly discussed noting that it was believed that no additional parking is necessary. It was also noted that a portion of the lot is believed to be in a wetland boundary. Acting Director Pruitt spoke with Rocky Keehn from Short -Elliott -Hendrickson who did not express any concerns. The Planning Commission expressed their concern regarding machinery that was stored in the wetland and Acting Director Pruitt indicated that she would check into this matter as a code enforcement issue. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brasaemle to approve Resolution No. 459-96 regarding the development request of Herbst and Sons Construction Co., Inc. 6 ayes 0 nays July 10, 1996 Page 7 Motion Carried Motion Carried • The applicant, Jerome Espeseth, was present. Acting Director Pruitt reviewed the request by Jerome Espeseth, 8005 Woodlawn Drive, explaining that the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct an oversized garage (1,260 square feet). She noted that an existing garage and shed are located on the property and the applicant is aware that they must be removed and no other accessory structures may be constructed if the conditional use permit is approved. Consideration of Resolution No. 467-96 Regarding the Conditional Use Permit Request of Jerome Espeseth, 8005 Woodlawn Drive, Planning Case No. 448-96 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Acting Director read each contingency contained in Resolution No. 460-96, one of which was that the applicant enter into a development agreement with the City of Mounds View. Chair Peterson asked the applicant why one of the doors shown on the plan for the garage was taller than the other. The applicant replied that the door was larger so a pickup topper could clear the doorway. Chair Peterson also inquired as to whether or not he had intentions to conduct a business from the garage and the applicant replied that he would not be operating a business from the proposed garage. The applicant also stated that he would remove the existing structures. Motion/Second: Johnston/Miller to approve Resolution No. 467-96 recommending approval of a conditional use permit to allow an oversized garage at 8005 Woodlawn Drive. 6 ayes 0 nays The applicant was informed at this time that this item would be forwarded to the City Council for review and a public hearing would be scheduled for July 29th. July 10, 1996 Page 8 Motion Carried The applicants Gary Olson and Bob Gabbo (General Chairman) of Cross of Glory Evangelical Lutheran Church were present. Acting Director Pruitt explained that the applicant is requesting a development review and conditional use permit to construct a 6,166 square foot addition to the Cross of Glory Church at 5472 Adams Street. She briefly reviewed this item noting that on May 1, 1995, a conditional use permit for a sanctuary addition was granted and according to City 9. Consideration of Resolution Nos. 461-96 and 462-96 Regarding the Conditional Use Permit and Development Review Requests of Cross of Glory Evangelical Lutheran Church, 5472 Adams Street, Planning Case No. 449-96 • • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting records, the church had been in place for quite sometime prior to the addition. She continued by stating that the proposed addition requires another conditional use permit and a development review as well. She noted that the proposed addition would be utilized primarily for meeting places for children between services. She noted, from a letter received from Mr. Olson, that he requests that no additional parking be required since the proposed expansion will not create any additional parking needs which the existing parking area could not adequately provide and because the office space shown on the floor plan would be occupied by only three people. Acting Director Pruitt informed the Commission that 53 parking sites are currently available on site with three of those spaces designated for accessible parking, which is in conformance with state requirements. She noted that the site plan shows an additional 14 parking spaces proposed to the north of the existing parking area which the church is requesting that they be allowed to phase in due to economic constraints. Acting Director Pruitt added that, based on the discussion at the agenda meeting, it appears that the current parking, in addition to the proposed fourteen parking spaces, will be adequate for the expansion. July 10, 1996 Page 9 • Acting Director Pruitt informed the Commission that she spoke with Rocky Keehn of SEH who requested a grading or drainage plan be submitted for his review and approval. She also noted that City Forester, Rick Wriskey, has requested that when a landscaping plan is drawn up by the applicants that he review it for approval. Acting Director Pruitt provided to the applicants a copy of the written comments from Short - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 10, 1996 Page 10 Elliott -Hendrickson regarding the need for a drainage plan. Acting Director Pruitt also informed the Planning Commission that the condition of ensuring adequate sprinkler systems for the existing building had been removed from the contingencies placed on the resolution. She explained that she had contacted Attorney Bob Long to conduct additional research to ascertain whether it is legally appropriate for the City to require fire sprinkling for the existing building. Acting Director Pruitt read each contingency contained in Resolution No. 462-96, the first being that a development agreement be entered into between the church and the City of Mounds View. The fire suppression requirements were briefly discussed by the Planning Commission and Acting Director Pruitt noted that the attorney is looking into whether or not it must be required for this request. The applicant, Gary Olson, addressed the Planning Commission informing them that the building is not occupied often with the exception of Sundays. He also expressed that a fire detection system may be better and that he thinks fire sprinkling is an unreasonable request due to financial reasons. He continued by informing the Commission that this will be the final expansion of the facility and requiring fire suppression will reduce the addition by 20 percent, or possibly will not allow the expansion at all. Mr. Olson also noted that fire extinguishers are located throughout the -facility and an increased number of emergency exists have been added on the plans for the new addition. He also indicated that he plans to • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting retro-fit the existing building with fire detection and security systems. Acting Director Pruitt added that it will be up to the City Council and attorney to determine whether or not a fire suppression system will be required. The applicant also added that the sanctuary is made of exposed wood and rafters and it would be "a mess" to install a fire suppression system. Chair Peterson expressed that he believes fire suppression systems will become a standard in all public buildings in the near future and that he believe it is a very effective means in minimizing the spread of fire. The applicant mentioned that he would like some flexibility with the landscaping plans and the Planning Commission noted that they would change the contingency in the resolution to read only that a landscaping plan be approved by the. City Forester instead of noting specifically where the plantings should be located on the CUP contingency. Chair Peterson added that Mounds View is a "Tree City" and that the Forester needs to review the landscaping plan to ensure that appropriate plantings are added on site. The Planning • Cot nnribsiurrrruted that the applicant would be required to obtain approval from the City Forester on the final landscaping plans. The Planning Commission inquired as to the church's time table for construction. They replied that they hope to start construction around the end of the summer and finish the first quarter of 1997. Acting Director Pruitt noted that approval of the resolution would be contingent upon submittal of an approved drainage plan. She added that July 10, 1996 Page 11 Motion Carried Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting there were no additional parking issues and that Rocky Keehn of SEH had received a copy of the plans with the additional parking shown. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve Resolution No. 461-96 as amended recommending approval of the conditional use permit request for an expansion to the existing facility at 5472 Adams Street. 6 ayes 0 nays Motion/Second: Miller/Brasaemle to approve Resolution No. 462-96 as amended recommending approval of the development request for a 6,166 square foot addition at 5472 Adams Street. 6 ayes 0 nays The applicant was informed at this time that a public hearing would be scheduled by the City Council for July 29th at which time the Council would take formal action on this item. The applicant, Mr. Whitney of Church Upon the Rock, was present. July 10, 1996 Page 12 Motion Carried 10. Consideration of Resolution Nos. 463-96 and 464-96 Regarding the Variance and Conditional Use Permit Requests by Church Upon the Rock, 7901 Red Oak Drive, Planning Case No. 451-96 Acting Community Development Director Pruitt reminded the Commission that this item was reviewed in length at the last meeting and explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a garage on the property and if the variance is granted, a conditional use permit to construct an oversized garage (1,248 square feet) is also being requested. She reminded the Commission that in March of 1996, the Commission reviewed a request for an extension to the applicant's conditional use permit request for temporary accessory • • • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting structures on the property and also reviewed the need to remove the temporary structures, used as classrooms, since eight years had alretdy been provided for the temporary structures. Acting Director Pruitt reminded the Commission that the church was encouraged to look for other storage options and church representatives found that they could use space inside the church for classroom space if they were able to construct a storage facility. She noted that in April of this year the church withdrew its application for an extension of its conditional use permit for the temporary accessory structures and continued to say that they are now requesting an oversized garage to be used for storage space so that they may free up space currently used for storage inside the church and use is for classrooms. She noted that the Code defines private garages as, "a detached accessory building or portion of the principal building, including a carport, which is used for storage vehicles." She continued by stating that the garage proposed at the site will not be used for storage of vehicles. Acting Director Pruitt noted that it appears the Codes does not recognize that churches, which are allowed by conditional use permit in an R-1 district, may have all the demands for storage that single family dwellings may have and suggests that the impacts of an oversized garage on the site would not have any greater impact than a home with an oversized garage on the property. She explained that if the Planning Commission wishes to consider granting a variance to allow a garage on the site, then the next issue to consider would be whether to grant a conditional use permit for an oversized garage on the property. Acting Director Pruitt referred to a staff report dated April, 1988, which revealed that the church requires 98 parking spaces and at that July 10, 1996 Page 13 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 10, 1996 Page 14 time, it was shown that the site had inadequate parking on -site for its Sunday demand and that on -street parking has prompted complaints from' neighbors. She also noted that at the June 13, 1996, agenda meeting, Mr. Whitney reported that he has not observed parking on the street and does not feel that previous parking concerns are an issue now with the church using Kinder Kare and Western Bank for overflow parking as needed on Sundays. She continued by informing the Planning Commission that a revised site plan has been submitted which shows 91 current parking spaces and that the applicant has shown 7 possible additional parking spaces on the property to make a total of 98 parking spaces. It was noted that the proposed garage will be located on existing impervious surface so no additional impervious coverage will be created on the site. Acting Director Pruitt noted the contingencies contained in both Resolution No. 463-96 and 464-96 which includes the church enter into a development agreement with the City. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brasaemle to approve Resolution No. 463-96 as amended approving a variance to allow a garage for Church Upon the Rock, 7901 Red Oak Drive. 6 ayes 0 nays Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Peterson to approve Resolution No. 464-96 as amended recommending approval of a conditional use permit to allow an oversized garage for church Upon the Rock, 7901 Red Oak Drive. The applicant was asked whether or not he wished to maximize the size of the garage allowed by Code. The applicant replied that he Motion Carried Motion Carried Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting will be going with the builder's recommendation to build the 1,248 square foot building. 6 ayes 0 nays Commissioner Johnston inquired as to whether or not the 15' high maximum for accessory buildings included garages. Acting Director Pruitt replied that it did include detached garages. The applicant was informed that the variance request is now complete and the public hearing for the conditional use permit will be scheduled by the City Council for July 29th. Acting Community Development Director Pruitt reviewed this item noting that the City of Mounds View recently received a request from a mobile home park to install signage but that the City Code does not specially address signage in an R-5 district. She continued to say that the attorney has requested that the intent of the R-4 district be used for the R-5, Mobile Home District. Motion/Second: Miller/Peterson to approve Resolution No. 465-96 with minor language changes which recommends amending the Mounds View Municipal Code by adding a new Section 1008.11 entitled, "Variances", relating to sign variances. 6 ayes 0 nays Acting Director Pruitt briefly reviewed this item explaining that a commercial telecommunication service recently approached the City of Mounds View possibly wanting to locate one of their reception facilities in the Mounds View Industrial Park and that until this July 10, 1996 Page 15 11. Consideration of Resolution No. 465-96 Regarding an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 1008, R-5, Mobile Home District Motion Carried 12. Consideration of Resolution No. 466-96 Regarding the Establishment of a 180-day Moratorium on Wireless Telecommunication Towers Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting issue could be reviewed, a moratorium is being recommended on the placement of wireless telecommunication services within the City of Mounds View. She emphasized that the 180- day moratorium is the maximum allowed and that no extensions could be granted. She added that the Planning Commission will need to start looking at possible sites for locating these services and what language they would like in the ordinance, and she also mentioned that it may be beneficial for a speaker to come in to talk about the current technology of wireless telecommunication services. July 10, 1996 Page 16 Motion Carried It was noted that the 180 days will start 30 days after publication of the ordinance. 13. Staff Report Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to approve Resolution No. 466-96 recommending amending the Mounds View Zoning Code by adding a new Chapter 1126 establishing a 180- day moratorium on new use, development or construction of public commercial wireless telecommunication services within the City of Mounds View. 6 ayes 0 nays Acting Director Pruitt mentioned to the Planning .Commission that letters were sent to all Mounds View businesses regarding Ordinance No. 586 relating to fire suppression systems and the ordinance would be discussed by the City Council on July 15th. Acting Director Pruitt reminded the Commission that Pam Sheldon, the new Community Development Director, will be starting her employment with the City of Mounds View on July 29. 14. Report of Chair 15. Adjournment • • • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Chair Peterson was absent at the last agenda meeting, therefore, Acting Chair Miller noted the members present at the June 15, 1996, agenda session which included Commissioners Miller, Obert, Brooks, and Brasaemle. (Commissioners Stevenson and Johnston and Chair Peterson had excused absences). There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, July 10, 1996 Page 17 Joyce Pruitt Acting Community Development Director • • • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: July 24, 1996 Staff Report by: Joyce Pruitt, Acting Community Development Director Planning Case File No.: 452-96 Request: The applicant is requesting a variance for setbacks, a conditional use permit to allow a church in an R-1 Zoning District, and a development review for the new construction of a church on a site. Petitioner: Stahl Construction Company, the Contractor on behalf of New Apostolic Church. Location: PIN No. 3025 County Road H 07-30-23-33-0031 West 225' of Lot 75, Knollwood Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota (Property is .517 acres in size) Zoning Land Use: The property is currently zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential. Applicable Regulations: Section 1106.04, Subd. 1 provides for "public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers, public and private education institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions, such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues provided, that: • Front-yard-depths-stam-um of thirty five feet (35') b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet (30'). c. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet (30'). d. Adequate off street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of the Title and that such parking is adequately screened from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.00 of the Title. PLANNING CASE NO. 452-96 JULY 24, 1996 PAGE TVVO OF SIX e. Adequate off -street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Chapter 1122. f. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of the Title are met. Conditional Use Permits Inforrnation Section 1125.01, Subd. 3 provides for the purpose, criteria, additional conditions, records kept, reconsideration and a lapse of conditional use permit by nonuse. Section 1125.01, Subd. 3 requires among other things, the City Council to make the following findings where applicable: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets, and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. The structure and site hall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related -to -the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been provided. Section 1125.01 allows the city council to impose additional (3) (5) PLANNING CASE NO. 452-96 JULY 24, 1996 PAGE THREE OF SIX • conditions which the city council considers necessary to protect the best interest of the surrounding area or the community as a whole. These conditions may include, but are not limited to: (1) Increasing the required lot size or yard dimension. (2) Limiting the height, size, or location on buildings. (3) Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points. (4) Increasing the street width. (5) Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces (6) Increasing the number, size, location or lighting of signs. (7) Requiring diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent and nearby property. (8) Designating sites for open space. Parking Section 1121.13 requires for churches: at least 1 parking space for each 4 seats, based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. Facilities as may be provided in conjunction with such buildings or uses, shall be subject to additional requirements. Sionaoe For R-1 Districts, a name on residential property stating only the name or address of the occupant not exceeding two square feet in size is allowed by Municipal Code. —Lighting Section 1103.09 requires any lighting used to illuminate an off- street parking area, sign or other structure to be arranged as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential property. Landscaping Section 1103.08, Subd. 4, requires the lot area remaining after providing for off-street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveway, building site and/or other requirements, shall be planted and maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other acceptable vegetation or treatment generally used in landscaping. Drainage Section 1103.07 requires drainage plans to be submitted to the City Engineer for review and requires the final drainage plan to have the Engineer's written approval. PLANNING CASE NO. 452-96 JULY 24, 1996 PAGE FOUR OF SIX Attachments: Background: Development Review Section 1006.06, Subd. 2, requires new construction, such as this, to be reviewed within a development plan, by the City Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by the City Council. Section 1106.06 further requires a development contract which sets forth all of the terms, conditions, requirements, agreements, guarantees, and plans for the orderly development of the land to be entered into between the developer and the City of Mounds View. Zoning Map Site Plans (the applicant did not provide reductions) Application A hardship statement provided by the applicant Letter dated July 18, 1996 to the applicant from Community Development Department The property is located at 3025 County Road H. The request is for a variance to encroach five feet into the required thirty five foot front yard setback, a conditional use permit to construct a church in an R-1 Residential Zoning District, and a development review for the new construction. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,002 square foot church on an R-1 Single Family Residential property. The Municpal Code requires a conditional use permit in order to construct a church on a R-1 Single Fmaily Residentially zoned property. The plans show the church to be encroaching five feet into the required thirty five foot front yard setback. The applicant is requesting a variance of five feet to encroach into the required thirty five foot front yard setback as required by the Municipal Code. The minimum thirty foot side yard setbacks are met with this proposal. The minimum rear yard setback is met with the building being located forty feet back from the rear yard property line. The applicant has submitted a hardship statement that the variance would allow better fire access around the building by adding additional width to the drive lane and would provide for more green space along the north property line. A landscaping proposal has been submitted to City Forester, • • .PLANNING CASE NO. 452-96 JULY 24, 1996 PAGE FIVE OF SIX • Rick Wriskey, for comments. These comments will be provided to you at the July 24 Agenda meeting. Plans have also been submitted to SEH for review, and comments will be_available for the June 24, 19196 Agenda Meeting as well. When Staff spoke with Engineer Rocky Keehn from SEH he noted that there will be drainage issues to address for the June 24, 1996 meeting since his plan show 3025 County Road H to be designated for single family residential rather than a church usage. Staff consulted with Fire Chief Zikmund regarding emergency vehicle access to the site. The Fire Chief has reported no concerns regarding the emergency vehicle accessibility. When the applicant provides floor plans to the City of Mounds View for review, the Fire Chief will also review the plans to ensure compliance with exists and sprinkling requirements. The plans show 32 parking stalls provided for on site. The applicant has not provided a floor plan so that the parking requirements can be verified. The applicant has noted that he will bring a floor plan to the Agenda Meeting. Two of the stalls are disabled accessible, which is in conformance with parking requirements. The driveway accesses submitted on the site plan are not in conformance with the City Code. Municipal Code requires no curb cut access to be located less than fifty feet from the intersection of two or more street rights of way. The plans before you show a curb cut 40' from the right-of-way. Section 1121.09 prohibits a curb cut access from exceeding twenty two feet in width. The plans show the curb cut access to exceed twenty two feet. The applicant will be submitting new plans for review which will include the required driveway accesses and appropriate curb cut accesses. Planning Commission may wish to explore what the facade of the outside the building will look like to decide if the building will fit with the neighborhood. PLANNING CASE NO. 452-96 JULY 24, 1996 PAGE SIX OF SIX Recommendation/ Analysis: Staff has requested feedback from the City Engineer for drainage issues, and City Forester for landscaping issues for the July 24, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Staff has heard some opposition from the Pleasant View Drive neighborhood. To address issues on the development before the City Council public hearing, there will be a public informational meeting held at the August 7, 1996 meeting for this item. The applicant will attend the Agenda Meeting to provide a presentation of the plans for the church. • • • /SL 0, n M 0 0 0 17331 N 0 N n N 0 N m 730 7338 7310 gi 730 [1.1 �o H2 N 7082 7072 7054 7034 7026 7006 6988 8970 695 942 6928 6900 7095 7069 7057 N O! N 7234 7226 7200 7188 7172 7150 1It'1 WOODALE Z 704 702 701 N co Of 0 0) cn N N N 7100 7094 7090 7074 7060 N W719 O O 7044 7191 R-4 718�' 137ED=®® DR 7095 7085 3 707i O z 6991 2940 697 2932 N J 0 .