Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-1996 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 1996 7:00 P.M. AGENDA SESSION 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Review of Minutes: August 7, 1996(Enclosed) 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS:BEFORE SPEAKING,PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Discussion of Planning Case No. 454-96 8021 Eastwood Road Applicant: Erik Anderson Minor subdivision to create two lots. 6. Discussion of Planning Case No. 455-96 8265 Spring Lake Road Applicant: Mounds View Economic Development Authority • Variance request to recognize existing lot width of 80'where 100'is required for corner lots. 7. Presentation and Discussion on Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Towers and Antennas, in preparation for development of an ordinance addressing this issue in the City of Mounds View (Ordinance No 588). Speaker: Coralie Wilson,Executive Director, North Suburban Cable Commission 8. Discussion of Planning Case No. 452-96(continued from August 7, 1996) 3025 County Road H Stahl Construction Company on behalf of the New Apostolic Church Request for a conditional use permit to construct a 2,002 church in the R-1, Single Family Zoning District, a wetland alteration permit to undertake construction in the 100-foot wetland buffer, and a variance to allow an encroachment of five feet into the 35 foot required front yard setback. 9. Discussion of a Proposed Amendment to the Mounds View Zoning Code for increasing setbacks between property lines and parking lots for churches in residential zoning districts(Submitted by Dan Moon). 10. Staff Report 11. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 12. Adjournment APPLICANTS: YOUR A 1 1'ENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055 • IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO A FIEND. THANK YOU. **************************************************** UNAPPROVED • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 7, 1996 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was 1. Call to Order called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:03 p.m. on August 7, 1996. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Miller, 2. Roll Call Brooks, Johnston, Brasaemle and Chair Peterson. (Commissioners Stevenson and Obert had excused absences.) • ALSO PRESENT: Planning Associate Pruitt, Community Development Director Sheldon and Recording Secretary Benesch. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve 3. Approval of Minutes: the minutes of July 10, 1996, as amended. July 10, 1996 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried There were no citizen requests or comments 4. Citizen Requests and from the floor. Comments From the Floor The Planning Commission took action on item 6 6. Consideration of before the informational meeting. Resolution Nos. 468- 96 and 469-96 Rob Davidson and Mike Grenander, Regarding a PUD representatives of the applicant, Everest Amendment for Property Management, were present. Everest Property Management, 5251 1111 Planning Associate Pruitt explained that Program Avenue, Everest Property Management is requesting a Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 2 • PUD amendment and development review to Planning Case No. expand the parking lot at 5251 Program 453-96 Avenue, Building G and reminded the Planning Commission that this item was discussed at their July 24, 1996, agenda meeting. She continued by explaining that the applicant is requesting to have a net increase of 35 parking stalls on the east side of the property and wishes to increase the number of stalls in order to meet the demands of a tenant that may locate to the business park which will bring the total number of parking stalls provided on the site to 500. She noted that the plans indicate the parking spaces located on the east side of the property will abut the property line and noted that at the last meeting the Planning Commission agreed to allow parking up to the. property line for this PUD amendment since a • landscaping buffer is being provided within the right-of-way. It was also noted that the parking area to the south of the building will be restriped. She also indicated that Rick Wriskey, City Forester, has requested the existing trees be moved within 8 to 9 feet from the curb along the right-of-way and also that the applicant has been advised that the amendment will require Rick Creek Watershed District approval. Planning Associate Pruitt noted the contingencies contained in Resolution No. 468-96 which are: 1) a landscaping plan be submitted subject to approval of the City Forester and 2) approval be given from Rice Creek Watershed District. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to approve Resolution No. 468-96 as amended recommending approval of an amendment to Development Agreement No. 87-81 with • Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 3 Mounds View Business Park, Building G, 5251 Program Avenue. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to approve Resolution No. 469-96 as amended recommending approval of the development request of Everest Development LTD, Mounds View Business Park, Building G, 5251 Program Avenue. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried The applicant was informed that this item would be forwarded to the City Council at their August meeting for action. • Bill Diem, of Stahl Construction, was present. 5. Public Informational Meeting Regarding Community Development Director Pamela the Request of Stahl Sheldon noted that this item was discussed at Construction for the the Planning Commission agenda meeting and Construction of the that Stahl Construction is requesting to build a New Apostolic Church church, the New Apostolic Church, on the at 3025 County Road property located at 3025 County Road H. H, Planning Case No. 452-96 Community Development Director Sheldon informed the Planning Commission that there was new information regarding parking and drainage for this request. She continued by explaining that the Building Inspector had calculated the total parking stalls required based on the total area of the building, not the seating capacity, and that Stahl Construction has asked that it be recalculated by the area that will be used for seating. Stahl's point was that not all of the area will be used for seating • and they anticipate their parking needs will not be as great as portrayed in the City's analysis. Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 4 She also explained that a retention area may not be required because they have an alternative proposal to use a clarification ditch and that our Engineering consultant is awaiting a proposal from Stahl Construction as to how they will modify the parking lot to make this proposal work. Director Sheldon recommended to the Planning Commission that this item be tabled at this point but noted that the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission act on the variance so that the lay-out of the site can be arranged. The Planning Commission inquired about the curb cuts that are not in compliance. Planning Associate Pruitt informed the Commission that the applicant desires to remedy this issue and come into compliance with City Code. Planning • Associate Pruitt also noted items that need to be addressed: landscaping, fire suppression system, driveway access, exits on both sides of the building, revised floor plans showing one story not two, revised drainage plans for approval by the City Engineer and submittal of an application for a wetland alteration permit. The applicant, Bill Diem, explained that he is in favor of temporarily tabling this item due to the fact that the main office for Stahl Construction is located in Pennsylvania and that it may take some additional time to get all the items required. Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, inquired whether or not the proposed building would be a multi-person residence. Mr. Diem responded that there would be no residence on site. Mr. Bellis also asked if a traffic study had been done because he felt this proposal would • increase traffic flow. Mr. Diem indicated that they did hire a surveyor, who specializes in Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 5 traffic studies, but reminded the residents that this facility would mainly be used only on Sundays. Commissioner Brasaemle inquired if the building would be one-story. Mr. Diem indicated that the facility would be first-floor at grade and a basement for a total of 2,002 square feet. Mr. Diem at this time showed the plans to the residents. Some of the drainage concerns were discussed, mainly the flow of drainage on the site. The applicant assured the Commission and the resident that he had been in contact with Rice Creek Watershed District and noted that there is currently a filtration system in 4111 place along County Road H. Some residents were still concerned with the water flowing to the north. Mr. Diem assured the residents that all water would drain to a gravel bed to the south. Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H, addressed the Planning Commission expressing his concern regarding drainage of the property. He asked if additional water would be draining to County Road H. Mr. Diem indicated that they are proposing a retention area and there is the availability of berms, curb cuts, etc. to slow the water down. He also indicated that more water would be flowing, however, the volume would be controlled. He also indicated that they will try to provide more green space and are proposing a massive green space on the southwest corner of the property and will address any aesthetic issues. Barb Cloues, 2875 County Road H, asked why the church would be allowed in an R-1 District. The Planning Commission responded by Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 6 indicating that churches are an allowed use by conditional use permit in an R-1 District. She also had a concern regarding the future growth of the facility and what would happen to the building if the church vacates. Mr. Diem explained that the structure being proposed is twice the size needed to allow for future growth and, if the congregation did become too large, part of the congregation would be moved to a new building. He indicated that a majority of the congregation now lives in the Mounds View area. Ms. Cloues also asked what the church would be used for. Mr. Diem explained that Sunday School would begin at 8:45 a.m., worship services would be held at 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., the choir meets twice a month, a evening worship service is held on Wednesdays at 8 p.m. and also noted that the • average attendance on Sunday is 60-70 people at the morning services, 20 people at the evening services and 20 people at the Wednesday service. Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, asked why the church didn't rebuild their current facility in the Midway area. Mr. Diem again stated that a majority of the members live in this area. Barb Cloues, 2875 County Road H, inquired about the parking issue and whether there was enough and was concerned about off-street parking. The applicant indicated that no off- street parking is needed and that 17-18 cars is the most they have had at one time. Rochelle Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, inquired as to why the church doesn't get a property better suited for the facility with more green space. . Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 aRegular Meeting Page 7 Dan Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, referenced another particular property that the church had been looking at. The applicant indicated this particular property had an easement running through it which would not make it a desirable site for the church. Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H, indicated that he is aware of land available on Highway 10, on both sides, that may be better suited. The applicant explained that the ability for a church to build in a residential district has been protected. He also explained that other properties that they had looked at did not have sewer and water to the site which would cost more to install than the lot itself. Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, mentioned • that a developer (Steve Borden at this time indicated that the developer was Larry Beach and that he was told by Mr. Beach that his name could be used at this meeting) tried to develop the property with no cooperation from the City. Planning Associate Pruitt responded by indicating that she has not been approached by Mr. Beach regarding development of this site. Commissioner Brooks asked whether or not church representatives are aware of neighboring property owners' objection to this proposal. Mr. Diem explained that, in his experience, the development of schools and churches is always opposed. He further explained that typically commercial development doesn't create as much controversy since those properties are already zoned for that particular use. . Rochelle Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, explained that she has nothing personal Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 8 • against churches but does have a concern about the church parking lot being next to her house. Mr. Diem indicated that landscaping is required for a buffer. Commissioner Brasaemle asked where the parking issue stands with the 22 stall difference from what is required. Planning Associate Pruitt explained that the building inspector has gone over the floor plans based on maximum occupancy load of the building and that the applicant would need to show proof of permanent seating for the facility. Community Development Director Sheldon indicated that there is a one stall per four seat required per City Code and that 32 stalls currently are proposed. Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, asked • whether or not the church congregation was required to sing and was concerned about the noise level. The applicant indicated that, yes, they would be singing and said that construction would consist of 6 inch insulated walls. Barb Cloues, 2875 County Road H, asked if photographs were available. The applicant indicated that he would bring the photographs to the next meeting. Planning Associate Pruitt informed the residents that she indicated to the applicant that this item would more than likely be fabled so the applicant was not prepared to make a presentation at this meeting. Lynn Widseth, 3001 County Road H, said that she was not aware of a previous meeting that was held regarding this issue. Planning Associate Pruitt explained that a public hearing is only required at the City Council level and • Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 9 that this informational meeting at the Planning Commission level was held as a courtesy. Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, again expressed his concerns regarding the traffic issue. Chair Peterson asked the applicant to describe the design of the building. The applicant at this time gave a brief description of the lay-out and indicated that floor plans would be presented at the next meeting. Rochelle Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, expressed her concerns that if a berm was installed it may dry out. Chair Peterson noted that at this time questions are taken regarding the building structure, and they would get into • drainage issues and show how the grade works later. Lynn Widseth, 3001 County Road H, asked if there were any handicapped individuals in the congregation and was concerned about handicapped persons escaping during a fire. The applicant indicated that currently there are no handicapped individuals in the congregation and explained that it is a requirement that two staircases be installed along with egress windows (which would accommodate the handicapped) in the basement. Barb Cloues, 2875 County Road H, expressed her concerns about the security issue and that she sees very little police traffic on County Road H. The applicant explained that • vandalism is a product of our society and, as always, is at the risk of the property owners. He also indicated that churches have the same • ratio for vandalism as strip malls. Chair Peterson asked if a monitored security system Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 10 would be installed? The applicant explained that to put a security system in would be the decision of the owner and also informed them that the church is self-insured. Barb Cloues, 2875 County Road H, was concerned about her safety. The applicant indicated that the rate of loss to a retail mall is less than that of residential property. Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H, asked if the lighting on the site would be on. The applicant explained that no direct illumination is allowed onto adjacent properties. Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, asked what the addresses of the congregation members were and how many were south of Highway 36. • The applicant informed Mr. Bellis that 5 percent of the congregation lived south of Highway 36 and approximately 20 percent live in Mounds View. Chair Peterson asked the applicant to address the drainage issues. Mr. Diem began by explaining that better than 150 feet is going towards the west and exiting at a controlled rate to Pleasant View Drive and the remainder to County Road H. The Planning Commission noted that the Engineer expressed concern with filtration. Mr. Diem continued to explain the drainage for the site. The applicant stated that they are proposing to move the building farther to the west, some additional parking would then be in back and more green space would be created at the exit. Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, inquired about the proposal to widen County Road H. Chair Peterson informed him that Planning Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 11 Commission was not aware of any plans to widen County Road H. Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H, expressed his concern with the parking elevations and the lot draining to the northeast and running through his yard. The applicant explained that the entrance will be high enough to contain the drainage and then recapped the proposed drainage plans for the site and the proposed lay-out of the building. Barb Cloues, 2895 County Road H, was concerned about the 3/12 slope to the Borden's property. The applicant explained that they would not be changing the grade near the Borden's property to the east. Commissioner Miller was concerned with the accumulation of • water on the north side of the building. The applicant said that no there would not be and demonstrated the proposed water flow for the site. Lyle Bellis, 2977 County Road H, asked if there would be an entrance on County Road H. The applicant stated that yes there would be an entrance onto County Road H and that he has contacted Ramsey County and was informed that there would be no plans to update County Road H. Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H, indicated that he believed that there are plans to update County Road H in 1999 and was concerned about that green space that would be removed from the church for this project. The applicant indicated that if Ramsey County plans to widen County Road H they would first need to buy property from the existing residents in order to • do so. He also indicated that the green space proposed for this project is not on an easement Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 12 and that at least a five foot setback would be required for the installation of sidewalks along County Road H. Commissioner Brasaemle informed Mr. Diem that the sidewalks along Long Lake Road abuts the property line because there wasn't enough space to provide five feet and also that a temporary construction easement was given by the residents. Chair Peterson asked that applicant to address the snow storage issue. Mr. Diem explained that 2 percent of the green space proposed for the site will be used as snow storage with the additional storage coming from one parking space. Steve Borden, 3009 County Road H, inquired as to the parking lot setbacks. Planning • Associate Pruitt indicated that there is a five foot minimum setback requirement. Mr. Borden also expressed that he believes that parking requirements should be calculated by maximum occupancy of the building. Community Development Director Sheldon explained that parking is tied to permanent seating capacity. Dan Moon, 6999 Pleasant View Drive, asked if there would be concurrent use of Sunday school and church services and was concerned about the parking issue. The applicant indicated that there would be no concurrent used for these activities and that it has never happened. Lynn Widseth, 3001 County Road H, asked what the denomination of the church is? The applicant stated that it is Christian, the New Apostolic Church. • Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 13 Dave Griffen, 2965 County Road H, inquired as to what the church is doing now with their property? Mr. Diem explained that the church is currently renting because their facility has been sold. Barb Cloues, 2897 County Road H, again expressed her concerns regarding alternative parking and Chair Peterson assured her that these issues will be addressed. Ms. Cloues also inquired as to the signage that would be on site. The applicant explained that the sign would be brick with an illuminated cross and that it would also show the name of the church, service and Sunday school times and it would be located on the building near the entrance. " Additional snow storage issues were reiterated and the applicant explained that snow storage will not be located in areas where water is expected to drain. Shelley Borden, 3009 County Road H, asked the Planning Commission what "tabling" this item means? The Planning Commission explained that there is not enough information to make a decision at this time. Planning Associated Pruitt noted at this time that a wetland alteration permit is also needed. Community Development Director Sheldon asked when could the City could expect to receive the needed items for review from the applicant. Mr. Diem indicated that they would be supplied in one week and will be shown to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. The informational meeting was closed at 9:00 • p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, ,1996 • Regular Meeting Page 14 Community Development Director Sheldon indicated that we will need to review new plans to determine what the variance request is. Chair Peterson and Commissioner Brasaemle expressed their concerns that this proposal did not meet the criteria for granting a variance. The applicant indicated that they are seeking a variance in order to add green space but that locating the building on the site is workable without a variance. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to table this item with no action to be taken before their September 4, 1996, meeting. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Commissioner Brasaemle informed the • residents of the next Planning Commission meeting dates of Wednesday, August 21 and the regular meeting to be held on September 4, 1996. Planning Associate Pruitt informed the Commission that she would be writing the applicant a letter requesting an additional 60 days in order to process the application, Community Development Director Sheldon 7. Consideration of reviewed this item indicating that the Mounds Resolution No. View ordinance requires development contracts 470-96 Regarding for almost every step in the development Ordinance No. 588 process, whether the step involves (Chapter 1006.06) improvements or not. It is staffs understanding that the purpose of the requirement is to make sure improvements are completed. She recommended that, for private improvements, a better approach would be to allow applicants to • proceed without posting security. If, at the time Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 15 when the applicant wants occupancy of the building, the items are not completed, the City would decide if it would allow security to be posted and occupancy permits to be issued, or require that the improvements be completed. Right now the City requires that the applicant put up security before construction is started, when the usual practice is to construct private improvements along with construction of the building. There are occasions when improvements such as landscaping cannot be completed because of whether until the next growing season. In these situations, security could be required for installation of the landscaping and an occupancy permit issued. For public improvements, development contracts and security are needed for such • improvements as sidewalks, curb and gutter, streets, etc., and no change is proposed in this requirement. She expressed that development contracts are not needed for proposals such as oversized garages. Resolution No. 470-96 talks about making these minor items exempt because no other improvements are involved. It was requested by the Planning Commission that Resolution No. 470-96 be amended to state that the Planning Commission recommend and the City Council grant waivers when such contracts are not needed to fulfill the requirements of the ordinance, rather than exempted certain situations. The Planning Commission discussed that there are some cases when the construction of an oversized garage involves removal of other structures and then a development contract and security is needed. Motion/Second: Miller/Brasaemle to table the consideration of Resolution No. 470-96 • regarding Ordinance No. 588 amending the development contract language of chapter Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 16 1006.06, Subdivision 4, of the Municipal Code, with direction to staff that the Planning Commission review the specific wording of the proposed ordinance revision before it is sent to City Council. (Commissioner Brooks left the meeting at 9:30 p.m.) 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Planning Associate Pruitt reviewed this item 8. Consideration of indicating that the City of Mounds View was Resolution No. informed that the City's flood plain ordinance is 471-96 Regarding not considered compliant by the Minnesota Ordinance No. 589 Department of Natural Resources and that a (Chapter 1301, Flood nonconforming uses section and a section Plain Zoning) addressing travel trailers is encouraged to be added. She also indicated that this ordinance needs to be in place by September 1, 1996, or the City of Mounds View will be suspended from the FEMA program. The Planning Commission inquired as to how much of Mounds View is affected. (A FEMA map was shown to the Planning Commission at this time). Motion/Second: Johnston/Brasaemle to recommend approval of Resolution No. 471-96 as amended by Staff to meet Department of Natural Resources (DNR) criteria, regarding Ordinance No. 589 amending Chapter 1301, entitled "Flood Plain Zoning". 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Planning Associate Pruitt informed the 9. Staff Report • Planning Commission that she has accepted a position with the City of Hastings and will be Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 1996 • Regular Meeting Page 17 leaving the City of Mounds View with August 30 as her last day. She also introduced the new Community Development Director, Pamela Sheldon, and welcomed her aboard and thanked the Planning Commission for their cooperation and understanding during her time as Acting Community Development Director. All members were present at the July 24, 1996, 10. Report of Chair agenda meeting. Also present were Planning Associate Pruitt and Community Development Director Sheldon. Chair Peterson requested that the agenda be changed to contain not only the Chair's Report but also that it include the other Planning Commissioners. There being no further business before the 11. Adjournment • Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director • Alt t-ti5r 617, I -116i KC-6 ULM- r"I a:LA (I-f.;,.n.;-7-0 I Li 64.1-UR: 1H7 17a177 - IP I ==n2afi)t) 69,,29 (. ).-Ze_azaAti Cia) 0). 197cot) 69P/6 a D,' ,e. ct-- PALA Pc• Ct: (c71.0 C7 Q \*C;CLS 001%1 - tC2 k.10 t )6(1 YLdaL 600 e°24i'l jeat7-d /47 9,1 0Z.Pg Co PidN 'Pour(ge tvkLa.trA 3cis-en oM Vt„,r, Ssr-ret ed/vZSL 1-Cityl)x .S41)411.- 3a 0 C_oct,n 117Llet L3 CL_S - 50114(_, • 130,-A4 3f coa.,ty/ ied • ITEM #5 • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: August 21, 1996 Staff Report by: Joyce Pruitt, Planning Associate Planning Case 454-96 File No.: Request: The applicant is requesting a minor subdivision to split one parcel in order to create two parcels. Petitioner: Erik Anderson Location: 8021 Eastwood Road PIN No. 06-30-23-41-0041 Total acreage of exisitng property is 38,114 square feet ( 0.87 acres) Zoning Land Use: The property is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. . Applicable Regulations: Section 1201.03, Subd. 11, defines a minor subdivision as "A subdivision of a parcel or parcels of property less than two acres in size in which no more than one additional parcel or lot is created." Section 1202.01, Subd. 1, states "Minor subdivision requests shall require at least a surveyor's certificate for approval." Section 1104.02, Subd. 2, requires a minimum lot width for R-1 interior lots of 75 feet. Section 1104.02, Subd. 3, requires a minimum lot size requirement of 11,000 square feet for an R-1 interior lot. Section 1204.02. Subd. 2, requires a"park dedication fee" (dedication to the public for public use as parks, playgrounds, public open space or storm water holding areas or ponds) of $100.00 per acre for a gross denisty of 0.0 - 2.0 dwelling units per acre. • Attachments: Zoning Map Certificate of Survey • PLANNING CASE NO. 454-96 AUGUST 21, 1996 PAGE TWO OF TWO Planning Application Background: Erik Anderson, the legal owner of the property, is requesting a minor subdivison to spilt the property 8021 Eastwood Road into two separate parcels. The proposed lots each meet the minimum lot area and width requirements as outlined in the subdivision ordinance: Required Proposed Requirement Met? Minimum Lot Area (Interior) 11,000 appr. 19,057 YES (Interior) 11,000 appr.19,057 YES Minimum Lot Width (Interior) 75 feet 82.5 feet YES . (Interior) 75 feet 82.5 feet YES Mr. Anderson has been informed of the $100 park dedication fee requirement. Typically, when a new parcel is created, the City of Mounds View requests drainage and utility easements. The City typically requests a five foot easement along side lot lines and ten foot easements from the rear and front property lines. The applicant is aware that a new survey will need to be provided noting these required easements. It is anticipated the revised survey, noting applicable easements, will be provided to you by the next Regular Meeting. Recommendation/ Analysis: If this application is approved, the Plannig Commission may wish to consider adding at least these two contigencies to the resolution: 1. The resolution and Certificate of Survey be recorded with Ramsey County within sixty (60) days of final adoption, and present proof of such recording to the City of Mounds View. • 2. The applicant pay the park dedication fee of$100.00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNINGAPPLICATION APPLICANT:_ > �.. v- Phone = - y73�� ADDRESS: ROd/ �` _s ..eioc/ ,E'a/ Street Address, City, State, and Zip Code Interest in Property (check appropriate box): Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager O Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final City action of this requeet • PROPERTY INVOLVED: • Address/General Location eY04/ octi Legal Description or Property Identification Numbers 6/ Sepz-„` a 1 ,.G Legal Owner: Name/Address . iP,,Q//zsese- F�6t 1 scc ieq-/ Present Use (check appropriate box): ❑ UndevelapedNacant • L� Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling v - , -_ ❑ Multi-Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification: ❑ Abstract '` ❑ Torrens REQUEST: *Please note: Applicant may be responsible for additional fees associated with the review of this request I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE TRUE. levevrirtveirgriVritirineirseirirseintrirvrartraititirieveiratirwirfrelrlivelevrsrstiriraititirinirirsrervirlivorarritirwirinralrorimilrielreritli—stirst It it Signature Rezoning $200/acre.minimum$200.maximum$1,000 Park Find Dedication Fee Variance R-1 to R-2-$75,sit others$200 Data Paid Conditional Use Permit R-1 to R-2-$75.ail others$200 Receipt Number Code Appeal $75 Develop./Site Plan Review •.• acre.minimum 100.maximum $500 Total Fees Paid 4 /50 Minor Subdivision $150 Data Paid Major Suodivision _ " plus£250 deposit Receipt Number r a . Como. Plan Amendment $200 Weiland Alteration Permit $50 plus deposit determined by Staff Additional Fee Paid Wetland Buffer Permit Si 0 Date Psid Planning Sign $50 Receipt Number PUO $350 PUD Amendment $150 Data of nnat ac000n APPROVED Q DENIED r TABIC Q Oars T-7 ` '?CY Planning Case No. LiSq—q Admin.Account No. ¢, m _a _ ..-_� 8398e..10, 7 03777 6980 8373' , -'8370 - a365-: 83T� - 8379 - 8380 8385 8384 y 0372 8360 ^3379 8360 6365 t 8376 8375 837E 8378 36 ^ o 8 ^-"' 8383 8350 8355 8350_, 8360 #`~ r 8368: 6369 • 8360 83 5 8340 8345 -8340` 8371 8372 8365 _ i 8365 -8354 . 8345, :• 8364 8345 ." _ �� • 8325 - 8330 8335. • r - � , .. :8335. ..,..,,••.. 357 "• `' t . .. t 8351 - - 834. 1. 8340 8331... 8330' 8321. 8344 8335 8325 6320 8343 8342 8325. 8312 8315 8320 8318 8323 8320- 8315 8340 8315 8335 :, 8332 8315 8300 :. 6303 8310 id 8305 8310'- 8321 - 8300 0305 8330 290-8291 8290 • 8285 8290 8295-J. 8310 -- 8330 - 6333 8322 8 . . 8290 3295 . -- -52509281 0200 r 8280 Q Brz3 AR DAN 8325 . .-8300 q 8265 8290 8287- 8280 ✓• 3273 8275 8270" ,3291 827..8271 atm 6265 • 8280 826T 630 PARK � -J� GROVEWVQ '•t 82 �_ SY73-3260 8261 8250` 8250 8255 828Q a.�,�I`l 8265 8250 8255 8483` N PARK 8236 8 8267 8250 0251 8241 e24 �, 6260 NI= PF szsa a27i. +^• h V.1• f m 2 .4, 8240 8261 . .- �� e m 2 e N N N m N N N r. N n N N N N 8231 m 8232 N N N N N. 6230 8255 N . 8247 ARDNI A C74 � 8 8 2 P. o m 0239 N +'m h N Qm m) o o 8220 NN 'N N 14) o Io 10 mh h h n 5230• N N N. N N N N N N N N N N N. 8210 6215 - - 8205 8225• 8206 - t - - .._ - 8224 8184 :6193 • 8217 8227 - _ •_ . - .. .. • - , .. 8202 r)- r W 3200 -. - - - - ::- 0212 O W .• • 3196 8205 - .•N N i N N 818f. 1 aG 0135 •^ g 8192 ** 820 8208. 4• 8175 " . 'O 8160 . 8171 . 8200 I Hr. m 8150 :•r:•r:...... 8160 • b N N. 8200 Iwo 8155 8150 St65 8143 8148 r� LAPORT _ 8,45 �, '. �i 8145 8140 8t 8138 ..11E111� d` 1 7:9- 8135 9jt P'S 8140 8141 8132 8121 8126 365 8132MN 8125 8130Wiltr MI n n r a : a n_ .. n m uni ( 8111 2.::. 2 7, n� '3 100 8101 P, m 0 811. on 2 8 N le n ,• 81 2C .12 N N N N N N N N N. N • I ^ N • b O 81+. El N m n i 8080 8075 A�. 8(199 N 8•: n 8086 8065 n N r 80801 8081 n r 8088cv 80:• m •m m ° r n N N Q . _ N N N :1:' N 8066 807 - 8068 • 8071 8072 8071 8072 0071 0070 'a07os 8071 8060 0:• . 