HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-065 Candy Cove Antenna CUP
_.... "'.,-'/.;'." fI'. "',,'';'~,,, . i:"'-'<'/ d.... I '.....11. .:~~. I~-~"~..".... -- .,....;,....;'~.j '.. ."."'.:-.].......i._'.._.,;..,,..,~.-...,,.-.~..,......:r..~.,.:.......,..~,.1...~~..~...:.a.,_,~.,J....~.1.U.i~ ,...;&.~.' L. 'V ~.'1IP".
"
r .
~~
' u
qtt-~
o Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.lPrior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 /tPhone (612)447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Brief description of propcisedproject (attach additional
sheets/narrative if desired)
Type of Application:
.0 Rezoning, from (present zonini)
to (proposed zonini)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
~ Conditional Use Permit
o Variance
o Other:
~~
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
Property Owner(s) [Ifdifferent from Applicants): C i ~ ~ lor ~
Address: . \ ~ '2-00 ~le... c.tu..tL .A
Home Phone: Work Phone: .
Type of Ownership: Fee _ Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement -----"' 12-.DUJ ·
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
lu-app2.doc
Date
_____::.J.il" ~, ,~
.-'
_./-
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE SE
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
(612) 447-4230, FAX (612) 447-4245
RECEIPT # 34599
DATE:
..
Received of lA t S r W ht W ~ J LLt"
tl1e sum ocJiWL +twWNef ~ ~
for the purpose of
dollars
C"LL~ 1W ()/i&V\.ffi_D\_ @uut(;( ~ ~)
$ ?J50~W
Invoice #
~~PriOrLake
INTERIM ORDINANCE
~~
ING THE INSTALLATION AND LOCATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
the United States Congres's adopted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to
protect and promote the deployment and delivery of telecommunications
services and to prohibit barriers affecting competition in the delivery of
telecommunications services; and
Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "Act") preserves the
authority of state and local governments over decisions regarding the
placement, construction, and modification of "personal wireless service
facilities" so long as local governments do not "unreasonably discriminate"
among providers of functionally equivalent services and do not adopt
requirements that "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting" the provision of
personal wireless services; and
the Minnesota legislature adopted Minn. Stat. ~ 237.162 which deals generally
with the right of local governments to regulate "telecommunications
right-of-way users"; and
provisions in the City's zoning ordinance requiring telecommunications
providers in certain instances to obtain Conditional Use Permits for facilities
located within a public right-of-way may be inconsistent with Minn. Stat.
~ 237.162; and
Minn. Stat. ~ 462.355, Subd. 4, provides in relevant part:
"If a municipality is conducting studies or has
authorized a study to be conducted or has held or has
scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering
adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or
official control as defined in Section 462.352, Subd. 15,
. . . the governing body of the municipality may adopt
an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its
jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning
process and the health, safety and welfare of its
citizens."
the City of Prior Lake requires a reasonable amount of time to conduct studies
and evaluate the legal parameters under which it may regulate
telecommunication providers and to thereafter consider new zoning controls
or amendments to the existing zoning controls in its City Code; and
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
DN: 75238
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
such as a church steeple, light pole, power line support device or similar
structure.
Minn. Stat. 9462.355, Subd. 4, provides in relevant part:
"If a municipality is conducting studies or has
authorized a study to be conducted or has held or has
scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering
adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or
official control as defined in Section 462.352, Subd. 15,
. . . the governing body of the municipality may adopt
an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its
jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning
process and the health, safety and welfare of its
citizens. "
the City of Prior Lake requires a reasonable amount of time to conduct studies
and evaluate the legal parameters under which it may regulate
telecommunication providers and to thereafter consider new zoning controls
or amendments to the existing zoning controls in its City Code; and
the City Council of the City of Prior Lake recognizes that Section 704 of the
1996 Act states that local authorities are required to act upon an application
for a facility site within a reasonable period of time; and
the Federal Communications Commission on September 17, 1996 issued Fact
Sheet No.2 titled "National Wireless Facility Siting Policies"; and
Fact Sheet No.2 on page 10 states in relevant part:
"In certain instances, state and local governments may
benefit from a brief, finite period of consideration in
order to set up a process for the orderly handling of
facility's siting requests. These brief periods of
consideration may be most effective if the state or local
government communicates clearly to wireless service
providers a specific duration of the moratorium, the
tasks that the local government entity intends to
accomplish during the moratorium, and the ways in
which the wireless service providers can help the local
government to achieve the stated goals of the
moratorium by, for example, providing additional
information about their needs and about their services."