•yc 6939 6929 01 0 to N co 0 p N 695 69 rn 371 N 0 692 0 GEND 7063 7039 N m N N N o m N 709C 7070 N m N W000CREST m m N 396 O CO N N CO N 04 CO N m m N 0 0 7060 0 r 6960 6951 6945 M m N m m N N N N m N o co 6940 O N )285 8-1 7295 1 2 — R R � I .Tra. Rum wilS9 mm. cronal 517851 )B 5176 5177 S1Ti 5175 1 5278 5279 527 25273 5266 5267 5260 5261 5254 5255 5248 5174 517 5172 5171 5170 5169 O. *CREST PARK N PFn N 5092 5086 5080 5091 5085 5079 5072 5066 5071 5065 tr 0 W C9 z O 5060 5059 5054 5053 5046 5045 50921 N 5086 5085 5080 5079 5072 5071 5066 5060 5065 505g 5054 5046 5053 5045 5072 5068 5060 5054 z O 5168\5167 5166 5165 5164 5163 5162 5161 5242 5249 5243 5238 5237 5230 5231 tr 5224 5225 5218 5221 5212 5217 5206 5211 5200 WOODALE DR' 5148 5140 5205 5201 5149 5132 5141 5124 5133 5125 5278 52 5266 A. Np COi �/0t0toc NNNNt Ln n CO < 10 0 m N NNN N N LOUISA 313 N 0 N 0 01 N N w N us —a N tO N CO M CO M N N t N n M N M 30 N a N CLEARVIEW 523C `'00 N u/ `I° N m N N m N c N 0 0 m N m 022ii N to N N n N M N rn il N 5212 5213 5206 5200 5148 5207 5201 5149 5 b 5116 5108 5100 r 510911 51014n 11-11 5092� 019g1� 5086`508 508 5117 p' 5089 . 5079 507E 5065 5061 5051 505 504 5048�9,rr 5140 5141 5132 5133 5124 5125 5116 5117 5108 5109 5100 5101 woof) CREST 5092 5091 5086 5085 5080 5079 5072 5066 5071 5065 5060 5059 505415053 5213 5206 5207 5200 51481 5201 5149 5140 5141 5132 5133 5124 5116 5108 5129 51171 5109i 5100 5101. 5092 509- 508E 5086 z 5080 507C 5072 507' 506615065 CO 5060 505E 505: 5045 5045 50461 5045 5054 �1 E W ZONING DISTRICTS * R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-2 SINGLE & TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 9-R 5 MOBILE HOME R-0 RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS B-2 L B-3 1- B-4 F 1-1 1 PF P PUD F CRP C 96 16:06 FAI 612 i84 3462 CITY OF 1 CITT OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING APPLICATION APPUCAN i : Stahl Construction Company ADDRESS: 5900 Rowland Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 Street Address, City, State, and ?sp Code Utmost in Property (check appropriate bax): Q owner of Property • Contract for Geed Owner ❑ Lasses, Operator, Manager Q Agreement to Purthasa Q Other (expo) Contractor Phane 931-9300 Dacirnent. y evidence at eppdea irs inmost in 4,e property may be required baler. find Cxy action of this request • PROPS:STY INVOLVED: Address/General Location_ 3025 County Road H, Mounds View Legal Description or Property identitiration Number Lot 75. �nollT,gpnri Ramsey County, Minntgot Legal Owner. Name/Address W ' $ 5' of k' t 7.6" D'7,--5.0 7'5-36 -UO3J Present Use (check appropriate box): Q _ Undeveloped/Vacant • Siingia Family Dwelling • Dupiex/Two Family °welling Q Mui11 Femay (No. at Units • Husiness/Ccmmerrsat Establishment ❑ industrial Establishment ❑ Other (captain) Property f 00 X. avZS aa500 5•; 5i7 Icr1-z5 a Abstract Q T REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit[,Gw� L a--\-z, �l� L'4-t -) (') C C D,. 141 , �, A/\ G }y r.k`) /IA -A- C rtri-C UN "Please notes Applicant may be responsible for additional fees associated with 1 HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE AIMVE STAT'�+L RENT ARE TR *Oar Subdideion Coanpt Plan Amendment Wetland Altermtion Permit Wetland Sutter Permit R '9 s n Pua Puo A rte dm.rt 5201. maaiesun S't.000 sil others Sa"O3 aurora minimum 100. n1asarnan 3500 $150 1260 plus 5250 emcee S30 plus deposit dstrm,ined by Seem 310 150 1350 sass Pent fad Dedication Foe Oats Paid Peceint Number Tod Fes Paid Otte Paid Receipt Number Addiliarnr fee Paid Oen Paid Reasipt Numase Oen at octal action AFPRCVEn ❑ oQdl©❑ Taeu a Planning C. No. 9 & Admin. Account No. STAHL • • • CONSTRUCTION STAHL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 5900 Rowland Road" Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 (612) 931-9300 FAX (612) 931-9941 July 17, 1996 City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Re: New Apostolic Church (Project 7870) Dear Sir or Madam: Property Address: 3025 County Road H Under Chapter 1125.02, Subd. D, we are seeking a variance change from thirty-five feet (35') back from the street to twenty-five feet (25') to thirty feet (30') based on the following: 1. This change would allow better fire access around the building by adding additional width to the drive lane. 2. This request is a minimum variance and would alleviate the hardship. 3. The variance would grant more green space along the north property line. 4. The variance would not change anything from what is already a present condition relative to the existing facility on site If there are questions, please call. Sincerely, STAHL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY William A. Diem Project Manager mh Phone: (612) 784-3055 Fax: (612) 784-3462 July 17, 1996 William A. Diem Stahl Construction Company 5900 Rowland Road Minnetonka, MN 55343 RE: Mounds View Planning Case No. 452-96, Proposal for New Apostolic Church at 3025 County Road H Dear Mr. Diem: I am sending you this letter to follow up on our telephone conversation today regarding the plans you submitted for 3025 County Road H (Stahl Construction Project no.7870). As we discussed, the City of Mounds View will require the following changes in order for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on your variance, conditional use permit, and development review request: 1. The plans submitted show 32 parking stalls provided, with two designated as disabled accessible. The Planning Commission and City files will require a floor plan of the Church to verify seating to compute parking requirements. 2. A floor plan is also required by the Fire Department in order to review for proper exits and appropriate sprinkling requirements. 3. The driveway accesses submitted on the site plan are not in conformance with the Municipal Code. Section 1121.09, Subd. 5b, prohibits a curb cut from exceeding twenty two feet in width. The plans submitted exceed twenty two feet. 4. The driveway accesses submitted on the site plan are not in conformance with the Municipal Code. Section 1121.09, Subd. 5a, prohibits any curb cut accesses from being located less than fifty feet from the intersection of two or more street rights of way. The plans show a curb cut 40' from the right of way. As we also discussed, the City Engineer and the City Forester will be reviewing these plans regarding drainage and landscaping requirements, respectively. I anticipate feedback for you on the plan, at the July 24, 1996 Planning Commission Agenda Meeting. Although I am confident that you will be able to remedy any noted concerns quickly, please be advised that without complete information the Planning Commission cannot make a recommendation to the City Council. Failure to submit required information and plans may delay processing of your planning application. As we also discussed, I will inform the Planning Commission that you will be providing a presentation of your application at the July 24, 1996 Planning Commission Agenda Meeting. It will be helpful if you will provide reductions of the revised plans for Planning Commission and City Council information packets. If you have any questions regarding your application, please do not hesitate to contact me at 784-3055. Sincerely, CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW Joyce Pruitt Acting Community Development Director 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 Equal Opprotunity Employer Per • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: July 24, 1996 Staff Report by: Joyce Pruitt, Acting Community Development Director Planning Case File No.: 453-96 Request: The applicant is requesting a PUD amendment and development review to expand the parking lot at 5251 Program Avenue. Petitioner: Everest Property Management Location: 5251 Program Avenue PIN No. 08-30-23-41-0008 Lot 1, Block 2, Mounds View Business Park Zoning Land Use: The property is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development Applicable Regulations: Chapter 1120 entitled Planned Unit Developments Attachments: Background: Section 1120.01, Subd. 2, specifies requirements for commercial or industrial planned unit developments. Section 1120.04 specifies the procedure for application of PUD, submittal of a general concept plan and a final plan. Location Map Zoning Map Site Plan Application Development Agreement 87-81 Resolution No. 2311, Amending Development Agreement 87-81 The property is located at 5251 Program Avenue, Building G, within Mounds View Business Park. The applicant, Everest Development LTD., is requesting to have a net increase of 35 parking area stalls on the east side of the property. The applicant wishes to increase the number of stalls in order to meet the demands of a tenant which may • PLANNING CASE NO. 453-96 JULY 24, 1996 PAGE TWO OF THREE locate to the business park. The total parking stalls provided on the site will total 500 parking stalls. As the plans indicate, the parking spaces located on the east side of the property will abut the property line. Section 1120.03, Subd. 2, pertaining to commercial or Industrial Unit Development, does not regulate the required setbacks for nonstructures. Section 1120.03, Subd. 2a, states the purpose of the subdivision is to establish special requirements for the granting of a conditional use permit to allow commercial or industrial PUD projects which meet the permitted and conditional uses allowed in one or more buildings in relation to an overall design and an integrated physical plan. Section 1121.09, Subd. 11, states "Curbing and Landscaping: Except for single-family, two-family and townhouses, all open off-street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot; said curb barrier shall not be closer than five feet to any slot line. Grass, plantings or surfacing materials shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area. Staff is interpreting that because the PUD section does not provide for parking lot setbacks, that Section 1121.09 would not apply in this case. Therefore, the applicant would not to obtain a variance to encroach five feet. Staff is wishing to verify the Planningwith this interpretation. Staff is researching with Attorney Long whether a conditional use permit and public hearing will be required for the amendment. Staff anticipates bringing an opinion from the Attorney to the Agenda Meeting. The applicant is also requesting that the plans submitted be accepted as the general concept plan and the final plan to expedite the process of amending the PUD. The plans have been submitted to the City Engineering Consultant, SEH, for review and comments. Staff is also •PLANNING CASE NO. 453-96 JULY 24, 1996 PAGE THREE OF THREE Recommendation/ Analysis: requesting City Forester, Rick Wriskey, provide any comments on additional landscaping requirements. All comments will be provided to you at the Agenda Meeting. The applicant has been advised that the amendment will require Rice Creek Watershed District approval. A contingency may be added to the development review requiring this approval. The applicant will be present at the Agenda Meeting for any questions you may have. • 5299 52 8 0 528 527 526 JGEWOOD IR. HIGH SCHOOL 0 — RD • NI 12255 111 "i! 0 0 ,41 N N KIN(WAY I ANIT TOWNS EDGE TERRACE MOBILE HOME PARK 4815\ 4809 4801 5275 53051 5307 53001 5299 52941 5293 5255 5287 308 5294 52 30 52 5295 530 W000ALE DR 22 20 815 00 I -7 AA (7I Z _ . USTANG DRIVE (74' Ric O! EXHIBIT B County Road anuany ms.z80.td Itll 111 III 11111 1 III 1 1111 11 II III Ill 1 11 111111 1111 1111 111111111 Woodale'Drive GI1IIIII1111111111111111111(I1111UIIIIII111111111111111111111 [1Ill1IIllIIIIIIIIlllIII111111111r 111111IIil1IIII_Illilllllll laai g Aou-rnt Z re >ID ®0� 001.10.5 01001 'wIwo maw .ue ...r..m+ v*el NVId 31IS 1noArt oNDIdYd 70401110OY NddVd SS3NISf18 M3IA SONl0W i ✓ COUNTY ROAD H2 3f1N3AV WVdeOdd i, / //' Z ////% \ \\ - 7////,/////////,//,/,(-7////////////////, - _IV_❑� II O a w W 0 0 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED - 500 STALLS • 10) _ -i - �Illi!Iilllilililililii!i I:Lil!;iiiiiilllil!lilllll{Iw_r' - 11111111111II1111111111111111I!'31 1111I111111111i111111111111[� 133d1S A3NIf10 War dh. 14 i AO 1,914W PLANNING APPLICATION APPUCANT: Everest Property Management ADDRESS: 2665 Long Lake Road, Roseville, MN Street Address, City, State, and Zp Code Interest in Property (check appropriate box): O Owner of Property Ej Contract for Deed Owner Q Lessee, Operator, Manager O Agreement to Purchase O Other (explain) 55113 Phone (612) 636-2812 Documentary Guider= of appicant a Interest In the property may be requirad batons linal City action at !hie request. PROPERTY INVOLVED: Address/General Location 5251 Program Avenue, Mounds View, Minnesota Legal Description or Property Identification Number Lot 1, Block 2_, Mounds View Business Park according to the recorded plat thereof. LegalOwner Name/Address CALPERS, c/o Everest Group Ltd. 2665 Long Lake Road, Roseville, MN 55113 (Property ID# 08 30 23 41 0008 5) Present Use (check appropriate box): o Undeveloped/Vacant O Single Family Dwelling o Duplex/Two Family Dwelling O Mufti -Family (No. of Units O 5usiness/C,ommercial Establishment al Industrial Establishment 1:1 Other (explain) Property Classification: Abstract Torrens REQUEST: Parking Lot Expansion Please not= Applicant may be respnncii-de_for-adelltionaHlees-assoe siated—o-th-tK4i e renew ot this request I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE TRUE Signature IrerdrelirgivrarelreirePonirerenterreieirrinivirerirerilheltreve-greeirs.**Irersorw-r.nevirsi-orsmreirvire, Reabrisg Variance Conditions! Use Permit Code Appeal Devoid's-arts Plan Review lifeior Subdivision Major Subdivision Comp. Plan Amendment Wedenci Altendion Permit Wetland Sutter Permit Planning Skin 3200/acrie. minimum S200. maximum $1400 R-1 to R-2 - S75. all others SIZM R-1 to R-2 - S75. al others 5230 S75 SIOD/iscre. minimum 100. maximum S500 St 50 S250 pass S250 deposit S203 S50 Pikre deposit determined by Strat $10 SSG V350. PLIO Amendment S1W- Park Fund Dedication Fse Orde Paid Recect NiLenber Total Fees Paid 0820 Paid Receipt Number Additional Fes Paid Oats Peed Receipt Number Dose ot final eiclort 4.51).(• APPROVED 0 DENIED a TABLED 0 Dios Planning Case No. Acartin. Account No. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA MOUNDS VIEW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 87-81 Mounds View Eusiness Park THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 5y day of , 19 , by and between the CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, party of the first part, hereinafter called the "City", and Everest Development, Ltd., and Commercial Property Invest- ments, Inc. (CPI) Gemmereiel-Property-Investment party of the second part, hereinafter called the "Developer", W ITNESSET H: WHEREAS, the Developer, in consideration of approval of the Development Plans for Mounds View Business Park and the issuance of permits thereof, hereby agrees with the City to perform all of the of the conditions set 1. acts required herein and to conform forth as follows: Wherever the word "City" appears herein, include the City of Mound s View and also said to all it shall City's agents and employees; and wherever the word "Developer" appears herein, it shall mean the developer, and any of its agents and employees. Wherever the words "development site" appears herein, it shall mean Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 the premises described in the following exhibits: Site Development Plan dated June, 1987 Preliminary and Final Plat dated June, Contract for Private Redevelopment Elevations, Office/Service Building 1, Industrial Building 2, and Preliminary Plans dated June 10, 1987 Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Storm Sewer Construction Plans dated 1987 Light Landscape and Street • Wherever the words "public improvement" appear herein, it shall mean any improvement defined under Chapter 26.04, Sub. 1, of the Municipal Code, and shall include and not be limited to streets, curbs, and gutters, sanitary sewer and water installations, storm water and drainage installations. 2. This document shall be referred to as the "Develop- ment Contract" and said document cannot be transferred or assigned except pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Contract for Private Redevelopment, Exhibit 3. 3. All improvements required herein to be performed by the Developer shall be constructed and paid for by said Developer pursuant to appropriate permits and approval from any governmental agency, such approval and any environmental assessments or environmental impact statements required to be obtained by and prepared at the expense of said Developer. 4. All public improvements, if any, required to be constructed by the Developer pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by the Developer with such materials and equipment as required by the City under the direct supervision of the City and shall be in conformance with any and all regulations in force at the time of construction, and the City is hereby granted the right of access to the development site to inspect said construction at such times as the City may direct. 5. The Developer shall, and hereby does, agree to pay when due and before they become delinquent, all valid taxes and assessments, if any, there ever be levied against said development site or portion thereof, in accordance with the provision of the Contract for Private Redevelopment entered into between the City and the Developer. -2- 6. The City shall not be under any obligation or responsibility to act in any matter related improvements required as to on inspector and report to hazard or inadequacy or development; any actual engineer -consultant to the Developer this Agreement or to any public said site by the City, or to act as said Developer any defect or failure, otherwise relative to said site or implied approval by the City in respect to any development shall not serve either to alter or extinguish or to otherwise affect the responsibility, obliga- tion or liability of the Developer in this. 7. The Developer shall not unnecessarily damage or obstruct or cause any interference with drainage ways or drainage works located within or adjacent to said development site, or permit its contractor or other agents to do so. 8. The Developer shall not alter any of the public improve- ments located on said site except if and as elsewhere herein provided or as particularly in each instance authorized in writing by the City. 9. Surface drainage to be constructed and approved, beofre and after construction, by the City Inspection Depart- • • ment. 10. All drainage easements required by the PUD approved by the City shall be granted by the Developer, without cost to the City, as required. 11. The Developer agrees to conform to all of the applicable requirements of the Mounds View Municipal Code, as amended from time to time, and particularly Chapters 26, 39, 40, 42, 48, 49, 49A, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63. -3- • 12. Developer herein agrees pursuant to provisions of the Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapter 49.07, Subd. 6, to pay, prior to the approval of the permits required, the reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by the City in the processing, review and evaluation of the proposed development and in the inspection of all work performed pursuant to said contract. Such costs shall include administrative, legal, and engineering expenses incurred and allocatable to the project. 13. Developer agrees that the City can terminate develop- ment of the development site or the construction of any building structures thereon if the terms of this Development Contract have not been conformed to by the developer. In addition, in the event the Developer fails to conform to the conditions of this Agreement, the City shall be entitled to enforce it pursuant to the terms of this contract and/or the provisions of the Mounds View Home Rule Charter, Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code or applicable Minnesota Statutes. 14. It is understood and hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto that any plans or data supplied by the City within or adjacent to said development site are approximations only and that the City explicitly does not pretent or guarantee or warrant any such plans or data to be either complete or correct. 15. The Developer shall not unnecessarily create, cause or suffer to exist or to continue to exist, any nuisance or hazard to persons or property within or adjacent to said site by reason of said public improvements, development of the site or other operations in respect thereof or permit its agents, engineers or contractors to do so. -4- 16. When applicable, three complete sets of plans and specifications or directions for any public improvement to be constructed on said site, each bearing the certificate and seal of a professional engineer duly registered in the State of Mihnesota, shall be submitted to the City well in advance of the• time proposed for commencing construction thereof. The City shall have a period of not less than 30 days in which to examine and review the plans and specifications submitted by the Developer and to reply to the Developer with respect to the adequacy or inadequacy of the plans and specifications. Upon final approval of the plan and specifications within a reasonable time following completion of the installation, the Developer shall furnish and deliver three sets of "as built" plans thereof to the City. If any public improvements are to be constructed on said site by the City, the necessary easements and right of ways shall be grated to the City at the expense of the Developer including the costs of the preparation of the right of way documents and filing. The Developer further agrees to grant to the City such easements over, under and across the development site, at no cost to the City, as are reasonably necessary for the maintenance of any public improvement constructed on the development site. The Developer shall establish permanent reference marks, reasonably satisfactory to shown locations of the public improvements constructed on the development site. 17. In the case of a multiple dwelling, commercial or industrial development or any use combining any of the afore- said uses, the Developer agrees on behalf of itself, its heirs, successors or assigns to permanently maintain the site described -5- • herein pursuant to the terms of this development contract, and said Developer shall not permit the premises to deteriorate or become blighted or to constitute a public nuisance. Enforcement of this provision shall be pursuant to the terms of this contract or the provisions of the applicable Minnesota Statutes, the Mounds View Home Rule Charter, and the Municipal Code. In the event of nonconformance by the Developer, the City shall seek mandatory relief, after written notice of the alleged violations, pursuant to the terms of this contract to enforce this provision and may proceed to abate public nuisances and to assess the cost of said abatement, including all costs, disbursements, legal fees against the development site, as provided for in the Home Rule Charter, Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code, and such other appli- cable ordinances and Minnesota Statutes. The Developer's obliga- tions under this paragraph shall immediately terminate, with respect to the Developer, upon the Developer's transfer or conveyance of its entire interest in the development site provided the successor or assignee assumes said obligations. 18. The development site shall be developed as indicated on the attached site plan, referred to as Exhibit 1. The site plan and the development to be constructed thereon may be amended from time to time by the mutual written consent of the parties hereto, in conformance with the Municipal Code of the City. 19. In addition to all of the provisions recited herein - before, the Developer agrees to the following conditions as more fully set out in Exhibit 2A attached hereto and made a part hereof. 6 20. The provisions of this contract are severable, and in the event that any provision of this agreement is found invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. This agreement is made and executed pursuant to and under authority of Resolution No. adopted by the City the /%/4 day of %4�«tkr , 19t7, and by resolution or authorized signature of the Developer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these presents the day and year first above written. DEVELOPER: EVERESTIDEVELOPMEN By C. William Frke Its President COMMERCIAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC. By LTD. Jeffrey L. Nielsen Its President Approved as to form and execution this 2 C day of 141: City Attorney • -7- EVEREST DEVELOPMENT, LTD. AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 87-81 EXHIBIT 2A In addition to the foregoing conditions, the developer agrees to the following: 1. Pay a park dedication fee of $175,000 to be paid as follows: $50,000 by December 31, 1987 and, $12,500 per year for the years 1988 through 1997 by December 31st of each year. 2. Obtain City approval of the final plat and provide evidence of recording of said plat at Ramsey County prior to submitting building applications. 