8060 8065 8075 • --8060 8059- 8050 - 8060 - 8065 8050 r 8041 06; 6040 : ._-. 8048 8045 8042 •'' 8052 18031 = 8044 8045 804b R-8 8030 8045 8036 8039 8032 8033 - , 8040 8035 8032 8031 8035 80241 8025 1► 8022 8019 8026 80281 8018 801-f_ .- :.BWO -. 1 8011 80100' r�8020 8025 8018 8015 8025 / 8000 ., 8001 '10 8005 B018 8009 8006 7980 BOOS 8000 s 7985 8004 7981 7990 � 7981- 7990 7989 7996 G 986 9717 7977 • 7984 - 79901 7975 7970 7979 7980 --7980 - 7979 -�9 0 7961 7964 7975 7980 +. "fro 7965 7960 - .�,. _7968 7969 7950 7651 1 7954 7955 7944 =kill7955 7999`'' 7949 7'` 7 ME= 7927 HI _VIEW °° ► 7940 7s cv N • m 7934 7933 7950 7930 7g35- - 7930 . E 7917 7940 PARK 794 0 793 ® m N \ 7•.1 o at 1 . . 7932 N �1 7904 O 7900 '901• a •n ': n 7900 N- N N .�0 ^ 7901 7900 •-N N N 4. r? '�Z . 7900 N eft / HiLLViE1M - -' -. . 2 1 m o 1 `.`2 ::: m c. 88 791: :: 7891` n H 78801 '7895, H `ON-_7390 7885 y ry 1 N 7864 86R 1 ',..,c) . .4 I,g P'' ��rr :• N N �IT(•1 a : °� 7886=-Ad 7,366. 756.En IZEI ` 7870 7969 7858 �7871. aao �2 Z •..-.;�- �1. 7860 7865 7852 W 787C N§ Q 7a7T�'+ 7841 r 4 7870 to 7850 7055 7846 • 783 7850 v � - ..:::::7542.. 7,341 _ �-a4o 7835 7340 529 7ez co▪ 1 n :•• 7601 7,3Sf . ' 7790 761 s 7800 7809 7t73821C r 78 S ?780 7801 1zliI ' ill /1;‘'' 7760 X97-r. _ 7787 777' C 77691 77'' 8-2 '7 �: *�• :4 ,7,301 W 7751 7750 7777 • 7759 7770 � � 776T 7760.5 7741 7740 �b7 7761 1� 7750 7731 7730 ??53 774 49 7768 -`1,1%.`, :�•778t 1 774 ;773•I M O 7801 fr � .. _r J_ � 7735- __ - 7730 7721 7720 77 - 7^.2- " I:a; x4,1.1 r::, 4745 7710 7711 rig re�� 7715 •illi* ^.x: ; : r`_ 7715",._ al i 2 ,nn,21 7700Irmo 'n 41 41 - 0 i� no 7710 771; 1 .. '- r,. - - R-2 • -2 II r a !I� nnwun .- nupwnrl 7692 • o W ; _ ,w �ifii6 N�'�O °�rr� 25531-� g Ls; 1 = ' 769 7885 Cr7890 PUO o n n ,:; - Vicinity Map: 454-96 I IX 768 N rR- -N• - Eastwood Road 8021 Etd Rd 7670 7663 768,0„1.1 C, .4- #. — 1 '560 Ok �3 ti Applicant: Erik Anderson • Established In 1962 1" ss 50' LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. ° °�°tes� "°�"�" • o Wrote*• Hub set - LAND SURVEYORS ,e,.ao6•atloe„�, - REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF ILINNESOTA .000.0 Denotes basting Elevation 73rd AVenw Martis 612-660-SOW ®Chests.Proposed Elevation 0 raz Mo.560-3522 r O.nots.SurfaceDroilagh Minneapolis.Minnesota 65428 Profineed Top of Block MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR Oururgars (Qrrtif irstr Proposed Grope floor ERIC ANDERSON —ft wowed Lowest Soar • Type of Whim I -5 Spur - . N , ...44s. LA, 4t . V� rVl `�(yy'� • NI 1 �� V FCxt F' rut:.•••_••-- �--•--231.0 N90400'00"E--- ..—"— 0 l r IF I. - -.-. - i' _to z`w FC4' .9 6l i. ,r...--, `i Q L NI • I 4tt,c-•- L Iae3' 24b',. CC n,. i I t N ., �.1=s sv `, l'7l 101 tt t47 - X196 fp.00R. 146 1n y N PARCEL • ''9 tNR `API-118-1 y l� A I N ..,,,,:z, '3 16.9 CO `. 0.4 20 04 .r I ..1 .'ds.,:_t'T"tt Ht i:O'U.ft.. 'El.ii.1 V C I 3 W , o an 231.0 N90.00'00"E 5� �D N 13 1' . ..1 ivl�t o o fn z 6 0o aLci u, PARCEL - , 0 — 1 r--...---......7 _, N 1 LO N CO CO 1- 1 I r t :NAt11 ' `) I 1 .S7 WW1 Q r •1 el•iliftUM res:;:Hv :tit esti..'s:G LII 1 '\i • ._ Il C. --_ _ .. 15 1 C. .s' bsees 'i frAt.r. .rtes -_. _ ., 2310 S90°00`00"W—•_ - f.,...)372 -~ 41•S SPAT tl NZ 7989 0- l' abIj i I ' Survey Notes Legal Description: I.Property Address.8021 Eastwood Road Lot.61,Spring Lake Park Hillview 2.Property zoned R-1 Residential Pared A- (19,057 Sq.Ft.). 3.Total area of propaty=38,114 Sy.Ft.(0.87 Acres) The north 82.5 feet.u aletuuted along the eau and west lines thereof of Lot 61,SPRING LAKE PARK HIU-VIEW,Anoka county,Minnesota,according to the recorded plat thereof • • Parcel II -(19,057 Sy.Ft.) , That pan of Lot 61,SPRING LAKE PARK HILLVIEW,Anoka County,Minnesota,according to the recorded plat thereof lying south of the north 82.5 fee as measured on the east and west lines thereof. ITEM #6 • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: August 21, 1996 Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Planning Case 455-96 File No.: Request: The applicant is requesting a 20 foot variance from the 100 foot width requirement for corner lots. Petitioner: Mounds View Economic Development Authority Location: 8265 Spring Lake Road PIN No. 06-30-23-23-0003 Total acreage of existing property is 17,440 square feet Zoning Land Use: The property is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. • Applicable Regulations: Section 1004.02, Subd 2., requires a 100 foot frontage for corner lots Section 1125.02 outlines variance criteria and procedures. Attachments: Zoning Map Surveyor's Certificate Planning Application Hardship Statement Background: Due to the deteriorating condition of the house located at 8265 Spring Lake Road, the Mounds View Economic Development Authority(EDA) is in the process of purchasing the property. The EDA created a Housing Replacement Program to demolish hazardous homes and to redevelop lots to provide safe, decent and sanitary housing. The house located at 8265 Spring Lake Road was foreclosed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and offered to the EDA to purchase prior as a result of the poor condition of the home. The poor condition of the home made the home ineligible for an FHA loan. The EDA sent an appraiser out to survey the condition of the property and found that the foundation was bowing which would eventually collapse. It • is the intention of the EDA to demolish the house and sell the property to a buyer/developer team for redevelopment of the lot. PLANNING CASE NO. 455-96 • AUGUST 21, 1996 PAGE TWO OF TWO The property is a corner lot with dimensions of 80'x 218'. According to the Mounds View Municipal Code, a 100' frontage is required for a corner lot. Prior to proceeding with redevelopment, the EDA is applying for a variance to recognize the existing lot dimensions and to assure that a replacement home may be built on the lot. The EDA is requesting a 20 foot variance from the minimum 100 foot frontage requirement allowing the lot to be buildable. The applicant has provided a letter of hardship. Recommendation/ Analysis: The minimum square footage for lot area required by the Code is 12,500 feet. The property well exceeds that requirement with 17,440 square feet. In addition, the width of the property is 218 feet; 118 feet over the required 100 foot requirement. • This lot was platted by Ramsey County in 1939 with the 80 foot width frontage; thus, the variance request does not result from the actions of the applicant. The remainder of the block has been platted into lots such that no additional vacant, unplatted land is available to add to this lot in order to increase its width to the required 100 feet. In addition, a lot split was granted in 1976 by the Mounds View Planning Commission with the 80 foot width. If the variance is not granted, a building permit cannot be issued for the lot and redevelopment will not proceed. Variance Criteria (1125.02 Sub. 2) The applicant has provided a letter addressing each of the criteria for granting variances. In summary, the variance procedure is available to address situations where the normal application of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The ability to construct a single family residence in the R-1 zoning district is the normal expectation for property owners in this district. Granting the ability to construct a single family home on this lot does not confer any special privilege that is denied to other property owners in this district. The width of this lot was created almost 60 years ago and did not result from the actions of the applicant. • PP Staff Recommendation: Approval Mounds View Economic Development Authority • 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View,MN 55112 (612)784-3055 Fax:(612)784-3462 August 15, 1996 Mounds View Planning Commission 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View,MN 55112 RE: Variance Request for 8265 Spring Lake Road: The Mounds View Economic Development Authority(EDA)is requesting a variance for property located at 8265 Spring Lake Road to recognize the existing lot width of 80 feet,which is 20 feet less than the required 100 foot minimum for corner lots. The primary reason the EDA is requesting this variance is to allow a developer to purchase the property and build a home immediately. Currently, a building permit cannot be issued for this lot unless a variance is granted allowing the reduction in required lot width. . Please consider the following points when reviewing the request for this variance: • The lot has been this width since 1939 when the lot was platted by the County and the existing house was constructed. The remainder of the block has been platted such that no vacant,unplatted land is available to add to this lot to meet the minimum width requirement. Thus, an exceptional circumstance exists in that the condition is longstanding and there is no apparent means by which it can be remedied. • The property is zoned R-1,single family residential. Construction of a single family residence is the normal expectation for use of property in this zoning district. If the variance for this property is not granted,no building permit for a new residence can be issued to this lot. Prohibiting the construction of a single family house would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. • This lot was platted years ago with the 80 foot width frontage; thus,the variance request does not result from the actions of the applicant. In addition, a lot split was granted in 1976 by the Mounds View Planning Commission with the 80 foot width. • Two properties to the north of 8265 Spring Lake Road(8287and 8289 Spring Lake Road)currently possess 90 foot width frontage on a interior lot. This is a corner lot which provides a length of 218 feet along Ardan Avenue. If this variance is not granted the lot will be unbuildable for a single family home in an R-1 zoning district. Allowing for the construction of a single family residence will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other property owners in this zoning district. • • The variance requested is for minimum dimension necessary to alleviate the hardship,based on the existing width of the lot. Mounds View Planning Commission • Page 2 August 15, 1996 • The purpose of the R-1 district is to provide for low density single-family detached residential dwelling units and directly,complementary uses. Granting the variance will allow redevelopment of this lot consistent with this purpose,rather than leaving it in a vacant,unused state. • A house already exists on this property. The EDA is requesting to remove the current structure and replace it with another. We do not have current plans for the new house but do not anticipate that it will not be much larger than the existing structure. Therefore,the new structure should not impair supply of light and air or increase the amount of traffic. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, kinds i w Economic Development Authority (4ü Bergman • • CITY OF MOUNDS..1i'IEZV,: PLANNING:APPLICATION APPLICANT:r/laLi n_ r V ir.P-; - -- Phone 7YY 3Oss ADDRESS: aL70 /U - _ - Street Addre City,State, and Zp Code Interest in Property (check appropriate box). Owner of Property _ - D _ centrad for Deed owner Q Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) -`' Document ty evidence of applicant's interest In the property may be required beforefinal City action of this.req uesL PROPERTY INVOLVED ° Address/General Location ga(a ,-1 Legal Description or Property Identification Number ir,;(43Oa 3x23 aoo3 —1-he S a7 1+ enc t a icZ t'-I- f1-P Lo+ 03 4 Legal Owner: Name/Address _ �� t� )r21 -r-4- fid- l nt 314 Present Use (check appropriate box): ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant .._ Single Family Dwelling • • Duplex/Two Family Dwelling "` 0 Multi-Family (No. of Units ' , ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ - Industrial Establishment ❑ Other:(explain) Property Classification: - Q Abstract -'" 0 Torrens RECDUEST: 'Please note: Applicant may be responsible for aaditional fees associated the review of this request I HE'EBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATE ME4T ARE TRU: / A A_ „%/�� Slgnai�e ago,linrant ife-Rinttririniriroriroriiiiinkireiror Rezoni • 5200/acts.minimum$200.maximum Si.000 P- - Dedication Fee R-1 to R-2-$75.ail others$200 Date Paid - 'anal Use Permit R-1 bdR-2-S75.ail others$200 Receipt Number Cade Appeal 575 Deveioo./Site Plan Review S100/acre.minimum 100.maximum $500 Total Fees Paid Minor Subdivision S150 Date Paid Major Subdivision $250 pius SZ50 deposit Receipt Number • Coma. ?lar Amendment $200 Wetland Alteration Permit $50 plus deposit determined by Staff Additional Fee Paid Wetland Surfer Permit Si 0 Date Paid Planning Sign $50 Receipt Number PUO $350 PUD Amendment $150 Date of final acron APPROVED ❑ DENIED [ TASL D ❑ Date Planning Case No. Admin.Account No. B LAI N E 0��4"_. • • _ _ . . • . _ . . —NORTH—_COUNTY a_ UNC— .12131= _ . . ._ _ a.s. 04601 sal 4.�1�1 awo mad 0466 - .m, 1.67 3464 6477 6470 • 6475 µ7p 647 6477 e";‘54%411 6410 µ7S 147 6471 1 6466 n _ 6417 - - 1417 _ �- 640.1 3451 6461 I µ1O 441 µ•ms • 6400 .1 WO 5416 1; : 6431 I Goa 1 644,1 6463 �' 0464 14411 6442 64+4 ,7".". µ4s I 64.4 - 7- 6449 I 64+4•5 3493 3431 I 6434 4431 64 , $4.31 I $6431 cam= 6433 I 6472 101 9495 ,, 6429 KY7., 3434 84 r 6421i 3430 - 4429 • 64,1 I i 6429 $420 a.» 347 ! µ� 1"" µ� �. 641, 641 642, _ 4423 1 642 Lin µt3 ( O 64,5 I µ,♦ • , • - 34011 64,• I 6415 I 64 6409 I 6781 0401 I 6401 e.Os 6404 6419 I 6401 6415 I 44,91 0\ 130 83$ 6401 6407 64,• 4419 t 64' 1 ej., 134457» I 6310 1409 x°400 1399 1 51:0,E5405 I�0 Sig 6761 I 6461 1 "' I • - 2:11 n 7. 8734 8337 5100 13at 1 1710 8315 1 5361 6366 1367 Ieill= 3401 1334 r-4• x373 • 6169 6370 6509 5764 • 130, 1 3761 1'rl 5379 I L7i° L 13651 dY7 6773 I 1360 3x1 9371 �iiE`1F>/ I 6x0 1309 I wo La372 i �1 3019 ! 67» • ' 877 MIIIMIM 3351 I 1344;R=NM 1371 ��� �/ I 1340 33491340 6771 I 3177 63/3 I 1340 Mill= 3377 I I 61301 saps 1397 I 8740 M • 8380 0101 1360 9 0946 6343 I 19342 1315 ! 13» �— 3323 3� 37,0 . �'0 8325 1 1312 1319 6170 Q •. -� •"•• I 1 6360- •131 11300 3106 6110 - ax° 4331 �•: ' Stn ���s e3s7 1 3110 633.7 I 63n 4299 t ez1o; 6201 4210- 4203 I � � Eno AROP 7 Sts I ity 313+ I 6703 -8365 1 6250 °201 I 9260_ 8201 ' 4200'-5 un I Qj 112, el, 8311 1306•"'i'� �.1375 1 3270 g 1211 i 301 3j71 'r" t 5210E a217 an i I V00 PAR) • .1300 Efir® 6297 I 630 GROVEL/040 •t. 6237 I 8310 a 0277 8210 8211 I-»o v 0436 ales PNtK wSUn9w 4250 6163 k% 0267 1170 1»I I t 1487 i nip 62x4 �• n 4o I ' ~ 424, 10342�' 2i ._..., .. aa� T 6425.,1LI 01 •4 " - FI«I^I.�•Ia0 Ie2/, • 4at.0 nI:::::igi ."'°. 1231 I , i 1232 IA(:.".1»r 1171 '0170-{aL,/ - lc— .'R04N ^'^ 4S 62'37 _4•F 1147 I � 6250 �•�= 1 :11.51E1;;,1,..: 6,14.. 7„,-. NI42 19:01 1 '-203'IfilxiAl AI -�AIE 73 103° \/ 6250 a I , , ,ut• 42D Y2 • '� 8227 .. 1 1784 8743 3474 „MEM + 0 ... 4217 Qii4.11--L .. 0206 " �l« til 0190 etas i !04 MEE 1206 1206 J �LY`43: -anr6 8175 I g I e n10 6501 `t�'a..� �f - •` 01s° 56,13 I E: 1390 � 21` 'ta1� t,1I 1515_- 0146 III= . I 014. 1146 . 4�.r . ,7411 I • 0140 \\ ''iWi � 161 8 ..*ENI IE 6133 ..\o,�I 0166 0147 ^J. 0162 6113 I\. jC EH ~� 4574 3113 I 6/2518/30 613 ''\ I IL n 8rn \� .1361; 0127 F. 4, e - - « 7 \ 1315.: AI;. n,. Flo illi :" .. i, I;II6I28 12i�1I II .- `tt I n Ill I• • I••• 0101 1 � \ C~�'S 61•. 410 moo, �'eII ..I.-. riMMO¢¢ 1108,«I nl30aa1 16075 I^�I n ��J z1 . .oes17:1 101. 11017 I • \� i g - 8� ") 147001 8071 . 30°6 6071 i sass 1001 . T 6071 I 30721 4071 _z • • "j" \ 6069 1014 eon 1060 9010 ! 6030 0003 I sow s0es •IMO .-- I 6040 ` '0• •• I 1041 6040 4542 1047 I 0001 em,�� 6°'4 9107 ! 6049 0047 i \• • °036 9023 9046 ao» °631 62.56sow syn I` 6337 103' I 3o o aox ‘Ni.\y 11026 3020 1 3022 '6001 \ '• , �- 8016 0019 I 1025 1416 1411 i 6000 9027 �� 600, I 60,0 1451 N. '\ soil woo I woe 1 �+•• I - \�J • 3035 ! �0; 7 I pp4 7N, I 7460- 79011 I 7180 7569 I 79°6 7993 I 7960 7177 I ' ' '•10 7475 1 7180 7914_ I 7680 7575 7540 7917 1 »70 < ( , , �1;»r »7p Y r» »4a 1 - - ._ 7910 031 I '5" 7175 y yl l 7971 »7p qp, »ys r . 7N, 124 7514 7955 1 �a »+5 7440 7927 1 rtILLVItW nao (� u S 4 7911 .I 7970 II702� 1MI5 7130 71,7^ 7707 PARK 1I{�r.,� , le44� © 3! I 7900 g I i I H 7100' »ot l F I»I Pi 1 7. a b Jo n I n I"17900 7110 z 1�- 006 1 791 'IV' NI=;lane CSEMIE! ■ 7147 w Y, w MEt_ X ii 7317! 7707 p+ i 7� MO EMI= 011.111M 1 17916 B-2 >;© ,-` j 7�. Wr.7069 YErt78151 757 7145 OMNI=< 764,I•.c ^7 Tttlt Q4+1 ! 'tit, ' OW= OM J 7101 ite $ 7630 .7641 - " tiv- I 7740 7619 I 7600 7517 7301 T 7815 7647 7780 I f � ��' � w 7ta ! 7770-M 01'7 • \ S-'2 7901 ® T67 ! , I V _ WM'Lin - 7707 7710 n 7741 I 7740 r 6., • Wit 23 tia 7701 1 7750 773.7 ,.. • ©� © 037 7730 7721 I 7720 7743 7710 Spring Lakea_ots ;MIN �= R-2 ~ 414 r• »yJ " 710 70141 1 7142 7°-7 7 «^x... xx�" p:: Isah. " _ 4 7610 S 7ws 1 7471 7� y 2344 7547 1 _ I 71711 Me 7160 II• iI R1R11 I • • 7Vi5 , 7444 7447 1 '64r 7.� Vicinity Map: 455-96 II s' ,b I 7134, 71T I 8265 Spring Lake Road 1 l., r„ T.., „ sis '°° 7101 , SIL\ Applicant: MV Econ Development Author ,z�tVs. t r - ..; ,, 4S11L ,Tfi",;t�.r i9Y 44'la d X.a;nye ..fr{4,,f'1 ft Szirve ors Certi " ;�a y fzcare COMSTOCK&DAVIS,INC. Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors 1446 County Road.1,Mpls.,Minn. 55432, 784-9346 '_ SURVEY OF: • SURVEY FOR �� Ed Parts of Lots 34 & 35 _ • Ericksonon F,; Aud. Sub. No. 89 8265 Spring Lake.Park- ; • Mounds View Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Ramsey County, Minnesota i 1 7%e S. /lige ol'.4 / 3S, - ' ,Qud. 3,v6. ,'Uo. 89 ' :r . - z `.... . -.,,f'- ': 'NJ! . OO e.98 - .76.S Ell 0E Q 1"1.3 hi , • M vll° 11/4'/5:0 _ �: tIZI h ! 24..3`s( w 4., b p%atnaye ,/ * ti;yi y .1 .r ‘Nit 25 NI 2/8.00 N c4 O O t+l nl N 1_. 1 , ....• . •_ . . . • DESCRIPTION: '' Tohfi tNerWhesft eoaf thfe LWetst 2,1a1feet ouuLiottcr3s4Sz—d ithe iSonutho.2789£eet 53ee i -- en rm Ramsey County, Mir:nesota. Subject to a drainage and utility easement over the east 5 feet and s'ubiect co other easements of record, if any. ---q IIY: • t �j 1 _ ...... .... ti II iE i SEP 1 f., 176 SCALE: /"..50' O 0,,,,,,. .1'c /./1:2%)' /770/72/1,7411/ se/ • CITY (fir 01 ii4i\;� a's .I • I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor tinder the laws of the State of Minnesota. • , /la+i ---)11, riff/____ 1DR17 Sept 15. 19.76 3692 .� Reg. No. Date Job No. .� ITEM #7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director /1)./7"...- Subject: . Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas I Date: August 16, 1996 Issue The City Council has enacted a 180-day moratorium on new use,development or construction of commercial wireless telecommunication towers and antennas within the City of Mounds View. This action allows the City approximately six months in which to develop regulations for these facilities. We are seeking Planning Commission's assistance with designing the process we will use for developing the regulations and with preparing the ordinance. Recommendation • It is staff's recommendation that the result of the discussion on August 21, 1996 would direction from Planning Commission on the following: • An outline of how the process for developing the ordinance would work,with staff's recommendation that it include Planning Commission,representatives from the telecommunications industry, and citizens. • A working list of topics which the ordinance would cover. Background/Analysis The City Council took action to enact a 180-day moratorium on August 12, 1996 on the use,development or construction of commercial wireless telecommunication towers and antennas. The City of Mounds View does not now have regulations regarding such facilities. The City does have regulations on satellite dish antenn,s and television and radio antennas. Staff has assembled background information for Planning Commission to review as we begin the process of developing an ordinance. In your last packet,we transmitted to you the April 1996 issue of Zoning News which discusses current zoning practices dealing with cellular facilities. In this packet,we have attached the following additional items providing background information for Planning Commission: • Research Memo for City Officials from the League of Minnesota Cities,entitled"Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas" • "Wireless Communications Facilities Issues Paper",prepared by the San Diego Association of • Governments (SANDAG) • Excerpts from"The Telecommunications Act of 1996: What It Means to Local Governments" 1110 prepared by the National League of Cities Mounds View Planning Commission Page 2 1.010- August 15, 1996 The first publication from LMC provides an outline of zoning regulations which could be used,with examples of language from different cities on each topic(see pages IIIA-IIIJ,K). It also includes an adopted ordinance from Bloomington(see pages IVA-1 to A-15)and a draft ordinance from Rosemount(see pages IVB-1 to B-3). The second publication from SANDAG includes an excellent discussion of how cellular,Enhanced Mobile Radio(ESMR),and personal communications services(PCS)technologies operate(see pages 9-20). The excerpt from the National League of Cities publication discusses how the impact of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on local zoning power. Staff has collected ordinances from the following cities: • Arden Hills • Brooklyn Park • Burnsville • Rosemount • Roseville What we have learned from our review of these ordinances is that they usually cover certain topics. We have not copied all of these ordinances for Planning Commission because the amount of copying would be voluminous. We have summarized their provisions,however,in the chart in Attachment 1. We would suggest that this list of topics be used as a starting point in developing an ordinance for Mounds View. Staff has arranged to have Coralie Wilson, Executive Director of the North Suburban Cable Commission,at your meeting on August 21, 1996 to speak with Planning Commission about local regulation of telecommunication facilities and related issues. Comparison of Ordinances on Wireless Telecommunications Facilities(chart) "Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas"League of Minnesota Cities "Wireless Communications Facilities Issues Paper"San Diego Association of Governments Excerpts from"The Telecommunications Act of 1996: What It Means to Local Governments" National League of Cities Copy of staff report to: Chantell Kadin, Zoning Manager, CB Commercial Telecommunications,2550 University Avenue West, Suite 159S, St. Paul MN 55114 Mathew Danielson, SBA,7625 Metro Blvd, Suite 235, Edina MN 55439 Coralie Wilson,Executive Director,North Suburban Cable Commission,950 Woodhill Drive,Roseville MN 55113 y - _ °_ ¢ R y , -- - 7 j r L5 c= j m L V H .... III 7 U 7 -7 V T J U - .<. U -V u. "� V 7 = C 7 g- =7 z w > - 3 ZaM3_ V O u V 5 L chi 7 — _ O H 7 .. ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ % y V V - y - r - 51 U V N u , 0 u - Q * ^ n 7.- 2 4 - _ - U ^ - u ¢ ¢ 22 = - 4 ¢ = v O - V V 9 H5 5 14 v O = V .- N r o tu > 7 - " U = xg ¢ N CO 0 6 OG%Q U 6 U V C- — > N 2•0' 'a.; 4 a w m a v :i .= z _ n- J v y 0 I 1.1m = i 7 u 3 N .. 1 N N 7 V.5 6 :l v 1 .?O - T = .sU _— T G x > 1 I . J - V E .O c5 C J. GS - V ^ 7 ZJ y — J` ^ 7 U C -L J `.— L ! 11L = ^ O O ^ ° 3 O O• i v " O ^ = \ () } \\ . \ \\\ § _ ; 3 \e ! _ - j \\ ) ; . \\ -=9.2 < w . , s<$ ! ( : \±? \ - \ \\ \\ e \ \ °\ / . ) k ) // ` _ 7 = 0 Ee « §±f) \ r. \ ( / k ( • ' ) ƒ)' :•• } § \ . . j2® \ \\\\ \\\ /co J� ! / / ) (2ƒ$-/ =\ 3 c. / \= �\ /oO - r k / • ) \ {))2o 2 ) \ -) \ /�jk t ± - §% ;G \}\ ) � • - \ _ . I \ 1 | /; §I} ;7.7. \k }_� :\ |% . . . . _ - C /))± (0.0 0- k ) kk))7782 ƒ\\ .o a. _\ { \\\7\ -=\3 f 2 \g / |\ }/\� \ 2 = \ s - §/7 « _« § !_ - 7� ) -22 \ ) _7.\\ _§ 1 = E p • . 7 fEf = 7272 = .&2 \ �7 is/ @ \ 6 ; 0 co ; 2 \ - ) Q 7:70 • \\ \\ 2 \/\ \ 1," \ /\ ] \\ \_ ({) ) • = _ - « 0 \ \ / k )\ }\_ . \\ 3 } El \ -}_a k au \ § ti ,� e _ 7Een . a 7% } / 2g,375 }_ ,3 / ( \ \ §)-5 5 kQ }\} 9 - / _ 2) \ _ -% . § iz _ @ ) §\ ££u 2 2 3 - 7/ { ] )/ /\ _ _ ;/ _ _ _ _e. \� _\l \ =\ \\\ \\ \ � \i / \ \ \ - 12 = \ 2 - \ 22k = \ J _ _= \ /}) {\ - § |f 7 § (j § § f237 ; I& (]) {3 = 0.0 E}\\\ \/� 0 \ _ei 74\\ \\/ \ \, \ 00 ) ƒ 3 .. \J] - - I : ) 00. _ %\ f ) . - '0 \ ± \\ = = \ • < >7 : _ § \ \\\ \ \} \\\\\ \ \ \\\\\ \ \\} ; ` -- � • \ j _\13 j•j\/ ; 2 1 p .2 2 eu ez } . 7.- jk\ \\ \\\\\\\/\) - F. §} )§) }7,§ // \ ) /\]7)g |\7 ! t ! u © � - . 2= 5 ) f)}/ !J1 /$ i17i \ 0 L-5- 2j19,ii \ - \ \ Z� _ _\ ( . E a ,23 - _ - , � - } ! 1 . , 3§ Cl \$ 2 = a ,.. ; , . _..„ ._., LMC ' Longo&4M;nn..ota Caw • research . for officials , Citim promoting ozculianer ^j il 4 ' July 1996 0 )1M..11( El Telecommunications Towers 'i and Antennas p;y. r F , Policy Issues and Zoning Recommendations Personal Communications Systems, Cellular or Page Antenna Locations i L, t i'- y • ' © 1996 League of Minnesota Cities All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America • \ 11._,_\„,....„ League of Minnesota Cities Cities promoting excellence J League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 (612) 281-1200 (800) 925-1122 Fax (612) 281-1299 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Memorandum of Explanation II. Model Policy on Wireless Towers Sample Policy Statement- City of Bloomington III. Outline of Zoning Regulations A. Purpose and Intent B. Definitions C. Zoning Districts • D. Performance Standards E. Area-Wide Analysis/Proof of Need F. Proof of Non-Interference G. Setbacks H. Lighting I. Structural, Design, Height, Screening, Access and Building Requirements IV. Sample Zoning Ordinances A. City of Bloomington B. City of Rosemount V. Justification for Moratorium - City of Bloomington • VI. Sample Moratorium Ordinance - City of Bloomington MC 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 League of Minnesota Cities Phone: (612) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122 Cities promoting excellence Fax: (612) 281-1299 • TDD (612) 281-1290 July, 1996 TO: City Managers, Administrators, and Clerks FROM: Stanley Peskar, General Counsel Ann Higgins, IGR Representative RE: Recommendations on Zoning for Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Contents of Memorandum This memorandum contains the text of wireless communications antenna and tower siting and zoning provisions adopted by the City of Bloomington and under consideration by the City of Rosemount. It also contains comment and sample provisions derived from a variety of municipal ordinances from cities throughout the country. Language here is set out to provide additional matters for consideration by staff responsible for drafting revisions to current zoning ordinances. The memorandum also includes a sample policy statement. Development of such a formal position for your city may be helpful to staff in the preparation of appropriate amendments to local zoning regulations as well as to provide staff with the views of the city council on priorities to be considered in drafting personal communications services (PCS) antenna site leases for facilities to be located on land or structures which the city owns or controls. Moratorium The city should consider adopting a moratorium on the siting of new wireless telecommunications towers and antennas only after close consultation with the city attorney. The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 bars cities from actions that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting provisions of personal wireless services (including PCS). An unduly - -:.-, -- : . '- -- - - -- - --- -- - •-- . ::- :n-.. --. • - : --- - - -- :: • ...- - therefore, advisors should review relevant challenges to other city moratoria on the basis of the new federal law. Though a sample ordinance is included, if cities have the opportunity to proceed prior to immediate requests for siting, many may have sufficient time to plan for new antenna and tower siting without the necessity of adopting a formal moratorium. Amateur Radio Towers When drafting the ordinance, give some thought to whether the city wants to cover amateur radio towers. According to FCC rules, local regulation of placement, screening and height based on health, safety or aesthetics must reasonably accommodate amateur communications and provide minimum practical regulation to protect the city's legitimate • communications needs while setting forth minimum practical regulation to accomplish the city's legitimate purposes. Though there is no definitive binding rule of law, the one case brought to date in the Eighth AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFI IRDL\TIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Federal District Court circuit,Pentel v. City of Mendota Heights (1994), the court overturned the city's denial of a 68-foot radio tower. The city attorney should closely coordinate zoning • regulation of amateur radio towers with FCC regulations and applicable case law. Inventory of Current Tower Sites Cities should compile an inventory of all towers now located within municipal boundaries to identify potential possible sites for co-location of new facilities as well as to examine the impact of proposed zoning changes on creation of non-conforming tower cities and to more carefully determine the types of towers and locations the city wants to encourage or discourage. The inventory should include information about the address, owner, user(s), height, style, zoning district and a photograph of each tower or antenna. The city should also prepare a map showing the location of current towers. Towers to be inventoried should include those mounted on building walls and located on roofs. Regulation of EMF The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 § 704 prohibits state and local regulation on the basis of eletro-magnetic frequency (EMF) emissions if the facilities meet FCC regulatory standards regarding such emissions. Regulation of Satellite Dishes The FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over direct-to-home satellite services: §303. Thus, local ordinances may not prohibit or regulate earth station antennas (satellite dishes) of one meter or less in all areas and two meters or less in commercial areas. Newly adopted FCC rules (that are • being challenged by the National League of Cities) pre-empt local regulation except when cities successfully petition the FCC to allow local regulation of the installation or location of these satellite dishes on the basis of proof that local regulation is necessary to protect health and safety. The FCC has also proposed new rules that pre-empt any local requirements affecting placement of TV antenna and multi point distribution services (MMDS) reception devices. LMC Zoning Work Group The League wishes to thank members of the Zoning Work Group who contributed to the outline and information included in this memorandum. They are: Curt Gutoske, Planner, Inver Grove Heights Glen Markegard, Associate Planner, Bloomington Dean Lotter, Administrative Intern, Rosemount Craig Dawson, Assistant City Manager, Maplewood Bill DeBlon, Community Development Coordinator, Robbinsdale Edward Burrell, Finance Director, Roseville Bob Museus, City Administrator, Hugo Charles Grawe, Administrative Assistant, Apple Valley Mary Moga, Planning/Administrative Intern, Bayport John Burbank, Associate Planner, Cottage Grove Gary Berg. Senior Planner, Woodbury . MODEL POLICY ON WIRELESS TOWERS (Modified from proposed Bloomington Policy) City Council Policy Statement Regarding Wireless Telecommunication Antennas and Towers This policy is established as a guide to city staff in preparing zoning and other regulatory ordinances and in the preparation of site lease agreements which would permit the location of antenna arrays and towers on city-owned or controlled real estate. To the extent that a specific inconsistent zoning or other regulatory ordinance is enacted or a site lease adopted or approved by the council, the ordinance or lease shall control and this policy shall have no binding effect, however, paragraph 2 of Article I, "Priority of Users", and any subsequent amendments thereto shall control over subsequent inconsistent language in individual site leases. Article I: Regulation Under City Police Power City actions taken with regard to telecommunication activities, must comply with a number of federal parameters established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. For example, local actions must foster rather than discourage competition,thus the city will not discriminate against one or a group of providers in favor of another or another group of providers or potential providers. Under the same act, local actions which result in a prohibition on provision of telecommunication services are in invalid. Thus staff is directed to facilitate establishment and provision of lawful wireless telecommunications services with the following local objectives in mind. • minimize the overall number of towers through co-location requirements. • insure that new towers will be safe and blend into their environment when possible . - .- . . -. i ui . . - . • '•- - '•- '• . alions being a last resort. • that zoning ordinances and other municipal police power regulations be defensible in light of federal and state laws with special attention paid to the new federal requirements. • that revenue from site leases of city-controlled lands and structures be maximized consistent with achievement of the four preceeding goals. • IIA-1 • Article II: Policy regarding use of city-owned land for wireless telecommunication antennas and towers. 1. Introduction The City of has received requests from wireless telecommunication providers to place wireless telecommunication antennas and towers on city owned property. City Council has determined that a uniform policy for reviewing these requests is desirable. 2. Priority of Users Priority for the use of City owned land for wireless telecommunication antennas and towers will be given to the following entities in descending order: A. City of B. Public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire, and ambulance services, which are not part of the City of and private entities with a public safety agreement with the City of C. Other governmental agencies, for uses which are not related to public safety; and D. Entities providing licensed commercial wireless telecommunication services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public. 3. Minimum Requirements The placement of wireless telecommunication antennas or towers on City owned property must comply with the following requirements. A. The antennas or tower will not interfere with the purpose for which the City owned property is intended; B. The antennas or tower will have no adverse impact on surrounding private property; C. The applicant is willing to obtain adequate liability insurance and commit to a - _ . ..- . . '. • -. ' .. . u .- . . '.. • •- _ - . . . 