3. The Developer shall remove all billboards from the P.U.D. by December 1, 1987, or as soon thereafter as Developer may legally do so. 4. The Developer shall secure approval from Rice Creek Watershed District prior to awarding construction contracts. 5. All utilities shall be installed underground. 6. All public utilities shall be installed by December 31, 1988. This includes the following: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) Water Sewer Gas Streets Berm along south side of County H-2 including landscaping and sod Signalize intersection at T.H. 10 Street lights: The Developer shall furnish and install power to said street lights when Northern States Power Company provides power to the area Traffic control signs including stop intersection name signs Telephone (1) signs, street 7. The Devloper shall have recorded at Ramsey County on the deeds of the lots adjacent to the storm water holding pond that maintenance of said pond shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Evidence of recording shall be submitted to the City. If said pond -2- is filled with debris and the property owner has not removed said debris, the City Council may maintain said pond and assess the maintenance cost to the property after giving 30 calendar days written notice to the property owner. 8. No building permits shall be issued until the plat is approved and recorded by Ramsey County. 9. The Developer shall furnish a $1,000 security for 7 years to guarantee the ponding and control structures to be included in the Letter of Credit provided for in Section 4.5 of the Contract for Private Redevelopment. 10. The developer shall install lot corners prior to approval of the building permit. 11. Developer shall install metal fences posts (minimum 7 - 1/2 feet long) at lot corners prior to utility construction. 12. The Developer shall select street names and addresses for the lots and secure approval from the City and U.S. Post Office prior to approval of the final plat. 13. Final occupancy permits for each phase of the project shall not be issued until water, sanitary sewer, storm storm sewer, concrete curb and gutter and bituminous base to service such phase have been installed the area of the project where the building is located. 14. Building signs and other signs shall meet City Code requirements and be uniform throughout the P.U.D. 15. City Code Chapter 40.24, Subd. B(4), requirements shall be satisfied. • 16. All requirements of City Code Chapter 40.24 Subd. B (8) through B (13), shall be satisfied. 17. The Development Phase Plans of the P.U.D. shall meet the approval of the Mounds View Fire Chief. 18. If the Developer acquires the single family house west of McDonald's Restaurant, the property shall be included in the planned unit development. 19. The Developer shall install plantings on the south side of County Road H-2 in the area of the parking lot exits to County Road H-2 in accordance with approved P.U.D.'s landscaping plan. • • -3- 20. The Developer shall carry storm water away from a portion of County Road H-2 along that portion of frontage owned by the Developer as approved by the City Engineer. 21. No construction shall be permitted until a final Indirect Source Permit (ISP) is issued by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The Developer agrees to comply with all of the requirements of the permit. The Developer further agrees to submit to the Director of the Division of Air Quality, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the annual report required by Part III, 8 of the Permit on behalf of the City with a copy being submitted to the City. 22. The Developer shall pay a Storm Water Management fee of 20% of the base fee as established by ordinance of the City. FOR THE CITY: • Date: FOR THE DEVELOPER: COMMERCIAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, EV EST DEVELOPMENT, LTD. INC. By By Jeffrey L. Nielsen, President C. Wil'liam Franke, President ATTACHMENT #1 EVEREST DEVELOPMENT, LTD. PETITION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS , 1987 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA To the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Minnesota; We, the undersigned owner(s) of percent of the benefitted property described below, hereby petition that said real property be improved by street, curb and gutter, storm sewer, street light(s), water and sanitary sewer and other public utilities pursuant to Mounds View Municipal Code, Chapter 26, and approved plans. We, the undersigned owner(s), also agree that should we deem it inappropriate to proceed with the public improvements once the feasibility study or the plans and specifications have started, that financial responsibility for funds expended will be accepted and paid by us. Description of property: Signature of Owner: Everest Development, Ltd. By: C. William Franke, President It is understood by the above signed owner(s) of 100 percent of the benefitted property being petitioned for improvements that said improvements will be assessed by a special assessment to the above benefitting property owner(s). Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the owner(s) of the -property affectd by making of the improvement. Donald F. Pauley Clerk -Administrator RESOLUTION NO. 2311 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW. 4.OUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 87-81 WITH MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK - • - • -- . --.. • • • WHEREAS, Everest Development, Ltd. has submitted an amendment to Development Agreement No. 87-87 with,Mounds View Business Park, Building E, for site plan changes; 'and WHEREAS,the footprint for Building E will change with the total gross:,tloOr-aiea.--inCreasing to:aPproximately 624.000 square: feet; and WHEREASthe'parking spaces will7'increise 10-I83stalls--- -- with expansion parkingavailable for 261,stalls;.And WHEREAS, Staff, the Planning Commission, andthe-City Council, have undertaken review of the proposal; and. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the changes -will not adversely affect the project nor the adjacent:- „— residential areas; • NOW,:THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View approves the r.wised site plan for Building E, Mounds View Business Park, contingent- upou the;.: following: That the buildiqg On the lot'di.cectivto the north he set back from the 'ot line at least forty (40) feet to aiiow for fifty (50) feet between the buildings. - Adopted this lith day of April, 1938. , . ATTEST: (SEAL) C e dminist • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Joyce Pruitt Subject: Proposed Ordinance No. 588 Date: July 19, 1996 Section 1006.06, Subd. 4, reads: "Subd. 4 Development Contract: a. A development contract which sets forth all of the terms, conditions, requirements, agreements, guarantees, and plan for the orderly development of said land shall be entered into between the developer and the Municipality prior to the final approval of any subdivision, rezoning, special use permits, license or any building permits required for the construction, alteration, expansion or improvement of said land." This requirement is not feasible to carry out for all building permits, and often does not make sense for conditional use permits for oversized garages, oversized accessory buildings, and the like. Attorney Long has drafted an ordinance which provides an exception to the above requirement. This exception reads: 4‘ except that the City Council may waive the requirement for a development contract in such cases where the City Council finds that a development contract is not required to ensure compliance with this section." If you have any questions regarding this ordinance change, please do not hesitate to contact me at 784-3055. • ORDINANCE NO. 450b CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS AMENDING CHAPTER 1006.06 SUBDIVISION 4 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1006 . 06 , subdivision 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is amended to read: Subd. 1. Development Contract. a. A development contract which sets forth all of the terms, conditions, requirements, agreements, g-uarantees and plans for the orderly development of said land shall be entered into between the developer and the Municipality prior to the final approval of any subdivision, rezoring, special use permits, license or any building permits required for the construction alteration, expansion or improvement of said land, except that the City Council may waive the requirement for a development contract in such cases where the Ci5- Council finds 'that a development contract is not required to ensure compliance witEthis section. • • b. Before execution of the development contract, the owner or developer shall submit certification from Ramsey County Department of Taxation that all taxes and special assessment due on the property involved have been paid in full. c. Said development contract shall include provisions for supervision Of details of construction by the City and grant to the City authority to inspect all work performed pursuant to said contract RCE.106326 20125.47 6/8 30V d %77.' q.T • • and require the owner or developer to post a surety bond or letter of credit to assure satisfactory performance and completion of the work. (Ord. 508, 4-27-92) . SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance is effective 30 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on , 1996. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1996. ATTEST: (SEAL) APPROVED TO AS FORM: City Attorney Mayor L nke Chuck Whiting City Clerk -Administrator B106826 MU125-47 2 6/6 39Vd 0 i CELECZ 19' Q I N3/W2MO 'S .Z.Q3NN3}i' WO2td 0 T ' Z i es-ZO--inr • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO • To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Joyce Pruitt Subject: Telecommunication Ordinance Date: July 18,1996 I tried to schedule a speaker for the Planning Commission Agenda meeting to present information on telecommunications infrastructures. However, the speaker I was hoping to obtain, Coralie Wilson, the Executive Director ofNorth Suburban Access Corporation, is out of town this week. I will try to arrange a speaker for the Planning Commission at a future meeting. However, I was able to gather some information that may be of assistance to the Planning Commission when drafting a telecommunications Ordinance. I have ordered an audio cassette from the 1996 National Planning Conference on the Challenges of Wireless Communication for Plarming Commission review and information. In addition, I ordered a telecommunications pamphlet from the Planning Advisory Service for Planning Commission review. Many of these materials are received before the Agenda meeting, I will make the materials available to you. You may wish to review these ordinances in anticipation of a future speaker on telecommunications infrastructures: 1. City of Burnsville Ordinance on Private and Commercial Antennas 2. Wireless Update, April 1996 Issue 3. Palm Beach County Ordinance • Philadelphi-a-Ordr inance 5. City of Boulder Ordinance If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 784-3055. NUV 1 '95 16:30 Post-ir Fax Note 7671 CITY tau 11 OF BURN5VjJ F / is Pages Jo a. 1Te 1-4,,v Pr "',1.* From Girt el _ !none* i 1 - `f (a D. Phan # 'cis- 4 s i { r e Fax# • • SECTION: 10-29-1: 10-29-2: 10-29-3: 10-29-4: 10-29-5: 10-29-6: d CHAPTER 29 lcia 4 '12) PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS P. 1 Purpose Definitions Conditional Uses, Connection to Municipal Antenna Site Location Standards Existing Transmitting and Receiving Facilities 10-29-1: PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Chapter to regulate antennas in the City. 10-29-2: DEFINITIONS: ANTENNA: COMMERCIAL RECEIVING and/ or TRANSMITTING ANTENNA: SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA: MUNICIPAL ANTENNA SITE: PRIVATE RECEIVING AND/OR TRANSMITTING ANTENNA: A device used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based structures. Any antenna erected for the commercial use of the information. A combination of (1) a dish -shaped antenna for receiving communication or other signals from orbiting satellites and other extraterrestrial sources; (2) a lownnise amplifier (LNA) situated at the focal point of the receiving component for magnifying and transferring signals; and (3) a coaxial cable for carrying the signals into the interior of the building. A location in the City on which is located one or more radio or television antennas available for connection and use by any person, firm or corporation in accordance with the provisions of this Title. Any antenna erected for the noncommercial use of the information. NOV 15 '95 16:30 CITY OF BURNSVILLE P.2 • • 10-29-3: CONDITIONAL USES, CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL ANTENNA•SITE: (A) Private receiving or transmitting antennas more than twenty feet (20') in height above a man-made structure or more than fifty feet (50') in height above the ground if constructed on the ground, are a conditional use. (B) Commercial receiving or transmitting antennas regardless of height or size with the exception of satellite dish antennas shall connect to and use the Municipal antenna site if use of such facilities is technically feasible. (C) Commercial receiving or transmitting antennas not located on the Municipal antenna site shall require a conditional use permit. (D) The applicant shall present documentation of the possession of any required license by any Federal, State or local agency. 10-29-4: LOCATION: For the purpose of regulation, all antennas shall be considered accessory structures and be subject to the appropriate requirements of Section 10-7-4(A), (D), and (E), and the setback requirements established for accessory structures in the applicable zoning district. 10-29-5: STANDARDS: All antennas shall be designed and situated to be visually unobtrusive, shall be' screened as appropriate, shall not -be multi -colored, and shall contain no signage, including logos, except as may be required by any State and Federal regulations. 10-29-6: EXISTING TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING FACILITIES: Existing transmitting and receiving facilities at the time of the adoption of this Title may remain in service. 'However, at such time as any material change is made in the _facilities, full compliance with this Title shall be required. No transmitting or receiving antennas may be added to existing nonconforming facilities. • • • ANTENNAS ON WATER TOWERS Spoke with Chad in Burnsville Planning, re: antennae section of City Code. Spoke with Linda Glore, Technical Services Coordinator, on November 20, 1995. A site< application is received. Charge is $325.00 which covers $300.00 consultant charge and $25.00 administrative charge. The application (attached) inquires what kind of space, power, backup power and frequencies are needed and will be used. John R. DuBois, Ph.D. is Communication Engineer Consultant who verifies proposed verses existing frequencies in regards to the application. (Again, the applicant pays for this service). However, some problems occur even if the proposal is reviewed and you may have to handle these issues as they arise. A lease agreement is drawn up, however, each client has different needs. Often larger communication companies, like U.S. West and AT&T may wish to use their own contract so you need a staff person to bargain and draw up lease agreement. $143,000 is anticipated revenue from antennas on top of water towers. However, you must consider that all expenses need to come out of this as well. Some Negatives to consider: High expense for utilities and air conditioning Often need to purchase protective filters to screen noise for clients General maintenance costs If you are going to repaint the water tower, check in to it. Burnsville had to hire a radio and their engineer consultant to measure the electrical lines in places on the tower for antennae clients in order to ensure no damage occurred to existing lines. Burnsville had a pop -can type water tower so it makes antennae use easier. They constructed their towers with.railings around top. Other cities which use antennas on water towers: Champlin Eagan Lakeville F" , Other cities are considering NOV 20 '95 17:07 CITY OF BURNSVILLE P.1 CITY OF BURNSVTT T;R RADIO ANTENNA aft MONTHLY RENTAL RATES • HEATHER HILLS WATER TOWER: 1994 ADOYIEi ) 1995 Single User 168.11 $173.15 Community Repeater 23951 $246.70 Multi —Use Antenna Radio Common Carrier (RCC) 279.40 $281.78 800 MHz Thinking System & E—SMR: Each Transmitter 5233 $53.90 Each Receiver 5233 $53.90 Each Antenna 5233 $53.90 endard 2'x2' Floor Space 5233 $53.90 Microwave Dish: 348.90 $359.37 COLONIAL BILLS WATER TOWER: Single User 150.03 $154.53 CONSULTANT REVIEW FEE - Single User, Cellular, or Thinking: $300.00 per frequency pair $325.00 per frequency pair E—SMR: 3% Increase in 1995 based on CPL $1,000.00 per channel $1,025.00 per channel Pasta' Fax Nate ' 7671 Date 11 /1 0 f q5 pe so' 3 Ta SO y Ce_ • From .i Mo A G too r .pF Moods uzL5°' Zncr�R3i il.e 1e $ Phone Fax it -iQ 1 3 ~Fax NOV 20 '95 17:07 CITY OF BURNSVILLE P.3 • .1 • JOHN R. DuBO1S, Ph.D. REG15TERED PROFESSIONAL COmmuNICATioNS ENGINEER 24 HOuRi0Ay VOICE MAIL (612> 835.7557 TEL. {715) 967-232 I 29267 ROuNO LAKE ROAD FAx 17151 967-2221 New AueuRN. wf. 54757 JOHN R. DuBO1S, Ph.D. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEER TEL. (612) 835.7657 FAx (61z) 835.3540 732o GALLAGHER ORNE SUITE 1168 MN 5543$ City of BURNSVILLE Linda M. Gloor Tedinical-Servicus Coordiniuor • Parks/Planning/Public Works (612) 895-$537 100 Civic Center Parkway Fax: (612) 895-$404 Burnsville, MN 55337.3817 TOD: (612) 395-4567 NOV 20 '95 17:07 CITY OF BURNSVILLE CITY OF BURNSVILLE Burnsville, Mu nesota P.2 Heather Hi11S (HH) Colonial Hills (CH) ANTENNA SITE APPLICATION FORM CV` provide the following information: 1. Name of Applicant: 2. Address of Applicant: 3. Contact Person for Applicant: 4. Telephone Number for #3: 5. Proposed Radio Band: 6. Proposed Radio Frequency (s): 7 Technical Advisor (if any): Please provide the following technical data: 8. What type of Service (SMR, ESMR, Two -Way Paging, etc.) Proposed Base Station (s): Mfg. Model: 9. Mfg. and Model of Isolator: 10. Mfg. and Model of Duplexer: 11. Mfg. and Model of Filters: Power Output: Antenna Type: 12. Date of Proposed Operation: 13. Describe space and AC power requirements: 14. Signature: Date: 15. After all available information has been included above, mail the application form together with the fw of S325.00 per frequency pair for: single user, RCC, Cellular and/or Trunldng and: $1,025.00 per channel for EMSR to: C]TY OF BURNSVILLE Linda Gloor, Technical Services Coordinator 100 Civic Center Parkway Burnsville, MN 55337 Questions regarding this application can be directed to: Linda at 612-895-4537. A copy of the Technical Minimum Site Standards is attached. OA Newsletter Reporting to Local Government about the Increasing Rate of Wireless Antenna Permit Applications Vol. 1, No. 2 Wireless Update April 1996 High Stakes Competition is Based on Technology Differences Cities and counties will soon be wondering "why is there PCS when we already have cellular?" The differences are technological, and each carrier is betting heavily on its technology to provide more rapid and cheaper communications in the 21st Century. First there was cellular, and cellular was initiated as analog. Those tall cellular towers are sending out analog signals for miles around. By now, cellular carriers may be converting to digital signals, sometimes sent from the same tower but often requiring new "infill" cell sites. Now comes PCS (Personal Communications Services) which is digital, and which also needs cell sites: hundreds of thousands of them across the U.S. PCS, by all accounts, can deliver more types of messages (voice, data, video) nicker and cheaper than cellular. And PCS will use lower of necessarily smaller) antennas because most cell sites will cover much less area. But, there will need to be thousands more PCS cell sites than cellular and there are very few up and running in early 1996. Cellular can provide digital services sooner than PCS in many areas, but PCS carriers claim they will dominate the wireless market in the 21st Century (once they get those antennas permitted). And all carriers are in a hurry. San Diego Clarifies Its Position, Says "Yes" As reported in a arc issue oWireless p ate ol. 1.. No. l.), the City of San Diego had delayed any action on PBMS (Pacific Bell Mobile Services) permits on 12 cell sites; but on March 19, 1996, the City Council clarified its position (5-3 vote) to allow PBMS to go ahead. According to Wireless Week (3/25/96), the main stumbling block to approval was a vigorous lobbying effort by the California Communications Council (CCC). The CCC claims that the PBMS technology interferes with hearing aids, anti -lock braking systems, automatic wheelchairs and auto air -bags. According to Wireless Week, CCC is funded by the Wireless Communications Council (WCC) in Washington O.C. WCC is a group founded by James Valentine, who invests and supports a rival technology to that proposed by PBMS. The two technologies (GSM and CDMA) are discussed in the next column. Second Issue of Wireless Update For those of you who missed Vol. 1, Number 1 of Wireless Update, there are still a few back issues available. If you would like a copy, please call Kreines & Kreines, Inc. at (415) 435-9214. We appreciate the comments we received on the first issue, e.g.: Why send small cities articles about large cities like San Francisco and San Diego? The needs of small cities are different than those of the larger cities. The reason is: the wireless issue is being framed in the larger cities first. Carriers realize that the biggest payoff will occur within the jurisdictions where they have the most cell sites. These same carriers hope that the precedents set in their most successful cities will influence their positions in future applications before small cities. Further, large cities have the staff and resources to deal with this relatively new concern and they can therefore respond more quickly and comprehensively. But does that mean that the large cities' review and approval procedures will set the tone for small cities? Wireless Update would appreciate your opinion, by fax, if possible, at (415) 435-1522. More Acronyms: GSM & CDMA PCS carriers are split (almost 50-50) on the digital technology they rely on. PBMS is using PCS-1900, a variant of the European GSM (Global System for Mobile communications). This is a proven and already operational technology. Sprint Spectrum and its three cable partners (Cox, ComCast and TCI) are betting on CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access). CDMA is California -developed (Qualcomm, Inc. in San Diego) but still has some testing to do. GSM carriers may provide PCS sooner, but CDMA carriers may have the superior technology. What does this mean for cities and counties? Picture your jurisdiction almost 100 years ago, when horse-drawn streetcars competed with cable cars and then along came electric trolleys. Each carrier served different areas better, relied on differing technologies and had varying rail specifications. And so it is with wireless: local governments can either help these competitors co -exist, or they can just let free enterprise determine who goes where and how long they can outlast each other. Published by Kreines & Kreines, Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 Opinion Equal Protection: Treating All Carriers Alike In the March issue of Wireless Update (Vol. 1, No. 1), three sub -sections of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 were reproduced. The authors of Wireless Update believe that Section 704(a)(7)(B) of the Act will generate the most debate within local govemments: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof - shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers offunctionally equivalent services; and shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. At first glance, this appears to be a restatement of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: all citizens are entitled to due process and to equal protection under the law. A closer look at the above sub -section, however, raises the following issues: ■ "Unreasonably discriminate" - would the permitting of several wireless antennas in a particular zoning district in 1996, and the subsequent denial of a new permit in the same district in 1997, be reasonable? • "Functionally equivalent" - is PCS functionally equivalent to cellular? Is GSM functionally equivalent to CDMA? Are panel antennas functionally equivalent to whip antennas? • "Have the effect of prohibiting" - can a discretionary review continue to deny applications until the carrier "gets it right," and, if the carrier loses patience, will that carrier have the right to seek redress in the courts? ■ What about a variance? Must a variance that is granted to one carrier be available to the others? Don't all variances tend to discriminate? These are loaded questions, particularly in a community that limits any type of land use (or accessory use) on the basis of saturation. For example, does your community guard against the proliferation of adult bookstores, tanning salons, chain stores, shopping centers or any other use that some may find objectionable when concentrated in one area? Keep in mind that the best cell sites are in a few selected locations. The first carrier in the best location will tend to subject the next carrier to a less desirable location nearby. This will, in turn, 4.1 force the third carrier in that location to an even less desirable cell site, and so on until the permit process is subject to challenge by the last carrier to apply. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 would be easy to implement at the local level if all the carriers were identified and prepared to deploy their cell sites at the same time. But, as discussed in the article below, it is impossible to even estimate who all the carriers will be and when they will be ready to deploy. Who Will All the Carriers Be? And Where Will They All Want CeII Sites? Wireless Update asked the first question of Michael Wack (202-418-1322) of the FCC. His answer (and he was trying to be as helpful as he could be) was "Your guess is as good as mine." There are two cellular carriers per CGSA [Cellular Geographical Service Area, a multi -county trade area roughly equivalent to a Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA)]. In 1995, FCC auctions for two PCS carriers were held for 51 multi -state areas (MTAs or Major Trade Areas). Two CGSAs plus two MTAs equal four carriers. Now a BTA (Basic Trading Area, several of which nest in • an MTA) auction is being held. That makes five carriers, and three more BTA auctions are planned. The total of eight carriers really becomes nine when Nextel (neither PCS nor cellular, but Enhanced Mobile Services Radio) is considered. Even if nine carriers were the upper limit (and nine is probably a low number), it will be years before all carriers apply for all of their cell sites. It's a first -come, first -served situation: some cities and counties have yet to hear from the first PCS carrier or its consultants. As the prime cell site locations-g he -following -questions will get raised by the Johnny-come-iatelys: • Why does the last carrier to apply get penalized? ■ Can the city or applicant force an existing carrier into a "double up" or co -location arrangement? • What happens when an area becomes saturated with antennas? (And who defines "saturation"?) These are the kinds of issues that suggest a Wireless Antenna Master Plan. Is it possible to plan for all wireless antennas before the several carriers apply, or should cities and counties continue to react to each individual (or batch) cell site application? This is a question that Wireless Update will answer in succeeding issues. What:Does>Kreines:8,.Kreines Ifireines c&. KrerneS; iflC. offers wireless antenna planning; services to cities and counties. In one Bay Area city:this:in° Kreines &:Kreines Inc.. staff will_:be ieading a workshop on how to plan. permit •and>monito these new devices Published by Kreines 8 Kreines, Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 ORDINANCE NO. 60 93 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF JUPITER, FLORIDA, AMENDING ARTICLE I, ENTITLED "IN GENERAL," AND ARTICLE X, ENTITLED "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS," IN CHAPTER 27, "ZONING," IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER CODE OF ORDINANCES; PERTAINING TO DEFINITIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL ZONING REGULATIONS FOR COMMUNICATION TOWERS AND UTILITY SERVICE FACILITIES; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, REPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Jupiter Town Council seeks to preserve and enhance the positive aesthetic aualities of the built and natural environment in the Town of Jupiter; and, WHEREAS, the Jupiter Town Council desires to amend the Town's land development regulations to reflect current trends affecting communications technologies; and, WHEREAS, the Jupiter Town Council seeks to guide and control future development within the Town of Jupiter; and, WHEREAS, the "Land Use Element" in the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan (1990), as amended, contains goals, objectives and policies governing the location and compatibility of land uses within the Town of Jupiter; and, WHEREAS, the, Jupiter Town Council has determined that the 1 provision of communication towers and utility service facilities within the Town of Jupiter serves the public health, safety and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the Jupiter Town Council desires to clarify and enhance the supplemental zoning regulations regarding communication towers and utility service facilities contained in Chapter 27, Zoning, of the Town Code; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Jupiter has considered proposed amendments to the Town Code relating to communication towers and utility service facilities, and has transmitted recommendations to approve this Ordinance to the Jupiter Town Council, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF JUPITER, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The following definitions are hereby added to Section 27-1, Definitions, in Article I of Chanter 27, Zoning, in the Code of the Town of Jupiter, Florida: ANTENNA means an arrangement of wires or metal rods used in transmitting or receiving electromagnetic waves. BREAK POINT means the location on a communication tower of a Hasigned feature which, in the event of a tower failure, would result in the tower falling entirely within the boundaries of the property on which it is located. COMMUNICATION TOWER means a guyed, monopole or self-support tower, constructed as a free-standing structure or in association with a building, other permanent structure or equipment, containing one or more antennas intended for transmitting or receiving television, AM/FM radio, digital, microwave, cellular, telephone, or similar forms of electronic communication. EMF means electromagnetic field. GUYED TOWER means a communication tower that is supported, in whole or in part, by guy wires and ground anchors. 2 • • • MONOPOLE TOWER means a communication tower consisting of a single pole, constructed without guy wires and ground anchors. NIER means nonionizing electromagnetic radiation. SELF-SUPPORT TOWER means a communication tower that is constructed without guy wires and ground anchors. UTILITY SERVICE FACILITIES means elements of utility distribution, collection or transmission networks required by their nature to be relatively dispersed throughout the service area. Typical utility service facilities include, but are not limited to, electrical distribution substations, sewage lift stations, and telephone exchange buildings and structures. 100 PERCENT CLEAR ZONE means the requirement that in the event of a tower failure, the entire height of the tower would fall completely within the boundaries of the property on which it is located. SECTION 2. The following Division 31, entitled "Communication Towers," is hereby added to Article X, Supplemental District Regulations, in Chapter 27, Zoning, of the Town Code: DIVISION 31. COMMUNICATION TOWERS Sec. 27-1670. Intent. to: The regulations and requirements of this division are intended (1) provide for the appropriate location and development of communication towers to serve the residents and businesses of the Town of Jupiter; (2) minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design, siting, and vegetative screening; (3) avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through engineering and careful siting of tower structures; and (4) maximize use of any new or existing communication tower to reduce the number of towers needed. Sec. 27-1671. Where permitted. (a) Freestanding communication towers may be permitted in the 3 following zoning districts: (1) "Commercial, General" (C-2), "Commercial, Office" (C-3), "Industrial Park, Light Industry" (I-1), "Industrial, General" (I-2), "Industrial, High Tech" (I-3), or "Medical Center" (MC) zoning districts as a use by right, provided, however, such towers do not exceed 50 feet in height; (2) "Industrial Park, Light Industry" (I-1), "Industrial, General" (I-2), "Industrial,. High Tech" (I-3), or "Medical Center" (MC) zoning districts as a special exception when such towers exceed 50 feet in height; and, (3) residential and nonresidential planned unit developments (PUDs) as a specific element of anoverall master plan, provided, however, when located within a residential PUD such .towers shall serve only the residents of the development. The Town may establish minimum distances between communication towers and adjacent dwelling units when located within a residential PUD. ' (b) Rooftop mounted communication towers or antennas may be approved as a special exception in any "R-2", "R-3", "C-2", "C-3", "I-1", "I-2", "I-3", and "MC" zoning district or within any residential or nonresidential PUD subject to the following: (1) the height of the tower or antenna including support structures, does not extend more than fifteen feet above the average height of the roof line; (2) the building is a least two stories in height; (3) screening, if appropriate, may be reauired to minimize the visual impact of a proposed tower or antenna upon adjacent properties; (4) the number and —location of ion towP,-s antennas, or other receiving or transmitting devices located on a single structure is not excessive and does not adversely affect adjacent properties; (5) communication towers and antennas constructed pursuant to this section shall be exempt from the minimum distances from residential zoning districts established in Tables 1 - 4; and (6) communication towers and antennas constructed pursuant to this section shall be exempt from the minimum separation distances between towers established in Table 5. • • • • Sec. 27-1672. Regulations. The minimum regulations in this section shall apply in addition to the regulations for the zoning district in which a communication tower is to be located. (1) Land -use compatibility. a. Communication towers shall be located and buffered to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. To help ensure such compatibility, each application for special exception for a proposed communication tower shall include a visual impact analysis of a proposed tower on all properties within a radius of 2,000 feet. The visual impact analysis shall include, as a minimum, the following infoialation: 1. the exact location of the proposed tower located on a Town of Jupiter Official Zoning Map; 2. the maximum height of the proposed tower; 3. the color or colors of the proposed tower; 4. the location, type, and intensity of lighting for the proposed tower; 5 the location of the proposed tower, placed upon an aerial photograph possessing a scale of not more than one inch equals 300 feet (1" = 300'), indicating all adjacent land uses within a radius of 3,000 feet from all property lines of the proposed tower location site; 6. a line of site analysis, prepared in a professionally acceptable manner; and 7. such other additional information as may be required by Town Staff to fully review and evaluate the -potential impact of a proposed tower. b. The_ Line_of site -analysis shall include the following information: 1. an identification of significant existing natural and manmade features adjacent to the proposed tower location, to indicate those features that will provide buffering for adjacent properties and public rights -of -way; 2. an identification of at least three specific points within a 2,000 foot radius of the proposed tower from which the line of site analysis is presented; 3 a statement as to the potential visual and aesthetic impacts of the proposed tower on all 5 adjacent residential zoning districts; 4. a graphic illustration of the visual impact of the proposed tower, at a scale that does not exceed five degrees of horizontal distance, presented from the specific points identified within the line of site analysis; and 5 such other additional information as may be required by Town Staff to fully review and evaluate the potential impact of a proposed tower. The exact location of the specific points to be included within the line of sight analysis shall be determined in coordination with the Town Staff, prior to preparation and completion of the analysis. c. The visual impact analysis shall be prepared and sealed by an engineer or architect registered in the State of Florida. The Town of Jupiter, at the expense of the applicant, may employ consulting assistance to review the findings and conclusions of the visual impact analysis. d. The Town Council, following an advisory recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, may deny any application for a special exception to permit construction of a communication tower if the line of sight analysis indicates any of the following may occur: 1. the tower will be highly visible from one or more public. rights -of -way; 2. the tower may adversely affect a residential neighborhood, indicated when an average of at least fifty percent (502s) of total height of the proposed tower will be visible from the one or more of the specific points utilized for the line of sight -analysis; 3. the tower may adversely affect adjacent nonresidential properties; and 4. the proposed tower will be of a height, bulk and scale that is not compatible with surrounding residential and nonresidential uses. (2) Additional uses permitted onsite. a. Communication towers may be located on sites containing .another principal use in the same buildable area. Communication towers may occupy a leased parcel on a site meeting the minimum lot 6 • • prevent unauthorized access to the site. Barbed wire may be utilized within a residential PUD with the approval of the Town Council. b. Landscaping, consistent with the requirements of this code, shall be installed 'around the entire perimeter of the fence. Additional landscaping may be required around the perimeter of the fence and around any or all anchors or supports if deemed necessary to buffer adjacent properties. The Town Council may require landscaping in excess of the requirements of this code in order to enhance compatibility with adjacent residential and. nonresidential land uses. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of the perimeter fence. (10) Hiah Voltage and "No Tresnassina" warning signs. a. If high voltage is necessary for the operation of the communications tower or any accessory structures, "HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER" warning signs shall be permanently attached to the fence or wall and shall be spaced not more that 40 feet apart. b. "NO TRESPASSING" warning signs shall be permanently attached to the fence or wall and shall be spaced not more than 40 feet apart. c. The letters for the "HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER" and "NO TRESPASSING" warning signs shall be at least six inches in height. The two warning signs may be combined into one sign. The warning signs shall be installed at least five feet above the finished grade of the fence. d. The warning signs -may be attached to freestanding poles if the content of the signs may be obstructed by -landscaping. (11) Eauinment storace. Mobile or immobile equipment not used in direct support of.a tower facility shall not be stored or parked on the site of the communication tower, unless repairs to the tower are being made. (12) Removal of obsolete or unused facilities. All obsolete or unused communication tower facilities shall be removed by.the property owner within 12 months of cessation of use. (13) Sicns and advertising. The use of any portion of a tower for signs or advertising purposes, including company name, banners, streamers, etc., is prohibited. 10 requirements relating to distances between towers as provided in Table 5. d. All buildings and other structures to be located on the same property as a communication tower shall conform with the setbacks established for the underlying zoning district. (6) Aircraft hazard. Communication towers shall not encroach into or through any established, public or private airport approach path, as established by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Each application to construct'a communication tower shall include proof of application for approval from the FAA and shall be submitted with each special exception application for a communication tower. Basedupon the location or height of a proposed tower, the Town may require a statement of no objection from the Palm Beach Department of Airports. A building permit for an approved communication tower shall not be issued until FAA approval is obtained. (7) Approval reauired from other governmental agencies. Each special exception application for a communication tower shall include written approval or a statement of no objection from other federal, state or county agencies that regulate communication tower siting, design, and construction. (8) Radiation standards. All proposed communication towers shall comply with current standards of the Federal Communications Commission for non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) and electromagnetic fields (EMF). Each -special exception application for a communication tower shall include preliminary or certified documentation or statement from a Florida - registered engineer or other professional accepted by the Town, indicating compliance with these standards. The Town may hire a consultant to evaluate the reauired NIER EMF_documentation. The fee charged by the consultant shall be paid by the applicant. In the event only a preliminary statement is submitted with the application, a final, certified statement will be provided and approved by the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit. (9) Fencing and landscaoina. a. An eight -foot fence or wall, as measured from the finished grade of the site, shall be required around the base of a communications tower. The required fence or wall may include a maximum of three strands of barbed wire at the top to further 9 • • • meet the tower needs of the applicant; and b. a written evaluation of the feasibility of sharing a communication tower, if an appropriate communication tower or towers is available. The evaluation shall analyze, but is not limited to, the following factors: 1. structural capacity of the tower or towers; 2. radio frequency interference; 3 geographic service area requirements; 4. mechanical or electrical incompatibilities; 5 inability or ability to locate equipment on the tower or towers; cost, if fees and costs for. sharing would exceed the cost of a new communication tower over a 25-year period; and 7. any restrictions or limitations of the Federal Communications Commission that would preclude the shared use of the tower. A communication tower that is determined to be inappropriate for sharing shall be assumed to be inappropriate for sharing the same types of facilities in the future. Such towers will not need to be evaluated in the future regarding sharing with the same type of facility for which it has been determined to be inappropriate. The Department of Community Development shall retain a list of .such towers, and will provide a copy of the list to all potential applicants for special exception approval for a communication tower. (5) Setbacks and related location reauirements. a. Communication towers shall comply with the minimum setbacks requirements provided in Tables 1 - 4. b. Communication towers shall comply with the minimum requirements relating the height of a proposed communications tower and minimum distances from residential zoning districts, minimum distances from other onsite principal uses, and minimum setbacks for tower supports as provided in Tables 1 -4 c. Communication towers shall comply with the minimum 8 size requirement for the zoning district in which it is located. When joint use of a lot is permitted, the Town shall require the execution of a unity of title if two or more lots are utilized for setback purposes or to prohibit the unlawful division of a lot containing a tower and another principal use. The minimum distance between a communication tower and other principal uses located on the same lot are indicated in Tables 1 - 4. This separation between communication towers and other onsite principal is required to assure compatibility of land uses and to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of individuals and structures occupying the same site. b. The Town Council or Town Staff, as aopropriate, shall prohibit the joint use of a site when a proposed or existing principal use includes the storage, distribution, or sale of volatile, flammable, explosive, or hazardous wastes such as LP .gas, propane, gasoline, natural gas, and corrosive or dangerous chemicals. (3) Additional antennas, communication dishes and similar receiving or transmitting. devices. Any additional antennas, reception or transmission dishes, or other similar receiving or transmitting devices proposed for attachment to an existing communication tower shall require review in the same manner as the existing tower was originally approved. The intent of this reauirement is to ensure the structural integrity, visual aesthetics, and land use compatibility of communication towers upon which additional antennas, communication dishes, etc., are to be installed. The application for approval to install additional antennas, dishes, or other similar receiving devices shall include certification from an engineer, registered in Florida, indicating that the additional device or devices installed will not adversely affect the structural —integrity o the comuiun±cation tower. A visual impact analysis shall be included as part of the application for approval to install one or more additional communication devices to an existing tower. (4) Shared use of communication towers. The Town may require that each special exception application for a communication tower include the following: a. a written statement from the Palm Beach County Communications Division regarding the availability of any existing or approved, but unbuilt, communication towers in the Jupiter area that may 7 • • (14) Colors. The Town may require that towers shall be painted in neutral colors, designed to blend into the surrounding environment. This requirement may be superseded by the requirements of other county, state, or federal regulatory agency possessing jurisdiction over communications towers. (15) Liahtina. Artificial tower lighting shall be limited to mandatory safety lighting required by county, state, or federal regulatory agencies possessing jurisdiction over communications towers. Security lighting around the base of a tower may be provided if such lighting does not adversely affect adjacent property owners. (16) Inspections. The Town Council may require periodic inspections of communication towers to ensure structural integrity. Such inspections may be required as follows: a. monopole towers - at least once every ten years; b. self-support towers - at least once every five years; and b. guyed towers - at least once every three years. Inspections shall be conducted by an engineer licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The results of such inspections shall be provided to the Director of Community Development. Based upon the results of an inspection, the Town Council may require repair or removal of a communication tower. (17) Non-interference. Each application for special exception to allow construction of a communication tower shall include either a preliminary or a certified statement that the construction of the tower, including reception and •transmission fundtions, will.not interfere with the usual and customary transmission or reception of radio, television, etc., service enjoyed by adjacent residential nd_ nonr_esiroperties In the event only a preliminary statement is submitted with the application, a final, certified statement of non-interference will be provided and approved by the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit. The statement shall be prepared by an engineer licensed to practice in the State of Florida or other professional accepted by the Town. (18) Monopoles, communications dishes prohibited. Unless speCifically authorized by the Town Council, communications dishes may not be installed upon monopole communication towers. Measurement of tower height. Tower height shall be measured from the crown of the nearest public right-of- 11 way. (20) Exemption from minimum distance requirements. Communication towers installed and operated for public purposes by a federal, state, or local governmental agency shall be excluded from calculation of minimum distance requirements for communication towers operated for private purposes. (21) Certification recuired. All plans for construction of a communication tower, including foundation plans, shall be certified by an engineer licensed to practice in the State of Florida. (22) Hurricane evacuation routes.. Communication towers shall not be constructed at a height and location that, in the event of tower failure, the tower may totally or partially block or impede any road or street designated as a hurricane evacuation route. (23) Replacement of nonconformina communication towers. Any nonconforming communication tower, antenna or similar transmitting and receiving device that becomes damaged shall be repaired or replaced subject to Section 27, Article XIII of this code. SECTION 3. Division 21, entitled "UTILITY SERVICES, TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION TOWERS," in Article X, Chapter 27, Zoning, of the Town Code is hereby amended. DIVISION 21. UTILITY SERVICES, FACILITIES Sec. 27-1476. Intent. The regulations and requirements of this division are intended to provide for -the -appropriate loc-ation and Hevelopment of utility service facilities to serve the residents and businesses of the Town. Sec. 27-1477. Where permitted. Utility service facilities may be permitted in A-1, R-R, R-1, R-2, R-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, I-1, I-2 and MC zoning districts as a special exception, or in a Planned Unit Development as a special exception. Sec. 27-1478. Regulations. (a) In addition to the regulations as set forth within the 12 • • • zoning district in which a utility service facility is located, the following minimum regulations shall apply: (1) Location. All utility service facilities shall be located within a reasonable proximityof the area to be served by the facility. (2) Setbacks. All utility service structures shall meet or exceed the minimum setback requirements of the zoning district in, which it is located. (3) Fencinc. Where deemed necessary by the Town Council to protect the general public, a safety fence, of not less than six feet in height, with access limited by a locked gate, may be required to enclose a utility 'service facility. The required fence may include a maximum of three strands of barbed wire at the top of the fence to further prevent unauthorized access to the site. (4) Land -use commatibility. All proposed utility service facilities shall be properly located and buffered to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. If deemed necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, the Town Council shall require landscaping with at least 75 percent opaqueness to protect neighboring property from potential loss of use or diminishment of land value. Such landscaping shall be installed on the outside of a required fence. The required landscaping may be waived by the Town Council if it would not be visible from adjacent lots'or public rights -of -way. (5) Hiah-voltaae sians. If high voltage is necessary for the operation of -the facility, signs, located every 20 feet and attached to the fence or wall, shall display, in large bold letters, the following: "HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER." • (6) Eauipment storace. No equipment, mobile or immobile, not used in direct support of the facility shall not be stored or parked on the site of a utility service facility, unless repairs to the facility are being made. (7) Maximum floor area. The maximum size of all structures at a utility service facility, including accessory structures, shall not exceed 1,500 square feet of gross floor area. (8) Parkina reauirement. Any utility service facility which requires a full-time attendant or consumer visitation shall provide parking spaces pursuant to Section 27, Division II of this code. 13 (9) Waste disposal. Any utility service facility which requires a full-time attendant or consumer visitation shall provide appropriate means for disposal of all solid waste generated on site. SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. SECTION 5. Repeal of laws in conflict. This ordinance supersedes all ordinances or parts of ordinances adopted prior hereto which are in conflict herewith, to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 6 . Codification. This ordinance may be codified. The sections of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such,. and the word "ordinance" may be changed to section," "article" or any other appropriate word. SECTION 7. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. • • 14 • • TABLE 1 Location Requirements: Communications Towers Less than 50 Feet in Height Height (Freestanding) MONOPOLE 50 feet or less GUYED SELF-SUPPORT 50 feet or less Height SEE SEC. 27-1671(b) (Roof -mounted) Required Setback from Property Line (a) Minimum Distance from Residential Zoning District(b) Minimum Distance between Towers Greater of 20% tower height or zoning district setback 100 feet 50 feet or less Greater of Greater of 100% break- 20% tower point or height or zoning zoning district district setback .setback 100 feet 100 feet SEE TABLE 5 Minimum Distance None None None from Other Onsite Principal Uses Minimum Setbacks for Tower Supports Anpravaal Line of Sight Analysis to be Provided NOTES: (a) (b) Greater of Greater of 20 feet or 20 feet or zoning zoning district district setback setback T-owl--Staff Town Staff May be May be required required Greater of 20 feet or zoning district setback Town Staff May be .required At least 50 feet from any public right-of-way. Measured on a straight line from the two closest points between the nearest residential zoning district line and the nearest property line of the site upon which a tower is proposed to be located. 15 TABLE 2 Location Recuirements: Communications Towers 50 - 100 Feet in Height Height (Freestanding) Height (Roof mounted) Required Setback from Property Line (a) Minimtim Distance from Residential Zoning District(b) Minimum Distance between Towers Minimum Distance from Other Onsite Principal Uses Minimum Setbacks for Tower Subports Review(c) Line of Sight Analysis to be Provided NOTES: MONOPOLE 50-100 feet GUYED 50-100 feet SEE SEC. 27-1671(b) Greater of 20% of tower height or zoning district setback 500 feet Greater of 100% break- point or zoning district setback 500 feet SEE TABLE 5 Greater of 20% of tower height or 20 feet Greater of 20 feet or zoning district setback Greater of 100% break- point or 20 feet Town Council May be required Greater of 20 feet or zoning district setback Town Council May be required SELF-SUPPORT 50-100 feet . Greater of 20% of tower height or zoning district setback 500 feet Greater of 20% of tower height or 20 feet Greater of 20 feet or zoning district _setback Town Council May be required At least 50 feet from any public right-of-way. Measured on a straight line from the two closest points between the nearest residential zoning district line and the nearest property line of the site upon which a tower is proposed to be located. Town Council approval as special exception. 16 • • • Communi a TABLE 4 Location Reauirements: xis Towers More than 150 Feet in Height MONOPOLE GUYED SELF-SUPPORT Height >150 feet >150 feet >150 feet (Freestanding) Height (Roof mounted) Required Setback from Property Line(a)(b) Minimum Distance from Residential Zoning District(c) Minimum Distance between Towers Minimum Distance from Other Onsite Principal Uses Minimum Setbacks for Tower Supports SEE SEC. 27-1671(b) Greater of 110% break- point or zoning district setback 1,500 feet Greater of Greater of 110% break- 110% break- point or point or zoning zoning district district setback setback 1,500 feet 1,500 feet SEE TABLE 5 Greater of 110% break- point or 25 feet Greater of 20 feet or zoning district setback Greater of Greater of 110% break- 110% break- point or point or 25 feet 25 feet Greater of Greater of 20 feet or 20 feet or zoning zoning district district setback setback Review (d) Town Council Town Council Town Council Line of Sight Yes Yes Yes Analysis to be Provided NOTES: (a) Minimum setback from all property lines of at least 110 percent of tower height required unless "break point" structural calculations are provided. (b) At least 50 feet from any public right-of-way. (c) Measured on a straight line from the two closest points between the nearest residential zoning.district line and the nearest property line of the site upon which a tower is proposed to be located. (d) Town Council approval as special exception. 18 TABLE 3 Location Requirements: Communications Towers 101 - 150 Feet in Height Height (Freestanding) Height (Roof mounted) Required Setback from Property Line (a) Minimum Distance from Residential Zoning District(b) Minimum Distance between Towers Minimum Distance from Other Onsite Principal Uses Minimum Setbacks for Tower Supports MONOPOLE 101-150 feet GUYED 101-150 feet SEE SEC. 27-1671(b) Greater of 20% tower height or zoning district setback Greater Of 100% break- point or zoning district setback f SELF-SUPPORT 101-150 feet Greater of 20% tower - height or zoning district setback 750 feet 1,000 feet 1,000 feet SEE TABLE 5 Greater of 20% of tower height or 25 feet Greater of 20 feet or zoning district setback Greater of 100% break- point or 25 feet Greater of 20 feet or zoning district setback Greater of 20% of tower height or 25 feet Greater of 20 feet or zoning district setback • • Approval(c) Line of Sight Analysis to be Provided NOTES: Town Council Yes Town Council Yes Town Council Yes (a) At least 50 feet from any public right-of-way. (b) Measured on a straight line from the two closest points between the nearest residential zoning district line and the nearest property line of the site upon which a tower is proposed to be located. (c) Town Council approval as special exception. 17 • • • • ATTACEL ENT B Minutes of Administrative Hearing on Personal Communications Services Zoning Ordinance note taker. Susan Lance, City Manager's Office February 13, 1996 3.4.2.96 Present: Richard. Varnes, City Manager's Office, Alan Boles, City Attorney's Office, Gary Kretschmer, Planning, Alan Woydsiak, AT&T Wireless, Corey Ford, US WEST Communications, Jeff Bork, US WEST, Inc., Dave Rutter, The Walter Group, Jeff Pond, US WEST New Vector Group, Ann Closser, Jill Jelinek, Sprint Telecommunications Venture, Gary Pultz, Sprint Telecommunications Venture, Larry Storms, SAS', Terry Anderson, USWest Communications, Tim Hurmbise, USWest New Vector Group, Tom Stedt, SBA of Denver, Inc., Neil Wiser, SBA of Denver, Inc., Fred Fox, AT&T Wireless - Foxfire Community Planning, Ben Adrzejwski, USWest Communications, Andy Loewi, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Strickland (representing US West Communications). The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm. Richard Varnes stated that we are trying to work interdepartmentally to make sure the City is developing a helpful telecommunications policy for the City and citizens of Boulder and that staff is here tonight to hear their concerns regarding our draft ordinance. The draft ordinance will go before the City Council for first reading on February 20th and then to the Planning Board on February 22nd. The second reading before Council is tentatively set for March 5th. What we are trying to accomplish is to increase competition within the City, thereby creating more choices for Boulder consumers, and giving the advantages of quality and price. Fred Fox, a consultant with AT&T Wireless (893-9144) stated he has been involved with AT&T since 1989. They had four providers met to talk about our proposed ordinance as they have used this process before many times. They want to help make services workable for the City and County. They also want to continue their approach. Gary Pultz of Sprint Telecommunications Venture (488-9399) with Jill Jelinek, a planner with Sprint. Gary says we have chosen a good time to update our regulations. They have not had a long time to look at the draft ordinance that we gave them. He says it seems to be short, distinct, and to the point He thinks that there are a few things that need clarification. The regulations are good, but stifle in creativity to be open to options. Richard states that he would like to have their follow-up comments in writing. ATTACHMENT B • Gary Kretschmer states that he will be sending a memo to planning tomorrow and it would help to have as many of their comments as possible tonight, but that we are open to comments in writing. The Planning Board meeting will be next Thursday. Gary would like to get as much information to the Planning Board as soon as possible. He fears that if he tries to give them too much information at the meeting that they may not make a decision and they are on a very tight time schedule. Gary Pultz also asks what level do we need a tutorial on the basics of cellular technology, or are we familiar enough to put it in a non -technical form. Those elements are crucial to them and they want those concerns in the regulations. Richard Varnes says there appears to be a wide variety of structures that accomplish our purpose. Accomplishing these guidelines in words is a tricky path. We may miss important details and we need to abstract more clearly what essential features we need. Ann Closser of US West New Vector Group (499-0710) with Jeffrey Pond, an attorney with US West, would like a follow-up on antennas. She feels that the proposed regulations limit options. She doesn't like the inability to use other structures to screen antennas. When you put antennas behind a fiberglass screen, you can't tell the difference between cellular antennas and what's already on the roof. Richard Vames asks if any of these pictures ( and/or computer simulations) will be available for Planning Board to look at. Ann Closser is proposing three sets of antennas and there are other mechanisms. She would like to have the flexibility to accommodate different structures. They have built structures (Jefferson County) where the antennas are behind screens on towers. Richard asks if there are copies of local ordinances or designing guidelines that the City can look at? • Ann Closser has the Jefferson County regulations available. One example is an antennae that transmits inside of a building. Richard confirmed that the draft ordinance states that all base station equipment should be mounted internally in the building Gary Pultz stated that the requirements for equipment are getting smaller since industry is going digital and now they are using cabinets instead of buildings. Ann Closser also feels that they are limited in height and that no increase in height will be allowed • ATTACHMENT B Gary Kretschmer addresses principal use and appurtenant use saying that there are different standards with pertinence and separate standards established for principal uses. They are in separate use categories altogether. He also states that the City has rigid height restrictions; because of a vote of citizens 55ft is the maximum height in this community and the minimum of pertinencies is above 55 ft. What about non -conforming buildings that were built before the ordinance? The ordinance specifically limits what we can do on those structures. That's why they wrote that anything over 55ft would have to be wall mounted. It is doubtful that we can put structures on pertinence or principle uses on the tops of those buildings. The City doesn't have the amount of flexibility that they'd like. Someone stated that the draft they've seen doesn't have that distinction. Gary Kretschmer states that under design criteria in the draft ordinance there was a distinction made. They made a distinction between 2 buildings that just require antennas on walls of all structures and the previous ordinance did not distinguish. Alan Boles says he would strongly prefer options of being able to put antennas on buildings nncIe;r 55 ft. Ann Closser states that in the definitional section antenna needs clarification because typically a PCS cell facility will have 3 sectors. Richard Varnes wanted PCS Unit defined? Would a "base station" not include an antenna? Ann Closser states that a telecommunications facility should have no more than so many sq. ft. per facility. Richard Varnes states that the City will rework the definition Ann Closser stated that paging companies may be approaching the City for facilities. Alan Boles notes in one of the pictures shown by Ann Closser that they have antennas mounted on lightpoles and another picture where one is mounted on a light pole in a sports stadium. Would they also want Boulder to allow them to mount antennas to poles or other structures such as church steeples, water towers etc...? Ann Closser stated that yes they are proposing the above. Alan Boles asks if there are any other structures they are considering? ATTACpLMENI' B Richard. Varnes asks how important use of structures is to industry? The City Council may have concerns broadening the use beyond buildings. New towers would be very problematic. Jill Jelinek says that new poles are not on the table, only existing structures. (Speaker?) re -states that we would not be putting up new poles, but putting antennas on existing structures. Larry Storms with SASI (277-9090) says he feels; that we are limiting creativity. He has worked on many changes and is trying to create a means of control to disguise facilities. They are also trying to set up a system that provides a competitive system for citizens Larry also says that in #5 the ordinance states that all equipment is required to be operated inside of the building below the roof. He says that this is no longer the need since industry has gone digital and they are now using cabinets. They are able to set them on the roof and shouldn't preclude that option. Is it visually protrusive? Richard Vannes stated that we need to define size, noise, and we also need dimensional information on base stations. Larry says that we could do this with conditions, i.e. either be screened or add to the roof. He is also concerned with #7 in the ordinance where it states that no antenna may be placed on property that has been designated as a City landmark. He gives us one example of a colonial mansion where they took the columns and replaced them with fiberglass RF neutral of the exact size and shape and said they are indistinguishable from the originals. They would not want to have that precluded because he feels it would be a lost opportunity. Corey Ford Vice President of base station development for the US West wireless group wanted to thank the City for their effort made to accommodate the industry. He thinks that the City has done a great job in a short amount of time on a complirgr d issue. They would like to refine the ordinance, and would propose that the City would continue to engage all members of the industry on these issues, and he has provided a draft revision to ordinance. Richard Varnes states that he has not yet received this draft revision and that staff has not had time to look at it. Corey Ford says he would be glad to have it served as a vehicle for discussion. One of his concerns is the issue of building above the height of existing buildings. He said it is a practical necessity and they need to have antennas above the edge of buildings and they can blend in with the color and the style of the building. He agrees that the concept of having a base station facility inside is not necessary. He also says that PCS can be contained in a cabinet about 5x5x10 next to a building on the ground and it's easier to maintain them on the ground with out having to climb on top of a building. Corey also says that standard radio emissions should be based on FCC • ATTACHMENT A March 12, 1996 - SEVENTH DRAFT • . :!-!1••••., • • •:.! • • • • •!•!•:.:•.,:.:•:-.* • •,-; ../* IAA*, • :,Eit Cc 1.%/.•., 1. 1. at,4•11 tar.danS. SC „ akata= *!.sm!:!.1,.;=*::m.F.s•mx:E•!:?•:••••••••,•••••••,,:,::::::=•"•—s" a013..k; -,441.1..EZT•VtCfl fcL. . . - aypurimazi, ar.C.C4ia:114., 4a , .2,112 • Ail; .4Jh.14L ad4 • • • .. . . Air Ar• a A‘a zua -Lk 'W•i• •44 . ")1=444'''••• • YA.1' i4 a . • . • .... • ES-1 Th. eina.sli• :The:.Ze713:iy: be: diedIxra-arv,eastingi- confonningiTenth.easviormechanial • project peou or,•tnc ostire:* • IBCSERSNRSVMVPDOCSCONLMFCSORD96. ATTACHMENT A March 12, 1996 - SEVENTH DRAFT AREA • x•sblaxeM.FAH,)12::,V,57e: aa=cleacCFPreAgss *i*" . ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, • (h) In fin srri al c-i;srr;cts I-E I-D • • • (i) Public and A ricn1nn71 ri(Tri P-E A-E • • • 0100ylitthitatiepi :443:;c4 5-ton 1. A new Section 9-3.4-16, "Antennae for Wheless Telecommunications Services", B.R.C. 1981, is added to read: 9-3.4-16 f:#) Stgtirtr•-• •use oa• • . . . . : decommunicat , (15 . 2.11 T1118.11111S • ' roam Apra= •,••••• ..... •,•••V •• ...... li.q1SIERVPI:OCSCONSINFCSORD96. 2 • • ATTACHMENT A (95 March 12. 1996 - SEVENTH DRAFT or ra,lisragth , . t. • accCX.rimedatth esto resoF e the dispute. ,• ' expense• • :-:.::••:•:•::•••:::::::!:•:::•,--•‘!:••:•"••:. ••• i:.:211tettillf .act.to:.6tchideto :S3113C.:, or caris)n • 1m74igA;:r Atha] tct .; wig4PAgq,K4Agi74,alq,9-r9:FIPF-4 No anteina owner or lessee T1 fiil. • • • • • • •••• at. as • Akt.LU . • • '014141., •::.a.Lk.: : • CUL:4 ' • A•iaLai, •••C • '' '''' ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: • impeerJaoii 6V- • • • (33) inthepazmarLshallzmtnatsmmanitauujLantzaaasm - alaulihn.- containing a residential liN.:SF-RSRSV\IVPIDOCSNCONCA\PCSOFtD96. 5 ATTACHMENT A March 12, 1996 - SEVENTH DRAFT iftrinkiiiiiis 5 feetor less in height. the anterinatttalvte rrionnted:tin'the-ita ,••••:4 Ct &4.1.14 .4.141E :X= CBQ t/ Lt. 0 Lk. 111 slat L.L.e....i./1%.4 ... • ... ........ e manager ffnds tttat ts not technica v possible or 2esthetically desirable to mount t e antenna_on a_vi 1: No the base$tani#:.:00.g#*.the neigt .. . —" • Cii" rrTg..:146:1z4r :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: rer.centitettic Toofareao.fa::buidmvand:ttle:aggregateorarkwantennsf.,i aDvbase •stationsati " aziy o ,sexcee :fair aweggg .... • • entlifutayercen erontareAl okitt Oil)OrtItAti:::. and:attenthrn !*:4 eiltiffithen nia e'ceed 10 feetove, "e eft, e'iuiTdrrirg : . ••••••••• •••••••••'•••••••••••••••••••••••••^:"..r:Y:•:1:::*•.%::•:?•:•::•::::•*•::Y•Yff:•:•:•nrr".7.-:;7•,%•"•••••••••••.... '411 approvedpanne. initdeveIonentorir rew. a'rnincr<moCillitattair to the approval is TTnred„ been pred: • • frir; e ::::::: ItALTSERS‘RSVMPDOCS,CONOrt.FCSORD96. • • ATTACHMENT A March 12, 1996 - SEVENTH DRAFT feat. pe ,cnsha11kjcare an antenna.4. e itmnucanoi se1yicezAvgji. •,••••••• • Section 4. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. Section ¶ The City Council finds that an emergency exists due to the need of wireless telecommunications services to potential customers who are residents and property owners of the City of Botilder in an expedited and uninterrupted manner. Accordingly, the City Council orders that this ordinance be effective immediately upon its passage. Section E. The cortnril deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. • ILALTSERSNRSVNWPIDOCS‘Ct)MM\FCSOFtE96. 6 ATTACHMENT A March 12, 1996 - SEVENTH DRAFT INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING AS AMENDED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY t i i LE ONLY this 20th day of February, 1996. Mayor Attest Director of Finance and Record Ex-Officio City Clerk • READ ON SECOND READING, AIDED. PASSED, ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TTILE ONLY this day of , 19 . • Mayor Attest: Director of Finance and Record Ex-Officio City Clerk a LISERMSv\wPCOCScOMMNPCSORD96. 7 ATTACIIENT A March 12, 1996 - SEVENTH DRAFT *N.B. The amendments recommended by the Planning Board and staff are included in this draft in bold and underlined. ORDINANCE NO. 5784 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9-1-3 AND CHAPTERS 9-3.1 AND 9-3.4, B.R.C. 1981, ESTABLISHING A CONDITIONAL USE CATEGORY FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ANTENNAE IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY EXCEPT RR-E, ER-E, LR-E, LR-D, AND MR-E; AND SE 1-11NG FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTiY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 9-1-3, B.R.C. 1981, is amended by the addition of the following definition: Section 2. Section 9-3.1-1, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read: (t)-Rest ennarDicTr+rry: HR-E RR-E HR-D ER-E MR-E MR-D ER-X LR-E LR-D MR-X EZ-E MU X M -I E (g) Businetc Diirrir*T xaLSERSRs AWPDocscbrurfPcSORD%. TB-E CB-E TB-D CB-D RB-E RB-D RB-X RB-X INTER- V. STAFF RKCOMMENDATTON: Staff believes this ordinance to be an important step in fostering an environment of real 1110, competition among telecommunications service providers in Bonldetr. Staff recommends amending the ordinance passed on first reading as recommended by staff and adopting the revised ordinance by a two-thirds majority as required for passage by emergency. ATTACHMENTS: A. Wireless Telecommunications Services Antennae Zoning Ordinance B. Summary of 2-13-96 Administrative Hearing C. San Diego EMF Study D. Sample wireless antenna photos Approved by: Stephen T. Honey City Manager • • AGENDA ITEM # Page 9 JTI, ANALYSTS_; As indicated in the First Reading material, staff has three primary concerns in accommodating this new service: 1) Health concerns associated with micro -wave transmissions 2) Aesthetic impacts of wireless communications antennae 3) Potential interference between antennae that may limit the competitive market We believe that the ordinance as now proposed addresses these concerns in such a way that an open and competitive marketplace for PCS and other wireless services is maintained. At this time Council can decide to: I) amend the ordinance as recommended by staff and approve by emergency on second reading 2) make additional amendments to the ordinance and approve by emergency on second. reading 3) amend the ordinance and conduct a public hearing and third reading 4) not approve the ordinance In the event that Council does not adopt an ordinance making wireless antennae a conditional use in certain areas, this would obviously stall US West plans to begin wireless PCS service tests in April of this year, with full service roll -out scheduled for early 1997. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING 2-13-96 An administrative hearing was held on 2-13-96 to receive comment from the public and wireless telecommunications vendors on the proposed zoning changes (see Attachment B). In addition to industry comment received that night, staf has received several communications from representatives of possible wireless telecommunications service vendors, including the "industry coalition" communication made directly to Council on 2-20-96 by Brownstein - Hyatt. Staff has had extensive discussions with industry representatives to hear their concerns and evaluate possible -ahem i ed ordinance_refle change_s_re uuested by the wireless industry. B. CITY COUNCIL FIRST READING QUESTIONS 2-20-96 Please see questions and responses above C. PLANNING BOARD HEARING AND ACTION, 2-22-96: Planning Board formally considered the item on 2-22-96 and approved wireless antennae as a conditional use, with amendments to the ordinance as indicated above. AGENDA ITEM # Page 8 B. CHANGES FROM FIRST READING As inciic-arM in the text, the ordinance has been substantially modified from First Reading in response to further staff. research, input from the vendor community, and recommendations made by Planning Board. 1) VENDOR INPUT The principal concerns of the vendor community are contained in the Letter from Brownstein - Hyatt to City Council, the five main points of this letter being addressed under First Reading Questions. The key issues are: a) Industry has requested but staff does not recommend expanding the definition of allowable sites to include "structures." b) Industry requested and staff accepted change from "same color" to "as close as possible" for screening materials. c) Point of clarification. under the existing language, base stations ARE allowed to be located inside buildings or on the ground adjacent to a building. d) Industry requested inclusion of landmarked structures. This change has been incorporated into the ordinance e) Industry requested change in the exaction from a choice of in -land services or fee, to a straight fee payment This change has been incorporated into the ordinance. 2) PLANNING BOARD AMENDMENTS As indicated below, Planning Board approved the proposed ordinance , 6-0, with specific amendments that: a) added this use in the PE zone while disallowing antenna siting on residential structures. b) allow the use of "compatible materials" instead of "matching materials" c) allow inclusion of landmarked buildings, pending issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate d) additionally, Planning Board indicated a desire to see a monetary fee imposed instead of in -kind services. 3) STAFF RECOMMENDED CHANGES In addition to Planning Board changes and changes made by mutual agreement between the City and industry representatives, the attached ordinance includes the following staff changes: a) Incorporation of reference to both the FCC and ANSI EviF standards b) Clarification that the total area which may be taken up on the roof surface of a building over 55 ft in height, by antennae, mechanical enclosures or appurtenances is limited to 25% of the roof area, in order to be consistent with and provide notice to applicants of the requirements of Charter Sec.84. c) "Penthouse" definition revised to clarify that this includes mechanical enclosures d) Clarification that Personal Communications Services (PCS) are only one category of service contemplated under the ordinance. AGENDA ITEM # Page 7 • • 111 • CQfFY330ssTQ2IXf s hLchi r zounted The- • Li• tyihe aTfreivra rnay: iSaz �t (t techalF� tdmci• cau e ghi of ry. %;;.;:%+so:•:Scor.•v., Fy,4:::;x+<:"t2 %i:�yanx <r�stfr�c;. • C4 tlaitC41,:f Chit Cr4144.44.,S h. terrC;;£? :t i J o lxu�:<;ss:e�u #r3:_'��:� gteet fF 'Z`Ffl�:`eIZ?Ft1le:.:421 . `': x,:�_{+sn::+•i:+!}r:;ji:�;F;::}i;:4r .ri:.:i;. 'w,.,yii QUESTION #12 — EXCLUSION OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS? (Mayor Durgin) Questions exclusion of Historic Districts — could this create a competitive disadvantage if key residential or business areas become excluded? RESPONSE: The ordinance has been revised ro permit installations in historic districts after issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate. • AGENDA ITEM # Page 6 QUESTION T8 -- EMF ANALYSIS? (Councilman Havlick) Wants clarification of EMF standards — more specific to PCS. Compare apples to apples on p. 13 chart RESPONSE; The health impacts of these low power systems have yet to be fully established. Ongoing testing of the current cellular systems is still "inconclusive". Communities in California have given this issue the most consideration. Many have adopted a set of standards established by American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for maximum electromagnetic field (EMF) emissions. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is now in the process of developing EMF standards. Upon installation of the system the permittee would have to obtain certification by an independent testing consultant that the EMF emissions do not exceed the FCC or ANSI standards. Additional information on the EMF issue is provided in an EMF analysis done by the San Diego Association of Governments (Attachment C) QUESTION #9 — ROOM FOR MULTIPLE LNSTAI LATIONS? (Councilman Myre) Wants language that would noti y building owners approached by a PCS vendor that they will need to reserve capacity for future competitors as well RESPONSE; Staff does not recommend an ordinance as the appropriate vehicle to notify private property owners. What will be required is a separate effort to advise building owners of the implications of di wireless antenna installations, including the City's intent to foster competition and the ordinance ban on wireless telecommunications services vendors seeking exclusive agreements with building owners. QUESTION #10 --PICTURES OF SAMPLE ANTENNA SITES? (Councilman Myre) Design concerns — wants to see pictures or examples of antennae RESPONSE; See pictures in Attachment D. as -supplied -by consultant Ann Closs flUFSTION #11 — ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS? (Councilman Myre) Questions rooftop equipment height/screening requirements RESPONSE; Stgf attempted to berter define rooftop height and screening requirements in the ordinance: at= i u v iretess> `eleCalrzstitzuceitu erv3ces e antersna �ha rrsactc.*e.Q;:. .c E 2xisizng 3i i' nay:, 3 ��.,tgu�a�azi AGENDA ITEM # Page 5 • • 4) ALLOW ANTENNAE ON LANDMARKED BUILDINGS Revised language allows installation on lanthnarked buildings after issuance of a landmark alteration certificate, as per industry request 5) CHANGE EXACTION TO A FEE INSTEAD OF IN -KIND SERVICES. LIMIT FEE TO THREE YEARS. The ordinance incorporates the change from in -kind services to a fee. Staff believes that an annual fee of $2,000 per base starionlper year is justifiable as an on- going fee. However, staff is undertaking a review of our telecommunications occupation tax structure, and, at such rime as the voters approve a revised occupation tax, this fee would no longer be needed and could be repealed.. QUESTION #6 -- USE OF CITY POLES? (Councilman Havlick) Concerned about liability and restrictions related to use of City utility poles. Wants free standing antennae to be "not permitted" instead of "not recommended" RESPONSE: The current language in the ordinance does not allow attachment to utility poles and does not permit free-standing antennae. QUESTION #7 — TERMS OF THE EXACTION? (Councilman Havlick) Wants better explanation of the exaction — should be some kind of compensation that benefits the average citizen. (Councilman Myre) Would prefer straight fee instead of phones RF.SPONSF. In response to indzZ7y concerns, the value requested has been changed to a fee as opposed to a fee or in -kind option. The proposed ordinance requires all wireless telecommunications services vendors to pay to the City a permit fee of $2,000 per year / per base station, as compensation for costs to the City in revising the zoning code, monitoring compliance, and updating —City telecommuzTicanspolicy — — as may be required by future technological or regulatory developments. Fees collected under this ordinance will be paid into the City Technology Fund for use in developing improved internal communications resources that will, in turn, help the City to provide better City service to the public. The City Manager has directed staff to undertake a comprehensive review of the City' s telecommunications occupation tax structure, and to recommend to Council a possible ballot item that would extend this tax in a nondiscriminatory manner to all telecommunications providers. At such time as a revised occupation tax is passed by the voters, "technology -specific" fees such as the wireless telecommunications services fee will no longer be necessary and can be repealed. AGENDA ITEM # Page 4 QUESTION # 2 -- "BEST EFFORTS" VS. "GOOD FAITH"? (Councilman Pomerance) Wants explanation for why "best efforts" requirement was reduced to "good faith" RFSPONSE; In light of strong industry concerns over the "best efforts" standard, which implies every possible action, staff recommends "good faith" as a standard of reasonableness. However, Council may choose to restore the more restrictive language. QUESTION #*"3. COSTS OF DISPUTE ARBITRATION? (Councilman Pomerance) Wants justification of language related to both parries paying to arbitrate disputes — he believes this will work against future competitors. RESPONSE; The proposed -language is designed to give the City Manager the discretion to assess costs against the responsible party, ij'responsibility can be established, or to both parties if responsibility for costs is not clear. QUESTION #41- — ROOF MOUNT DETAIL? (Councilman Pomerance) Wants more detail on roof mount requirements R F,SPONSF• Please see attached photos supplied by consultant Ann Closser (Attachment D.) UESTION #; - RESPONSE TO BROWNSTEIN-HYATT LE-LTER? (Council members Feinberg & Greenlee) Want point by point analysis of why / why not accept the 5 points in the Brownstein -Hyatt letter distributed to Council on 2-20-96. RESPONSF• 1) ADD "STRUCTURES" Staff does not recommend expanding the allowable sites to include "structures". This would potentially open up use of City right-of-way given the unsettled status of state legislation concerning municipal right-of-way authority. Also, staff believes that an adequate analysis of impacts from "building" usage has been completed, adding "structures" would require significant additional analysis of design and technical concerns. 2) CHANGE "SAME COLOR" TO "AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE" This change has been ,made as per industry request. 3) ADD LANGUAGE TO ALLOW BASE STATIONS OFF THE ROOF Current language does not prohibit installation of base stations inside the building or on the ground adjacent to the building. AGENDA ITEM # Page 3 • • s • TL BACKGROUND: A. CITY COUNCIL QUESTIONS FROM FIRST READING City Council asked the following questions and asked staff to address the following issues on First Reading 2-20-96: QUESTION # 1 — "CONDITIONAL USE"? (Councilman Pomerance) Is "conditional use" the correct approach given the complexity and amount of discretion involved in each site evaluation? (Councilwoman Feinberg) The proposed standards are not standards -- too vague for conditional review -- do as site review? A F SPONSE: Given the proposed revised wording of the ordinance , as described below, staff believes that the level of complexity of the "conditions" or the potential vagueness in the language of several of the proposed standards, is not different in degree from other conditional uses (such as accessory dwelling units). Originally, conditional use was proposed, rather than Site or Use Review, as the process was: a) basically administrative with a limited amount of discretion, b) not quasi-judicial in nature, c)much less time consuming than discretionary review, and d) more responsive to this new technology which is seen as a "service" by many citizens. When Planning Board considered this issue, they specifically voted to not elevate this permitting process to the level of site or use review 1110 as they felt it would add unnecessarily to their work load in an area where they had no particular technical expertise. Staff, however, would have no fundamenral concerns if Council decides that a discretionary review process is more appropriate. However, given the limited nature of this type of use category, many of the use review and site review criteria would not seem to be applicable to these antennae installations. - (Councilman Pomerance) If done as conditional use -- could the use be temporary; automatically sunset after some period of time? RESYQNSE: Staff recommends review of the proposed ordinance after a one or two year period. (Councilwoman Miller) If not done as conditional use — could go to Board of Building Appeals model? RESPONSE Staff recommends site or use review as more appropriate alternatives that direct design and aesthetic issues back to the Planning Board. • AGENDA ITEM # Page 2 3.13.1 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 19,1996 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: March 13, 1996) AGENDA TITLE: Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt and to order published by title only, an Emergency Ordinance establishing a conditional use category for Wireless Telecommunications Services antennae in all zoning districts of the city except RR-E, ER-E, LR-E, LR-D, and MR-E; and setting forth details in relation thereto. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Community Design, Planning and Development Will Fleissig, Director Gary Kretschmer, Zoning Administrator City Manager's Office Richard Varnes, Telecommunications Coordinator City Attorney's Office Joseph N. de Raismes III, City Attorney FISCAL IMPACT: None. • T. PURPOSF: The purpose of this agenda item is to make changes in the City of Boulder zoning code that establish a conditional use category for wireless telecommunications services antennae, in such a manner as to address the safety, aesthetic, and technical concerns required to allow multiple competitors into the Boulder market. AGENDA Ti*t•.M # Page 1 character or pru e.zky value, due either to location. shame of the tower (such ,Z5 ar1 imitation tion pine tr. ge owcr). tax_to the nature of surroun 4.ing uses,..(suc as inctustriat uses), e c to Iack of_visibilitysaused by natural gwwth. 1audscaping or other factors. (MI Lai The applicant shall have the duty of presenting evidence relating to the criteria set forth herein. SECTION 3. SeverabiIity. The provisions of this ordinance are severable, and if any provision or application is held illegal, such illegality shalt not affect the remaining provisions. It is the Iegislative intent of the Council that this ordinance would have been adopted if such illegal provision had not been included and any illegal application had not been made. Should any provision of this ordinance be finally found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be severed from the remainder of the ordinance, and such action shall not affect the enforceability of the remaining provisions of the ordinance. • I0 0I'd 500'°N 6V:91 96`t tieW S>�Ihd�d 932i` 1d3Q Mdi d1IHd 14-1802. Criteria for Granting Variances. * (71 In the gmntin a variancesrelating to the construction of wireless se.aii towers. the ZQning Board of Adjustment she consider the following crite*i in additions the other applicable criteria set forth in this se tion 14-1802: Evidence of the, lack of space on suitable existing towers. buildings. or Other structures to co -locate the proposed antenna, cells, microcells and the lack of space on existingjower sites to conaituct a tower for the proposed_ antenna within the _service area: al Whether the wireless rvice provider will be unable to provide wireless services without the tower site ( Whether the application represents a request for multiple use of d tower or site. or use on a site contiguous to an existing tower site; id2 Whether the application contains a report that other potentialjtsers of the site and tower have been contacted. and they have no current plans, to the best of their abijity to determine. that could be fulfilled by joint use: Whether the application shows how the tower or site will be desigrated or laid out to accommodate fibre multiple users. Specific design ea ures evaluated�tI inc uc e u now �mi n . win oa 1 an coaxial cable capacity: and (fl Whether the proposed tower is to be located in an art.a vlace it would be unobtrusive and would notosdatantially dctract_from..thetic or neigh_borho`d 9 60' J S00' ON 6b: 9 t 96 ` t 62W 1111711 y1IHd • v_rce' s n i,tber a hedge or a row DI...evergreen trees. The evergre p screen_.. b be a minimum hvight„_of_(Lfeet at planting. and shall havejbe potential to grow to minimum of 15 fect at maturity, (.2) in ad diiuri._ existing ve t tion on an L r ind the site shall be t oossibl Lot Size, Tl% minimum lot size for a for a new tower shall be 2000 Square feet, (m.1 Permit fees. A permit fee of $ shall be paid, Eerinits may be renewed arm.za11yupon vp._ay.,m 1t of a $ renewal fee, CHAPTER 14-500. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS * * §14-511. Industrial District Rules and Exceptions. * * (3) Wireles&Service Tgyvers. Na wireless service tower shall be permitted in any industrial districLunless a wireless ser' ice tower permit has first been obtai Applications forsuch permits, and the terms and co .ditions pursuant to which • that the provisions Qf subsection 14-312(2).(m) relating to lot side_+ all not apo1y CHAPTER 14-1800. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT * 8 80' d S00' oN 8V:9I 713h' t ne4; dI,dN. 93d` 1d34 iltj1 H1IHd the surrounding topogra ily or buildings. If new tower is onstructed, as opposed t;� rn�l�ntin ; the anten to car V.ther_ vireics$.ezc,.uip.rom',nt on an existing stru.,turea the minimum distance Ewtxti'QQc the base of the tower or any guy_vire chors and andproperty line. Jiall be the largest of the following: (.1) 30 pgrcent_of tower height;. (.2) The minimum setback in the Toning district: and • j.3) 40 feet. W FAA and FCC Regulatioz;i,.Jhe tower shall be subjecUQ <uuy applicable Federal Aviation Administnition (FAA) regulations and Federal_ Communications Simi lion (FCC) regulations, 1.1a Lighting. All lighting, ether than that�ggired by the FAA shaae shielded and reflected away frockadjoining properties. (11 Landscaping, The following landscag1og shall be required to screen as • much of .the t er a__possible, the fence surrountialg_tbe tower. and any. other ground fe fires (sick_ as a wireless equipment buutlingLand in general soften the appearance of the cell site. The Cif may permit anv combination of existing vegetation, to¢s gr4phy, walls, decorative fences or gates features instead of lar dscapi g, if they achieve the same degree of screening as the required landscaping. If the antenr. .,..,cellhQr, rpicrocell is mounted on an exi.,tiug structure, landscaping shall not apply, _An .ever_green screen shall be required to 5urrojEld the site. The 7 s .O' d Sou' ari (Lb: 9I 96' t ShcMddN' 93:d' 1d3Q Mt1 1:11IHd is certified by that registered engineer to be structurally sound iu d Mile to withstiirtd wisld gusts up to 100 rnjl:; i.-Ler hour and other loads in accordance with the re.gtieemeat_s_Q he Ci.ty,',g ,BuiIclin de. Applicant shall plat provide a site plan drsZwnJo scale speclfying_thelosAt nt of tgwerfs). guy anchors (if_pny),, tniu mission 12341sling Laztst.s?.tl? acce.asary_1.1§es,_packing. access. Landscaped areas (gesifying size, spacing and plant material proposed.) fences, and identi(yjadias_ent property owners. If the wireless service equipment is to he m_ounte„isaA.an existing structure, a fuII site plan shall not be required, >. Height. (.1) Towers. Towers shall conform with. plicable District height lirriitatipns 9t;tbeir appropriate zoning district., L21 RoQNag Ser�•ice Antennae and Faciiitiess, Antennae, including support stz'va1 .c r_to-wens, located on existing building shall )tot exceed twenty two feet above, the highest point of the building. Such antenna ,s_aupg t tructures_th411 be of a shade comparable to the prim. k.0 ldin.g structure. and the number of such structures_.located on a single building shall not be sxQcssive pr visua1t' blighting. character j f the neigh QzhQosi,by blending into its surroundings. Tower�ti,�t tuees Such as treepoles_,wich. are an imitation of pine trees. or towers that gu.i$..ec .s light_ piles or any other tower structure... that... conforms with the character of the neighborhosxi_.shaU be givgn preference. Towers may alsQ_2e_piaif tQ cQnfoun_tQ 6 90' d S00' ct1 17:9t 96' t h.W SdIddJH.93d` 1d3Q i1ld1 H itHd equipment. and was denied. The reasons why peri i' siott was yienied must be. plQvided. The wireless service towerpermit shall be denied if the applicant hos not as 3 gQQ.i faith .Mort tc o�tnt or co -locate_ . ir�lc;s se v. i facilities can a.tl existing structure. Q Necessary Site. The wireless service company is required tq dpmpnstrate. using technological evidence, the the tower. antenna,. cells. microc;eIls sir other wireless service froposed site in order to satisfy the needs of the don -zany's wireless service grid system. The applicant shall also derminstratLe that the tower is the minimum height required to function satisfa rilyl and no_ tower that is taller thantucli minimum height shall be approved. jca Towers at least 500 feet from residential district. No wireless service tower shall be locate& within fire hundred feet of any residentially zoned district. Fencing. Unless the tower is located on a building. the tower stricture sha ll� simo y enc . • pelf -latching glte to limit accessibility to the general public. unless the entire property is secured by such. a fence, al Guy WiresLAll.,guy wires and all guyed towers shall be clearly mlrkesi so as to be visible at all timasnnd ZI1 guy wjtes shallte a minimum 10 feet fries property line, LQ Structural Requjrements. The applicant shall submit evidence that tt'i tower and its method of in _titallation has been designed by a re�i. stored en ineer-end 5 S0'd 900.0N 97:9t 96`i Hew :•jld��d' �` 1lri I'ldi y11H•� s Azy_tove 4_,Luonopoles or i oks owned by the City or loc:lted can City_ prep rt shall not be considered wireless service towers for purposes of this Title. * §14-231. Residential District Rules and Exceptions. * .(1) _Kueles_Service Towers: Wireless service towers are prohibited in all residential districts, §14-312. Commercial District Rules and Exceptions for All Districts. (2) Wireless Service Towers, _MQ_ -iretess service tower _shall be permitted in any commercial district unless a wireless service totow_ey_pgrnizt_hasjirst.teep oblaizggi pursuantuo this j,tsgcti pplications for such permits shall be made in the form provided by the_ Pepartment of Licenses and Inspections ("Department"), and shall be accompanied b hurl-:efunclable_p-.Zmit`applicaticn fee of S . Wireless service tower permits shall be granted and re_newed on th&following terms and conditions: ( Co -loin? Ifs wireless service compana,proposes to build a new • wireless service tower fa ;,Qppgsed to mounting wireless service etiv pmertt_orLar, existing structure). it is requise to siemonstrate that it contactedibe owners of potential sites within a one-q_uarter rifle of the site propose, asked foc..permission to install or co -locate the antenna. mi4rocells, cells_st„ither wireless service 4 d0'd SOG'cN Sb:9t 96` 1 held 'LdIH.1.71 2 JA3Q CNA?_Cellular service. A wjrel_�'Sz.t.legli»1e or telecommunication. • (5 L . .... icrocell or Cell. A cell or antenni.-us itu.he_prtyi ii)n;stf,cellular.ot PCS fip wireless services. (68A) Persontl r PCS Wireless telecommunications =vice providers that iniIiade vQlce..siita and video and customariI r ccupy the 2 Gigahertz spectrum. • (95) Telephone Exchange Building. A building used exclusively for the transmission and exchange of telephone messages, but the term she not include wireless Service towers. $ (10OA) iyireless facilities_ Towers microcells, cells. Az enue end Qtber fasilities us .in the provision of wireless services. gr_ovid .khat_any_,faci1i.ty. owned b�he City or.JQcated on City property shall not be considered a wireless facility COI purposes of this Title. (100B) Wirelest_s rvices, Acy PCS, cellular service, paging service or any other gir-ete—s—rei mmunications service, (.1QQC,)_„Wireless service towers. jt3ctiQ,_suromvnications, television or any other tower$, tt.Qnopoles_at poles used for tb:_e_pLovision szf wireless services or used foi U1rIerP.iQn s.r transmission of any air frecime.n y,, CA.WQ or otherwise. provided that 3 • a'd SOO' JN SV:9t 96' t Filial SAIdJ2d.91:1:1d3iI rdi �1IHd protect and promote the economic: vitality of the City and to protect property values; (c) Consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a prohibition on the placement of wireless service towers in certain residential areas will not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless services; (d) The intent of this ordinance is to require that wireless service providers, to the maximum extent possible, co -locate their wireless service equipment on existing tower space, buildings or other structures before permission is granted to build new wireless service towers in the City of Philadelphia; and (e) Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of '1996, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") has the exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions from wireless service towers and other wireless service facilities. SECTION 2. Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code is hereby amended to read as follows: TITLE 14. ZONING AND PLANNING • CHAPTER 14.100. GENERAL PROVISIONS § 14-102. Definitions. In Chapters 14-100 through 14-1800 inclusive, the following general definitions shall apply: 2 ZO'd 900'0N bV:9t 96'T neW � Itfddd' 93�' 1d3Q �ld� d�IHd AN ORDINANCE Making legislative findings for the need to regulate the placement of wireless .service towers and other wireless service facilities in light of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-102, entitled "Definitions," to amend the definition of telephone exchange buildings, and to add definitions relating to wireless service facilities; by amending Section 14-231, entitled "Residential Rules and Exceptions," to prohibit the placement of wireless service towers and wireless service facilities in residential districts; by amending Section 14-312, entitled "Commercial District Rules and Exceptions for All Districts," and Section 14-501, entitled "Industrial District Rules and Exceptions," to require a permit for the placement, construction and modification of wireless communications towers and other wireless service facilities in commercial and industrial districts; and by amending Section 14-1802, entitled "Criteria for Granting Variances," to specify additional criteria for granting variances for wireless service towers and other wireless service facilities with respect to property within the City; all under certain terms and conditions. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Legislative Findings. The Council hereby finds as follows: (a) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. No. 104-104] preserves the City's authority over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of wireless service towers and other wireless service facilities; (b) Consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the City intends by this ordinance to regulate the placement, construction and modification of wireless service towers and other wireless service facilities throughout the City to t0'd S00'oN 2t':9t 96't hew Sdi!�33d' 93%' id3Q f1y1 d1IHd s • ATTACHMENT B Gary Kretschmer addresses principal use and appurtenant use saying that there are different standards with pertinence and separate standards established for principal uses. They are in separate use categories altogether. He also states that the City has rigid height restrictions; because of a vote of citizens 55ft is the maximum height in this community and the minimum of pertinencies is above 55 ft. What about non -conforming buildings that were built before the ordinance? The ordinance specifically limits what we can do on those structures. That's why they wrote that anything over 55ft would have to be wall mounted. It is doubtful that we can put structures on pertinence or principle uses on the tops of those buildings. The City doesn't have the amount of flexibility that they'd like. Someone stated that the draft they've seen doesn't have that distinction. Gary Kretschmer states that under design criteria in the draft ordinance there was a distinction made. They made a distinction between 2 buildings that just require antennas on walls of all structures and the previous ordinance did not distinguish. Alan Boles says he would strongly prefer options of being able to put antennas on buildings under 55 ft. Ann Closser states that in the definitional section antenna needs c3arification because typically a PCS cell facility will have 3 sectors. Richard Varnes wanted PCS Unit defined? Would a "base station" not include an antenna? Ann Closser states that a telecommunications facility should have no more than so many sq. ft. per facility. Richard Varnes states that the City will rework the definition Ann Closser stated that pang companies may be approaching the City for facilities. Alan Boles notes in one of the pictures shown by Ann Closser that they have antennas mounted on lightpoles and another picture where one is mounted on a light pole in a sports stadium. Would they also want Boulder to allow them to mount antennas to poles or other structures such as church steeples, water towers etc...? Ann Closser stated that yes they are proposing the above. Alan Boles asks if there are any other structures they are considering? ATTACIEENT B Richard Varnes asks how important use of structures is to industry? The City Council may have concerns broadening the use beyond buildings. New towers would be very problematic. Jill Jelinek says that new poles are not on the table, only existing structures. (Speaker?) re -states that we would not be putting up new poles, but putting antennas on existing structures. Larry Storms with SASI (277-9090) says he feels; that we are limiting creadvity. He has worked on many changes and is trying to create a means of control to disguise facilities. They are also trying to set up a system that provides a competitive system for citizens. Larry also says that in #5 the ordinance states that all equipment is required to be operated inside of the building below the roof. He says that this is no longer the need since industry has gone digital and they are now using cabinets. They are able to set them on the roof and shouldn't preclude that option. Is it visually protrusive? Richard Varnes stated that we need to define size, noise, and we also need dimensional information on base stations. Larry says that we could do this with conditions, i.e. either be screened or add to the roof. He is also concerned with #7 in the ordinance where it states that no antenna may be placed on property that has been designated as a City landmark_ He gives us one example of a colonial mansion where they took the columns and replaced them with fiberglass RF neutral of the exact size and shape and said they are indistinguishable from the originals. They would not want to have that precluded because he feels it would be a lost opportunity. Corey Ford Vice President of base station development for the US West wireless group wanted to thank the City for their effort made to accommodate the industry. He thinks that the City has done a great job in ashort amount of time on a com•lirlrtd issue. The would like to refine the ordinance, and would propose that the City would continue to engage all members of the industry on these issues, and he has provided a draft revision to ordinance. Richard Varnes states that he has not yet received this draft revision and that staff has not had time to look at it. Corey Ford says he would be glad to have it served as a vehicle for discussion. One of his concerns is the issue of building above the height of existing buildings. He said it is a practical necessity and they need to have antennas above the edge of buildings and they can blend in with the color and the style of the building. He agrees that the concept of having a base station facility inside is not necessary. He also says that PCS can be contained in a cabinet about 5x5x10 next to a building on the around and it's easier to maintain them on the ground with out having to climb on top of a building. Corey also says that standard radio emissions should be based on FCC • • ATTACHMENT B standards and are in the process of being adopted. He also states that the FCC has been charged with determining the levels of emissions and health standards. Gary Kretschmer asks which one more restrictive? He says that Council will select the more restrictive. Corey Ford says that the FCC standard would be more current. Corey also wanted to bring up the exaction proposed regarding 10 phones per antenna. Using antennas is not the most accurate reference. He suggests multiple antennas per base station. He says that 10 phones per station is beyond the realm of proportionated costs by process and that we should consider something more proportional to cost. Their proposal would reference 3 phones per base station and a 1 year period of free air time up to 5 minutes. Richard Varnes says that staff is willing to talk about methods of fee payment. Corey Ford also says that they have pictures that they will leave. These pictures show real applications out there now and current technologies where antennas could be placed on rooftops. Richard Vannes a sks if we would be able to pull this together for the Planning Board with illustrations? Gary Kretschmer says that he had to try and 2nd guess what the Planning Board and Council might buy into without being overly restrictive. He says that the Planning Board and Council will be very conservative - more conservative than staff. He tried to think about what they would do once they are approached with criteria Richard Vannes asks Gary to describe the Planning Board review process. Gary Kretsch.mer says it's nd-of a -back s-streading-is-nextreading-is-next-Tuesday evemug which will be the introduction of the ordinance. City Council will ask staff questions before the 2nd reading and that's pretty much the limit They will not take public comment at the 1st reading. Then it will go to the Planning Board and they will snake a recommendation to CounciL He says that Planning will be the most conservative of the 2. Planning Board's recommendation can be for approval or denial. Council also may suggest changes and the next meeting will be the 2nd reading at CounciL They can pass by emergency which means it would go into effect that same evening or they can postpone their decision to another meeting and the ordinance would go into effect 30 days after that meeting. Gary Pultz doesn't understand why the process is happening in such a rapid manner? Gary Kretschmer states that it is because of the request of the industry. ATTACEM NT B Richard Varnes says that there is a pending application. City Council has given clear direction to staff to increase and not decrease competitive opportunities. To stop the pending application would be contrary to what they want to accomplish. (Speaker?) The ordinance is pretty hastily drafted and the structure basically recognizes preferences - wall mounted. This Isn't just an aesthetic issue, topographic diversity and height restrictions limit the number of structures & locations where wall mounted will work. There is also a question of technological feasibility in enough Locations to provide adequate service. They would like wall mounted if possible, but would like to be able to say why it won't work and if it won't let's do it roof mounted. Gary Kretschmer says that forcing what he has in the appurtenance section has been hard because it's too broad. Planning Board and City Council would want to know if pursuing the roof top antenna approach would mean adding to roofs with a screen so that no one would assume they are antennas. Council would almost demand that approach and probably won't buy visible antennae on roofs. There have been a few examples that have occurred in the community where this has happened and no permits were issues and Council points to them saying how did that happen? The key is for Planning Board to understand that this is not a matter of preference aesthetically and that it's a serious risk. Richard Varnes asks if wall mounted antennae were the only option, then would this result in a limitation of the number of competitors to occupy key structures. Gary Pultz raises the issue of interference saying that they may not be able to locate on a particular building because of interference. Richard Varnes wants to know when this is likely to happen? Garr Pultz landlords. as co-ioc the-limitationof willing Alan Woydziak says that the industry is receptive to working together. He says that landlords may give exclusive contracts. Alan Woydziak asks if Council would accept it if they agreed they wouldn't enter into exclusive contracts. They would accept that, but what if the landlord only wants one company. They would not seek exclusivity but the landlord may say that he/she only wants one, it may be out of their control. Alan Woydziak says that they strongly recommend some rooftop mounting (about 3 inches in diameter and 10 to 15 ft tall). • • • ATTACILMENT B Richard Varnes asked for clarification as to whether the 12X28 fr base station is what would need to be roof -mounted or adjacent to existing buildings? Alan Woydaak says no, mostly in remote areas. He also says that they may rent office space that is needed, but want the flexibility to use land outside of the building. Ann Closser states that the contract provision allowing more than one on a building has a greater likelihood of interference, and that we need to be able to say for technical reasons why this will not work. Gary Kretschmer says that there are 7 people on the Planning Board (requesting packets of pictures for Planning Board and City Council). Richard Varnes says that Council's first concern will be protection for the competitive environment and giving competition the best shot possible; as with the ICG fiber optic permit application, Council's first question may well be to make sure we are not going to exclude others from market. (Speaker?) If the ordinance isn't passed there will not be adequate competition in BoilIcier and they won't be able to do it without a change. Richard Vannes says that the Council is sensitive to the aesthetic and design issues and they will look at the policy to see if it limits competition. Jeff Pond is interested in our goals of fostering competition. He says that our avoidance of negative visual impacts should be encouraged by the pictures shown. He says in the Draft there is more addressed regarding the competition element rather than the visual impact. He says it is hard to know what is expected by the antenna owner. He wants to know if they must notify other members that a site is in mind. He says the problem is that the expectations are not clear. Richard Varnes says that the message we are trying to send is that competition is really important to us. We may have to revisit the whole issue because we don't want only one provider. Council may have to go back and review the issue if the unintended result is a lack of competition. Jeff Pond says that they can help think of more helpful phrasing. Alan Boles says that there are some problems as far as legal standards. Jeff Pond is concerned with the potential for technical interference. He wants to know what happens if someone's broadcast is being impaired. What does the provider do until there is a determination? He is also concerned with the provision on phones and the surrogate fee. The ATTACHMENT B ordinance doesn't say it must be paid in dollars. It looks like the surrogate franchise fee because of the use of Ciry Property and City Resources. It may be useful to have a clarification whether this is simply a fee. Richard Varnes states that one of the directions from the City Manager is to coordinate a comprehensive look at telecommunications and come up with a proposal presenting to all providers. We should view this as an interim step with consideration of costs, maintenance etc.. And show the City Council that tangible public good comes out of this. The exaction could be phones, other communication devices, or money. Jeff Pond says they are willing to help provide wording. Neil Weiser says what if they find only one viable site (on roof or on ground beside building )9 It may fall under the non-residential growth management ordinance. Wants to know if there will be a one- time exemption processed on a 1st come basis? ° Gary Kretschmer says that it depends on the size of the cabinet. Won't be subject to ordinance - 12 x 28 may be subject to our ordinance. Neil also states that there is no impact on traffic. Gary Kretschmer says that smaller structures won't fall under the ordinance Gary Pultz says that they are concerned with #9 and #12 in the ordinance. We should be aware that AT&T does have a program providing phones for non-profit corporations. It's part of their marketing effort. Wants to know what our program with non -profits will be (should be part of our application)? Will provide letter from attorney. Alan Boles says that the FCC has some procedures to deal with localized interference with antennas. Vannes stated that the City could have useful role providing a means to make sure these issues get resolved. Richard Varnes says that the City has performed that function with cable television and has procedures for that. Alan Boles states that would be helpful Gary Fultz says that they are extremely sensitive to interference and that the FCC doesn't want providers to complain about each other. Richard Vannes reminds everyone that the next meeting is on the 20th for Ist reading and there will be no public comment On the 22nd it will go to the Planning Board. • • • • ATTACHMENT B Gary Kretschmer says it could start by 5pm. The 2nd reading will be on March 5th and public input will be allowed. He will let them know it's relative position on the agenda. Gary' Kretschmer says that the Planning Board is pressed for time and has devoted the whole evening to other issues. They won't spend the time we would like on it. He says that we should try to present consistent, uncomplicated stuff. He is guessing that they will pass the ordinance as they drafted it. He has left one section of the memo open for summary comments from this discussion. Organizations would like summary comments from this meeting. Ann Qosser will deliver packets of pictures to Gary Kretschmer. Gary will let her know if we need packets for CounciL • �1 �' Attachment C DRAFT WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ISSUES PAPER SEPTEMBER 1995 San. Diego ASSOCL.TION OF GOV� ERN=. NTS 401 8 Stree:, Stint: 800 Sart Dieso. CA 92101 (5 1 S) 595-5300 • • • MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Cartsdad. Chula Visa. Coronae:. Del Mar. El Cajon, Encinitas. Escondido. Imperial Beach. La Mesa. Limon Grove. National City. Ocearscde. Poway. San ONegc. San Marcos. Santee. Solana Beach. Vista. and the County of San Diego. ADVISORYIUAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation. U.S. Department of Defense. San Diego Unified Port Ors nc . and Tijuana/Baja California/Mexico TV. Ems' LTH AND S .= ISSLTS Attachment C Some members rs of t.:_ public 'nave generated de:sat_ rem -ding the issue. e:-e..'•'.• emetic e.ne: y used i� -'elec n,-+-,.T...c by_ Vl,ia_ .___ - L C_ w• ; C.. ..3LIOIIs systems ' •`VCI'a_S tjY C" energy by •.test: sy57-.r5 cause ilL=sses. of health etfccs causzed The public's CP.,:.cer affect ii•• cells and The: — are three wireless -cr..ztrre-t aLs tt.at ga e:aL and t• el c�7io=gle... .`• �'; c::l site g_nrz.r.,:c, hand-:^-ld portable co ►"'"atiOrs devices, and electrical e^uiprzem L bL'ilc:bass at cell sites and sr. bi ^ f se-T w U e� G�tii^m = d i•,:..�ng satic.s. The following s...•.ro.1n���j_-a�� the �.t - electromagnetic energy togetherwith the applicable etc-'dards a14: will review of ...-rvila�...___ .. •a. Lo�_.n.... safety 5.-.. ,_V+,.C.' research .:Sits on the C::CCS 0: eleczro=gnetic Gam• rp: used by wL":i:SS ccr_munizaczs systems on, biological tissues. Eie -oraag etic Ener7v Wireless ►.''.u.i..t:ni=itior5 " sys ems 4.r 5=dt info=atlo: be:we.= sites by means of � ezc.d electezag e.ICene -�Whenever ele..4VLnLLneri.energy moves lanIone LY.ntito another. r, w hethcr by the movement of electrical current along a wire or in a lighting bolt, or via el-e oma_ e:ic waves propagated 'trough e^pty space, the movement is accompanied by the formation of e1e: zo a emetic cEMPs). We al` familiar with radiatr.d eiector.:a_zr- c energy in a variety of for s, in:it'dins: radio and television waves, microwaves, visible and ultraviolet light. X-rays, and a3==a rays. All for-= of ::,,2 ,.:_i:-.2 e?e_c rroriagn:'1c -me-try travel at the so=d of li?ht. Deoe di g on how was g:. a-ted and t:aris ..It-.er, elecromagre•.ic Geer, ' will radiate outward from the sates•..: fit L-i enerry packet; that have to cb tweeter-s cos of waves, particles, or a cc biratlon of both. Gnu generated, .. waves of energya� �vela t:-i_� �=mit-.,:r throes mace to th-; receive:,(� ^'L:~ they are absorbe Based on the a • a ter is:ics o; the wave and the material which absorbs it, the L"a: 5i:�iLTi`d ener_j can affect the abscrbi g material in various ways. The absorbed energy can cmse a resonating elec=ical effect in some conducting materials T as is the basis for receiving ant -=as in radio and TV sys---ms. It on be re-e ir-emod as elec=ornametic energy, for example, in fiuore `e ace as vsibie c �r"ayioi•' ii bt Aral In higbe: ei^,er i r ys ran TTtf dify c eve en break chemical bends in complex zyo1e Ies, thus s changing the raturr. of the mol=tile. This is he bass for sunburns eaus. d by ultraviolet light, and "radiation' bus caused by gamma ray irradiation. Some fortis of eitonoma-_sn_tic enc.-76y, like X-rays, can pass completely through some materials without big abscrxd. However, most commonly, el oma tic e=rgy is simply absorbed by L at.: -a s an: convened into heat e:c.:gy, such as in the case of microwave over. In general, the potential for biological e::ea s is a function of both the fregtier v and ecergy level cf the Ca iouiz- fo= of Cie..^moo .aeretic energy involved, in addition to the particular c aof e affected (species, mass, affected tissue -types, etc.). Therefore, sties t:. a:: or -.ter (species, G on.mu'ni:.adons to add-ss the c;;::cc:.� abet:: hzr*,=.-i health G:l�...s anwireless c., 29 AttachmentT_C clear .ie�rs•--.,i g.uag tic energy.' In $'�iSL•:-' :t IS L�'^..•SA to have a ..._3: Lliti. .�,.s..►�. � about G:�.�•+-" Gr'•• � ► +t.... , r frequencies e- en"._ ` wireless C.^.,=.:�.'.:i:.'::i:iOaS SYS.-.errs use lower ai _.?+Ll .....:..5 and lower energy levels Tj"' 3.~ assoc:a:zd with =any other tyTcs of • Elec=o,::--azmetic waves have three. properties wb..ich ere: -aim. the': character. and, tiuS potential health effects. The first is fre�.:ency, which is the rate at which el=ti :gr_e`io craves pass. a f : ed point, or the rate at which waves are ge=razeed. Long" waves have a lower f:-ecue cy and sharer waves have a higher L-- ncv. F-... ,..,,.v is measured in cycles c wend, units called her after the C_ scientist who f ds.ove:rd radio waves (60 Irz = 60 cy clesi se end) . The se r.d prop.: � is a:=:p Irelative •e energy et and � n :^ode, which is a :a• v rL,.:s•.:. of a wave's G..._, ev,. is related to a frequency. n_erally, waves with shorter wavel: gths chi_zher fr:rt:e:.^i:s) require generate, • T, • T carry tror_ energy for the same ar�iiaid.., ._�..i.:_ nor_ e...,.ro to g_ at, and this, car. wansL : =ore a=rgy when 'absorbed. Two waves with the sae wavelength can have different anaplirzcies based u cnhow much energy is put into each wave's produc:icn. 1 energy as a The thirdthird property is the power density, which is a measure of a wave's rota.e...._-, fano:icn of its di5� fro= its source. it en a wave radiates away fro= its sourze, lire: a rinei: in a noel. thewave neethe ve way. When a radio wave is Ics_.s a .a::.._. it o s a broad rest, it loses energy according to the "inverse -square principle. In its sir Diest for , the principle says that every tom: you double the dim= fro= an e ri^.gig source, the power dersi.: decreases by a fac:or of four. Thus, a power level r ea *e originally at ten fet would rheas•::: one-fourth at 20 feet, one -sir a: 40 feet, and one stay -fourth at 80 feet. �'} ••,,,�. .:; el -tic �,� ---, in !'igL 9, rat,�f_,,. w QtaZ6��:..rr.. .ram l�l....s a sp.=ri Wl�i of frequencies lv�tz.1+ng f•Z"o= a few r` with wavelengts of over I„CCO k.loaettrs u7 to bLalo and billions of En with wavelezz s =uch s—L.lall-- tr.an -'Otis. Radio waves, located on the lower d of the S:.. c.-r a, have diszi=:: "wave i •" •- n^ '' e:leate at r_:.stivei low energy levels. -I.ic_ c:._.. _-:sues. a....:.� beg y .�-..,. Microwaves, L±are.-, visible. and ultraviolet found towards the middl.e of the s c --=., ex ibit c:s.-ac:e:is-ics of both waves and particles. X-rays and ea=.=.a rays, at the high end of the y sp='•� �.,., distinct " T ie• " energies. frequency ,. --,:.' have j t;a.. Lc._ his_ characteristics and �:. _.... .s. • • Figure 9 LOCATION OF RADIOFi= EQUENCY RADIATION ON ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM Frequency/Hz 1c is iti,."'.tAa ICN PA.:c I Lit C+PCSnl1V_ ISFR.& E 1b' 1V - VISIBLE l L'RA L'a%% vlcl: X-RAYS G.w A RAYS 30 Attachment C es d or :nc.;pc;d within an eiec.:ol agnetic wave by _ ;, ula::,.. th ..uenc, he `:,w'ay•'S basi- prOL`e'-i:S. This prcC:Ss is called LOCL'12:i0a. At..a given ��_,._�. L basic. conr4_-'.IQ'uz wave is+ altered so that its f :.c.tie:icy or. a =plir de is citange:i ircrcp`cr cc to an Irnncsed Siznal. T.^.: i=posed sI_nal is the iz cr .atioc, Si:c 2S a radio, 1 v�, Oi ,,odor j'+. h--ever Ci : o:: agretiC er-erry is generated at a voiz , II t s to radiate 01.1war L all di..-c Io^_S. according to tr. inverse-soa' .r pri iple. Ti: ter= radiation si iy =:a thei--4ir=1 disV-5a1 of a subs=ce from a source -point. A c; zr.^_on light bulb e= is radiation of el--.__ r_._-cd.o er.er y within :." visible pa.-: or b: s��^. Unfortunately, with the advent of r..- ate___L' � radiation has a:57 aC:_..—. a .O. = Si::SL-: connotation, ;_n L._ wGru is used _. .:f:r:n:• to ato '•processes.P: 'ps bc^_3 ' • nuclear radiator. is _ . _. _.. _ I:zic cr nuclear :.�.. L.y*.siciC a':d t .: ,r-.^,' effects for 's of nuclear radiation ;r.av be z1: apparent only ,r,,...._. .:errs of s��.._ Over an extended �-rr.:, soL:.: n :: ^ben of the public .have bC;O> very concerned about all ior•"�..s of invisible radiation. 