'c land and other necessary provisions and safeguards. The fees shall be established by the City Council after considering comparable rates in other cities, potential expenses, risks to the City, and other appropriate factors; D. The applicant will submit a letter of credit, performance bond, or other security acceptable to the City to cover the costs of antenna or tower's removal; E. The antennas or tower will not interfere wit other users who have a higher priority as discussed in Section 2; F. Upon reasonable notice, the antennas or tower may be required to be removed at the user's expense. IIA-2 • G. The applicant must reimburse the City for any costs which it incurs because of the presence of the applicant's antennas or tower and, H. The user must obtain all necessary land use approvals. I. The applicant will cooperate with the City's objective to promote colocations and thus limit the number of separate antenna sites requested. 4. Special Requirements P 9 The use of certain City owned property, such as water tower sites and parks, for wireless telecommunication antennas or towers brings with it special concerns due to the unique nature of these sites. The placement of wireless telecommunication antennas or towers on these special City owned sites will be allowed only when the following additional requirements are met. A. Water Tower or Reservoir Sites -The City's water towers and reservoirs represents a large public investment in water pressure stabilization and peak capacity reserves. Protection of the equality of the City's water supply is of prime importance to the City. As access to the City's water storage systems increases, so too increased the potential for contamination of the public water supply. For these reasons, the placement of wireless telecommunication antennas or towers on water tower or reservoir sites will be allowed only when the City is fully satisfied that the following requirements are met. 1. The applicant's access to the facility will not increase the risks of contamination to the City's water supply; 2. There is sufficient room on the structure and/or on the grounds to accommodate the applicant's facility; 3. The presence of the facility will not increase the water tower or reservoir maintenance cost to the City; and 4. The presence of the facility will not be harmful to the health of workers maintaining the water tower or reservoir. B. Parks - The presence of certain wireless telecommunication antennas or towers represents a potential conflict with the purpose of some City owned parks. In no case shall towers be allowed in designated conservation areas. Wireless telecommunication antennas or towers will be considered only in the following parks after the recommendation of the Parks, Recreation, and Arts Commission and approval of the City Council. 1. Public parks of a sufficient scale and character that are adjacent to an existing commercial or industrial use; 2. Commercial recreation areas and major play fields; and, 3. Park maintenance facilities. 110 IIA-3 5. Application Process All applicants who wish to locate a wireless telecommunication antenna or tower on City owned property must submit to the City Manager a completed application and detailed plan that complies with the submittal requirements of the Zoning Ordinance along with other pertinent information requested by the City. 6. Termination The City Council may terminate any lease if it determines that any one of the following conditions exist: A. A potential user with a higher priority cannot find another adequate location and the potential use would be incompatible with the existing use; B. A user's frequency broadcast unreasonably interferes with other users of higher priority, regardless of whether or not this interference was adequately predicted in the technical analysis; or, C. A user violates any of the standards in this policy or the conditions attached to the City's permission. Before taking action, the City will provide notice to the user of the intended termination and the reasons for it. and provide an opportunity for the user to address the City Council regarding the proposed action. This procedure need not be followed in emergency situations. 7. Reservation of Right Notwithstanding the above, the City Council reserves the right to deny, for any reason, the use of any or all City owned property by any one or all applicants. 8. Effective Date This policy shall be effective from and after its adoption by the city council. Adopted by Resolution Number: At the City Council Meeting of: IIA-4 • 11111 Bloomington City Council Policy Statement Regarding the Use of City Owned Land for Wireless Telecommunication Antennas and Towers 1. Introduction The City of Bloomington has received requests from wireless telecommunication providers to place wireless telecommunication antennas and towers on City owned property. The Bloomington City Council has determined that a uniform policy for reviewing these requests is desirable. 2. Priority of Users Priority for the use of City owned land for wireless telecommunication antennas and towers will be given to the following entities in descending order: A. City of Bloomington; B. Public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire, and ambulance services, which are not part of the City of Bloomington and private entities with a public safety agreement with the City of Bloomington ; C. Other governmental agencies, for uses which are not related to public safety; and, D. Entities providing licensed commercial wireless telecommunication services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public. 3. Minimum Requirements The placement of wireless telecommunication antennas or towers on City owned property must comply with the following requirements. A. The antennas or tower will not interfere with the purpose for which the City owned property is intended; B. The antennas or tower will have no adverse impact on surrounding private property(precise wording under consideration); C. The applicant is willing to obtain adequate liability insurance and commit to a lease agreement which includes equitable compensation for the use of public land and other necessary provisions and safeguards. The fees shall be established by the City Council after considering comparable rates in other cities, potential expenses, risks to the City, and other appropriate factors; D. The applicant will submit a letter of credit, performance bond, or other security 111 acceptable to the City to cover the costs of the antenna or tower's removal; II3-? E. The antennas or tower will not interfere with other users who have a higher ilk priority as discussed in Section 2; F. Upon reasonable notice, the antennas or tower may be required to be removed at the user's expense. G. The applicant must reimburse the City for any costs which it incurs because of the presence of the applicant's antennas or tower and, H. The user must obtain all necessary land use approvals. 4. Special Requirements The use of certain City owned property, such as water tower sites and parks, for wireless telecommunication antennas or towers brings with it special concerns due to the unique nature of these sites. The placement of wireless telecommunication antennas or towers on these special City owned sites will be allowed only when the following additional requirements are met. A. Water Tower or Reservoir Sites - The City's water towers and reservoirs represent a large public investment in water pressure stabilization and peak capacity reserves. Protection of the quality of the City's water supply is of prime importance to the City. As access to the City's water storage systems increases, so too increases the potential for contamination of the public water supply. For these reasons, the placement of wireless telecommunication antennas or towers on water tower or reservoir sites will be allowed only when the City is fully satisfied that the following requirements are met. 110 1. The applicant's access to the facility will not increase the risks of contamination to the City's water supply; 2. There is sufficient room on the structure and/or on the grounds to accommodate the applicant's facility; 3. The presence of the facility will not increase the water tower or reservoir maintenance costs to the City; and, 4. The presence of the facility will not be harmful to the health of workers maintaining the water towe • - - • • B. Parks - The presence of certain wireless telecommunication antennas or towers represents a potential conflict with the purpose of some City owned parks. In no case shall towers be allowed in designated conservation areas. Wireless telecommunication antennas or towers will be considered only in the following parks after the recommendation of the Parks, Recreation, and Arts Commission and approval of the City Council. 1. Public parks of a sufficient scale and character that are adjacent to an existing commercial or industrial use; 2, Commercial recreation areas and major playfields; and, 3. Park maintenance facilities. IIB-2 • 5. Application Process W. All applicants who wish to locate a wireless telecommunication antenna or tower on City owned property must submit to the City Manager a completed application and detailed plan that complies with the submittal requirements of the Zoning Ordinance along with other pertinent information requested by the City. 6. Termination The City Council may terminate any lease if it determines that any one of the following conditions exist: A. A potential user with a higher priority cannot find another adequate location and the potential use would be incompatible with the existing use; B. A user's frequency broadcast unreasonably interferes with other users of a higher priority, regardless of whether or not this interference was adequately predicted in the technical analysis; or, C. A user violates any of the standards in this policy or the conditions attached to the City's permission. Before taking action, the City will provide notice to the user of the intended termination and the reasons for it, and provide an opportunity for the user to address the City Council regarding the proposed action. This procedure need not be followed in emergency situations. 7. Reservation of Right Notwithstanding the above, the City Council reserves the right to deny, for any reason, the use of any or all City owned property by any one or all applicants. 8. Use of Revenue All revenue generated through the lease of city owned property for wireless telecommunication towers and antennas shall be made payable to the City of Bloomington and transmitted to the City's Department of Finance. Revenue shall be credited as follows: • A. To the specific operating activity using the land upon which the wireless telecommunication towers and antennas are located (for example, golf course revenue when located on a golf course, Water Utility Fund when located on water utility property); B. To the Park Development Fund if located on park or open space land; C. To the General Fund operating activity when the wireless telecommunication towers and antennas are located on City property serving a General Fund operating program(such as balifields, public playlot areas, etc.); and, D. Any revenues not meeting the above criteria shall be applied as general revenues of the General Fund. 410 (p1f‘plarininecorntowerkpolicyd.doc NOTE : The Bloomington City Council adopted a policy statement that is substantively similar to this original on July 15 , 199G . IIB-3 S S • OUTLINE OF ZONING REGULATIONS League of Minnesota Cities PCS Zoning Work Group, 1996 I• Purpose and Intent Comment: If the city has not adopted a general statement of policy, it is recommended that each city establish a written purpose and intent within the zoning ordinance to provide clear direction and understanding of the regulations. It should be noted that this zoning regulation outline is restricted to towers and antennas used for wireless telecommunication facilities such as personal communication services (PCS) . This zoning outline has not been prepared with the intent of regulating other types of antennas and towers such as radio and television antennas, residential satellite dishes, or public safety transmitters. Cities may also wish to expand the suggestions herein to address other types of communication facilities. ,Examples : The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish predicable and balanced regulations for the siting and screening of wireless communications equipment in order to accommodate the growth of iswireless communication systems within the City of (insert municipality) while protecting the public against any adverse impacts on the City' s aesthetic resources and the public welfare. (Boston, MA) The regulations and requirements of this Ordinance are intended to 1) provide for the appropriate location and development of communication towers to serve the residents and businesses in the City of (insert municipality) ; 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 maximize use of any new or existing communication tower to reduce the number of towers needed. (Jupiter, FL) In order to accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community, the Council finds that these regulations are necessary in order to : 1) facilitate provision of wireless communications services to the residents and businesses of the city; 2) minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting standards, 3) avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements ; and, 4) maximize the use of existing and IIIA approved towers and buildings to accommodate new wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. (Bloomington, MN) II. Definitions Comment: In order to establish specific zoning standards for PCS antennas and towers, each municipality should adopt specific definitions for such devices to distinguish them from "essential services" or "public utilities" which are often exempt from local zoning ordinances. Such definitions may also be used to apply to other types of antennas and towers as shown in the examples below. Examples: Antenna - Equipment used for transmitting or receiving telecommunication, television or radio signals, which is located on the exterior of, or outside of, any building or structure (Spring Lake Park, MN) A device used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based structures (Burnsville, MN) Any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or radiating electromagnetic waves, including but not limited to directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes , and satellite dishes, and omni-directional antennas, such as whip antennas . (Bloomington, MN) Commercial Receiving and or Transmitting Antenna - Any antenna erected for the commercial use of the information. (Burnsville, MN) Private Receiving and/or Transmitting Antenna - Any antenna erected for the non-commercial use of the information. (Burnsville, MN) Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services Licensed commercial wireless telecommunication services including cellular, personal communications services (PCS) , specialized mobilized radio (SMR) , enhanced specialized mobilized (ESMR) , paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public. (Bloomington, MN) Public Utility - Persons, corporations, or governments supplying gas, electric, transportation, water, sewer, or land line telephone service to the general public . For the purpose of this ordinance, commercial wireless telecommunication services shall not beconsidered public utility uses, and are defined separately. (Bloomington, MN) IIIB 411 • imi Tower - Any ground or roof mounted pole, spire, structure , or combination thereof taller than 15 feet, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna, meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade. (except amateur radio antennas*) Any pole, spire, or structure, or combination thereof, to which an antenna is attached, or which is designed for an antenna to be attached, and all supporting lines, cables, wires, and braces . (Spring Lake Park, MN) Any ground or roof-mounted pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof taller than 15 feet, including supporting lines, cables, •wires, braces, and masts, built for the purpose of mounting an antenna, meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade . (Bloomington, MN) * included the language in parentheses if this ordinance is not to affect amateur antenna placements . III . Zoning Districts Comment: Each city must determine what zoning district (s) is most 111 appropriate for wireless communication facilities. Federal law allows cities to maintain local zoning authority over such facilities, however, the law states that local government shall not 1) unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, 2) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, and 3) shall not regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions. Therefore, cities cannot outright prohibit PCS or cellular antennas in all districts. It is recommended that cities conduct an inventory of existing communication antennas and towers to determine the current impact and locational pattern of such facilities. It is estimated that wireless communication facilities may be needed every 1-2 miles along heavily traveled corridors and every 2-4 miles in other areas. This is to allow the providers to achieve complete coverage of a specific geographic region. The exact spacing of antennas will depend on the amount of wireless usage and the local topography of the area. Because zoning and land use patterns vary considerably from community to community, no one recommendation can be provided with respect to the appropriate 411 IIIc zoning district (s) to allow for PCS antenna. Provided below, however, is a general list of what are considered to be primary and 0 secondary land use districts for such facilities. primary Land Use Districts • Industrial Districts • Commercial Districts • Freeway/Highway Corridor Districts • Institutional/Public Districts • Community Athletic Complexes Secondary Land Use Districts • • High Density Residential Districts • Medium Density Residential Districts • Special Use Districts (i . e. , historic or downtown districts) • Environmentally Sensitive Areas (i . e. , shore land or scenic river) • S.F. Residential Districts IV. Performance Standards Comment: The establishment of performance standards to enhance the visual and aesthetic appearance of PCS antennas and towers is perhaps the area where local ordinances can be most improved. Performance standards can be used to reduce the number of new 1110 towers by requiring co-location or by establishing incentives to use existing buildings and facilities (i . e. , permitted use vs. conditional use) . Below are some examples of performance standards found in other cities' ordinances. It should be emphasized that not all of the provisions listed below need to be incorporated into a city's ordinance to adequately address the use of wireless telecommunication facilities. The need to include such provisions will largely depend on a city's individual circumstances such as location potential for such desire to regulate with strict control (or conversely less control) , etc. gxamples: Co-location Requirements - All commercial wireless telecommunication towers erected, constructed, or located within the City shall comply with the following requirements : 1) A proposal for a new commercial wireless telecommunication service tower shall not be approved 111 IIID unless the City Council finds that the telecommunications 11, equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one-mile search radius (one half mile search radius for towers under 120 feet in height, one quarter mile search radius for towers under 80 feet in height) of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons : a) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or building, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved tower cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost . b) The planned equipment would cause interference materially impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost . c) Existing or approved towers and buildings within the search radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer. 411 d) Other unforeseen reasons that make it infeasible to locate the planned telecommunications equipment upon an existing or approved tower or building. 2) Any proposed commercial wireless telecommunication service tower shall be designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant' s antennas and comparable antennas for at least two additional users if the tower is over 100 feet in height or for at least one additional user if the tower is over 60 feet in height . Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying height . (Bloomington, M T) Since the number of opportunities to construct a free- standing tower is limited by this ordinance, the applicant should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city council that opportunities will be made available for co-locating other antenna on the structure . (Minnetonka, MN) 411 IIID2 V. Area Wide Analysis/Proof of Need The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/ interference analysis and capacity analyses that the location of the antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the wireless telecommunication facilities and to provide adequate coverage and capacity: to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district (modified from St. Paul, ASO VI. proof of Non-Interference Each application for construction of a wireless telecommunication facility shall include either a preliminary or a certified statement that the construction of the tower, including reception and transmission functions, will not interfere with the radio, television, etc. , service enjoyed by adjacent residential and nonresidential properties . 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 city prior to 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. (modified from Jupiter, FL) VII . Setbacks 11/ Comment: Setbacks are generally regulated by base zoning district. Cities often require 1) setback based on an engineered fall zone analysis, 2) setback equal to height of tower, or 3) with greater setback adjacent to sensitive uses (i . e. , residential, schools, churches, parks, etc. ) • ,Example: Where adjacent parcels are zoned or guided for commercial or industrial uses, setbacks equivalent to those established for the principal structure shall be provided. This standard shall also apply when adjacent to residentially zoned or guided land, that, due to topography, presence of wetlands or similar limitations, the land will not be actively developed for residential use . Setbacks equal to the height of the tower shall be established on sites that are adjacent to parcels developed or able to be developed for residential use . (Minnetonka) VIII. Lighting: Information from the APA publication suggests that city ordinances commonly require that lighting meet FAA or FCC requirements and IIIE , F , G , H S that lighting not result in glare on adjacent property (most Amnotably in residential sites . Some cities allow "basic security lighting only" . Some cities also specify red lights at night and white strobe lighting during the day. Other cities restrict lighting, requiring it to be shielded during the day or because of a scenic overlay district . Other restrictions include restricting height of lighting to 15-20 feet and no flashing lights . Other options include not allowing illumination by artificial means and no strobe light display unless specifically required by the FAA or other federal or state authority for that particular tower site. When the design of the tower incorporates light fixtures used top illuminate ball fields, parking lots, etc. fixtures may be attached to the tower in an approved tower design. Or no artificial lighting is allowed unless required by law or by a governmental agency to protect public health and safety. Or artificial tower lighting is limited to mandatory safety lighting required by other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over communications towers . Or security lighting may be allowed around the base of the tower if it does not adversely affect adjacent property owners . Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the Federal Aviation administration ( Minnetonka, MN) IX: Structural , Design, Height, Screening, Access, and SBuilding Requirements : Options include requiring the antenna and towers to blend with the surrounding environment, including locating antennas on the roof of an existing building or mounted on building walls or on the sides of water towers . With new towers, especially in residential districts, requirements can mandate they be camouflaged as church steeples or bell towers or to replace existing light standards . Regulating the type and color of towers can also minimize visual impact . (Although monopoles are less intrusive, metal frame towers are better suited to co-location. ) The Bloomington ordin- . - . . ._ .nmercial wireless telecommunication service towers must be a monopole design unless an alternative design would blend better with the surrounding environment . Heights are generally regulated by base zoning district. Typically ordinances allow 50-1000 increase over height allowed in base zoning district and allow greater height by conditional use permit or variance . Antennas six to 20 feet in height, located on existing buildings are typically permitted under most ordinances . Greater heights are often allowed . S III -I Screening includes security fencing and specifying camouflage as . well as emphasison the attractiveness of the material and affect produced. Most commonly, ordinances submitted to the APA require landscaping around the base of the structure, with the height and depth for vegetation landscaping and screening in many ordinances while others required landscaping only for residential districts . Other options include requirements for standards to be determined by a local zoning board or design review board; requirement for a percentage of total site to be landscaped or screened; tree- planting requirements (such as one 6 ' tree for every 40 ' of frontage or "street trees required: ) . Specific non-vegetative screening commonly includes some form of screening around the base with specific descriptions that include brick masonry walls, chain link fences, solid wood fences, opaque barriers and berms . Some require landscaping or screening height standards of 4-24 feet. Finally, other ordinances require that the landscaping/screening be done in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding character, buildings or landscape Structure requirements include compliance with Electronics Industry Association (EIA standards and approval by a licensed structural engineer approved or hired by the city. Some of the items I have noted under design requirements probably are more appropriate to this category. With respect to safety considerations, the most conservative setback requirement specified 100 percent of the tower height, plus additional distance of 10-20 feet from the nearest property line or street orotect P- adjacentproperty from damage . imi The fact that some towers are designed to collapse within gil themselves could also be cited. Lot requirements could be added here. Although most cities do not include such requirements in their ordinances, those that do, provide for lot size based on the minimum allowed for whatever zoning district the tower is to be sited in. Lot requirements most often cited are given in square footage or acreage and range from 5, 000 square feet to 2 acres. A common method for determining lot size is to make it a function of 1) tower height, with the toppling factor being the primary justification; and 2) the concern over proximity of adjacent uses to an EMF source. Some cities provide for separate accessory structure setbacks from both the property line and tower itself . Accessory buildings and equipment are treated in a wide variety of ways . Some ordinances require that zoning district requirements apply to accessory structures; others did not . Others require only that the structures meet the building code. Others require that in residential districts, structures be designed to fit with the basic residential house design in the area. Others require design review board approval, while others have separate accessory structure setbacks from the property line and tower; others require the structures to have their own landscaping or screening. Where the III-I2 tower is an accessory to a principal use, some cities require the related buildings to have the same building design or materials as the principal use . Example : Free-standing transmission towers and other antenna devices over 60 ' in height . 1 . Maximum height is limited to 150 ' above the ground upon which the antenna is placed. The city council may allow towers up to 200 ' high if the applicant can demonstrate that based upon the topography of the site and surrounding area, siting of the antenna, antenna design, surrounding tree cover and structures and/or through the use of screening, that off-site views of the tower will. be minimized. 2 . The use of guyed towers is prohibited. Towers must be self- supporting without the use of wires, cables, beams or other means . The design should utilize an open framework or monopole configuration. Permanent platforms or structures exclusive of antennas that serve to increase off-site visibility are prohibited; 3 . The base of the tower shall occupy no more than 500 square feet and the top of the tower shall be no larger than the 411 base ; 4 . Minimum spacing between tower locations is 1/4 mile; 5 . Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening possible for off-site views of the facility; 6 . Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable; 7 . The installation shall be designed to be compatible with the underlying site plan. The base of the tower and any accessory structures sha _ , • - - _ _ - _ _ - a- designed to be architecturally compatible with principal structures on the sit ; 8 . The tower shall be painted light blue or other color that is demonstrated to minimize visibility. No advertising or identification visible off-site shall be placed on the tower or antennas; 9 . Antennas placed upon the tower shall be subject to state and federal regulations pertaining to non-ionizing radiation and other health hazards related to such facilities . If new, more restrictive standards are adopted the antennas shall be made III-I3 to comply or continued operations may be restricted by the city council . The cost of verification of compliance shall be 410 borne by the owner and operator of the tower; and 10 . Towers shall be provided with security fencing to prevent unauthorized entry. (Minnetonka, MN) XI. Obsolete or Unused Towers Example: • All obsolete and unused towers and accompanying accessory . facilities shall be removed by the property owner within 12 months of cessation of use (See also the more elaborate language in the Bloomington ordinance enclosed. ) XII. effect of Ordinance on Existing Towers and Antennas Example: Antennas and towers in residential districts and in existence as of March 15, 1973 which do not conform to or comply with this Section are subject to the following provisions : 411 1) Towers may continue in use for the purpose now used and as now existing but may not be replaced or structurally altered without complying in all respects with this Section. 2) If such towers are hereafter damaged or destroyed due to any reason or cause whatsoever, the tower may be repaired and restored to its former use, location, and physical dimensions upon obtaining a building permit therefore, but without otherwise complying with this Section, provided, however, that if the cost of repairing the tower to the former use, physical dimensions, and location would be ten percent or more of the cost of new tower of like kind and quality, then the tower may not be repaired or restored except in full compliance with this Section. (Bloomington, MN) IIIJ , K • City of Bloomington, Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers Revisions Approved 7/1/96 CHAPTER 19 ZONING *** ARTICLE V. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS *** SEC. 19.63.05. TOWERS (a) Purpose. In order to accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community, the Council finds that these regulations are necessary in order to: (1) facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the City; 1110 (2) minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting standards; (3) avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements;and, (4) maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to accommodate new wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. (b) Towers in Residential Zoning Districts. Towers shall be allowed only in the following residentially zoned areas: (1) Towers supporting amateur radio antennas and conforming to all applicable provisions of this Code shall be allowed only in the rear yard of residentially zoned parcels. (2) Towers supporting commercial antennas and conforming to all applicable provisions of this Code shall be allowed only in the following residentially zoned locations: (a) Church sites, when camouflaged as steeples or bell towers; (b) Park sites, when compatible with the nature of the park; and, (c) Government, school, utility,and institutional sites. (c) Co-Location Requirements. All commercial wireless telecommunication towers erected, constructed, or located within the City shall comply with the following requirements: (1) A proposal for a new commercial wireless telecommunication service tower shall not be approved unless the City Council finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a 4111 one mile search radius (one half mile search radius for towers under 120 feet in height, one quarter IVA-1 City of Bloomington,Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers mile search radius for towers under 80 feet in height) of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons: • (a) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or building, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved tower cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost. (b) The planned equipment would cause interference materially impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. (c) Existing or approved towers and buildings within the search radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer. (d) Other unforseen reasons that make it infeasible to locate the planned telecommunications equipment upon an existing or approved toweror building. (2) Any proposed commercial wireless telecommunication service tower shall be designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least two additional users if the tower is over 100 feet in height or for at least one additional user if the tower is over 60 feet in height. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights. (d) Tower Construction Requirements. All towers erected, constructed, or located within the City,and all wiring therefor, shall comply with the requirements set forth of Section 15.14 of this Code. (e) Tower and Antenna Design Requirements. Proposed or modified towers and antennas shall meet the following design requirements. (1) Towers and antennas shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color and camouflaging architectural treatment, except in instances where the color is dictated by federal or state authorities such as the Federal Aviation Administration. (2) Commercial wireless telecommunication service towers shall be of a monopole design unless the City Council determines that an alternative design would better blend in to the surrounding environment. (f) Tower Setbacks. Towers shall conform with each of the following minimum setback requirements: (1) Towers shall meet the setbacks of the underlying zoning district with the exception of industrial zoning districts, where towers may encroach into the rear setback area, provided that the rear property line abuts another industrially zoned property and the tower does not encroach upon any easements. (2) Towers shall be set back from the planned public rights of way as shown on the most recently adopted Master Street Plan of the City by a minimum distance equal to one half of the height of the tower including all antennas and attachments. (3) Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, with the following exceptions: 1111 (a) In industrial zoning districts, towers may be placed within a side yard abutting an internal industrial street. IVA-2 . City of Bloomington,Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers 40 (b) On sites adjacent to public streets on all sides, towers may be placed within a side yard abutting a local street. (4) A tower's setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public street varied, at the sole discretion of the City Council,to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as a church steeple, light standard,power line support device, or similar structure. (5) Towers erected on any protected residential parcel as defined in Section 19.47 of this Code are also subject to the setback provisions of Section 15.14 (d) (8)of this Code. (g) Tower Height. All proposed towers shall meet the height restrictions set forth in Section 19.47 of this chapter. (h) Tower Lighting. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe lights unless such lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority for a particular tower. When incorporated into the approved design of the tower, light fixtures used to illuminate ball fields,parking lots,or similar areas may be attached to the tower. (i) Signs and Advertising. The use of any portion of a tower for signs other than warning or equipment information signs is prohibited. (j) Accessory Utility Buildings. All utility buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and shall meet the minimum setback requirements of the underlying zoning district. Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from 4111 view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of non vegetative screening better reflects and complements the architectural character of the surrounding neighborhood. (k) Abandoned or Unused Towers or Portions of Towers. Abandoned or unused towers or portions of towers shall be removed as follows: (1) All abandoned or unused towers and associated facilities shall be removed within 12 months of the.cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the Planning Manager. A copy of the relevant portions of a signed lease which requires the applicant to remove the tower and associated facilities upon cessation of operations at the site shall be submitted at the time of application. In the event that a tower is not removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at a site, the tower and associated facilities may be removed by the City and the costs of removal assessed against the property. • (2) Unused portions of towers above a manufactured connection shall be removed within six months of the time of antenna relocation. The replacement of portions of a tower previously removed requires the issuance of a new conditional use permit. (1) Antennas Mounted on Roofs, Walls, and Existing Towers. The placement of wireless telecommunication antennas on roofs, walls, and existing towers may be approved by the Planning Manager, provided the antennas meet the requirements of this Code, after submittal of 1) a final site and building plan as specified by Section 19.40.12 of this Code, and 2) a report prepared by a qualified and licensed professional engineer indicating the existing structure or tower's suitability to accept the antenna, and the proposed method of affixing the antenna to the structure. Complete details of all fixtures and couplings, and the precise point of attachment shall be indicated. S IVA-3 City of Bloomington,Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers (m) Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications. No new or existing telecommunications service shall interfere with public safety telecommunications. All applications for new service shall be accompanied by an intermodulation study which provides a technical evaluation of existing and proposed transmissions and indicates all potential interference problems. Before the introduction of new service or changes in existing service, telecommunication providers shall notify the City at least ten calendar days in advance of such changes and allow the City to monitor interference levels during the testing process. (n) Additional Submittal Requirements. In addition to the information required elsewhere in this Code,development applications for towers shall include the following supplemental information: (1) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which A) describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation, B) documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas; C) describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate; D) documents what steps the applicant will take to avoid interference with established public safety telecommunications; E) includes an engineer's stamp and registration number, and, F) includes other information necessary to evaluate the request. (2) For all commercial wireless telecommunication service towers, a letter of intent committing the tower owner and-his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use. 40 (3) Before the issuance of a building permit, the following supplemental information shall be submitted: A) Proof that the proposed tower complies with regulations administered by Federal Aviation Administration;and, B) a report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which demonstrates the tower's compliance with the aforementioned structural and electrical standards. (o) Violations. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. *** IVA-4 City of Bloomington,Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS *** Division B.Definitions SEC. 19.03.DEFINITIONS. The following words and terms when used in this Chapter shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly states otherwise: *** Antenna - Any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or transmitting electromagnetic waves, including but not limited to directional antennas,such as panels, microwave dishes, and satellite dishes,and omni-directional antennas, such as whip antennas. Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services - Licensed commercial wireless telecommunication services including cellular; personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public. Public Utility - Persons, corporations, or governments supplying gas, electric, transportation, water, sewer, or land line telephone service to the general public. For the purpose of this ordinance, commercial wireless telecommunication service facilities shall not be considered public utility uses, and are el defined separately. Tower -Any ground or roof mounted pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof taller than 15 feet, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna,meteorological device,or similar apparatus above grade. Tower, Multi-User - A tower to which is attached the antennas of more than one commercial wireless telecommunication service provider or governmental entity. Tower,Single-User-A tower to which is attached only the antennas of a single user, although the tower may be designed to accommodate the antennas of multiple users as required in this Code. *** ARTICLE IV. DISTRICT REGULATIONS *** SEC. 19.47. HEIGHT. (a) Purpose -The purpose of Section 19.47 is to regulate the height of structures in order to maintain the character and scale of the predominant single-family residential development in the City of Bloomington. (b) Definitions - (1) Protected residential property -any property within the City that meets all of the following requirements: IVA- 5 City of Bloomington,Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers (A) The property is zoned R-1,R-1A,or RS-1 and the property may or may not also have a Planned Development(PD)Overlay classification; (B) The property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan as Low-Density Residential,Medium-Density Residential,or High-Density Residential;and (C) The property is used or subdivided for use as residential. (2) Structure height- (A) Buildings-the height of buildings shall be determined using 2 methods and both methods must comply with the restrictions of Section 19.47(c)of the City Code. (i) the number of stories shall be determined by counting the total number of above-grade,habitable floors in the building and shall not include walk-out basements,attics,or underground parking; (ii) the height of buildings shall be determined by measuring the vertical distance from the lowest exterior grade of the building to the ceiling of the highest habitable story of the building. Habitable stories with sloped ceilings shall be measured to the base of the slope. (B) Parking structures-the height of parking structures shall be determined by measuring the vertical distance from the lowest exterior grade of the parking structure to the highest point of the permanent structure. (C) Towers-the height of towers shall be determined by measuring the vertical distance from the tower's point of contact with the ground or rooftop to the highest point of the tower, including all antennas or other attachments. When towers are mounted upon other structures,the combined height of the structure and tower must meet the height restrictions of Section 19.47. (D) Other structures-the height of all other structures shall be determined by measuring the vertical distance from the lowest exterior grade of the structure to the highest point of any part of the structure. (E) The final determination of height shall be made by the Issuing Authority in accordance with the guidelines of Section 19.47(b)(2)(A), (B), and(C)of the City Code. (c) Height Limitations (1) Buildings and Structures Other Than Towers. (a) In all single-family residential zoning districts (R-1, R-1A, RS-1) the maximum height of any building shall be 2 stories and the maximum height of any structure, including buildings, shall be 30 feet; (b) In all other zoning districts, the maximum height of any building or structure, excluding towers, shall be as follows; Distance of Building or Structure from the Property Lines of any Protected Residential Property 0-30 feet 31-300 feet I 301-600 feet over 600 feet Maximum Height: 2 stories/30 ft. 3 stories/40 ft. 80 ft. no limit (2) Towers. (a) In all protected residential property the maximum height of any tower, including all antennas and other attachments, shall be 30 feet; (b) In all residential zoning districts other than protected residential property, the maximum height of any tower, including all antennas and other attachments, shall not exceed one foot for each four feet the tower is setback from protected residential property up to a maximum height of 150 feet. 411 IVA-6 • City of Bloomington,Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers (c) In all non-residential zoning districts, the maximum height of any tower, including all antennas and other attachments, shall not exceed one foot for each two feet the tower is setback from protected residential property up to a maximum height of 150 feet. (d)Applicability- (1) In all zoning districts, the maximum height of any structure, building, or portion thereof,other than towers, 600 feet or greater from any protected residential property shall not be governed by Section 19.47 of this Code. (2) Exceptions - The requirements of section 19.47 of this Code shall apply to all structures and developments otherwise permitted under this Code except: (A) planned developments,when approved as a part of a preliminary and final development plan pursuant to Section 19.38.01 of this Code. (B) public utility structures, including but not limited to water towers, antennas, lights and signals,power and telephone poles,and poles supporting emergency warning devices. (C) church sanctuaries,steeples and bell towers. (D) multi-user towers may exceed the height limitations of Section 19.47 by up to 20 feet. (E) in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission's preemptive ruling PRB 1,towers erected for the primary purpose of supporting amateur radio antennas may exceed 30 feet in height provided that a determination is made by the Planning Manager that the proposed tower height is technically necessary to successfully engage in amateur radio communications. (e) Noncompliance - Noncompliance of characteristics of structures and site development created by the application of Section 19.47 of this Code shall not in any manner limit the legal use of the property, nor in any manner limit the repair, maintenance, or reconstruction of a noncomplying characteristic or feature; however, in no instance shall the degree of noncompliance be increased except as otherwise permitted by this Code. *** ARTICLE III. DISTRICT USES *** SEC. 19.27. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1A, R-1) DISTRICTS. *** (c) Permitted accessory uses - *** (12) Towers supporting amateur radio antennas. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** • (d) Conditional uses - IVA-7 City of Bloomington,Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers • (38) Towers which meet the locational requirements of Section 19.63.05, (b). When reviewing an application for a conditional use permit to erect a tower, it is not required that the City Council make the finding under Section 19.22, subparagraph (1) (E), of this Code. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47,and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.27.01.LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT RS-1. *** (b) Uses *** (2) Permitted Accessory Uses *** I. Towers supporting amateur radio antennas. For related provisions ser Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *«* (3) Conditional Uses- *** • P. Towers which meet the locational requirements of Section 19.63.05, (b). When reviewing an application for a conditional use permit to erect a tower, it is not required that the City Council make the finding under Section 19.22, subparagraph (1) (E), of this Code. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.28.01. MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(RM-12)DISTRICTS. *** (d) Conditional uses - *** (8) Towers which meet the locational requirements of Section 19.63.05, (b). When reviewing an application for a conditional use permit to erect a tower, it is not required that the City • Council make the finding under Section 19.22, subparagraph (1) (E), of this Code. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. IVA-8 Citr of Bloomington,Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers 11111 SEC. 19.28.02. MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(RM-24)DISTRICTS. *** (d) Conditional uses- *** (7) Towers which meet the locational requirements of Section 19.63.05, (b). When reviewing an application for a conditional use permit to erect a tower, it is not required that the City Council make the finding under Section 19.22, subparagraph(1) (E), of this Code. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.28.03. MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(RM-50)DISTRICTS. *** (d) Conditional uses - I *** (6) Towers which meet the locational requirements of Section 19.63.05, (b). When reviewing an application for a conditional use permit to erect a tower, it is not required that the City Council make the finding under Section 19.22, subparagraph (1) (E), of this Code. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.30. LIMITED BUSINESS (B-1) DISTRICTS. *** (d) Conditional uses - *** (13) Towers. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.31. RETAIL BUSINESS (B-2) DISTRICTS. S *** IVA•-9 City of Bloomington,Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers (d) Conditional uses- (30)Towers. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47,and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.31.01.REGIONAL COMMERCIAL(CR-1)DISTRICTS. *5* (d) Conditional uses - *** (6)Towers. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *5* SEC. 19.32. GENERAL BUSINESS (B-3)DISTRICTS. *5* (d) Conditional uses - 111 *5* (8)Towers. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.33. INDUSTRIAL(I-1, I-2, AND I-3)DISTRICTS. *5* (d) Conditional Uses - *** (28)Towers. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *5* SEC. 19.33.01. INDUSTRIAL PARK(IP) DISTRICT. *** • (d) Conditional Uses - IVA-10 City of Bloomington,Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers *** (8)Towers. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.34.FREEWAY DEVELOPMENT(FD-1 AND FD-2)DISTRICTS. *** (d) Conditional uses- *** (25)Towers. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.35. INSTITUTIONAL(IN-1)DISTRICTS. *** (d) Conditional uses- (9)Towers. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.37. CENTRAL BUSINESS (CB) DISTRICT. *** (d) Conditional uses - *** (14) Towers For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.40.06. MIXED USE DISTRICT CX-2. *** (d) Conditional uses - IVA-11 City of Bloomington,Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers *** 1111 (20)Towers. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.40.07. COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICTS CS-0.5 AND CS-1. *** (d) Conditional uses- *** (16)Towers. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.40.07.01. HIGH INTENSITY MIXED USE DISTRICT HX-2. *** (c) Accessory Uses - *** 111 (5)Towers. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.40.08. COMMERCIAL OFFICE DISTRICTS CS-0.5 AND CO-i. *** (d) Conn tiena1_tjses - *** (13)Towers. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47, and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.40.08.01 COMMERCIAL-OFFICEJMIXED USE DISTRICT CO-2. *** (d) Conditional uses - • *** IVA-12 City of Bloomington,Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers (16)Towers. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47,and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** SEC. 19.40.09. RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICT RO-24 AND RO-50. *** (d) Conditional uses- *** • (6)Towers. For related provisions see Sections 15.14, 19.47,and 19.63.05 of this Code. *** CHAPTER 15 BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 111 ARTICLE I. BUILDING CODE• *** SEC. 15.14. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ANTENNAE AND SUPPORTING TOWERS. (a) Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this Section, shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Antenna - Any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or transmitting w i* • YTS - waves, Inc u. g but not limited to directional antennas, such as panels, microwave • s•es, and satellite dishes, and omni-directional antennas, such as whip antennas. Tower -Any ground or roof mounted pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof taller than 15 feet, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna, meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade. (b) Permits. (1) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct in place, place or re-erect, replace, or repair any tower without first making application to the Building and Inspection Division and securing a permit therefor as hereinafter provided. (2) The applicant shall provide at the time of application sufficient information to indicate that construction, installation, and maintenance of the antenna and tower will not create a safety hazard or damage to the property of other persons. (3) Permits are not required for: IVA-13 City of Bloomington,Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers (A) Adjustment or replacement of the elements of an antenna array affixed to a tower or • antenna,provided that replacement does not reduce the safety factor. (B) Antennas and/or towers erected temporarily for test purposes, for emergency communication, or for broadcast remote pick-up operations, provided that all requirements of Subsection (d)are met, with the exception of(d)(3)(C)which is waived. Temporary antennas shall be removed within 72 hours following installation. (c) Fee. The fee to be paid is that prescribed under Building Permit Fees, Section 15.183. (d) Construction Requirements. All antennas and towers erected, constructed, or within the City, and all wiring therefor,shall comply with the following requirements: (1) All applicable provisions of this Code. (2) Towers shall be certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to conform to the latest structural standards and wind loading requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the Electronics Industry Association. (3 ) With the exception of necessary electric and telephone service and connection lines approved by the Issuing Authority,no part of any antenna or tower nor any lines,cable,equipment or wires or braces in connection with either shall at any time extend across or over any part of the right-of-way,public street, highway,sidewalk, or property line. (4) Towers and associated antennas shall be designed to conform with accepted electrical engineering methods and practices and to comply with the provisions of the National Electrical Code. (5) All signal and remote control conductors of low energy extending substantially horizontally above the ground between a tower or antenna and a structure, or between towers, shall be at least eight feet above the ground at all points,unless buried underground. • (6) Every tower affixed to the ground shall be protected to discourage climbing of the tower by unauthorized persons. (7) All towers shall be constructed to conform with the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (8) Antennas and towers shall not be erected in any protected residential parcel as defined in Section 19.47 of this Code in violation of the following restrictions: (A) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 19.47 of the Zoning Code, the required setback for antenna and tower not rigidly attached to a building, shall be equal to the height of the antenna and tower. Those antennas,and towers rigidly attached to a building, and whose base in on the ground, may exceed this required setback by the amount equal to the distance from the point of attachment to the ground. (B) No tower shall be in excess of a height equal to the distance from the base of the antenna and tower to the nearest overhead electrical power line which serves more than one dwelling or place of business,less five feet. (C) Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material. Wood poles shall be impregnated with rot resistant substances. (9) All towers erected within the city must conform to the applicable performance standards in Section 19.63.05 of this Code. (e) Existing Antennas and Towers. Antennas and towers in residential districts and in existence as of March 15, 1973 which do not conform to or comply with this Section are subject to the following provisions: (1) Towers may continue in use for the purpose now used and as now existing but may not be • replaced or structurally altered without complying in all respects with this Section. IVA-14 • City of Bloomington,Minnesota Selected Ordinance Provisions Pertaining to Towers • (2) If such towers are hereafter damaged or destroyed due to any reason or cause whatsoever, the tower may be repaired and restored to its former use, location, and physical dimensions upon obtaining a building permit therefor, but without otherwise complying with this Section, provided, however, that if the cost of repairing the tower to the former use, physical dimensions, and location would be ten percent or more of the cost of a new tower of like kind and quality, then the tower may not be repaired or restored except in full compliance with this Section. (f) Lights and Other Attachments. No antenna or tower in any protected residential parcel as defined in Section 19.47 of this Code shall have affixed or attached to it in any way except during time of repair or installation any lights, reflectors,flashers, or other illuminating device, except as required by the Federal Aviation Agency or the Federal Communications Commission, nor shall any tower have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any way, any platform, catwalk, crow's nest, or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair. (g) Number of Towers and Antennas. Only one tower shall exist at any one time on any one protected residential parcel as defined in Section 19.47 of this Code. (h) Inspections. All towers may be inspected at least once each year by an official of the Building and Inspection Division to determine compliance with original construction standards. Deviation from original construction for which a permit is obtained constitutes a violation of this.Section. Notice of violations will be sent by registered mail to the owner and he will have 30 days from the date the notification is issued to make repairs. The owner will notify the Building and Inspection Division that Sthe repairs have been made, and as soon as possible thereafter, another inspection will be made and the owner notified of the results. (i) Violations. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (j) Interpretation. It is not the intention of this. Section to interfere with, abrogate, or annul any covenant or other agreement between parties, provided, however, where this Section imposes a greater restriction upon the use or premises for antennas or towers than are imposed or required by other ordinances, rules, regulations, or permits, or by covenants or agreements, the provisions of this Section shall govern. fWan,;ng weernaster.d« S IVA-15 • • CITY OF ROSEMOUNT STATE OF MINNESOTA D (O ORDINANCE NO. B- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY ZONING CODE ORDINANCE B REGULATING COMMERCIAL USE ANTENNA TOWERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Rosemount City Zoning Ordinance B Section 3.2 is amended by adding the following definitions: COMMERCIAL USE ANTENNA: A device used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based structures directly or indirectly related to wireless personnel communication services and cellular services. COMMERCIAL USE ANTENNA TOWER: Any pole, spire, or lattice structures, or • combination thereof, to which an antenna is attached, or which is designed for an antenna to be attached, and all supporting materials. LICENSED ENGINEER: An engineer that is licensed by the Minnesota Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture and Interior Design. Section II. Rosemount City Zoning Ordinance B Section 6.1 is amended by adding new paragraph 10 as follows: Section 6.1 AG Agricultural District • 10. Commercial Antennas or devices that transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based structures directly or indirectly related to wireless personal communication services, cellular services, and supporting structures or towers. This use may be permitted only in that part of the City east of Akron Avenue. Section III. Rosemount City Zoning Ordinance B Section 11.4 is amended by adding the new paragraph F as follows: Section 11.4 Commercial Antenna Uses 1110 IVB-1 F. The City has received requests regarding the location of commercial use antenna towers • within the City of Rosemount. The City Council wishes to have uniform standards set that will allow the establishment of these uses, yet protect the public health of the citizens and the aesthetics of the community. 1. Anyone wishing to establish a commercial use antenna tower in Rosemount needs to obtain an application. The application must be accompanied by a non-refundable application fee. The application fee shall be established by City Council annually. All technical data and all relevant information shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for its review. 2. Upon receiving approval by the City Council and obtaining the appropriate permits, the following standards for commercial use antenna towers shall be met: a. A tower shall be designedand situated to be as visually unobtrusive as possible, 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. b. Shall be permitted in Agriculture (AG) zone east of Akron Avenue and not within two (2) miles of another commercial antenna tower. c. No guy wires shall be used. • d. The setbacks of commercial use antenna towers shall equal the height of the tower. The height of the tower shall be a function of the setback. A commercial use antenna tower can not locate any closer than 500 feet from a residential structure. e. The structural integrity of a commercial use antenna tower must be approved by a certified engineer. f. When lighting is used, including when lighting is required by the FAA or other federal or state authority, it shall be oriented inward so as not to project onto surrounding residential property. g. Non-climbable fencing shall enclose the area on which the commercial use antenna tower is located. h. Accessory structures to enclose transmission equipment, power equipment, or any equipment located on the ground near the tower that is used in conjunction with the commercial antenna tower. IVB-2 S i. All information as specified in subsections 11.4.A.4. and 14.4 B of this • ordinance. 3. Should the commercial use antenna tower owner engage in any activity that violates these standards or endangers the public health safety, and welfare, the City may require the abatement of said tower from its current site. The City will provide notice to the commercial use antenna tower owner of the violations, and provide an opportunity for the owner to address the City Council regarding the proposed action. The City may require immediate abatement in the case that there is an immediate public health threat. 4. All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within six (6) months of the cessation of operations unless a time extension is approved by the City Council. If a time extension is not approved, the tower may be deemed a nuisance pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Section 429. In the event a tower is determined to be a nuisance, the City of Rosemount may act to abate such nuisance and require the removal of the tower at the property owner's expense. The owner shall provide the City with a copy of the notice of the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) intent to cease operations and shall be given six(6) months from the date of ceasing operations to . remove the obsolete tower and all accessory structures. In the case of multiple operators sharing the use of a single tower, this provision shall not become effective until all users cease operations for a period six (6) months. The equipment on the ground is not to be removed until the tower structure has first been dismantled. After the facilities are • removed, the site shall be restored to its original, or to an improved state. Section IV. This ordinance will become effective the day after publication. Adopted this day of , 1996 Cathy Busho, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Published this day of , 1996 in the Rosemount Town Pages. NOTE ; Assof the third week in July , the City had decided to withdraw this first proposed revision in order to proceed to develop a more comprehensive revision of their zoning ordinance since the wireless 0 telecommunications service provider witildrew a previous request for an amendment to the city zoning oruinance . H final copy of the city s revised zoning ordinance will be forthcoming ti.hen it is completed . IVB-3 Item 4.4 • • Planning Division Memorandum • To: Mayor,Council,and Manager Fr..: Gen Markegard,AJCP,Associate Planner 4t Date: April 9, 1996 Subject: Proposed 90 Day Tower Moratorium Baekgrooad Until recently, wireless telepbooe service was provided in Bloomington by oily two federally homed providers,US west New Vector Group and ATT wireless(who bought ort Cellular one). In 1995,the Federal Commuoications Commission (FCC) widened the wireless teleconsmonications playing field by selling two additional lionises in new frequaxy ranges (netting S7 billion dollars nationwide). For this area,those Bonuses vont purchased by Sprint Spectrum and American Portable Telecomaa(APT). Beth Sprint and APT will provide the next generation digital wireless services commonly referred to as PCS (Personal Conmu nicatian Services). The FCC may sell additional PCS licenses in the future. A third new wireless telecomminicaticas provider is OneComm, who entered the mix by purchasing several of Motorola's Specialized Mobilized Radio (SMR)licenses and then obtaining FCC approval to attach their enhanced system(ESMR)to the land line telephone network The expansion of the wireless telecommunications industry along with its recent technological . improvements will have many positive effects on Bloomington's residents, including lower rates, higher quality seryice, higher security, and the ability to transmit data and video signals from remote locations. Unfortunately,the positive aspects of this new technology will be accompanied by a proliferation of new cormniunications towers. Each of the three new wireless telecommunication providers will need to set up its own antenna and tower infrastructire in the near fixture. The two existing providers will also=require additional tower sites as their systems continue to evolve. Even more towers will be needed as the FCC auctions additional licenses to new providers. Local goverrunents will need to work closely with the whereas telecommunications industry to provide high quality service while muiuiuzirig the negative impacts of nnnernus comuumication towers. Federal Telecommunications Act Another meat telecommunicatioas dew-lomat is the passage of the Federal Telecommunication Act. The Act originally included language that would override a municipality's zoning controls over telecornnamioatioos towers. This language was removed shortly before passage,however,and the Act now trade, "Etcept as provided(herein), nothing in this acs shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modrfieation of personal wireless service facilities." The Act deer place three important limitations on local : 1)cities may not"unreasonably discriminate among providers of f mcOcgally equivalent services", 2) cities may not"prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services", and 3) cities may not regulate personal wireless services "on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the (FCC's) regulations concerning such emissions." • v-i Existing ReguLatione • Over the last 60 days, the city staff has received numerous inquiries from wireless tekcommuaication providers regarding the location of antennas and towers cc city owned and privately owned land. 