1^-Sp=:ive oI the scL:T"..: or intensity. Although radiated radio waves genera' re by radio broadcast towers, L.':vi, sio .s and cellular phone ant:nza S a-': solnet =es referred to as : odic uency radiation (cr tZ. R), it is iapor.ant to re=ewbe: that we ar cors-a tly exposed to nitmerous for-.: of radiate -id el -_Gaza; e:ic energy generated by both ,._.,,r i and r'zn-=ade sources. �. d of these, '511C have b^en. expos:-'. to st n i is t, I~'c: o ayes, radio wav:z and eirdtridZI waves from the eanh itself and from space for =Hilo= of Y:_' s. Ionizing and :`ton-io g Relation Radiation can be broadly broker, into zwo grnt.7- 5: icri",'Q and non -ionizing. Ionizing. =tans that hint s enou2.b. -.:_17; t:.e rdia I o:to alter tilt. Str 1C:ur: of IIar:er L'JGu its absc on by k--ioc%a or elec=ically charged pardcies (ions). Non -ionizing s edans that there Wis not :no'._ enerzy in he radiascn to create ions. Instead, the cncr, is usually absor e ; as b:=.. RPR is a idle.:of non-lo-,:'i-t c radiation. .tee^ -,,,se. - •. `�•• r,..=e—ei .-..,.,:.._i- ♦-�.-gie V n re a S� C : r... ... ...... _ _.y h' Cie r:. �_.:,.._S and a.. _.1�, n-: cYs and ga�::a rays are g:y-. c " ;T - ti N ry nhigh-energy, e."...:':c:.::c'.: .?� types of lOP _ "'� radiation. as a. ,:.-, y ty;.�S of high -velocity sub-atc=i: p4 sees teal result l~= nuclear processes. When Ions radiation interacts with sz .:_:,: es, it csa cause s: ve:: dattaa- The ch:=icai bonds of molecules struck by high erne: 37 pa -.:dies can be broken. causing pars of the =oievaies to be split off, often as r,.acidve c:.a zed par.i:Ies (ions). These ions can pre=ote additional c :deal and physical reactors. 7ithe--ate -g-m •cu. -are DNA —or other g_.' tic--Inatrz , oeibiiar-n :Ttabo interferer-4with and the Ct1I's abiliry to r_prddur : itself can be des :oy d or r1,,,e4 to _al f •nn-:Y - (rah- latter SOr r.:e S leading to Carr(Barre-, references.) of lower . �. :�„..e..ncy levels and energies, such RF and : Ms ass cia*red aY_5 with radio s-, sz .s, do not cause ionization and corsec.i:ally are r:'err to as "non-i0^:rSng • radiation. If absorber at all, this t;-'c of enerj is abscrt as heat. Unless geneash at e^^ciy high power densities and at just the right resonance ft-auendies so as to prod':.:: large ar:o• nth of heat resulting in acrual bur nil, the ;r_. �e y and milting energy levels of non- ic .:'.n g radiation are al.ost always roc low to all. : biological materials. Non -ionizing radiation is not lc:own to datnag: DNA as can io,i,;-g radiation aid generally has not bon how: t^.:s: L:_, � Sibic c._:.**_-s trot can a...:=.lat_ over time (Yost, s.-: references). 3I Attachment C The:: is on: potential probi:r, however. Sometimes in a complex organic mO. ule short, linear z: tos of arcrr...s extend off of a stain chain cr body of the complex. It has b=n shown that at the right frequencies, these can be ex.:it� by strong, non -ionizing one gy so as to :..zu se frequency resonance to occur. T fie ex:.::sion can then vibrate: and on occasion break off, altering the sv scr=-e of the: mol=ule. This is the only other known in•:emo .ion between non-ior'-'' g radiation and biological r�,:erttrs. It is conside:-�-{ to be a r— phenomenon. as the frequency of the radiation must e .ac•1y rnt�s the manual resonance of the taoi .ile and the power density must be, very high. ( r s,--- refer:s.) Way the Concern? Most scientists maintain that RFR and Iower fr- :*u:' v elmagnetic ;fields such as those associate: with wireless con t:nications sy se.ms generally do not produce adverse health effrets in hums^ because they are nor~-iori7'rzg in nan:.r- and no=a1 exposures are contiolled so as not to result irl ther__:al elfe_ts. Other r_s rhe_s, however, not the possible molecular resod-r- problem. described a»cdve and propose that • conrnuous Iow-level exposures or exposures in combination with ocher chemicals may cause health problems that are not i--...-jiat:Iy evident. These r: •z o ens =pest that ezz;a care should be talc r+ i r^I nor is Icaown. inc. media continueto rror the work of these researchers and the public exhibits a s:a-p interest in the del —date be:wsn the two sides. Some Lr.n►X:S of the public believe that even the remotest possibility of a health. haz rd corsirszes grounds for for::_ing public policy and rev-Liz:ices for facilities using aciofrequ_ncy radiation and g_ntra g fields. Consequently, there is often keen public interest i proposals for new wireless cell sites and facilities. ANSI. N C R.P, and LRPA Radiation Protection Guideiins Troth private cr;ar.i atiors grid gove:::tne^_t agencies have _prupas d ch d:lines that Breit e�cs tc radiation. Their s,.and ..-dds can be divided into broad categories: e1T.issicr. S:i..:r:'`:, which s.:t ii-vita on the incidental (ncnpu-pose ul) radiation emanat'ng from a device; and orlre s err .-rds, which set limits on the radiation power dersiry to which a -fie ,nth may _b a exposed. Fr.tiScion sLandards limit unwant. leakage from devices s.uch as microwave_ ovens that should cantuirt the radiation inside the device or that -have shielding to protect operators and others from exposure during nor=al operation. Ex osur_ standards Iimit expos.:.= of persons to radiation present in the environment, for example frog a radio (Yost, see There is no official, mro-=4ztory federal standard for radiation pro=tion in the lint. Stan. The o aciai g'=id:lire for Federal Cor-nunicatio:s Cor'rnission (FCC) regulated facili es is currently the 1982 American National Sr.2* ;*'..s n ti- (ANSI) guideline. "The 1982 ANSI guidelines es reco=endue' fr_que ctie-d_-pe--dent exposure limits covering R.F frequenci300 kHz. to 100 C =.. Tnc guidet.�rtes inco^ora*.: data showing that the human body absorbs RF e er y at so,L: frequencies more =_, than..standard was develop e,::�...�1y at others. The ANSI e ' op over a penes of several yezrs by scientists and ezzine with considerable ex r ..�i. :s � perIe.:C.. and, lc:owiec__ in the -area of RF biolcsi:_al effects and related issues. The r�ctrmendations we. Attachment C base-4 or: a determination that L r threshold for hazardous biological effects was ar.pproxiy-;v 4 wa-_, e: kilcg::a.:. (.. NV/kg) ['Wikg' is an, expression for the rare of energy absorption in L:c body ziven er.r. s cf the s%+. ::iic absorption rate' Cr 'S AR'J. A safety factor of teen was then .== arrive at �` final vw...T+. �,.. .. /� o ct ., G•q eii..� other t::_ �:C:.: ;�C = CO a. `%:. t. i.._: 1, r' � .:{_-. Ys'ut.._.10i. .tld_...,,_S. In Or._. ::Or::S nrct-oleo_ sruides : be ccr. _lat-d with an S. LR tY--rsaold cf about 0.4 w /k;" (FCC, OFT �Lt:l1 e•i s= references). a Si s adcgted C95.1-1992, a revision cf the 19E2 s aida.d ar�i the FCC has proposed its . oo i !9 The =,.. ont in rr c of •gra is • differences s fro f+�1 guidelinesd SV. ter Nt: C... ..._ � N standardf"contains a .�.`r.ri.ti.. V 1 �1��1MiL r.:l: _. ..rLv.7 .. bL and -+.en 1 issued M A 1992 `l�_l� more r-:.:..:_.._..,..at:ors :ss�..... by ANSI in 198 in r.,.3:.� respects, t:.- *sic :..._s are ,.,c. restrictive in the ar:cu::: of e^v,-c=enral RF exres,re pe=iti:d, and they aiso extend the frequency range under consideration to cave: fir..^ue=ies f a 3 k+Fz [kilohertz] to 300 Gat. Lig`:_^. ]. The new 1992 guidelines specie two sets of expost:re r-^o=-rda.tie^s, cr: for 'controlled enviro=c s' (us.taliy involving workers) and another for '•uncont-olled enviro=ents' (usually involving the gen-ral public). Tne 1982 guidelines specified only one s..of : i i -thouwhether he +� 'vidt:al exposed was a worker or a z=: b r .., exposure .,... n. r__2a..: s of . r.:n_ the I...Gi ..,. of the gene. -t public I. addition to Ms ANSI s_rCarw , there are .*O_GZde.v C15;rSS... S= .r .5: that at OI the National Council on Radlaton Pr Ot c on (V CP) and that of the Inte^_ a on l Radiation Protection ?ssx:at:on (LR.PA). The NCRP is a non-profit corporation c::artz 4 by the United States Ccnzress to. a=cng other things, develop infor-A-ion and r.. o endaticns concerning radiation :,rote::ion. The NCR? is rade up of the ==bees ana participants who serve on its va:ict:S s:.ie rific coh;u'nitts The guidelines issued by the NC.? spec fy a level of 1 tnw/c' •1iiiiwazs per square cent-•--) for the exposure of the general _public is the frequency mange of1.5to300G=_. The IRPA is a •?o:.: ?0ve:7_-rienta: international JrH=r 'IIOn r:pr'sc:::::lar..:CSt of the iaOua1 radiation protection societies L, the world. These reco-entadors for= pa, of the World Hal_: Qr?a'._.'sticn (WHO) United Nations ��j!Envir :i ental Pro •�• e g�i/.:.i es forpublic ev'.cSii:: re^.ot� end 1 .^'/1r•/ - +.er- e _ ..+ and I 0 irz.. Y_.r._ ♦._ nr _r Cr Le rr C a�:d �lrO C- IPA So-: states, including Massa:hi:s::-s, New Jersey, Crezot:. and Ri ashngcn, as well as some local JuriSdicacrs have adopted t e r own rdia*'on guidelines. Radiation Levels The levels of RF art iP to w i:h v::blic is ot:-= ely e os d are ;a: below the levels =.--c:.sz : to nos: a health risk. A 1989 :moon by the Office of =: ,i ing and Tech o1og~y started tit the U.S.^vlroc —_ a1 Protection Agency es-.:nZates that in seven t .e 000litan ar..as s :die across the United States, 98 to 99 percent of the population is expos to less than 0 001 = ic=2 cf radiation. The c.:--mot ANSI sir l*d power density e r levels is .580 .. for ..� i�OS�a levels m w This standard is considerably more r esu i. ive than the 1 to `►17!CTic sanidzrd set by N C R? an.. the LAP A. • Zi Attachment C Additionally. the 192 ANSI guidelines for radiation erasure indicate that devi--s cgera,i- _ on less than 7 watts of power at frequencies less 1 000 r.r. will of cause r"^ traaI Cellular mobile phones CYtate between 0.6 `:d 3 way of power at fcc',:eccies be - : 800 and 900 M z. E,SNI .71=Licators operate x^wet: 0.5 and 1.5 wars of power i_. SCO NEB frec'� nc'� band. and PCS mobile col' L'. :c tors are ar ci;ated to oreratte on no ....ore 1 wart of cower at .. e^ue ies betw . 1 , 850 a:.d _.2CA .z, all fail' �g well below t_ c than_ _....... _ � - r 7 war. threshold. T ynicai cell sites. including c obolez. roof-nc�t:d nL_.=siL..s, and bL.a_n ;--ou t ant- ' sites, use a ,;...:.r."-., of 3.C€O watts of effective radiate Dower (r"tF). Iz. comparison. radio broadcasting towers' w:�� _S� a: t use ghiy 100.000 :tarns gyp, and t:'._visicn broadcasting towers o . use approximately 5,000,C00 wars `R?. n.e radiation e•.::ic'd fro= *these brcad..as ng sour,-:s decreases ace cr ing to time: rivers: square principle. Thus, if the pro:.ii:iry to broadz:sdng sources is r:s ric•.et..', exposer_ to radiation shoL1C be trirT7r12I Ongoing and Future Re.se rch A?:duc : a:._';SL.ti:_S 'nave be:.. CdnQLC�^d ::^iic :effects of RR and EsifFs or. ='- iais and humans, scientists have bran -unable to r•..acs consensus on the results for various reasons, c lr; Lot t:--r_t the studies rfcz on �-Is anal cells ir.�....._.._: di:i '� .�� � :'=sxlaLOn of st'..d S pe-- :d �'^ -, iit=2.:.s. • -f'.., j : ',-1c the e-'fie'-•- of •�.. ,:.. • M •9e e ' to a,.....�•r.. difficulty in _..�sa:,::-..�....�� f3Zr.a inflLr.nC..S, such as the ...L 5 i3=C:1C field: difficulty in conz-oiling cr ac:ai variables in the study, such as the annaou t of energy absorbed by test Crsanis ns; diffic'.ilty in r.:piic ating and generalizing r_sults obtained at sp=ific power levels, fr cuenoies, a::d modulation patr-r.s. to other sitiaiions: diffi City in dist.:-=uisbing ben siirat ne=a1 hut, -an c'-ang_s and sub.*: variations; and dill -lc -airy in astral__ on the results d men, i Vie e iological stdies. - _rr ._ ..SL. _. a..:.. a.. r..dCO dQ...S of C�i�a ..•. �... . s ram': _i,:::ssugzest that lor,c-te= e..X,cure to some far .s cf R.F.R and E.:+r;=s =_-y emus- adverse health ...arts .n -a.^ma�. : "env other g .raies do not. AC_^rlir.; to areport published in 1994 by the united Scats General Act:cu.:1ring Office, both the Food and Drag .zr -:r_a .on C(_'a.D.. Arr) . and the Erviroiu:.errai Protection A_:z: y (PA) agee *he:hnforra' ctfrom tr: =o st Sc:CI_S IS iSLI.I..rnCer.-:.,,. whether err risks are substantive, if present at all. In fact. some cities, such as the City of San Diego, have addr:ssad this issue by dis-,...nz iching bc:we-..= acr_ai a:'c e-✓eive h^e ith hard s when performing CEQA (Califo=ia En virornearal Qualir: Ace) review. i s r clef r_:'oc-':--s tit the public's fear of the ur.i=own sot✓ es causes 'perceived health `- test " Since st.:di:s have. bGn found inconclusive in relauon to re th_r=shoids established by the ABSI si,-,r'=rds, the city does not identify F2yff impacts on by an health as sismific..n: Nonetheless, the policy cf the rnvironn^stal Analysis Sec on (FAS) of and _� ,r-. a t� pt7 ; ,g (DE) son of theDevelopment Services lira Development ._...v ..._._......I . - Depan=:nt (DSD) is to disclose the prase a of E sour_:s, and advise "grad =avoidanc where possible :-ra_^'^I- of Dr.:d--: avoid/not would be to place power lines or of so - nt-_ w-nee , '-t•— .ich as parking Lots. sources or radiation -- ._ �s �. ie rsi�• ::_.__... Ls.:s, s 34 Attachment C n _r`: hi that th threshold --,- do t effects was arpr oxi•-• a:&v base or a d � �.at.on .� t hold ,,., bar3r....._S blologiCs. e 4 wars Xr kilcg.c.^.. (4 17; /kg) ['W/'xg' is a expression for the rate of energy absorption in t Y� - ` 'specific , e' f: y bCC;: gi': C.^. I.i, L_ .S Cf. t..^. 'SLR.... 1,., absorption �'._ or 'S?s.'�'I. A safer,/ I3C:Or Of Len was then Snccrpera_.. to a_ v: at the rec:-..=.-nded protection guidelines. In other words, the. guid:s cz•I be correlate--' with a SAR L'rshold of about 0.4 w /k? (FCC, O : Bulletin, se refcrer=s). :� SL j s adCp::d C951-19C_ a revision or the 19E2 sztuzdard, and the FCC n?s provos..d its e ` standard "contains rTT' � e .t • ere fro �TuI :lines .., adoption. -.._ new s.a,..d.�.�.. 6r ..r3.�5 a ....� of significant differences ri..r� `+.•d....rwl d r-.teat.: -::nciator_s issued by ANSI in 1982. in r..ir respects, the 1992 ¢zuide.i�s are mcr= restrictive is the a=ourrL of tii:.Lr--..►L''1 R.: ....LtiiSLr.r pC r.Ttz:d, and they a150 extend the fr:equency :a ze untie: consideration to cover Li`...^ute=ies frc= 3 kHz [c the:7_j to 300 C Lisa.:er:_]. .-re new 1992 guid. iii sped r-,vo sets of exposure r--or crdatios, err for 'co: ollcd eavirc : reams' (usually involving workers) and another for 'uncontrolled C viro: ents'involving(usually the general public). The 1982 gsidetines s�.-ied only one s't * e li'"'i r i_s whether the individual exposed was a worker or a L^e=ber � o. zxsL:r: ..:.. t_, r=gat:. s of w. _ ,.,,: orthe sentr Ir. addition to the ANSI spa Gard, he= arc f".+O of .e w'Id:ly discussed sL,a :.dar-ice that of the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and that of the Inte=doral Radiation s AD iscorporation c a: _ ed by the Unit:--.4. Protection�sx:at=on (i�. ). The NC�.a non-profit States Congress to. among other wings, develop info. —='-ion and reco .endaticrs concerning protection.o partic n �r . radiation The NC_'t is rade t�-� of the L�ac:s add participants i�ar.� who serve on its various scientific co=inets. The g*.Iide h -s issued by the NCR S-.=ify a level cf 1 tnWIc •Thar5 per square c t' titer) for the :,^Csure of he general public in the frequency rangeof1.5to30C- 0_z. The IPPA is a no--gcve_.,._. em,atior_?.1 ors- -'IIon rr'Jr•Canti g r-c e ,._ .: ._.._.. I t.....-� ..�7....Lrrr- _..L.St oI tnC iation.l world. These r-_ .L.ahors for= par: .—adiatio protection sx...t_s is the w ' - s ": ^r"'e:"' of the World Q- - - -T (. HO) United Nations c--- t i n;oc—. ^: ('�. s"=?). IRPA 1r:�i.�1VL 6:1c..S �y:�V ..into. ♦ � V L:��•.� zuinvii es for public ewe cs.i:: :~a.:.or� + -nd 1 .^-. �T•� ocr ee: i GHz and 300 Lira,. .._.Y.� � Lie it Seine sates, including Massachus ::-s, New Jersey, Oregon, and W asr.iri ten, as well as some local ju:-is- icacs have adopted t :i: own r-ad nation u es. Radiation Levels i c_ levels of RFR an:. IMF to wb ich the public is rvu-_rnly e cs:d are far below t . levels : to pose a health risk. A 1989 r�cr: by th Otis:. of ag e-ring and Technology tit a*t. d t :a: the U.S. nvi.--ot:., .: xal P:ot... thbn Ag_rzy m- ates than in seven =excpolitan ants sLcdie.- aa:rss the United States, 98 to 99 per --exit of the population is expos ed to less than 0 001 =Wi0 cf radiation. The mi.-rent ANSI r —d for power d:rsiry e.-LosLr levels is .580 ^W; rn:. This s"L a:r"ard Is considerably nacre r.:suic:iv: than the 1 =W/ctn:: s sdard stet: by t" NCR? 2._ theL-cPA. • Attachment C Additionally, L.":_ 19E .- "iSI v.:id:ants for radiation exposure indicate that devices cpC` i g on less than 7 wa:_ of power at fretruenci_S less • an 1.000 0 :rr:'.z will not "use Cellular mobile :hones c_ rate �r;yw x 0.6 a 4 3 xa= of rower at 1reet.e:cies te;w—w SGO and 900 MHz..SMP mobil_ ., cator o'CC at: bet-: 0.5 and 1.5 wars of t}o ier is. the S4V NCfrequency c n44. and P \ mobile 4o^, rit::3 are aiLi CiNa � to ap ra rnnV +or: tan 1 wan of power at frequencies between 1,850 a :.'' 2?C0 MHz, all faLiir; well below t .e 7 t.ar. t:Suoid. cell to r.;fr.::.,c .z .ri n• `r,a sites and building-_ ctu^t• 1 v'r _a; c sites. .��. ....._ = C C�'IGS, r l?Gf^:"Cl....L... a..+� d ,. antenn en._ sites, use ax .�,.� effective ti radiated. r ( R ). In ca arson, na 5....5. 5.. a i►..-..��.�... of .CO_�Q :.'atT.S of _...._.:VC 3d• t)OWC. D radio broadcasting towels use roughly 100.000 wars and television broadcasting tow: use a prv:.:.ilartely 5,000,000 wars ER?. roe radiation G".l,i from test brcadC.:snng sc'IL—Z2s deer•_': s according tc the i-iversr square Thu., if LL prox city to b cadr,.as-4,,,g sourc:s is restricted, exposer: to radiation should be r-1; ,irrtit Ongoing and Future Research •'•any szucies have been coL:ducte .':.3.=-�-'`-, r'. ""� s of R and F.M.FS on '•'"lals and urna s, scients' :a have been unable to reach carsesus on the results for various r--asons, •.. r+l„�:_._•.. ' -ficul /r. i.,r..-.rem`--', r.e e.. rt/1 r%.. ri r..a L..�.w,.. 7 C:•. Y. �.ri i... .:..r.r g `-- tii►:. St}L'lat'aa OI SI': dies pCriVL;nCwi On '"•- S cells to L'`.:. s: difficultyi:: G:.piar:ing the effects of nat''_ at iflu:-c.:S, such as the C:in's iiaeetic field; dif Icu1rI.'; con::owng crue'al vazia01_S in the saidv, Sacra as the alzou t of :n gy absorbed by test cr^ansms, C+=iC.1rJ in re.:� iicarn; and g:y.�1;:Tg _.sos obr;�77 at SvC±:IIc power levels, f._q�_._,.s, and madwlation paze=s, to other sinia+ons: di;f.c".:ty in CSr:_.::s;ring be: siizht norw.ai horn n c :ansez and subje variations; and difficulty in azretinz on the results -rci ^etcdoicgi:s cf epide.=iolosi:.al =dies. While nr : .:r.e5 • gg:s- . • _,+ r eau CJv. 5� :i i+__ � tat IC:�•'.C_L,. � ..i�i�.'L..��.., to some Ll�.r•..1� of a'�..� and �5 .L�`� .ssLs+.. advent health effects it d,—._- =v ,r; studies do not. AC:.. riling to a report publish other sell ._.. ;^. -�1994 by :. t rein.: c` S a::s Ce:,:al At-:g Office, , both the Food and Druz Ac-^r*�.....:s.:a+n, own (FDA) j) and the Enviroru..e 1 Protection • ;+r.,.,w ('.�..7�,) a'"�+.�.' `2 that t: . _� o�Ar�•'_ticn flu: tie =osz -e... .dies is inzi " 1Cie-:t to deter.,, ne ether the re t oat all. c•L... �. sL,.�l_ ._ _ .:. r � :_ h_,:.:,.. �._ risks are s��s.: a�vG, if present In fa_.. some cities, such as tr. City of San Diego, have adcr_ssed this issue by distinraishing between aerial a_'c a rived health 1----1-d s when performing CEQA (California r.nvironmerml QL:aiit'; Act) review. The e c -i recos-^:--s that the public's fear of the unknown sonarimes causes "perceive::: ti,ealt L^- = =r * '- studies Lave. b n found inconclusive clusive in riado: to thLe establish.: by the the city does not identify E',0 impacts on )77'-11211 he:L • as sip:in: nt. Nonetheless, the policy cf =nviro=entaai Analysis Sc_ ion (=,A.S) of t::e Development and E vi.rr--_nr'T pT . 4-g (D?) son of the Development Service D=pa.: �:ut (DSD) is to disclose the pr_.se= of = ' sources, and advise "prude= avoidance," where possible. An e-a-_,-1- of cride= avei would be to place power lines or oti sources :ram ni of .._, • L,`� , , w 4 S L•: iaci_:..... _. ._we5 i0ti+-1�:._ SiS; L .cell. LSCS. SaC:: a.S pact' ing lots. R_sear: Rel::e.d to Wireless Conurutnico--fares L*i Dccc.:.ber 1993, the California Public Utilities Cotn_*-iissien (CPUC) issued a r;,ar s,1r ate= an in. c=atiocal workshop held in July of 1993 en E'P and cellular facilities. -nd:d by represent=eves f-ozr the CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), the Mifcfrja Depar-.W_nt of Health Services (DES). the Cellular Carries Association on of California (CCAC), and the public, the workshop addressed cellular ex osur_ levels, epidemiological wady results, results of ani ai and ^oi=,lar =per:n 1 s, and current laws, r_gulatiors. policies. and guidelines. Werkshcp participants also considered whether the C.'t'UC should adapt an e.^osur_ st nc: rd and whether the Cc=missicn should institutene3rin z to furaher emmi a th LSSa e A Coe---'ssica decision cn ENE: and cellular facilities is e.- •ed to be issued Iat.-r year. L Ncve.:abcr cf 1994, the United States C-n ai Ae ci rir S Office pubiished a re ort ado-rss g the s.2rus of scien f''c knowledge cn the effc of RFR rantP'' by cellular telmoles. The reports found that no Long-t_-rza wadies on low levels of r diation from cellular phones have been complete:, and •tt_the research conducted on other scurces of low-level radio f1recttue•'a,cy radiation are inconclusive. The rMota f .her d- :'^;*'^ that both epidemiological and laboratory studies a:: t:• •-c to as..:: -air: whether per_abie c_'luia- phones produce adve;s,- health effects. Two sa:ct srrdies are under way: 1. In 1991. Motorola, conrrc.rd with a prominent U.S. res. a.rr.:a company to s:.:dy the eft= of 'aziaiCg and distal slcri?is fro.= cellular 'telephones on a,•r"nls and cells. e,V_-_Le.to Cc released in late 1595 or early 1996. '?. in 1993, due to pubiie anxiety that perabie cellular phones cause adverse with e:;e=s, •the Cellular Telepher: L:dus�y Asscc adon (C IIA) allocated S15 to S25 million to s..dy the safery of C:iit:iaz phc^es for three to five year;, including the effe:'s of analog and dizi,.-..ate... tal radiation n at cellular and PCS frequencies. cies. The =IA and other inc, r:_r_sepaeves es_bis cd a Science Advicr: Grotto en Cellular Tei:phote Safety to cerformt=:s resea:-._ t:_ou_h enicier ielog c.:l s_dies, c:'.I culnzes, animal te.rdng, and _ c research. .• _ —.:.scientific pe - Ec-_•� : - ... .zd::iticzrli .. the a _S...sa . will be - submitted to a sc.-...alic - review M • ,-d through : • a rd U n .iversi ,, Center for Risk Analysis. i r s research will cccrci:a_... t: cud: �: 'resets oats. _. �a.. order to provide ftr h:r cbi=:lefty. be open for federal ua...a�.�a On in i The federal gove-- z::t re,: also is tierra:� ng r=s:.aath that fca:ses s�u-ically on cellular t :iephene sae issues. • For its.:=: --, the National Cancer Ins -drat: has bezun an epider..,iological staid' cf people with brain cancer to ascertain whether t_h::r is a statistic -al relationship bet'wcea cs.c.er and t:: use cf cellular t-l^Cotes. It is antic �a'_---d that this study will be catanle.ed bcrwe z 1998 and 1999. In ?ate,,,.:• of 1995, the D oa --': of reran' r_'e d a booklet fentitied Oue tioos as .4nswt-s '� pun .s ....: ^ ♦�: ec -�n''s Res: r--; and Public Inforr.:+azon Dissernr-irion about � C? Lw�l.�ia w aJ � a.:.. 4 r' L...._wu.. a •rJ a J e ► P, -..., e abls, in 99' (R..�� r ) program. The :�-z.. J Y a � __a was sa..� a: 1 _ as a rive year. 565 , C00, CCQ setsu if exposure to EMF c t, . dvc,.r. - 1tW eff a. t o order i w copies call rrLg-�:. to study _.,;,cat. _ -s ..a��s a .�.. c , 1 (Scc) �- L ...�- , c:' : zll .a....-ia i.._'":: for orders a: (..02) i.. . t 0 . • Attachment C Far additional information on Dias, Planning Advisory Service Report #435, Elearomagne:ic Fief and Land -Use Controls, by David Bergman, Louis Slesin, and Matthew Connelly (Chicago: American Pl.2ti g Association, 1991) can be ordered through the American Planning Association's Planners Bookstore, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603; (312) 431-9100. Additionally, the ANSI Standards, also known as r Standard for Safety Levels with ResDea to Human Exposure to Radio Frequen4 Egaromagnrric Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, 1992 (*ANSI= c.95.1-1992), and Recommended Praaice for the Measurement of Potentially F ardour Eearomagnetic Fields - RF and Microwave (ANSIIIE' C95.3-1992) are available through the American National Standards Institute,' 11 W. 42nd SL, New York, NY 10036; (212) 642-4900. Although the research conducted • up to the prat is considered inconclusive, important questions have been raised about the possible relationship . between health complications and the e pcsure to ei==t271ag23CC fields. 'The studies cited above, in combination with other human and laboratory studies,- could provide the kind of comprehensive research nr..ded to dezze---n4nt the safety of wireless communications devices. 36 • BUILDING MOUNTED ANTENNAS Attachment D • Dgii RALSTO N • DEN RALS.,;TON ›!. • • BUILDING MOUNTED ANTENNAS • Attlichment D DENRALSTON V;I^44........ . .., z ... , ;,......g.,;•............ . . . .................,..'. '''. ' ..-,........-,,, ,......„. v • DEN RALSTON ,.•••••0% • z. • • - • • - • • • • • A:-L•r•r(.4 :• • ; r *1?;te • ^ I: /a? .5!...e • • • • I W -144.• TIV0!1:,•.:Yeo ••":; . •: •• • 4.• )'..X • I • «. .• . ' s." • ' • • . • • .. • • • • : •••"'' • • • • • **7 • • „ - • • • . *- • - • • '• OM ';k0U . I • , • • • • at, tn; C.; . - _ J.* . • • - yr: . • .1"liglr"a;*""""'•.• • • ..:;....:"."1"1"i"."• • 371' air ,..;•,1••••• :....,4"........... • ,....; ..,..... ..., • ,-.7...iit ...., ......,. ,.. ...glejs ...* .0. •••••••". .1n' ...., le& • -...... ,..,.. • '' ,r..., ...,. ..- ..„. - „..i. , ,:, a* 7',..•:-?" 7t'" ••• reN K.001-45- • ROOF MOUNTED ANTENNAS • • •.,shot: ''/iew n tu.,.,•rt View • ."NEST ..r.Ra :Nf•�.- 1-11 11 11 1 1 1 -111 d_ 1.11 1i11 ;..RIIT1.4 1 1111 11 E11 1111 Idi.l1 1 1 1 1 g 1 II(. R.; 11 1 Den Central Boulder Cell Site Simulation I UnNIng Vn..S 'rnm Ffnnt 1 •r•: Attachment D • r."711sudi ywu ntne