'These ioguinies along with the;recent passage of the Federal T Act have forced a re-evaluation of Bloomington's mining restrictions on wireless telecommunications facilities. In the past,cellular tomes m Bloomington have been considered `public utility uses" for the purposes of obtaining detelopment approval. Ass`public utility use",the towers are allowed as a permitted use in all zoning districts and are exempt from the height restrictions. Moreover,there arc no design requirements or performance standards in place to ensure that the tower blends into its surroundings to the maximum event possible. As a"public utility me"the;existing regulations could, in theory, allow the placement of a 140 foot metal frame tower on a vacant residential lot Wireless telecomnamications providers do not fit well into the classic `public utility"image. True public utilities have a monopoly on the provision of as essential service and are heavily regulated. Today, with five private providers competing for arstomets,wireless telecorrununications is moving even farther away frau what we think of as a `public utility". If, for development approval purposes, wireless telecommunication facilities were not considered `public utility uses", towers would be subject to a very diSeremt set of restrictions under Bloomington's current zoning ordinance. First of all, none of the zoning districts reference telecornmin iratiaa towers as a permitted or conditional use. This fact leaves open to iaterprotrtion where towers would be allowed. Moreover, the towers would also be subject to the height limitation for structures. Under these height limitations,a tower over 80 feet in height(which most towers are) would have to be located at least 600 feet from the nearest `protected residential property". Them height restrictions would preclude placement of towers in large arras of Bloomington and would leave the city open to the challenge that the regulations "have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal • wireless services"as specified in the Federal Telecommunications Act. In suaorcary, the regulation of towers under Bloomington's current zoning ordinance depends largely on whether or not they are classified as `public utility uses". When classified as `public utility uses", the existing regulations clearly do not provide Bloomington's residents with adequate protection against the negative impacts of telecornstninicaticet towers. When not classified as `public utility uses", the existing meas become so restrictive that they may violate federal law. Either interpretation is very undesirable for the City of Bloomington. Ordinance Revisions Clearly the inning regulations mood to be revised. Ordinance revisions are necessary 1) to facilitate the provision of increased wireless teles wumuaicarien service,and 2)to provide adequate performance, design, structural, and location standards to protect the public safety and welfare. The revisions will include a clear de finitina of`public utilities"and will specify the zoning districts in which towers will be allowed. The revisions will also include reasonable height restrictions for towers near residential uses, incentives to locate smtennas on existing towers or buildings, incentives for providers to share tower space in order to au>rrasrixe the total number of towers, structural requirements, design requirements, setbacks, and other elements.impotent Use of City Owned Land Each of the providers have expressed interest in leasing space on city owned land for their wireless telecommunications facilities. While some city owned land would be inappropriate for such uses, other IDsites may provide suitable locations and supply a potential revenue stream. It is necessary that the city prepare and adopt a consistent statement of policy regarding the placement of such facilities on city owned land, especially in light of the Federal Teleconmunicaticns Act which stipulates that cities may not "discriminate wrong providers of functionally equivalent services". A formally adopted policy will ensure that requests from competing providers are handled on a consistent basis. v-2 IP Moratorium In wry, staff recarunands a 90 day moratorium on the mon of towers for the following • The missing seeing regulations do not adequately address the unique needs and impacts of wireless telecommunication towers and expose the city to potential legal challenges. Tower requests need to be deferred while appropriate revisions are made to the zoning ordinance. • The League of Mamesota Cities has formed work groups of municipal officials who will be offering guidance to cities in the form of reoar=eaded zoning changes and model lease requirements. This guidance well be a valuable resource and should be available in the month of ApriL • The raotsiorium will allow time for review and oomrueat on proposed ordinance changes by all affected per, iocluding the providers, the public, and staff's teleconummicatioris consultant. The moratoriums will ensure that ordinance changes will not need to be rushed through aid that all the issues caa be completely examined. • The moratotiunt will give the city a chance to adopt a canprehensive policy on the use of city owned land for wireless telecommunications facilities and ensure that requests are handled.on a consistent basis. By limiting the moratorium to 90 days, the city is recognizing the time constraints faced by the new providers is bringing their service on line. There arc cities in the area that have adopted twelve month moratoriums. Moreover,the moratorium would not restrict the placement of wireless telecommunications antennas on existing buildings or towers. Time city encourages such placement of antennas as a method for reducing the member of freestanding towers. S i Ppiatmiatcamiostntemaramesmcioc V-3 • ORDINANCE NO. 96- 10 • AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A 90-DAY MORATORIUM WITHIN THE CITY ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TOWERS AND ON THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY FOR SUCH NEW TOWERS,THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 19.23.03 FOR THAT PURPOSE The City Council of the City of Bloomington hereby ordains: Section 1, That Chapter 19 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: *** CHAPTER 19 ZONING *** • ARTICLE II. ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE *** • SEC. 19.23_03 jRl✓SERVED1 TOWER MORATORIUM (a) Preamble Recent advances in.wireless communications technolocv havesssulted_in anew • - . " C •• . • ce .• C••• n •' d, .. a . _ U •.• cc• .•• - Comm Communications Services" ("PCS").will likely reayire numerous antenna locations houghout the community. These antennaemay be located on buildings_water towers. and other similar structures. but will also frequently be Ionated on towers constructed or enlarged for that purpose. • • • . '•e•. •-ve - •e- • .0- • e• .v • ._.• ..•' '•I. providers are expected to be icense in the jrafmtglaheseihattigalrgsapelacclisi pursue antenna sites within the City,and these efforts are effected to include requests to construct new or enlarged communications towers. There is concern that current City ordinances may not adequately acklmss issues relating to these towers. such as the appropriate locations for these towers and the conditions under wichr they may be • . ,', _.e '! '• ."I- 1.1.215_•_ •.d c'.-a• •••. l • %,ii-,s •- • .• :. . Setbacks_andheight limitations. i•- • - .e-. • Ts_sV . ,•• • • " ' '1 K. • •et-.N'.- W•-_ Csl • • . ••its •.-! .z t• •e -••• '• • •1 • - • •u• C . -. • • ' ' •• ' C- gi - staff task_force has been studying PCS and tower issues and has been directed to continue to consluct such studies. but additional time is required for this pyluose before propos& • • •• - •• •. " • • A.• ,! . .• •-• . It I. -• .•• C••7•et-10 •V • II 11111 S Council at a public hearing, vz-1 • The Council finds_therefore.that a moratorium is required in order to protect the • • • •• •_ •toC- -.• • •.el;- . I • •7•l •1;• / • - • . ,_ ..- •t • •Wa•. . 1• 1 - - and development of lands within the City for sich towers pending the comnletion_o f • d"e • d .e c••- .t'•C •1• i.•_• e.l .tat'., . . l . • • • . . subject. At the present time itis expected that the necessary study and implementation - • • .. . - e. ; .'. _ •r.. -v .. :.. (b' Moratorium Established: Scope: Definition of"Tower" (ll In accordance with the fin ince let forth_inthe Preamble to this •l•••_ • - - e• • _.- •,tt• •eau .•; • 1,/•••y.. . tato .•_ I •. 4 .yl- . l • IK • , d a Of• -t• , .. •• .e c•• 'leu_•1• •1 .. ••• • . -01 - . In. •J1 111 •S'• 1 - - ' a,, / • - •an •• • •wy.. S . • l = .• •• •e .eve •.Jl. •t - 1• _ • property for such purposes. 11) •..• •- . ;so • . u.r .. •• . •. .("q. •J . . , e , •u' • 1 0 • . . . •• • . ' • •' •1 •.. --.• • •7 •,'j...' . - .• . .•N l . • • l • tower work shall not be accepted by the City neither the Planning Commission nor the ChJ Council shall consider or grant approval of any applicationrequired for such work. d no building permits for such work shall be issued, (31 For the purposes of th_e ..o rium—the tem tower shallmean "aryv pole_ spire.structure. or combination_theseof.n_cltt r _ ocyrtin tines._cables, •r- '1• - .• ;, t. 'ntcnd • •. ..-I V • . • ,•• - • $•. I.•. .• .1 se- Meteorological device,or similar apparatus above glade." (c' Applicability Thejnoratorium shall be applicable to property_throughout the City, (dl Exc ted ions be .••,.. •II n .- 1• a.•- t• _ •e _k__ - • e u .: . -1.. • . - l_ e '• • • ., - 1s. - • . uc a '_ t'• • t.w- l. 2 .e - •_• ./. •• ... . ._. - pf any existing tower provided that such work does not enlarge or expand that tower_ X31 work on a tower necessary to preserve health safety.lifeorproperty in-the_face of an en , • -.. - - - - . dyed allnec ry Hermits and an r� �valc .t• .. • •;• • •ee: - •s'v- •_- . ." . ••.• .ce. (e' Penalties Any person_corporation_or other entity that constructs.erects.places, reconstructs_enlarges. or expands a towerin violation of this Section_shall be guilty of a ••' • - •• -. .• . •• C•. •- u. e . . .v ..••;• 1- •- • - • 'moi - la//-d'- .. • to the City, rn Effective Date r•' ec '.. ' .- v. ' i -q •• • •_ ad•.t'•, -,. • • • -A•• •-- •- K;ve . •r • , a •l•.• eiec 'ye .. ..• . •• • -1 t'..e . % a • extended. S vI...2 • Passed and adopted this 15th day of April, 1996. Mayor ATTEST: e tart'to the Couficil APPROVED: • Ci Atto ey • • VI-3 • • (r 9 • • WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ISSUES PAPER DECEMBER 1995 • San Diego • • ASSOCIATION.OF GOVERNMENTS • 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 0 G AAA ArLo MI. 7A-0 : �n-p• �� wwr.� . SAM:VR0 .Coco. • Ute. -as t r- 1 A- 7i tff.r ' • MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad.Chula Vista.Coronado, Del Mar.El Cajon.Encinitas,Escondido,Imperial Beach.La Mesa Lemon Grove.National City,Oceanside, Poway,San Diego.San Marcos,Santee,Solana Beach.Vista.and County of San Diego. ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation.U.S.Department of Defense.San Diego Unified Port Distract, San Diego County Water Autflonry,and Tijuana/Baja California/Mexico • • Board of Directors S SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS • The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is a public agency formed voluntarily by local governments to assure overall areawide planning and coordination for the San Diego region. . Voting members include the incorporated Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and the County of San Diego. Advisory and Liaison members include Caltrans, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, and Tijuana/Baja California/Mexico. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Mike Bixler VICE CHAIRMAN: Hon. Elliot Parks , . SECRETARY-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Kenneth E. Sulzer CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF SAN DIEGO Hon.Ramona Finnila, Councilmember Hon. Christine Kehoe, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bud Lewis,Mayor (A) Hon. Barbara Warden. Councilmember (A) Hon. Valerie Stallings, Councilmember • CITY OF CHULA VISTA Hon. Shirley Horton, Mayor CITY OF SAN MARCOS (A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Mayor Pro Tern Hon. Betty Evans, Councilmember (A) Hon. Darrell Gentry, Councilmember CITY OF CORONADO Hon. Mary Herron, Mayor CITY OF SANTEE (A) Hon. David Blumenthal, Councilmember Hon. Jack Dale, Mayor (A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember CITY OF DEL MAR Hon. Elliot Parks, Deputy Mayor CITY OF SOLANA BEACH . (A) Hon. Mark Whitehead, Councilmember Hon. Marion Dodson, Mayor (A) Hon.Teri Renteria, Councilmember CITY OF El.CAJON (A) Hon.Joe Kellejian, Deputy Mayor • Hon. Richard Ramos,Councilmember (A) Hon. Mark Lewis, Councilmember CITY OF VISTA Hon. Gloria E. McClellan, Mayor CITY OF ENCINITAS (A) Hon. Ed Estes, Jr.. Councilmember Hon. Chuck Du Vivier, Councilmember (A) Hon. Gail Hano, Councilmember COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Pam Slater, Supervisor CITY OF ESCONDIDO (A) Hon. Bill Horn, Supervisor Hon. Jerry Harmon, Councilmember (A) Hon. Greg Cox, Supervisor (A) Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler, Councilmember STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH (Advisory Member) Hon. Mike Bixler, Mayor James van Loben Sels, Director (A) Hon. Gail-Benda. Councilmember (A) Gary Gallegos, District 11 Director CITY OF LA MESA U.S.DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor (Liaison Member) (A) Hon. Barry Jantz. Councilmember CAPT. Michael Johnson. CEC. USN (A) Hon. Jay LaSuer, Counclunember Commanding Officer Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command CITY OF LEMON GROVE Hon. Craig Lake, Mayor Pro Tem SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT (A) Han. Dwight Shelley, Councilmember (Advisory Member) Jess Van Deventer, Commissioner CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Hon. Rosalie Zarate. Councilmember SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY (A) George H.Waters, Mayor (Advisory Member) Frank Chenelle CITY OF OCEANSIDE Marilynn Herdebeck Hon. Dick _von, Mayor (A) Hon. Carol McCauley, Deputy Mayor TUUANA/BAJA CALIFORNIA/MEXICO (Advisory Member) • CITY OF POWAY Hon.Jose Guadalupe Osuna Millan Hon. Don Higginson. Mayor _ Presidents Municipal de Tijuana (A) Hon. Bob Emery, Councilmember (A) Hon. Mickey Cafagna, Councilmember Revised December 20. 1995 • San Diego ASSOCIATION OF i GOVERNMENTS Suite 800, First Interstate Plaza 401 B Street San Diego, California 92101 • (619)595-5300 Fax (619)595-5305 December 21, 1995 TO: State and Local Elected Officials, CALCOG Directors, City Managers, Planning Directors, Members of the Communications Facilities Subcommittee of the Regional Growth Management Technical Committee, and Other Interested Parties FROM: Ken Sulzer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Wireless Communications Facilities Issues Paper Member agency staff requested the San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG's) assistance in responding to a number of issues related to the siting of facilities (especially • antennae) for cellular phones, mobile radios, and personal communications services. A Communications Facilities Subcommittee of the Regional Growth Management Technical Committee was formed, comprised of staff members from local jurisdictions and representatives of the wireless communications industry. It recommended that information regarding health and safety issues, visual impacts, technology, and regulatory issues associated with wireless communications facilities be provided to local jurisdictions in the attached Issues Paper. At its December 15, 1995 meeting, the SANDAG Board of Directors voted to approve the Wireless Communications Facilities Issues Paper for use by the cities and County, e wireless communications industry, and other interested parties. The copy of the final report, which provides information about key issues related to wireless communications facilities and guidelines for the siting of these facilities, is enclosed for your use. If you have any questions about the information contained in the Issues Paper, please contact Kim Kawada (619) 595-5394 or Carolina Gregor (619) 595-5315 of my staff for assistance. ICES/KK/ah • Enclosure MEMBER AGENCIES:Cities of Carlsbad.Chula Vista.Coronado.Del Mar.El Cajon.Encinitas.Escondido,Imperial Beach.La Mesa,Lemon Grove, National City,Oceanside.Poway,San Diego.San Marcos.Santee.Solana Beacn.Vista,and County of San Diego. ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS:California Department of Transportation.U.S.Department of Defense.S.D.Unified Port District.and Tijuana/Baia California. • ABSTRACT TITLE: Wireless Communications Facilities Issues Paper AUTHOR: San Diego Association of Governments DATE: December 1995 SOURCE OF COPIES: San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, Ca 92101 (619) 595-5300 NUMBER OF PAGES: 127 • ABSTRACT: This paper examines issues that local governments and the wireless communi- cations industry currently face; provides an overview of the technical issues associated with wireless communications systems; reviews the regulatory framework of the wireless communications industry; and discusses health and safety issues. The paper also recommends guidelines to local • governments in the San Diego region for use in developing their own local land use regulations for wireless communications facilities. Hi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Wireless Communications Facilities Issues Paper was prepared with the cooperation and assistance 40 of the Communications Facilities Subcommittee of the Regional Growth Management Technical Committee. COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE San Diego Association of Governments CHAIR: Bob Leiter,Director of Planning,City of Chula Vista SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS -City of Carlsbad Dennis Turner,Principal Planner City of Chula Vista Martin Miller,Associate Planner City of El Cajon James Griffin,Planning Director City of Poway Steve Sweeter,Principal Planner City of San Diego Shelly Kilbourne,Associate Planner Karen Lynch Ashcraft, Senior Planner Howard Stapleton,Telecommunications Policy Mgr. County of San Diego Mike Sloop,Planner State of California Public Utilities Commission Alannah Kinser, Outreach Officer AirTouch Cellular Kevin McGee, Government Relations Mgr. Cox Communications Rob Lingle,Program Manager Sheri Stinchcomb,Director of Network Planning • D. Garvey Corporation Julie Hamilton,Project Manager Ted Marioncelli,Project Manager Diablo Communications of Southern Dale Hair,Site Development Manager California,Inc. GTE Mobilnet Larry Doherty,Manager, Site Acquisition Dan Mieszala, Regional Systems Engineer Fluor Daniel Telecom Virginia Partridge,Dir. of Site Development&Zoning JM Consulting Ted Shaw,Land Use Planner NexteFCommurucations Barbara Saito,Pro ect Manager Pacific Bell Mobile Services Maryann Miller,Planning Consultant Darrell Daughtery,Planning Consultant The following staff of the San Diego Association of Governments contributed to the preparation of this report: Kenneth E. Sulzer,Executive Director Stuart Shaffer, Deputy Executive Director Michael McLaughlin,Director of Land Use and Public Facilities Planning Robert Parrott, Director of Research and Information Systems Susan Baldwin, Senior Regional Planner Kim Kawada, Associate Regional Planner for TDM Carolina Gregor, Land Use Planning Intern • Anne Haggerty, Word Processing Specialist Laura Mays, Graphics Specialist Mark Polinsky, Office Services Specialist iv • i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 L GUIDELINES FOR PERMITTING PROCESS 3 Local Government Issues 3 Visual Impacts 3 Health and Safety Issues 3 Wireless Communications Industry Issues • 3 Local Permitting Process 4 Technical Feasibility 4 How to Balance the Needs of Local Governments and Industry Providers -Guidelines 4 II. TECHNICAL OVERVIEW 9 Background 9 Technology 9 Antennas 11 Lattice Towers 13 Monopoles 14 Building-Attached Facilities 15 How Cellular Mobile Telephone Technology Works 15 Types of Cell Sites 16 Analog and Digital Technologies 17 How Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio-Technology(ESMR)Works 18 How Personal Communications Services (PCS)Works 18 Concluding Notes on Technological Aspects of Wireless Communications Technology 19 III. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 21 Federal Level 21 Federal Communications Commission 21 Federal Aviation Administration 22 State Level 23 California Public Utilities Commission 23 Local Level 24 Local Permitting Process 25 Permitted Zones and Locations 25 Standard Provisions 26 i v TABLE OF CONTENTS • (continued) IV. HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES 30 • Electromagnetic Energy Used in Wireless Communications Systems 30 Radiofrequency Radiation 30 • Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation 32 Why the Concern? 0 33 ANSI,NCRP,and IRPA Radiation Protection Guidelines 34 Radiation Levels 35 Ongoing and Future Research 36 RFR Related to Wireless Communications 37 RFR and EMF Information Sources 38 ABBREVIATIONS OF TERMS 39 GLOSSARY 41 REFERENCES 45 111P APPENDICES Appendix 1: Wireless Communications Survey Conducted by SANDAG in April 1995 51 Appendix 2: Examples of Local Ordinances 0 57 Appendix 3: Federal Communications Commission Licensing 125 Requirements • vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Examples of Providers in San Diego Region 9 Table 2 Wireless Communications Systems Comparison Chart 20 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Electromagnetic Spectrum 10 Figure 2 Cell Site Systems 11 Figure 3 Antennas 12 fbFigure 4 Lattice Towers 13 Figure 5 Monopole 14 Figure 6 Flower Tower 14 Figure 7 Building-Attached Facilities 15 Figure 8 Cell Configurations 16 Figure 9 Transmission Signals 17 Figure 10 Location of Radiofrequency Radiation on Electromagnetic Spectrum 32 vii • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recently, the public's interest in wireless communications systems has soared. The idea that a person can be reached at any given time at any place is appealing not only to large businesses, but also to small businesses and individuals. In 1992, there were approximately 10 million cellular telephone users across the United States, and by the end of 1994, that figure had grown to over 24 million. As impressive as this growth figure is, it does not include users of paging systems, Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR), or Personal Communications Services (PCS). Because the demand for these alternative wireless communications also is expected to increase, the potential for the industry's growth is logarithmic and has prompted providers to increase their number of transmission sites in order to gain coverage and calling capacity, and thus market share. This increase has required great coordination between providers and planning departments in addressing two main issues: the visual impacts of the antenna structures used in the transmission of communications, and health concerns. In March 1995, members of SANDAG's Regional Growth Management Technical Committee requested SANDAG's assistance in responding to a number of issues related to the siting of facilities (especially antennae) for cellular phones, mobile radios, and personal communications services. In response, a Communications Facilities Subcommittee of the Regional Growth Management Technical Committee was formed. The Subcommittee is comprised of staff members from local jurisdictions and representatives of the wireless communications industry. It recommended that an Issues Paper be prepared to provide information regarding health and safety issues, visual impacts, technology, and regulatory issues associated with wireless communications to local jurisdictions. The Issues Paper also includes recommended guidelines for siting these facilities. Section I of this report examines issues that local governments and the wireless communications industry currently face and provides insight into the guidelines for the permitting process; Section II provides an overview of the technical issues associated with wireless communications systems; Section III reviews the_rreg-ulator rework-of the-wireless-communications-industryand-Section IV addresses health and safety concerns. The appendices include the results of a wireless communications survey conducted by SANDAG in April of 1995, examples of local jurisdiction ordinances, and federal licensing information. Of primary interest to local elected officials are the guidelines the subcommittee prepared for local planning departments and decision-makers to use in developing their own local land use regulations. The guidelines included in the paper and listed below are intended to minimize the visual impacts of wireless communications facilities, address community concerns about potential health and safety issues, and facilitate the local permitting process. These guidelines are recommended to local governments in the San Diego region as they make decisions about wireless communications facilities: 1 1. Establish clear, reasonable development standards and/or mitigation measures to minimize ID the visual impacts of wireless communications facilities; 2. Provide applicable development standards and/or mitigation measures to proponents of wireless communications projects in the pre-design phase prior to project submittal; 3. Incorporate the American National Standards Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers standards into the local review and approval process for wireless communications facilities; 4. Use the information contained in this paper (or more current information as it becomes available) to educate the public, as well as decision-making bodies, about health and safety issues associated with wireless communications facilities; 5. Streamline the local permitting process by differentiating between minor and major projects, and by enabling a two-level processing of discretionary permit applications; and 6. Review local zoning ordinances to determine the most appropriate zoning districts for the different types of wireless communications facilities. Although there are numerous forms of wireless communications, this report will focus specifically on commercial mobile radio service providers, as opposed to private or military providers. • Included in this group are the providers of cellular communications, Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR), and Personal Communications Services (PCS) that either currently or in the near future, will provide services such as two-way mobile voice communication, paging, voicemail, dispatching, conference calling, facsimile, video telecommunications, E-mail, and data delivery via Cellular Digital Packet Data(CDPD). • 1 • 111 2 I. GUIDELINES FOR PERMIT'T'ING PROCESS Local Government Issues In April 1995, SANDAG conducted a telephone survey of the 19 local governments within the San Diego region to gather information about local regulations governing the processing of applications for wireless communications facilities (Appendix 1). This survey revealed that local governments in the San Diego region face two primary issues regarding wireless communications facilities: (1) visual impacts; and (2) health and safety issues. Together, these two issues represent the greatest sources of local community concern regarding wireless communications facilities. Addressing these issues is critical to any local government, which is charged with ensuring the public health, safety,and welfare of its constituents. Visual Impacts The fast-paced growth of wireless communications technology in recent years has presented local governments with the challenge of_where to locate wireless communications facilities in their communities. Unlike ground-wired telecommunications, such as the land-based telephone system, wireless communications technologies,by their operational nature,require numerous antennas to be mounted at various heights throughout the landscape. To site them at the specific height required by a particular system, these antennas are sometimes mounted on towers, monopoles, tall buildings, or other structures on tops of hillsides. One of the greatest concerns faced by local jurisdictions is • the visual impacts of wireless communications facilities. Health and Safety Issues In addition to visual impacts, possible health risks related to Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) and Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) are another major source of local community concern with wireless communications facilities. (Health issues related to EMFs and RFR are discussed in detail in Section IV.) To date, scientific research on the effects of wireless communications facilities on human health has been inconclusive. Locating communications antennas and towers in or near residential communities often becomes a subject of local controversy, often due to personal health and safety concerns voiced by local residents. When reviewing and considering permits for wireless communications facilities, planners and decision-makers alike must be able to respond to local citizen concerns about health risks associated with them. Wireless Communications Industry Issues The wireless communications industry is government mandated, consumer-driven, and typically involves intense economic competition among individual providers seeking to capture or enlarge their portions of the consumer market. This competition is fueled by the public's tremendous demand in recent years for widespread wireless communications services, as well as by the license requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To meet consumer demand, 11111- providers have rushed to establish and/or expand their systems as quickly and effic:ently as possible, which has resulted in more antennas and towers across the visual landscape. In addition, 3 • • the FCC also has required providers to establish their service networks as fast as possible, require the licensee, as a condition of the license, to provide service to a particular geographical area or toW minimum number of people within a limited period of time. Local Permitting Process • Most local jurisdictions require some type of discretionary permit in order to establish a wireless communications facility. Providers must fulfill certain requirements,such as compliance with local zoning regulations and public noticing, before they are allowed to erect a facility in a particular community. Because of the competitive nature of the industry, expediting the permitting process is important to providers. In general,providers seek the easiest and fastest way to gain local approval, and should work with planners and decision-makers to address local issues and avoid rendering a site technically infeasible or cost prohibitive. Another way in which some members of the wireless communications industry have approached the local permitting process is by attempting to have local control over wireless communications facilities preempted on the federal level, thereby avoiding the local process altogether. For example, in December 1994, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) filed a petition with the FCC asking for federal preemption of local zoning powers over cellular transmission facilities. The petition is currently under consideration by the FCC. Technical Feasibility • Wireless communications providers consider various technical site selection criteria when siting new facilities. A general area is identified by a system's engineer based on engineering constraints and the desired area of service. Specific sites within that general area are then evaluated using the selection criteria, which may include: surrounding topography and its relation to line of sight transmission for optimum efficiency in service; availability of road access, availability of electric power, availability of land based telephone lines and/or microwave link capability; leasibility of the site; radiofrequency interference; mechanical and electrical compatibility; structural capacity of the supporting structure; and maximizing coverage of the desired area with the least number of sites. How to Balance the Needs of Local Governments and Industry Providers There is a clear need to balance local governmental issues with those of the industry providers. The following section attempts to balance the needs of both parties in three primary areas: (1) visual impacts; (2) health and safety issues; and (3) the local permitting process. Based on discussions and information exchanged between local governments and the wireless communication industry as part of the Communications Facilities Subcommittee, the following guidelines are recommended to local governments in the San Diego region. 1. Establish clear, reasonable development standards and/or mitigation measures to minimize the visual impacts of wireless communications facilities. 4 The most common objection to wireless communications facilities is their visual impact. Oftentimes, local residents, many of whom use wireless communications services, do not want to see towers and antennas proliferating in their own communities and have expressed fears that their property values might be affected. To address the visual aspect of wireless communications facilities,specific development standards and /or mitigation measures should be developed by local government agencies. These standards should be clearly defined and should be designed taking into consideration the technical requirements of the wireless communications technology (e.g., the technical requirement to locate antennas at a certain height and in a particular service area, or to maintain adequate separation between individua: antennas). Suggested development standards and mitigation measures may include: • • Screening antennas and towers from view from public rights-of-way or scenic vistas, either via • landscaping, fencing,or other architectural screening; • Encouraging creative design measures to camouflage facilities by integrating them with existing buildings and among other existing uses; • Where other technically feasible sites are available, minimizing the effect of the location of facilities in visually-sensitive areas, such as residential communities and open space zones; • Encouraging providers to co-locate their facilities on a single site, where technically feasible 1110 and visually desirable; and • Locating antennas and equipment on other existing community facility sites, such as on water tanks or utility poles. Specific site development standards and mitigation measures are not included in this paper. Rather, it is suggested that local governmental agencies develop their own particular standards which would best address their local communities' sensitivities to the visual element. Copies of various ordinances from other jurisdictions, which provide samples of specific site development standards for—wireless communions facilitis,are-included in-Appendix 2. 2. Provide applicable development standards and/or mitigation measures to proponents of wireless communications projects in the pre-design phase prior to project submittal. Local development standards and/or mitigation measures should be provided to proponents of wireless communications projects in written format prior to project submittal, in order to acquaint them with what designs and locations of facilities are acceptable by the particular local community. This would enable wireless communications providers to consider their own technical service requirements, as well as local objectives to minimize visual impacts, when deciding between site alternatives. 1110 The design of wireless communications facilities has evolved over time, and it is feasible in some, but not all, instances to design and/or locate facilities so that they are visually unobtrusive. The 5 • • wireless communications industry has employed a variety of creative design measures to produce . "stealth" facilities (facilities that are not noticeable to the casual observer). Examples of these facilities are located throughout the San Diego region, and include panel antennas mounted on and painted to match existing buildings, communications equipment housed in an architecturally integrated tower element in a shopping center, roof-top antennas screened with walls, and freestanding pole antennas screened by landscaping. For sites which are potentially visually obtrusive, project proponents should submit a good faith analysis of alternative sites to demonstrate why other sites are not technically feasible. Efforts should be made by the wireless communications industry to minimize visual impacts to the extent feasible. For example, providers may consider replacing larger, more visually obtrusive facilities such as monopoles with smaller facilities as technology becomes available. Both cost and time are critical issues to providers. In reviewing permits for wireless communications facilities, agencies should strive to balance their Iocal objectives of minimizing visual impacts with providers' goals to construct facilities in a cost-effective and timely manner. 3. Incorporate the American National Standards Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers standards into the local review and approval process for wireless communications facilities. One major source of local community opposition to wireless communications facilities is the fp perceived health risks associated with electromagnetic field (EMF) levels and radiofrequency radiation (RFR). As previously noted, current studies about long-term EMF and RFR effects are inconclusive. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Institute of EIectrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) have established standards for safe human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. These standards are considered consensus standards, which are agreed to by committees composed of academic, industry, and governmental representatives. As a_conditinn_f-licensure, P '-• _- -- - _ , - 4 , .-•d PCS-pr-oviders to comply with the ANSI standards. Non-compliance may result in revocation of an FCC license. Federal exposure standards for EMF and RFR levels are being developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which currently uses the ANSI exposure standards as guidelines. Absent federal standards, the ANSI/IEEE exposure standards are currently the most appropriate health and safety guidelines for wireless communications facilities, and should be incorporated into local review and approval requirements. (Current ANSI standards are discussed in Section IV of this paper.) However, the recently-passed Federal Telecommunications Reform Bill HR 1555 requires the government to establish a federal radiofrequency emissions standard within 180 days of the bill's enactment. When considering permits for wireless communications projects, local governmental agencies S should verify compliance with the established ANSUIEEE standards. This may be accomplished by 6 requiring the project proponent to submit a preliminary report, prepared by an engineer, which quantifies the project's radiofrequency exposures and compares them to the adopted standards. Local agencies also may consider requiring the applicant to submit, following project installation, a subsequent field report, which would provide the project's cumulative field measurements of radio- frequency power densities, quantify total radiofrequency exposures, and compare those exposures with the accepted standards. The provision of such a report would verify compliance and reassure concerned individuals that installations are operating within the accepted operational safety standards. 4. Use the information contained in this paper (or more current information as it becomes available) to educate the public, as well as decision-making bodies, about health and safety issues associated with wireless communications facilities. Local governmental agencies should educate local citizens about health and safety issues associated with wireless communications facilities, to allay the public's fears about potential health effects related to EMFs and RFR. Education also should be provided to local decision-making bodies so that they can make informed decisions when reviewing local permits for these facilities. Agencies • may want to use the information in this report to develop a staff report or handout which explains the applicability of ANSI/MEE safety standards, demonstrates that typical wireless communications facilities comply with the accepted ANSI/MEE operational safety standards, and compares EMF and RFR emissions associated with wireless communications facilities to ordinary household appliances or to other types of technologies. S. Streamline the local permitting process by differentiating between minor and major projects, and by enabling a two-level processing of discretionary permit applications. Expediting the local permitting process is an important issue for both governmental agencies and wireless communications providers. With the impending advent of the PCS industry, and the replacement of analog with digital technology in the cellular industry(explained in Section II),local governments must be prepared to deal with a potentially significant number of future discretionary permit applications for wireless communications facilities. Processing these future applications efficiently will be a challenge for local agencies. As previously noted, the interest of the providers in the local permitting .process is driven by the competitive economic nature of the wireless communications industry. To facilitate the permitting process, local regulatory agencies should enable minor projects to be processed administratively, and major projects to be processed by public hearing. To be considered a minor project (and subject to administrative approval), a facility would have minimal visual impacts and be designed or located to be compatible with adjacent uses. One example of a minor project would be a facility in which antennas are mounted to an existing structure on the roof or building face, which is screened, constructed, or colored to match the existing structure to which it is attached. Another way in which to distinguish a minor project would be to limit the number, height and size of antennas, or the size and location of the accessory equipment building. S 7 • Facilities that are potentially visually obtrusive or potentially incompatible.with adjacent land uses ip would be considered major projects and would be subject to the public hearing process. An example of a major project would be a freestanding facility (such as a lattice tower or monopole which supports antennas),located where the potential for screening is low. The administrative process for discretionary permits is generally shorter, simpler, and less costly than the public hearing process. Therefore,wireless communications providers, for which time and cost are vital concerns, would opt in most cases for an administrative permit process. The net effect of a two-level permit process would be to encourage the construction of wireless communications - facilities that have minimized visual effects and that are more in keeping with the character of the surrounding community. 6. Review local zoning ordinances to determine the Most appropriate zoning districts for the different types of wireless communications facilities. • Most local zoning ordinances were adopted prior to the recent expansion of the wireless communications industry. In general, the existing regulations governing communications land uses were intended to focus on more traditional communications technologies such as television and radio broadcast, and typically do not differentiate between various types of facilities. However, wireless communications technology differs from the more traditional technologies because it typically employs shorter facilities at lower power to cover a limited geographic service area. (In comparison, traditional broadcast facilities transmit signals from tall towers at higher power levels in order to reach as many people in as large a geographic area as possible.) In recognition of the functional differences of the wireless communications industry, local jurisdictions should re-evaluate their local zoning ordinances and determine which zoning districts are suitable for wireless communications land uses. As with all other land use categories, Iocal agencies should categorize wireless communications facilities based on their planning and land use impacts. Local jurisdictions, for example, may consider permitting wireless communications facilities in commercial and industrial zones (either by right or subject to administrative approval), and restricting those facilities in single-family residential zones. It will be up to individual jurisdictions to determine the most app priate zoning districts for reiess_communications_uses. If there is an interest among local jurisdictions in the San Diego region, SANDAG can assist in coordinating a joint effort to develop model zoning regulations for wireless communications facilities. Samples of local zoning ordinances are included in Appendix 2. S 8 • • H. TECHNICAL OVERVIEW toBackground This section provides a technical overview of the cellular, Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR), and personal communications services (PCS) technologies. The following table lists examples of current providers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission in the San Diego region. Table 1 EXAMPLES OF PROVIDERS IN SAN DIEGO REGION [ , Cellular AirTouch and GTE Mobilnet Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio(ESMR) Nextel Communications Personal Communications Systems (PCS) Pacific Bell Mobile Services and Cox Communications It should be emphasized that although the three technologies discussed in this section currently III function in slightly different manners, they will offer similar services in the future. In fact, all of these technologies are based on systems composed of interconnecting cell sites. With this common cell site base, it is predicted that as these technologies evolve, they will become more and more similar. For example, a transition to smaller cell sites and the use of more antennas per square mile are expected. For a comparison of the services that each of these technologies offers, as well as a listing of carriers in the San Diego region, please see Table 2. Technology Wireless communications are transmitted through the air via radio waves of various frequencies. Radio-frequency-radiation-(RFR)-is-one-of-sev . • . r a .c-radiation. As illustrated in Figure 1, cellular and ESMR operate at frequencies between 800 and 900 MHz, and PCS operates at both 900 MHz as well as between 1,850 and 2,200 MHz. S 9 Figure 1 ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM 1 Frequency/Hz CELLULAR PHONES&ENHANCED SPECIALIZED MOBILE RADIO(ESMR) ELECTRIC POWER RADIO&TV MICROWAVE INFRARED VISIBLE UazLTRAT X-RAYS RAYS GAMMA 0 10' 10' 10' 10' ANT g I �"�.S,:r.. ; � - i� I 10" 10", •_ tOu 10" 10' tOn ice , �_' O �r '` 1• 'O' �_ • 11111i moi s:r PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES(PCS) • The three technologies described in this report function similarly in that their systems can compared to the honeycomb pattern of a bee hive. Like the honeycomb pattern, these wireiee communications systems are composed of interconnecting "cell sites," or geographical areas, that blanket a region. In this sense, all three technologies are "cellular technologies," although mobile cellular phones are frequently referred to as "the" cellular technology because they pioneered the concept. Figure 2 shows the relationship of cell sites within and between urbanized areas. As illustrated, cell sites tend to be smaller and more numerous in the central parts of cities, and larger and less abundant in peripheral areas and along highways. This is because more people, and accordingly more customers, live in urbanized as. A s more people—begin to dcmand—wireless communications services, wireless systems will require additional capacity to handle calls. This additional calling capacity can be acquired in one of various ways: providers can increase the number of their cell sites, use digital versus analog technology (explained in more detail below), or combine these two methods. Generally speaking, providers will choose the third option and do both — increase the number of their cell sites and use digital technology. As they increase the number of their cell sites, they must reduce the area of each site in order to avoid overlapping coverage. As a result, a pattern emerges in which the more populated central segments of cities contain smaller and more numerous cell sites, while the less populated edges of cities, as well as rural areas and highways, have fewer, but larger cell sites. 10 Figure 2 CELL SITE SYSTEMS CELL SITES WITHIN CITIES F CITIES 4 I"OP -12-11.111,44"140;17#*.1110.44.. et"• • Aoh AIL ai -._fiIIIIIPJAV'igr,#- IHIGHWAY `r W* 01 I 01 I DETAIL tottipair LOCAL TELEPHONE �I�f` , uoeu.Er �� '' u ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE ra "ft. • . *swim • Q CENTCLCHING SYSTE HOUSEHOLD CELLULAR TELEPHONE CELL Each cell site within the system contains both transmitting and receiving antennas. Calls placed from a wireless phone or device are sent to a central computer switching system. The central switch completes the call by connecting it either to a conventional telephone through a land-based line, or to another mobile phone through the nearest antenna. As the mobile caller enters one cell and exits arrotherthe-caliis-transferre&between-the—ells. Antennas There are three general types of transmitting and receiving antennas used in the wireless communications technology. These include whip antennas, panel antennas, and dish antennas. While whip and panel antennas are used to transmit and receive radio waves carrying conversation signals, dish antennas provide the link between the central computer switching system and the various whip and panel antennas used throughout the mobile conversation. S 11 • Figure 3 S ANTENNAS • WHIP ANTENNA PANEL ANTENNA DISH ANTENNA • 2-6 INCHES 6-12 INCHES 1.5-3 FEET • 1-18 FEET 4-5 FEET 4-6 FEET – am —/r 6-8 INCHES S Whip antennas (also known as stick,omnidirectional, or pipe antennas) emit signals in a 360 degree horizontal plane and a compressed vertical plane. Shaped cylindrically, whip antennas have diameters between two and six inches, and measure between one and eighteen feet in height. Panel antennas (also known as sector antennas) have vertical and horizontal planes that aim signals in specific directions. Panel antennas generally measure four to five feet in height, sL: t;, twelve inches in width, and six to eight inches in depth. As stated previously, dish antennas (also known as microwave dishes) have a different function than whip and panel antennas. Instead of emitting radio waves that carry the call between a wireless phone and its intended receiver, dish antennas emit microwaves that provide the critical link between the central computer switching system and the appropriate transmitting or receiving • antennas. In essence, dish antennas send microwave signals that allow the central switch to transfer the call between the various antennas closest to the mobile user. Dish antennas generally measure four to six feet in diameter and one-and-a-half to three feet in depth. Antenna structures are typically accompanied by equipment buildings 'or boxes. Cellular and ESMR equipment buildings are generally less than 500 square feet in diameter(12 feet by 24 feet). PCS equipment facilities, called base stations, are self-contained weather-proof cabinets about the 41) size of a vending machine. 12 • The three types of antennas described above function on a line of sight transmission. Antennas need to be placed at specific heights in relation to one another in order to transmit and receive signals. As a result, height is a determining factor in the design and siting of wireless communications facilities. Typically, there are three types of antenna support-structures used to place antennas at desired heights: lattice towers,monopoles, and building-attached facilities. Lattice Towers Ranging from 60 to 200 feet in height, lattice towers generally accommodate a variety of users, -including cellular, ESMR, PCS and paging companies, as well as public safety communications providers. Illustrated in Figure 4, these towers generally have three or four support steel "legs" and hold a variety of antennas. They can be found in areas where great height is needed,where multiple microwave antennas are required, or where the weather demands a structurally-sound design. It should be noted that lattice towers carry an inherent tradeoff: although they can accommodate many users (and provide co-location opportunities), they often pose serious visual impacts. Equipment and antennas concentrated on one large structure tend to draw more attention than the dispersal of less visible but more numerous facilities, such as smaller monopoles or building- attached facilities. Figure 4 - WHIP ANTENNAS LATTICE TOWERS 111:1111!1!111;1, PANEL ANTENNAS DISH ANTENNAS 11// \ �i 1 11 /I .�1 —, EQUIPMENT BUILDING 1d •Lattice towers are the least common type of antenna support structures; AirTouch and GTE Mobilnet have a combined total of seven in the San Diego region. 13 Monopoles All three technologies use monopoles (Figure 5), although their heights and designs vary. Ranging in height from 25 to 125 feet, monopoles consist of a single pole, approximately three feet in diameter at the base, narrowing to roughly 1.5 feet at the top, and may support any combination of whip,panel, or dish antennas. Figure 5 ^^1��� WHIP ANTENNAS MONOPOLE �� .0-10 PANEL ANTENNAS O, DISH ANTENNA EQUIPMENT BUILDING Monopoles are generally used in rural areas, near freeways, or in areas where buildings are not of • sufficient height to meet line of sight transmission requirements. In the cellular mobile phone system, monopoles are used much more commonly than lattice towers. AirTouch and GTE Mobilnet have constructed approximately 65 monopoles in the San Diego area. Nextel, an ESMR provider, also uses monopoles, and has built four in the region. Monopoles in PCS systems are expected to. be shorter than those of the cellular telephone and ESMR systems. Some PCS providers are proposing an integration of monopoles into existing light poles. Illustrated in Figure 6, this type of facility may be referred to as the "flower tower." I Figure 6 ANTENNAS FLOWER TOWER / / . EQUIPMENT BUILDING 14 Building-Attached Facilities Building-attached facilities exist in all three technologies in two general forms: (1) roof-mounted, in which antennas are placed on the roofs of buildings, or (2) building-mounted, in which antennas are mounted to the sides of buildings. (Although not as common, facilities also can be mounted on other structures such as water tanks, billboards, church steeples, or other creative locations.) Figure 7 000 • BUILDING-ATTACHED FACILITIES BUILDING-MOUNTED ANTENNAS e 0 0 ROOF-MOUNTED o ANTENNAS CrO *C1 CEO G Qm o o H Although the visibility of building-attached facilities varies, roof-mounted antennas are generally hidden from view because they are located in the middle of the roof or in boxed structures resembling air conditioning units. Likewise, building-mounted antennas are also unnoticeable if they are painted to match the color and texture of the building. Antennas that are architecturally integrated into a building are often referred to using the term "stealth." It is important to note that although building-attached facilities are becoming common, they can be used only when buildings meet the height required for antennas to function within the surrounding system. Where buildings do not meet height requirements,providers tend to use monopoles. How Cellular Mobile Telephone Technology Works As described previously, cellular systems are composed of interconnected neighboring "cell sites." These cell sites operate low power facilities (facilities that function on low amounts of electric energy). The cellular telephone industry is limited to 45 MHz of spectrum bandwidth, which without frequency-reuse, would limit each cellular carrier to 396 frequencies or voice channels. In order to increase calling capacity, these low power facilities "reuse" frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum. The manner in which providers organize, or "configure," their cells is an important factor in increasing frequency reuse and establishing an area's calling capacity. 15 Figure 8 illustrates two types of cell configurations: the ornni cell configuration, used in rural area. and the sector cell configuration, used in urban areas. A Figure 8 CELL CONFIGURATIONS 2 • 2 Atli* 7© 1 10/ 6 4 opzi A5 12 OMNI CELL CONFIGURATION SECTOR CELL CONFIGURATION The omni cell configuration uses omni or whip antennas, antennas that emit signals in 360 degrees. Whip antennas do not lend themselves to frequency reuse as well as sector antennas. As a result, omni cell configurations are generally used in rural areas since these areas are sparsely populated and consequently do not need extra calling capacity. Urban areas, on the other hand, have denser. populations and require additional calling capacity to accommodate the system's greater number of users. The sector cell configuration provides this extra calling capacity by utilizing sector or panel antennas that divide the omni cell into three segments. The three segments use different frequencies, allowing greater reuse of the channels. Because they have the capacity to handle large volumes of calls, sectored sites are used particularly in areas near high vehicular activity such as freeways and major intersections. Although a cell site's radius depends upon its surrounding topography and its capacity to handle calls, cell sites in rural areas generally have a radius between five and eight miles, and cell sites in urban areas typically have a radius between two and five miles. Types of Cell Sites There are three basic types of cell sites: 1. Coverage sites serve to expand coverage in large areas or in areas with difficult terrains and to enhance coverage for portable systems. These sites allow users to make and maintain calls as they travel between cells. 2. Capacity sites serve to increase a site's capacity to handle calls when surrounding sites have reached their practical channel limits. 16 • 3. Transition sites are needed for frequency reuse. Antennas mounted on tall support structures sometimes create a problem in frequency reuse because they "see" everything and overlap into the next cell site's coverage area. In order to control frequency reuse problems, these tall structures must be removed and replaced by transition sites. Transition sites allow the cellular company to increase the capacity of calls and maintain coverage simultaneously. Analog and Digital Technologies Traditionally, cellular phones have utilized analog transmission signals. In the analog technology, voice messages are electronically replicated and amplified as they are-carried from the transmitting antenna to the receiving antenna. A problem with this technology is that the amplification procedure tends to pick up "noise," sometimes making the message difficult to hear. • In order to diminish this noise and to provide greater calling capacity per channel, the cellular industry is beginning to use digital transmission signals. hi the digital technology, voice messages are converted into digits (zeroes and ones)that represent sound intensities at specific points in time. Because natural pauses in the conversation are eliminated, more calling capacity becomes available from the same amount of spectrum, thus reducing the need for new sites. An added benefit is that the background noise that is generally heard in the analog system becomes inaudible. As illustrated in Figure 9, the graphic difference between the two technologies is that analog signals are transmitted as continuous waves while digital technology converts the analog signal to binary digits. S Figure 9 TRANSMISSION SIGNALS ANALOG SIGNAL DIGITAL SIGNAL • 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 . 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 There are currently two forms of digital technology: time division multiple access (TDMA) and • code division multiple access (CDMA). Both of these forms of digital technology attempt to provide multiple access over one frequency, or channel. While TDMA is expected to increase calling capacity three to ten times over analog technology, CDMA is expected to increase calling capacity by ten to twenty times. Whereas cellular telephone carriers are in the process of converting to the digital technology, ESMR is already using it and PCS will come on line with it. 17 How Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) Technology Works According to Government Affairs Notes - A Comparison of ESMR and Cellular, an ESMR system is "the coordinated operation of several contiguous SMR [Specialized Mobile Radio] systems operated with digital — rather than analog — technology and.a configuration of numerous low- power sites which employ significant frequency re-use throughout the ESMR system." First licensed in the 1970s, SMR towers were not allowed to reuse channels. Operating at 1000 watts of power and at high elevation sites, towers covered a 20 mile radius. ESMR systems, however, are permitted to reuse channels. Nextel's ESMR system muses channels by building transmitters at low elevation sites (generally shorter than 200 feet) and limiting the transmitters' power output to 100 watts of effective radiated power (ERP). By doing so, sites cover radii between two and eight miles. Operating on a system composed of cell sites, the ESMR technology functions similarly to the cellular technology. Like the cellular system, ESMR uses cell sites with radii between two and eight miles; operates by way of a main switching office that completes calls by transmitting them to a local telephone company; uses omni and sector cell configurations; employs whip and panel antennas on monopoles and buildings; reuses frequencies; and utilizes coverage and capacity sites. The main difference between ESMR and cellular systems is ESMR's use of digital technology, which allows it to make its sites more efficient than typical cellular sites. Because channels can accommodate six times as many callers, each site has increased capacity, which in turn, reduces the number of sites required to operate the system. How Personal Communications Services (PCS)Technology Works PCS also will function as a pattern of cell sites using digital technology. Incoming wireline calls will be transmitted by Iocal telephone company wires to a central control point. Similarly, incoming wireless calls will be routed through a PCS wireless switch to a local telephone system. Calls will be completed through microcells (antennas located on top of Iight poles or telephone poles), and macrocells (antennas mounted on the sides or tops of buildings). Microcells are expected to cover radii of 80 to 1200 feet and macrocells will cover approximately 1.2 milesJtwo kilometers). As the caller approaches the edge of the cell's boundary, the communication will be handed over from the original cell to the next. PCS providers are aiming to offer an alternative to the fixed telephone in a user's home by providing wireless coverage both within and outside of the home. Providers are in the process of developing a system referred to as "follow-me calling" or "the universal phone number," in which calls will be routed to people instead of to places regardless of location. PCS systems will utilize digital technology, and as a result, their cell sites will have higher calling capacities than analog cellular cell sites. However, due to the technology's higher frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum (1,850 to 2,200 MHz versus 800 to 900 MHz), PCS cell sites will have smaller radii than cellular cell sites. As a result, some PCS providers estimate that they will • need two to three times as many transmission sites as cellular systems. 18 • PCS is similar to cellular and ESMR in that it will operate on a "cell site" systeni, will use a central control point, will use sector cell configurations, will employ whip and panel antennas on monopoles and buildings, will reuse frequencies, and will use coverage and capacity sites. It will be different in that it will use digital technology, will require more sites, and its sites will have smaller radii. Paging Although paging is not addressed as an individual technology in this report, it is included in this discussion because it serves over 40 million users across the United States. Paging antennae are typically placed at lower elevations and at greater densities than antennas of other wireless communications systems. It is expected that paging companies will need forty to fifty transmitters (containing one omnidirectional antenna each) for each five to seven mile radius in order to provide service to its current and future customers. This is similar to the geographic dispersion requirements of the PCS technology. Paging companies do not typically construct their own facilities. Instead, most rent space at ' existing communications facilities sometimes known as multi-user sites. Multi-user sites that are located on building tops are an ideal location for paging facilities because paging companies have a great need for low-elevation sites. Due to the increasing demand for pagers, cities should expect conditional use permit applications for paging systems to increase. For technical characteristics of paging,please see the PCS column in Table 2. Concluding Notes on Technological Aspects of Wireless Communications Technology The largest similarity between the three forms of wireless communications discussed in this section is that they all function on a network of interconnecting cell sites. As these technologies evolve in response to increasing consumer demand for wireless communications services, providers will develop cell sites with smaller geographic radii, place antennas at lower heights, and install more antennas per square mile than in the past. Their common goal is to integrate facilities into existing community structures by building rooftop or building-mounted facilities, by designing fiberglass shrouds and creative screening, and by encouraging architecturally integrated and visually sensitive designs. The largest difference between these technologies, on the other hand, is in their form of signal transmission. Cellular is currently the only system using the analog technology, but is in the process of incorporating, if not converting to, the digital technology. The following table summarizes the technological and regulatory aspects of the three systems. Portions of the table that have not been described in this section of the report can be found in succeeding sections and in Appendix 3, which addresses licensing requirements by the Federal Communications Commission. 19 TABLE 2 • WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS COMPARISON CHART Technology: I Cellular J ESMR ' PCS • Service: • 2-way mobile voice communication • 2-way mobile voice . • 2-way mobile voice communication • Paging communication • 2-way paging/short message service • Voicemail • Paging • Facsimile • E-Mail • Dispatching • E-Mail • CDPD(Cellular Digital Packet Data) • Data Transmission • Video telecommunications • Conference calling • Data transmission • Facsimile • Voice mail •Data transmission • Conference calling Carriers in San Diego • GTE Mobilnet(formerly U.S. • Nextel Proadband: region: West) •Pacific Bell Mobile Services • AirTouch •Cox Communications Narrowband: • •Various Possibilities Number of carriers Two Unrestricted - • 2 broadband allowed by FCC in • 6 national narrowband San Diego region: • 6 regional narrowband • In future,several Metropolitan Trading Areas(MTAs)and Basic Trading Areas(BTAs) (See Appendix 3 for details) Spectrum: UHF 800-900 MHz(45 MHz band UHF 800 MHz(buying UHF 900 MHz, divided into 832 channels with 416 private licenses at various Microwave 1850-2200 MHz lei channels per provider) frequencies to assemble network) Signal: Analog,converting to digital Digital Digital Cell structures: Combination of lattice towers,mono- Combination of lattice Combination of monopoles,building- poles.and building-attached facilities towers,monopoles,and attached facilities,and fiber-based building-attached facilities microcells What drives new siting • Fill gaps in existing system • Fill gaps in existing system • Fulfill requirements by FCC to needs: • Improve call quality • Expand coverage areas serve 37.5%of market within 5 • Increase calling capacity • Increase calling capacity years of receiving license and 75% of market within 10 years of receiving Iicense Number of permit • AirTouch: approx.35 Nextel:between 25 and 35 • Pacific Bell Mobile Services: likely to be processed • GTE Mobilnet between 20 and 40 between 35 and 45 in 1996 in San Diego • Cox Communications:To be region:* determined Status: Existing,mature;still infilling and Existing,continuing to New,service beginning 1 -3 years in expanding. consolidate private licenses future. into networks. *Note: The number of permits likely to be processed in 1996 in the San Diego region is unpredictable for each of the technologies for various reasons. The numbers listed are estimates only. Market demand and the continuing development of the technology will affect the final numbers. Additionally, unexpected events (such as earthquakes and other natural disasters) could also in demand for wireless communications,and lead to the need for additional capacity sites. The numbers supplied in the chart also subject to change if leases cannot be obtained or permits are not granted. The figures are flexible and should not be taken as"fac• . 20 III. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK • This section will discuss the regulatory framework for wireless communications facilities at the federal, state, and local levels. Federal Level Federal Communications Commission The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent federal regulatory agency which is responsible directly to Congress. Established by the Communications Act of 1934, it is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. Its jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. The general objectives of federal telecommunications regulations are to provide efficient use of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is considered a public resource; to develop a domestic telecommunications infrastructure able to provide service on the national level, as well as compete on a global level; and especially in recent years, to provide a highly competitive economic market which spurs technological advances in the telecommunications industry. The FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) handles all FCC domestic wireless telecommunications programs and policies, except those involving satellite communications. Wireless communications services include cellular telephone, paging, personal communications • services, public safety, and other commercial and private radio services. The WTB regulates wireless telecommunications providers and licenses. The Bureau also serves as the Commission's principal policy and administrative resource with regard to federal auctions for the private use of the public air waves. The WTB regulates the three primary wireless communications services which are the subject of this issues paper. cellular, ESMR, and PCS. Portions of the frequency spectrum are allocated to specific uses (such as TV broadcast band, cellular, etc.), and specific frequencies within that part of the spectrum are assigned to licensed operators. These procedures are intended to prevent interference or conflicts among various operators or services at a given location attempting to use the same portion of the frequency spectrum. Licenses One of the functions of the FCC is to issue licenses to wireless communications carriers. The FCC issues licenses for certain frequency bands of the electromagnetic spectrum and effectively limits the number of wireless communications providers in a specific geographic service area. Appendix 3 contains detailed information on the issuance of licenses for the three technologies covered in this report. • 21 • • Performance Standards In addition to regulating licenses, the FCC establishes performance standards for cellular and PCS providers. The FCC requires cellular and PCS licensees to provide, within a specified period of time, a coverage ratio of a minimum quality for either a composite geographic service area or a percentage of an area's population. • The FCC establishes operational requirements for ESMR operators. Individual SMR operators are prevented by the FCC from owning another SMR system within 40 miles of its existing system • unless that existing system is "fully loaded." A fully loaded system is defined as one which provides service to 70 mobile users per channel. Therefore, in order to accumulate other SMR licenses, an ESMR carrier must demonstrate that a certain number of users are using the existing system on a regular basis. In 1994, Congress and the FCC determined that all carriers that provide comparable services should be regulated in the same manner. To achieve this regulatory parity, beginning in August 1996, cellular, ESMR, and PCS providers will all be regulated by the FCC in the same manner as common carriers. Safety Standards As previously discussed, ANSUIEEE establishes operational safety standards for human exposure • to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. These ANSI/IEEE standards are considered "consensus standards," agreed upon by committees comprised of university, industry and government representatives. The FCC currently requires cellular,ESMR and PCS providers to comply with the ANSI/IEEE standards for radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a condition of licensure. Federal Aviation Administration Under authority granted by the Federal Aviation Act, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has jurisdiction over the following communication facilities: (1) towers that exceed 200 feet in height; (2) towers that are located within 20,000 feet of a major commercial or militaryi� a ;_d (3) towers that are located within 10,000 feet of a general aviation airport. The FAA reviews the location and height of such towers and may require them to be painted and/or illuminated to prevent possible interference with nearby airport operations. The FAA also reviews possible interference issues with aircraft-to-ground communications that may be caused by transmission facilities located in or near airport flight paths. Under the requirements of the FAA, wireless communications providers are responsible for filing a notice with the FAA if their facilities are subject to FAA review. • State Level • • California Public Utilities Commission In 1911, California voters passed a constitutional amendment establishing the Railroad Commission. In 1946, the Railroad Commission was renamed the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The CPUC has broad powers to regulate safety, standards of service, and rates paid to privately-owned companies that provide public utilities in California. The CPUC, whose members are appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate, has a quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial authority in that it establishes and enforces administrative regulations, and,like a court of law,may take testimony,subpoena witnesses and records,and issue decisions and orders. Of the three types of wireless communications services discussed in this paper, the CPUC presently regulates only cellular providers, which are considered public utilities. The CPUC regulates the terms and conditions of cellular service in the state. However, federal-legislation preempts the authority of the CPUC to regulate cellular rates and market entry. As previously noted, ESMR licensees operate private systems, over which the CPUC has no jurisdiction pursuant to federal legislation. At this time, the CPUC also has no regulatory authority over PCS providers. However, the CPUC may pursue acquiring the authority to regulate the terms and conditions of both ESMR and PCS services (as it currently regulates the cellular industry), given that both ESMR and PCS providers will be considered common carriers in the federal regulatory framework. General Order 159 The primary state regulation governing cellular providers is General Order 159 (G.O. 159), which was approved by the CPUC in 1990. The purpose of G.O. 159 is to ensure that: (1) the potential environmental impacts of all cellular sites are reviewed and considered in a manner consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); (2) affected local citizens, orgsni7ations, and jurisdictions are given reasonable notice and opportunities for input into the review process; (3) the public health and welfare, and zoning concerns of local jurisdictions are addressed; (4) cellular service providers-are not tmnecessaril delayed-by site-review;-and (5)-cellular-service-providers provide high quality, reliable and widespread cellular service to California residents. The main requirement imposed by the CPUC on cellular carriers is that they comply with all local rules and regulations. Under G.O. 159, cellular communications facilities may not be constructed until a carrier demonstrates that it has complied with all local regulations and obtained the necessary permits, and has filed with the CPUC either an advice letter or an application for preemptive authority to construct. The CPUC also actively enforces rules to assure compliance with local requirements and has the authority to override local decisions. The CPUC essentially serves as an agency of last resort, to which providers may appeal local determinations when all other local avenues for appeal are exhausted. Although the CPUC has the ability to override local decisions, it has used this preemptive authority in only one case in California, where a cellular 23 provider was repeatedly denied numerous good faith attempts to obtain a local permit.to construct a facility in a needed service area. • Among other matters, G.O. 159 also establishes the CPUC as the lead agency for CEQA review for new cellular systems, and local agencies as CEQA lead agencies for infill,cell sites and switching facilities for existing cellular systems. In 1991, the Cellular Carriers Association of California(CCAC) requested changes in G.O. 159 to streamline the permitting process. In December 1994, a formal rulemaking was initiated by the CPUC to consider revisions to G.O. 159 and its rules governing environmental review and the siting of cellular communications facilities.. During 1995, the CPUC held a series of workshops, including one in San Diego at which revisions to G.0 159 were discussed. The Safety and Enforcement Division of the CPUC (S&E Division)released a revised version of G.O. 159,entitled • G.O. 159A, for public review and comment. In October 1995, the S&E Division and the CCAC reached an agreement about G.O. 159A and filed a notice of settlement conferences. Two conferences to discuss the draft settlement agreement were held to allow interested parties to comment on the proposed settlement. In its current draft form, G.O. 159A would require cellular service providers: (1) to obtain all requisite local land use approvals for construction of new sites or modifications of existing sites; (2) to file a"notification letter"to the CPUC within 15 days after receiving local approval, which states that they have obtained all necessary local permits for construction of new sites or modifications of existing sites (a copy of the "notification letter would be mailed to the local agency or governing school district); and (3) to file with the CPUC a tariff list of all existing sites on a quarterly basis commencing January 30 of each year. Under G.O. 159A, cellular service providers would not need to notify the CPUC of minor maintenance or repair work to existing facilities; however, they would still need to comply with all local permitting requirements. Formal complaints concerning providers' compliance with G.O. 159A would be filed with the CPUC. In addition, the CPUC would continue to maintain preemptive authority. As of the publication date of this document, a revised G.O. 159A had not been adopted by the CPUC. Further information about the status of G.O. 159A may be obtained by calling the S&E Division of the CPUC at (415) 703-1836. Local Level Most local governmental agencies regulate wireless communications facilities via land use regulations contained in respective zoning ordinances and general plans, and are responsible for reviewing and processing applications for discretionary and ministerial permits for these facilities. Local governments also have the broad authority to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of their citizens. 24 Local Permitting Process • Local jurisdictions regulate wireless communications facilities through the permitting process. Most agencies require a discretionary permit, such as a conditional use permit, in order to construct a facility. Whether a permit is processed administratively or requires a public hearing varies among local agencies. Several jurisdictions in the San Diego area, such as the City of San Diego and County of San Diego, have established a two-level review process for wireless communications facilities. This two-level process enables administrative processing of "minor" projects, and a public hearing process for "major" projects. In general, administrative processing entails lower - permit fees and shorter processing times, while the public hearing process, involves higher permit costs and a longer permit turnaround time. For those jurisdictions with a two-level review process, whether a project is considered "major" or "minor" typically depends on both its type and location. For example, in the City of San Diego, building-mounted antennas and associated equipment rooms are processed by administrative review. in all zones, except residential. Most building-mounted antenna proposals on residential uses or within residential zones require a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Commission. Towers and monopoles also require the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. Many jurisdictions require all wireless communications facilities to be processed via public hearing to the Planning Commission, City Council, or other decision-making body, because current land use regulations do not specifically enable a two-level review process. In reviewing a permit for a wireless communications facility, local planners must consider the issue of land use compatibility. To address this issue of compatibility, wireless communications facilities are subject to local zoning requirements,which,are described below. Permitted Zones and Locations Local zoning ordinances designate specific zones where wireless communications facilities are either permitted or prohibited. Jurisdictions typically encourage wireless communication facilities to be located in commercial and industrial areas. Mjurisdictions permit wireless communications facilities in all zones through a conditional use permit process. When located in residential and/or open space zones, most jurisdictions typically require a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. Some cities prohibit wireless communications facilities in certain zoning areas. For example, the County of San Diego prohibits antenna facilities in special purpose "Ecological Resource Area" zones, and the City of San Diego prohibits locating communication antennas on properties designated as historic sites. The City of San Diego also has a policy of"prudent avoidance," which stipulates that wireless communications facilities, due to perceived concerns about health impacts, should not be located in areas where people would be exposed to them for prolonged periods of • time. 25 Standard Provisions 110 In addition to designated permitted zones and location, local jurisdictions also establish development standards with which wireless communications facilities must comply. In general, these development standards are specific to a particular zoning district. Local agencies also levy additional requirements not specifically set forth in their zoning ordinances via the discretionary permit process. Specific conditions of approval are usually included when individual conditional use permits are approved. Setbacks. Screening and Landscaping Primary local objectives are to eliminate or minimize the visual effects of wireless communications facilities, and to make such facilities compatible with surrounding uses. To accomplish these objectives, most local agencies require that minimum setbacks, adequate screening, and landscaping are provided for these facilities. Examples of local zoning ordinances containing specific development standards are provided in Appendix 2. • Height Most local zoning ordinances contain specific height limits for each zoning district. Wireless communications facilities such as towers or monopoles are typically allowed to exceed that height limit, subject to discretionary permit approval. Co-location Some communities require applicants to co-locate or share the use of their facilities with other wireless communications providers. In this paper, co-location is defined as locating wireless communications equipment for more than one provider on a single site. There are several factors that determine feasibility of co-location. These include technical factors such as: 1. A tower or building's structural capacity: An existing tower or building may not be able to support weight or wind loarisSTom additionalantennas_without structuralsedesign_(which may have additional visual impacts). In addition, co-location is problematic when designing the structural capacity of new towers. A provider is able to design a tower which supports the weight and wind loads of its own antennae and equipment, but cannot predict how much more structural capacity is needed to accommodate antennae and equipment from other users; 2. Radiofrequency interference: Co-location may create signal interference between antennas. Approximately 20 feet of horizontal and vertical separation is typically needed between different antennas. On a tower, the need for separation may have a cumulative effect of adding multiple platforms which may make the tower more visually obtrusive; 3. Mechanical or electrical incompatibilities: Like structural capacity, mechanical or electrical al incompatibilities may make it difficult for different providers to share existing or new sites; • 26 4. Technological differences among providers. Wireless communications technology is • evolving and may have different configurations in the near future. In designing an original site, it may not be feasible to plan for future co-location. Questions which would need to be addressed include: How may antennas will be needed per site or per structure for each different provider? How high should a structure be designed to accommodate multiple antennas? Regulatory factors which affect co-location include the FCC's geographic service area requirements and any other limitations on tower sharing. Liability also is a factor. ,Which provider is liable for personal injuries or antenna damage for a shared site? • In addition, co-location may not be visually desirable in certain situations. For example, locating numerous antenna structures on a single site may result in the creation of a visually prominent "antenna farm."A single site may be more visually unobtrusive to the casual observer. Alternatives to co-location would be to provide effective screening of more dispersed antenna sites. Although there are many challenges to co-location, several cities require providers to co-locate facilities, where technically feasible and visually desirable. The City of Chula Vista requires permittees to cooperate with other communications providers in co-locating antennas within the City. Chula Vista requires that permittees demonstrate a good faith effort to share facilities and accommodate other users. The City does not require permittees to co-locate facilities, if such co- locations would contribute to a substantial technical or quality of service impairment; however, • competitive conflict or financial burden are not considered adequate reasons by Chula Vista against co-location. Similarly, in Palm Beach County, Florida, in order to encourage co-location, tower applicants are required to send certified mail announcements to all other users in the same area, declaring their sharing capabilities and/or siting needs. Except in cases where mechanical, structural, or regulatory factors prevent them from sharing, applicants cannot be denied or deny space on a tower. The direct legal implications of co-location are currently not addressed in federal or state statutes. However, because wireless communications facilities typically require discretionary permits, it is within local government authority in granting these permits, to set reasonable project requirements, which may include provisions for co-location. Accessory Equipment Storage Wireless communications facilities typically include small, un-manned equipment storage buildings or boxes that house transmitting and other equipment. Exterior equipment storage buildings are typically required to be architecturally compatible and consistent with surrounding buildings and structures, and also may be limited to a specific maximum size in certain jurisdictions. S • 27 Public Notification 40 Most local governments have standard public notification requirements contained'in their zoning regulations. As part of the discretionary review process, public notice is required to be provided to all property owners located within a given radius of the project site (a 300 foot radius is typical). In addition, most jurisdictions require the posting of a public notice at designated public sites (such as City Hall or libraries), publishing a public notice in a paper of general circulation, and/or posting a notice on the project.site. Public notice is usually required only for those projects which require a public hearing,and is not required for projects subject to administrative review. The intent of public notification is to give local citizens, organic tions, and other jurisdictions reasonable notice and opportunities for input into the permit review process. • For sites located adjacent to coastal regions, additional noticing requirements may be imposed by the state's California Coastal Act provisions. For jurisdictions without the approved Local Coastal Plans (LCPs), coastal development permits (another type of discretionary permit) are required to be forwarded to the California Coastal Commission for approval, which requires that public notice is provided to renters, as well as property owners, within a specified radius of the project site. • Time Limitation Some jurisdictions have determined it appropriate to place time limitations on discretionary permits for wireless communications facilities. Time limits are typically an issue because of concerns about the facilities' perceived ,effects on health (given inconclusive.health studies), and because of the unknown impact of future technology on the wireless communications industry. For example, the City of Chula Vista includes conditions that require subsequent discretionary review, and which enable the City to modify or add conditions of approval, or to revoke.a permit. One condition, that relates to EMF health concerns, requires the submittal of a report which.,provides quantified EMF field measurements and compares those measurements to current ANSI standards. If the project does not meet ANSI standards, the discretionary permit may be modified or revoked. Chula Vista also includes another condition that reserves the right of the City to add, modify, or delete conditions after the approval of a permit in order to "advance a legitimate governmental interest relate to_health,-safetyor welfare,." Plior_to-exercising--that-r-ight, the-City woul• • •uired-to— notify the permittee in advance and would not be allowed to impose "a substantial e . nse or deprive the permittee of a substantial revenue source." • 28 • ABBREVIATIONS OF TERMS A/m Amperes per meter ANSI American National Standards Institute BTA Basic Trading Area CCAC Cellular Carriers Association of California CDMA Code Division Multiple Access CDPD Cellular Digital Packet Data CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGSA Cellular Geographical Service Area CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CTIA Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association DEP Development and Environmental Planning DHS Department of Health Sciences DRA Division of Ratepayer Advocates DSD Development Services Department EAS Environmental Analysis Section EIR Environmental Impacts Report ELF Extremely Low Frequency EMF Electromagnetic Field EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESMR Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio FCC Federal Communications Commission FDA Food and Drug Administration GHz Gigahertz • G.O.159 (A) General Order 159 (A) IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers kHz Kilohertz y LCP Local Coastal Plan MHz Megahertz MSO Main Switching Office MTA Metropolitan Trading Area mW/cm2 Milliwatt per square centimeter PCS Personal Communications Services RFR Radio Frequency Radiation RSA Rural Statistical Area SMR Specialized Mobile Radio SMSA Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area 110 TDMA Time Division Multiple Access V/m Volts per meter WTB Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 39 • GLOSSARY Analog Technology (see Digital Technology) Analog technology replicates and amplifies voice messages as they are carried from the transmitting antenna to the receiving antenna. Traditionally, cellular phone systems have used analog transmission signals. Antenna A device used in communications which transmits or receives radio signals. • • Band A clearly defined range of radiofrequencies dedicated to a particular purpose. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) • Governmental agency which regulates the terms and conditions of public utilities in the State of California. Of the three wireless communications services discussed in the Issues Paper, the CPUC presently regulates only cellular service providers. Channel • A segment of a frequency band. Also referred to simply as "frequency." Co-location Locating wireless communications equipment from more than one provider on a single site. Common Carrier A public radio service in which a single licensee provides one-way or two-way service to multiple users. Communications Facility A land use -facility supporting antennas and microwave dishes that sends and/orreceives radiofrequency signals.. Communications facilities include structures or towers, and accessory buildings. Digital Technology • Digital technology converts voice and data messages into digits that represent sound intensities at specific points of time and data content. ESMR and PCS service providers employ digital technology, and cellular providers are rapidly converting to digital as well. Dish Antenna A dish-like antenna used to link communications sites together by wireless transmission of voice • or data. Also called microwave antenna or microwave dish antenna. ' 41 Effective Radiated Power (ERP) • The power supplied to an antenna multiplied by the relative gain of the antenna in a given direction. Electromagnetic Field (EMF) The local electric and magnetic fields that envelop the surrounding space. The most ubiquitous source of EMFs is from the movement and consumption of electric power, such as with transmission lines, household appliances and lighting. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) The federal agency responsible for licensing and regulating wireless communications providers. The FCC has primary regulatory control over communications providers through its powers to control interstate commerce and to provide a comprehensive national system in accordance with the Federal Communications Act. Frequency The number of cycles made by electromagnetic radiation in one second, usually expressed in units of hertz (Hz). Hertz A unit for expressing frequency which is the number of times a wave-like radio signal changes • from maximum positive to maximum negative charge per second. 1 Hz = 1 cycle per second. 1 kilohertz (kHz) = 1,000 Hz; 1 megahertz (MHz) = 1,000 kHz or 1,000,000 Hz; 1 gigahertz (GHz) = 1,000 MHz or 1 million kHz or 1 billion Hz. Interference Disturbances to reception caused by radiofrequency waves or other electric fields. • Microwave Electromagnetic radiation frequencies from 3 GHz to 300 GHz; highly directional when used for radiofrequency transmissions. Uses relatively low transmitter power levels when compared to other forms of transmission. Monopole A structure composed of a single spire used to support communications equipment. Non-ionizing EIectromagnetic Radiation Electromagnetic waves of low frequency, long wavelength, and low photon energy unable to cause ionization (i.e., to remove an electron from an atom). Panel Antenna An antenna or array of antennas designed to concentrate a radio signal in a particular area. Panel antennae are typically flat, rectangular devices approximately six square feet in size. Also called directional antennae. 42 • Power Density The magnitude of the electromagnetic energy flux density at a point in space, in power per unit of area (measured in milliwatts per square centimeter or mW/cm2). Radio- A generic term referring to communication of impulses, sounds, and pictures through space by means of electromagnetic waves. Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) Electromagnetic radiation in the portion of the spectrum from 3 kHz (kilohertz) to 300 GHz (gigahertz). Stealth Facility Any communications facility which is designed to blend into the surrounding environment. Examples of stealth facilities may include architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, building-mounted antennas painted to match the existing structure, antennas integrated into architectural elements, and antenna structures designed to look like light poles. Also called concealed antennas. Wavelength The distance between points of corresponding phases of a periodic wave of two constant cycles. • Wavelength = wave velocity/frequency. Whip Antenna An antenna that transmits signals in 360 degrees. Whip antennae are typically cylindrical in shape and are less than 6 inches in diameter and measure up to 18 feet in height. Also called omnidirectional, stick, or pipe antennas. • 43 • • REFERENCES • Written Sources Barrett,William. "Guide to Electromagnetic Radiation." The Ridgefield Press. February 25, 1994. Bates,Bud. "Wireless Networked Communications." McGraw Hill Inc., 1994. California Public Utilities Commission, Environmental and Energy Advisory Branch. "Report on the Informational Workshop on Electro Magnetic Fields (EMFs) and Cellular Transceiver Facilities (L91-01-012)." Commission Advisory and Compliance Division,December 1993. California Public Utilities Commission. Decision 95-11-017. "Order instituting investigation on the Commission's own motion to develop policies and procedures for addressing the potential health effects of electric and magnetic fields of utility facilities (I 91-01-012)." CPUC, San Francisco, November 1995. Cauley,Leslie. "Tne Urge to Merge." The Wall Street Journal,pages R16-R19, March 20, 1995. City of Chula Vista. "Standard Conditions for Wireless Communications Facilities." Planning Department letter,June 15, 1994. City of San Diego, Development Services Department. "Mitigated Negative Declaration for Fieldstone Summit (DEP No. 94-0467)." Development and Environmental Planning Division, 1995. . City of San Diego, Environmental Analysis Section (EAS) of the Development and Environmental Planning (DEP) section of the Development Services Department(DSD). "Significance Criteria for Human Health/Public Safety." March 1995. City of San Diego. "Communication Antenna Regulations."City of San Diego Zoning Code Amend- ment, Division I8, May 1995 draft. Countvof_San_Diego._Department_of_Pla ngand .and-U-se. "al-ular—Telephone�4ntennas—i-se—Type Classifications." Policy Number CP-14, October 7, 1992. Department of Energy (DOE). "Questions and Answers about EMFs." DOE RAPID Program. January 1995. Federal Communications Commission. "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation." FCC 93-142. Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology (OET).. 'Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Radiation." OET Bulletin No. 56,Third Edition,January 1989. • • 45 • • Maryanne Miller. Planning Consultant. Pacific Bell Mobile Services • Mary O'Toole,Director of Site Acquisition and Development, Cox PCS Virginia Partridge,Fluor Daniel Telecom Barbara Saito,Project Manager. Nextel Communications Ted Shaw,Land Use Planner.JM Consulting Richard B. Stephens, Director of Planning Services,The Keith Companies Dennis Turner, Principal Planner,.City of Carlsbad Other Members of SANDAG's Communications Facilities Subcommittee of the Regional Growth Management Technical Committee • • • • • • • • • 47 • . r • -'-.,,, :_i.-,K ' Y r 1o _J. ■ ,q El E q CHAPTER SEVEN Impact of the Act on Local Zoning Power The Act generally preserves local zoning authority over �A,� wireless telecommunications facilities(such as cellular towers) r` - 'i t r. �to r s . .'y: x"" ' as long as zoning requirements are nondiscriminatory,do not �1gCCOrC�I1�1g t0 Q'1CC27iL QTttC�I71 t Nps tOT1'0 r_i ., have the effect of prohibiting service,and are not based on the the t1 s of ollular_anterfna:c_ori ,, Ow , LmpT„tr*"-• health effects of radio frequency emissions. Zoning decisions t o slxttmes .,-from". $ Qu ( ' 4 must, however,be made within a reasonable time,be based on J t [�eCl e r'` � * f e.n4.0 .tea era $ ,, ° a evidence,and be in writing. By August 1996,the FCC will ( ` :1,":;„2,,„:-,---�, � mplete a proceeding that could affect local zoning authority T ...�. over rooftop television antennas and satellite dishes. Interested d Local governments have long exercised zoning authority over communities should participate in that FCC proceeding. development to ensure that the appearance and integrity of In the past several years,a host of new wireless neighborhoods are not marred by the cluttering of unsightly communications technologies have been developed. facilities or the intrusion of commercial facilities into residential areas. Like warehouses and smokestacks,placement Telecommunications services include paging service,cellular and location of antenna towers and satellite dishes present telephone service,and personal communications services ("PCS"). Television service delivery includes direct broadcast zoning issues. satellite ("DBS"). The Act contains language specifically protecting local zoning What all of these new wireless technologies have in comman_is authority to a significant degree. However,at the same time, that, to varying degrees, they require either the construction of the Act does place some new federal requirements on local zoning authority over wireless telecommunications facilities, transmitting equipment(placed on towers)or receiving equipment(such as satellite dishes),or both. As a result, if left and it leaves the door open for the FCC to consider adopting rules that could limit local zoning authority over DBS receiving unchecked, the growth of these services could result in the sprouting of new radio towers and receivers all over a dishes and television antennas. municipality's landscape—far more than exist under older technologies such as radio telephone service and television Local Zoning Authority over Wireless broadcast service. Most of these new facilities will be sited in Telecommunications Facilities developed areas—such as cities and suburbs—where the The Act addresses the issue of local zoning authority over potential residential and business customers of these new wireless telecommunications facilities in three steps. It(1) services are located. establishes a general principle that local zoning authority is preserved,subject to certain conditions; (2) lists the conditions 410 that local zoning requirements must satisfy;and(3) identifies which disputes will be handled by the courts and which will be handled by the FCC. 27 5 . The Telecommunications Act of 1996: What It Means to Local Governments General Principle: Local Zoning Authority Preserved precluding a wireless telecommunications provider's ability to offer service. The Act makes clear that as long as local zoning requirements satisfy certain conditions,nothing in the entire 3. A local government must act on a request for permission Communications Act of 1934 will limit or affect zoning to place or construct wireless telecommunications facilities authority of local governments over the placement, within a reasonable period of time. construction,and modification of wireless telecommunications facilities. This principle is important because over the years, The time taken to act on an application will be the FCC has attempted to exercise its general authority over considered reasonable as long as it is no longer than the wireless transmissions under the Communications Act of 1934 time the local government usually takes to act on the to limit or preempt local zoning authority. Until now,the other requests (say,for zoning variances) of comparable 1934 Act contained no explicit limit on the FCC's authority magnitude that have nothing to do with over zoning. With this new principle,local governments for telecommunications facilities. And Congress emphasized - the first time will have a statutory basis in the Act to defend that the Act does not require local governments to give themselves against unwarranted federal intrusion into local preferential treatment to zoning requests involving zoning. telecommunications facilities—such requests can wait their turn. As long as the request is not moved down the Conditions to Local Zoning Requirements • list, it does not have to be moved up the list. In order to take advantage of the Act's general principle of 4.Any city council or zoning board decision denying a preserving local zoning authority, local government zoning request for permission to install or construct wireless decisions about wireless telecommunications facilities must telecommunications facilities must be in writing and must be satisfy five conditions. Those conditions are: based on evidence in a written record before the council or board. 1. Local zoning requirements may not unreasonably • discriminate among wireless telecommunications providers This requirement may necessitate a considerable change in that compete against one another. practice for some city councils and zoning boards. It means that proceedings on a zoning application will need The legislative history makes clear that local governments to be reduced to writing. This can be done by having the do not necessarily have to treat competitive providers proceedings transcribed and by requiring the applicant,the exactly the same if their proposed facilities present city staff and any interested members of the public to different zoning concerns. Congress intended to give local reduce their comments and arguments into written governments some flexibility in this area. It recognized, submissions to the council or board. This requirement also for example, that a proposed 504oartowerirra-residential —means-that-city-staff-w ll-need-to-make-sure-that-any act district presents different concerns than a 50-foot tower in or arguments on which the council or board may rely on in a commercial district,even if the two towers are going to denying a request are in fact included in the transcribed offer services that compete with one another. hearing or written filings submitted to the council or board before its decision is made. That decision also must be in 2. Local zoning requirements may not prohibit or have the writing and contain reasons that are consistent with the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless Act's requirements. Municipalities should carefully telecommunications service. consult with their city attorneys to implement this requirement. This is intended to prevent local governments from imposing outright bans on wireless telecommunications facilities. It probably also prohibits moratoriums on accepting applications,at least any moratorium that is of indefinite length. At the same time, local governments 1111 should have the ability to limit the number and placement of facilities as long as those limits do not have the effect of 28 Chapter Seven Ilk long as wireless telecommunications facilities meet Zoning Issues Relating to DBS and Television standards to be set by the FCC,a local government may not Broadcast Facilities base any decision denying a request to construct such facilities on the ground that radio frequency emissions from The Act contains no comparable local zoning provisions the facilities will be harmful to the environment or health of dealing with the other type of communications facilities that residents. might appear on your city's landscape(e.g.,television broadcast antennas and satellite television dishes). This will probably The Act gives the FCC,not local governments,the sole seem odd to most cities,since television antennas and dishes authority to determine what standards wireless facilities may present precisely the same types of zoning concerns as must meet to ensure that their radio frequency emissions - wireless telecommunications facilities—they can affect do not harm humans or the environment. While local neighborhood appearance and integrity. After all,zoning governments can require the facilities to comply with FCC requirements tend to be directed at the physical size and emission standards,local governments may not adopt their appearance of facilities,not the particular services they are used own standards. This means that,as long as the facilities to provide. meet FCC emission standards,concerns about the effects of emissions from radio towers on the health of nearby The Act does,however,contain two provisions that both the residents is not a permissible reason for making zoning television broadcast and DBS industries are likely to try to use decisions about the placement of wireless to restrict municipal zoning authority over television antennas telecommunications facilities. and dishes. The first provision gives the FCC exclusive jurisdiction over � '` ' `"^'F` Y ` - ;:. "direct-to-home satellite services"—in other words,DBS B,A.0 itiruires tlhe-K,G a t:.tari rds , e-, a 41. � - i .Tj{":' ..`' ;;1 service. This essentially gives the FCC the same broad 4Tsic'oncernln r•, a •, • • #� „ v., y.:,,,--;,',.e,:$ .r authority over DBS service that it has long had over television r.. -r broadcast service. This may strengthen the FCC's hand in ,,,«-i adopting rules concerning limitations on local zoning authority , ., -- a ,, cq n over satellite dishes. s', _� ket ,w�,1 r eo i r . G. . k "` The second provision may be a bit more of an explicit threat to ``� ayi<�x `'S •�1�'...,�,.c� '''�'S. � S�-,sf fs .�t.." t,a. i,evelyetga v- ..,,.�.i ,;H ��`'.'1:: local governments. This provision requires the FCC—by August 1996—to adopt rules that prohibit."restrictions"that Who Resolves Disputes Between Municipalities and Wireless -- impair a viewer's ability to receive television programming from Telecommunications Providers? over-the-air local television broadcast stations,DBS services,or "multichannel multipoint distribution services" ("MMDS"). In a major victory for municipalities, the Act requires that a wireless telecommunications provider claimino that-a-city-has The A-ctdoes not say what types of"restrictions"the FCC is violated any of four out of five conditions listed above must supposed to prohibit. You should assume,however, that the seek relief in a state or federal court,not at the FCC. The broadcast and DBS industries will argue to the FCC that local disappointed applicant may go to the FCC only if it claims that zoning requirements concerning rooftop antennas and the municipality improperly based its decision on the harmful backyard satellite dishes are"restrictions"that the FCC should effects of radio frequency emissions from the proposed facilities. limit or prohibit. . The FCC is also prevented from preempting local zoning requirements except for those relating to radio frequency $ . , d « �i,,, 3 "'_. emissions. Consistent with this restriction, the Act also -The FCC has issued a else r r ,' a 'ng requires the FCC to discontinue its ending rulemaking .proposlrig_t(3�litut i giurga i,,tpp Ly( 1ec_UteU te4 oceedin concerningpreemption of local zoning _:glai o E 7� - P g P P r �.� ..-i-- . Tv'+�- a xn1. ,�ievi'M try+ - .,'..: .,.` requirements for cellular towers. hrrut�tlonxsFitiiou" cortsuZras�Cing =_41) . recans de its mason, �"`; :, "'k - '>":47 29 The Telecommunications Act of 1996: What It Means to Local Governments 4itit Thin s to Think}Abo .. - .. .... ..,__-� ..'__. Ss9a "t .7rt add C r.v p 7 •, •• 'F-'- F�i}�7�4{�. yam' a -i� Y ■ Do your zoning ordinances and regulations deal wrath � � � ' �° ��' 4 t' � d•t'y - communications antennas and towers at aIIP If so do�� s de ledrreasdt> o ° � �''� theyeozz address those facilities separately,oras art of con er • s•� -0 ,-a .,�.i�� '� - z. v general zoning requirements that are applied to others _ • x t NI ena •ave ar + hnnQrd VP �144,14 C�lal o f t o ar 7 s 3 r,5 facilities and structures as well? ti � « �� "a� r , +�+Yw S•yd ato a. >ra' ,, .3 ..� communications o• rve .,7.� ■ Have you adopted any zoning ordinances or vanances`or .13.tan_ or;en• made any zoning decisions conceming communicationsr -r r , p a cons ea -J �, towers or antennas?:If so,what did those ordinance_sor ```�`� t a..�•D0-'yOtt�IaCe%an: ,g�7 decisions say? "` �`" '� ant °teltit�. + ��� moi 1 + 1 a�LI ajt �d -.... -- __> -. .r ri�►��w b�"•e��yq ■ Do you have a strategy for revising your zoning •t�> Are pourresndentsnCetC • ••• � •, '� ; i " r , l.w ta ° y 3 r �; ordinance,code or process to comply with the new Acts' - so, hould„yourenty,• i• +�,•�. +.._,�:�±z t proceedings reteie-t0+1�� IIHave you considered how you will develop a your Senator and.membeto • record to justify your zoning actions and antennas under the new Act? Will you need to `" `" ~ `` = change the process you have used in the past? WWII you � need to consider using experts who could provide '�" testimony or rebut evidence submitted by-the,industry -x- .0. � x applicant seeking to erect a new tower or antenna = . -' L<�_.•.z r.,s' .dr•-"tip. A ./�_ T " f r .- -•.^ -si . - .. ; •: trw_� � �`In �` .. � �ti.- < 1. .. - ...- • _ _ s '.� _ A:` ?.CFif'l+.. .al-2_ 4Tw^S I :y� .Kz'C .^•� ./. . ._ ...- _._ .... + rr�-..wx..._'`4_....• - . "�C-+2sx•-r ,.r.al-es. -3�yyx -,--'t • 30 ITEM #8 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Subject: Planning Case No. 452-96 3025 County Road H Stahl Construction Company on behalf of the New Apostolic Church Date: August 21, 1996 Discussion At your meeting on August 7, 1996,the Planning Commission conducted a public informational meeting on this item at which time the item was tabled and rescheduled for consideration on September 9, 1996. The applicant was requested to submit revised plans and to provide additional information,with the understanding that whatever information or plans were submitted prior to the packet date for your next agenda meeting,this material would be forwarded to you for review. ,10 Enclosed you will find a revised site and landscaping plan,a revised drainage plan, and reduced copies of floor plans and elevations. Staff has not had a chance to review these in any detail. It is our understanding that they were forwarded by the applicant to the City Engineer on August 15, 1996. We have not had an opportunity to discuss them with him,but will attempt to get comments prior to your meeting. Attached to this report are two letters. The first is from the New Apostolic Church United States of America which discusses the seating capacity in the auditoriums and the schedule for use of the auditorium and the fellowship hall in the basement. The second is from LRK design group regarding the seating capacity. The Planning Commission may want to review the criteria for granting conditional use permits from the City's Zoning Code [1125.01 Subd. 3, b (1)(8)],and the types of conditions which may be imposed, as a point of departure for your discussion of the plan revisions. Staff would note,in particular,items(2) and(3) from the criteria, and the allowance for conditions regarding increasing required yard dimensions and requiring fencing, screening and landscaping. A copy of these sections of the Zoning Code is attached. Attachments Letter from New Apostolic Church Letter from LRK design group Criteria for approval of conditional use permits; and types of conditions which may be imposed Site&Landscaping Plan,Drainage Plan,Floor Plans and Elevations cc: Bill Diem, Stahl Construction Company,5900 Rowland Road, Minnetonka MN 55343; • FAX 931-9941 1U.:›4 NHL tr'.it 814 833 6308 P.01/01 New Apostolic Church United States of America DT: August 15, 1996 TO: Moundsview, MN - City Engineers Office FR: Walter Hallmark RE: Proposed Church Building NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH 3025 County Rd. "H" Moundsview, MN Message: Dear Mr. Jarson, • Please be advised that the proposed New Apostolic Church in Moundsview, MN will have a fixed seating capacity of 125 in the pews in the upper auditorium. The auditorium will be used for services conducted on Sunday mornings and afternoons, and Wednesday evenings. The basement will be used for Sunday School classes, occasional fellowships and other church activities. The basement is not used while services are being conducted, and likewise services are not conducted during Sunday School, fellowships, or while other activities are going on in the basement. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely yours, 'Volt!d./Vai6oteAl- Walter Hallmark National Building Office 1703 Peninsula Drive, Erie, Pennsylvania 16505 United States of America • Telephone (814) 833-6063 Telefax (814) 833-6308 TOTAL P.01 AUG-08-1996 17:34 NAC ERIE 814 833 6308 P.02/02 L-1/2.k1 design group AP+CNITECTURQ ■ 6NGINCCNING ■ LANQSCAPC ARCHITECTURE 1703 Peninsula[kiwi Eris,Pennsylvania 16303 DATE: August 8, 1996 (814)838-8814 Pam(814)838i:108 TO: Moundsview, MN - City Engineers Office FROM: Leonard R. Kolb, P.E. REF: Proposed Church Building NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH OFFICES: 3025 County Rd. "H" • Erie.Pennsylvania Moundsview, MN • Jamestown,Hew York a Bradford.Pennsylvania Message: Dear Mr. Jarson, Please be advised that our prototype design for the New Apostolic Church . proposed for Moundsview, MN has a fixed seating capacity of 125. That is to say that fixed pews will be installed in the auditorium with sufficient space to seat 125 occupants. It is my understanding that presently there are approximately 50 attending members, therefore the church is designed to provide adequate expansion capability for the congregation. Should you require any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely yours, eonard R. Kolb, P.E. LRK/wjh • 6aonard R.Kolb P.E. • Station 0.AMrrhincin LA. • Aienard G Saler N.A. • i TOTAL P.02 • • 1125.01 1125.01 • in and made part of the permanent written record of the City Council meeting. i. Public Hearing: Upon receiving the report and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City� staff, the City Council shall hold a public hearing in compliance with Minnesota Statutes section 462.357, subdivision 3 and shall make a recorded finding of fact and shall impose any conditions it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. j. Four-Fifths Vote: Amendments of this Title, the Official Zoning Map or a conditional use permit shall require passage by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the full City Council. k. Notification of Decision: The City Clerk-Administrator shall notify the applicant of the Council's decision, in writing. Subd. 2. Initiation of Amendments: The City Council or Planning and Zoning Commission may, upon its own motion, initiate a request to amend this Title or the Official Zoning Map. Any person owning real estate within the City may initiate a request to amend this Title or the Official Zoning Map as it affects the real estate owned by said person. Subd. 3. Conditional Use Permit: • a. Purpose: The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the City with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. b. Criteria for Granting Conditional Use Permits: In granting a conditional use permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning..and Zoning Commission and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan and upon the health, safety and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. Among other things, the City Council shall 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. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. • City of Mounds View 1125.01 1125.01 •(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. (5) 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 or will be provided. c. Additional Conditions: In permitting a new conditional use or the alteration of an existing conditional use, the City Council may impose, in addition to these standards and requirements expressly specified by this Title, additional 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, the following: (1) Increasing the required lot size or yard dimension. (2) Limiting the height, size or location of 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) Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs. (7) Requiring diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facili-tiesto-protectadj-acenrand nearby property. (8) Designating sites foropen space. d. Records Kept: The Zoning Administrator shall maintain a record of all conditional use permits issued, including information on the use, location and conditions imposed by the City Council, time limits, review dates and such other information as may be appropriate. e. Reconsideration: Whenever an application for a conditional use permit has been considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application for a conditional use permit affecting substantially the same property shall • City of Mounds View • ITEM #9 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director ; Subject: Request for Ordinance Revision Re: Parking Lot Setbacks Date: August 21, 1996 Mr. Dan Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, has submitted a letter requesting that the Zoning Code be amended to require a fifteen foot setback for parking lots from property lines where a church proposal abuts residential uses. It is staff's understanding that this request was prompted by his concern about the parking lot proposed for the New Apostolic Church at 3025 County Road H. Mr. Moon's property is directly north of the proposed church site. The current ordinance requirement is five feet regardless of the type of development or the adjacent uses. • Any person owning real estate within the City is allowed to initiate a request to amend the Zoning Code (Section 1125.01 Subd. 2). A change in the setback requirement for parking lots would affect the site plan for the New Apostolic Church. Given the current placement and shape of the building, and the requirement for 35 foot setbacks from streets, it appears that achieving a fifteen foot setback would be difficult. Staff has not had an opportunity to study in detail how such a setback could be achieved, but our initial response is that it could require moving the parking so it is between the building and County Road H. It may not be possible to meet this setback requirement without reducing the size of the building, or changing its shape. Staff has consulted with the City Attorney's office as to whether a request for an ordinance change, if passed, could be applied to an application which has been submitted and is under review. Jim Thompson, who is acting as City Attorney while Bob Long is on vacation, has explained that an ordinance amendment could be applied, if the City Council elected to put in place a moratorium and then passed the ordinance amendment prior to considering the application. If the Planning Commission wishes to pursue this idea, the Commission would need to forward a recommendation to City Council that a moratorium be declared on the development of nonresidential uses subject to a conditional use permit in residential zone districts, other than • model homes and accessory buildings and structures, in order to consider an ordinance amendment regarding parking lot setbacks between such uses and residential uses. A resolution Mounds View Planning Commission • Page 2 August 16, 1996 to this effect is attached. (This resolution has not been reviewed by the City Attorney but we will forward it to him for review between now and your meeting on August 21.) Alternatives to This Action As an alternative to a moratorium, the Planning Commission may wish to address Mr. Moon's concern through the following: • The requirements listed for churches as conditional uses in the R-1 district (1106.04 Subd. 1.c. and d.): adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title - adequate off-street parking and access is provided...and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title A copy of 1103.08 and 1106.04 is attached. Based upon Section 1103.08 Subd. 6, staff concludes that Planning Commission has the ability to require either a screening fence or a green belt planting strip. The greenbelt planting strip shall consist of evergreens of • sufficient width and density to provide an effective screen, and shall be at least eight feet in height. A required screening fence shall be not more than eight feet but not less than six feet in height. The Planning Commission may want to consult with neighboring property owners on whether a greenbelt planting strip or screening fence is preferred to buffer the church from the adjacent residential properties. • The criteria for approving conditional use permits and the types of conditions which may be imposed, as stated in Sections 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.(1)-(8) and 1125.01 Subd.3.c. These sections have been attached to the memo regarding item #8 on this agenda. Staff would note, in particular, b.(2) and (3) and c.(1), which state: Criteria for Granting Conditional Use Permits (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. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Increasing the required lot size or yard dimension • Mounds View Planning Commission II Page 3 August 16, 1996 Mr. Moon has requested that the ordinance be amended to make the setback between parking lots and property lines at least 15 feet, for churches adjacent to residential uses. The Planning Commission may recommend to City Council that the separation and level of screening between the church use and the adjacent residential properties, as it is proposed, is not sufficient to meet these criteria. One possible solution is to require that a wider"yard" or setback be created between the parking lot and the property line, or that more landscaping or a screening fence is needed. Conditional uses are distinguished from permitted uses for a reason. These uses are subject to greater scrutiny because they have the potential for creating greater impacts than the permitted uses in a given district. The purpose stated for a conditional use permit is"to provide the City with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety." The criteria for granting conditional permits are intended to assess, in part, the suitability and compatibility of such uses with adjacent permitted uses. Staff recognizes that the applicant has worked to design this project in accordance with the dimensions and numerical requirements specified in the Zoning Code, and has made improvements 41) in the site plan which have addressed the width of the access points, drainage, and preservation of some of the mature trees on the site. The application has been under review by the City since July 15, 1996. Testimony received from adjacent property owners indicate that questions remain about the compatibility of this project with the adjacent residential uses, in particular, the width of the required setback between the property line and the parking lot. Addressing compatibility is fundamental to the conditional use permit process. Actions Available: ■ Call to order to adopt a resolution recommending to City Council that a moratorium be imposed on the development of nonresidential uses subject to a conditional use permit in resrdent l zone districts, other than governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community, model homes and accessory buildings and structures, in order to consider an ordinance amendment regarding parking lot setbacks between such uses and residential uses. • Discuss whether the site plan, as proposed, meets the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, and advise the applicant as to the Planning Commission's concerns, to be addressed prior to the next regular meeting. cc: Dan Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, Mounds View MN 55112 Bill Diem, Stahl Construction Company, 5900 Rowland Road, Minnetonka MN 55343; FAX 931-9941 • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. -96 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1127 ESTABLISHING A 180 DAY MORATORIUM ON NEW USE, DEVELOPMENT OR CONSTRUCTION OF NON-RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, OTHER THAN GOVERNMENTAL AND PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDINGS, MODEL HOMES,AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW WHEREAS, Title 1100 of, entitled"Zoning Code" establishes conditional uses in the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-5 Zoning Districts, which conditional uses include non-residential uses; and, WHEREAS, such uses include public and semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers; public and private educational institutions limited to elementary,junior high and senior high schools; and religious institutions, such as churches, • chapels, temples and synagogues; day care and group nurseries; and parking facilities for adjacent commercial or multiple dwelling establishments; and, WHEREAS, the minimum lot area, setback and yard requirements, or other dimensional requirements for these districts may be insufficient to create the necessary buffering between these non-residential conditional uses and adjacent permitted residential uses; and, WHEREAS, suitability and compatibility of such non-residential conditional uses with adjacent residential uses is of significant concern to the Planning Commission and is fundamental to the preservation of the purpose of residential districts; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View finds it necessary to conduct studies to determine if such lot area, setback and yard requirements, and other dimensional requirements in the R-1, R- 2, R-3, R-4, and R-5 districts require amendment in order to assure compatibility between non- residential conditional uses and residential uses; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance No. _provides for a 180 day moratorium on the new use, development and construction of non-residential conditional uses in the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-5 districts, other than governmental and public utility buildings necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community, model homes, accessory buildings and structures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of • Mounds View recommends approval of Ordinance No. , a ordinance amending the Mounds • View Zoning Code by adding a new Chapter 1127 establishing a 180 day moratorium on new use, development or construction of non-residential conditional uses in residential districts, other than governmental and public utility buildings necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community, model homes, accessory buildings and structures, within the City of Mounds View. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 21st day of August, 1996. Chairman Peterson ATTEST: (Seal) Pamela Sheldon • Community Development Director • 1103.07 1103.08 1103.07: DRAINAGE: In the case of all residential apartment, • p , business and industrial developments, the drainage plans shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer for his review, and the final drainage plan shall have his written approval. All drainage plans shall conform to the comprehensive storm drainage plan of the Municipality. The requirements of Chapters 1010, 1301 and 1302 of this Code shall be met. (1988 Code §43.04) 1103.08: FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Subd. 1. Height: No fence shall exceed eight feet (8') in height, and in the case of grade separation, such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. Subd. 2. Intersections: No fences, structures or planting of trees or shrubs shall be permitted within thirty feet (30') of any corner formed by the intersection of street property lines or the right of way of a railway intersecting a street', except properly constructed chain link fences. Such chain link fences shall not exceed forty eight inches (48") in height from the grade level at the lot line and shall have openings in the wire mesh of not less than one and five-eighths inches (15/8") nor more than two and one-fourth inches (2'/4"). Such fences may follow the lot line to the lot corner. The thirty feet (30') restriction noted above shall consist of the triangle formed by connecting the two (2) points on intersecting lot lines • that are each thirty feet (30') from the lot corner. Subd. 3. Location: a. Except as provided in subdivision 2 above, fences not to exceed forty eight inches (48") in height may be located on any part of a lot. Fences not to exceed ninety six inches (96") in height may be erected on any part of a lot behind the front line of the principal building. b. A fence shall be installed on .the applicant's property. The fence shall not be installed directly over the property line. Subd. 4. Landscaping Required: In all zoning districts, 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. 1. See also subdivisions 604.03(3)b. 604.03(3)n. 1008.08(3)e and 1008.08(6) of this,Code. • City of Mounds View 1103.08 1103.09 • Subd. 5. Surface of Fences: Any fence shall be so constructed that the surface facing adjoining properties or public rights of way shall be of finished construction. Subd. 6. Required Screening: The fencing and screening required by this Title shall be subject to subdivisions 1 through 5 hereof and shall consist of either a fence or a green belt planting strip the height of which shall be sufficient to adequately shield the activity from the abutting properties. a. A green belt planting strip shall consist of evergreen ground cover and shall be of sufficient width and density to provide an effective screen. This planting strip shall contain no structures or other use. Such planting strips shall not be less than eight feet (8') in height. Earth mounding or berms may be used but shall be limited to an average of five feet (5') of the height of the required screen. The planting plan and type of shrub shall require the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission based upon a recommendation of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Building Inspector. b. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood or steel. Such fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight feet (8') in height or be less than six feet (6') in height. The design and materials used in constructing a required screening fence shall be subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission based upon a recommendation by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer • and Building Inspector. c. Ground cover shall be established within one year following issuance of the building permit. Ground cover material shall be of such type as to control erosion. (1988 Code §40.04) 1103.09: GLARE: Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area, sign or other structure shall be arranged as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets'. Direct or sky-reflected glare, where from floodlights or from high temperature processes, such_as_combu-stion-or-veldinvshall not be-directed into any adjoining property. The source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to light adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or public right of way. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one foot-candle (meter reading) as measured from the center line of said street. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed four-tenths (0.4) foot-candles (meter reading) as measured from said property. (1988 Code §40.04) 1. See also subdivision 1008.08(3)d of this Code. I City of Mounds View 1106.04 1106.04 1106.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an • R-1 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 1. Public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers, public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions, such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues; provided, that: a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet (30'). c. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. 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 this Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title. •f. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Subd. 2. Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community; provided, that: a. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained •and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. b. Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent structure with no outside storage. c. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. d. The provisions of subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Subd. 3. Residential planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 1120 of this Title. Subd. 4. Residential dog/cat kennel. • City of Mounds View r r • To: Pam Sheldon Community Development Director City of Mounds view From: Danny D, Moon 6929 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, MN 55112 I would like to propose a change in the building code to setback of parking lots for churches or any commercial property adjacent to residential property be changed from 5 feet to 15 feet so green space is not interrupted on residential properties. This would allow for landscaping to obtain proper growth, such as pine trees, etc. and for room to plow snow. Th/-o, u, Ve611 ' L • Danny D. Moon •