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
I: \99files\99cup \moraord.doc
Page 2
1. A 120-day moratorium is hereby imposed on the installation of any
telecommunication facility in the public right-of-way.
2. This moratorium applies to all "telecommunications right-of-way users" as defined
in Minn. Stat. ~ 237.162, Subd. 4.
3. The City Staff and City Attorney are hereby directed to analyze and reconcile the
provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Minn. Stat. ~ 237.162, and the
City zoning ordinances as they relate to entities subject to the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 and telecommunication right-of-way users.
4. The City Staff and City Attorney shall meet with and seek input from
telecommunication providers regarding how to manage the public right-of-way as
permitted by Minn. Stat. ~ 237.162.
5. The City Staff and City Attorney shall develop recommendations pursuant to the
above-referenced study and meetings and provide said recommendations regarding
amendments to the City zoning ordinance to the City Council.
6. The City Council shall consider the recommendations of the City Staff and City
Attorney and if appropriate refer proposed amendments to the City's zoning
ordinances to the Planning Commission for their consideration and
recommendation.
7. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 3rd day of January, 2000.
ATTEST:
ru
w~ ~ ~ l WI ~'1....
Mayor ~
City Man~~r
<-
Published in the Prior Lake American on the 8th day of January, 2000.
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
I: \99fiJes\99cup \moraord.doc
Page 3
STAFF REPORTS
AND
MINUTES
(';;~ tou'~ rUAklhctu tu~
J /3Jdo-dV
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA:
Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid.
MADER: Asked for clarification on a third payment posted to the MVT A, and a payment under Council
Expenses to City Perks.
TESCHNER: Explained that the payment posted to the MVTA was the second payment for 1999. The
first payment is paid in June. Typically, the second payment is scheduled for December and comes to
the Council the first meeting in January.
MADER: Stated that the records indicate a January 31, 1999 payment to the MVT A as well.
TESCHNER: Clarified that the Jan. 1999 payment was for December 1998 and was incorrectly delayed
to the second meet,ing in January. The payment was posted back to December 1998.
BOYLES: Suggested acting on the payment of invoices subject to the staff rechecking the posting of the
payment. Also explained that the payment to City Perks was for an orientation session for new
Councilmembers.
There was some further discussion regarding posting date versus payment date and the dates
contained in the 1/31/99 report.
TESCHNER: Further explained that the date of posting to the General Ledger was manually overridden
and the financial audit for 1998 shows only two payments to the MVT A.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO APPROVE THE INVOICES TO BE PAID.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, and Ericson, the motion carried.
PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
-7
OLD BUSINESS:
Consider Approval of Ordinance 00-01 Regulating US West Telecommunications Use of Public
Right-of-Ways.
BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the rationale for the staff and city attorney's recommendation . for a
moratorium, and specifically reviewed the terms of the ordinance.
MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 00-01 INITIATING
A MORATORIUM ON THE USE OF RIGHT-OF-WAYS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS
FOR 120-DA YS.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
2
City Council Meeting Minutes
--7 November 1, 1999
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO DEFER ACTION ON THIS ISSUE AND TO
DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE A PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
IN ORDER TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ISSUE AND POSSIBLE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS PRIOR TO THE JAN. 13, 2000 DEADLINE.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner, and Schenck, the motion carried.
/'
, il('J" cfoi:onslder AfI/II'Oval.. of R8ffJlution 9'-XX Approving. the Condit/anal Use Permit for a
"1" l ColMtunlt:.tifIIt Tower locat<<lWithin the Candy Cov..Rlght-of-Way.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO DEFER ACTION ON THIS ISSUE AND TO
DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE A PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
IN ORDER TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ISSUE PRIOR TO THE JAN. 13, 2000
DEADLINE.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner, and Schenck, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of Resolution 99-120 Initiating the Vacation of a Portion of Red Oaks Road
Adjacent to Lots 27-37, Red Oaks.
BOYLES: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, the options available to resolve
the issue, and the recommendation by staff.
MADER: Asked if vacating the roadway eliminates City access for fire and police access.
KANSIER: Noted that the City and remaining property owners must received easements for access from
Ms. Roehr before the vacation would be initiated.
PACE: The easement agreements that would be acquired prior to initiating the vacation would have to
provide access easements for the City emergency vehicles and the remaining properties. The draft
easements before you are shown as a good faith intent by the property owners to proceed in this
fashion.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-XX INITIATING
THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF RED OAKS ROAD ADJACENT TO LOTS 27-37, RED OAKS.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of Ordinance 99-XX Amending City Code Section 105.300 Relating to the
Salaries of the Mayor and City Councilmembers.
BOYLES: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, and noted that even with the
increase, the salaries would remain below the average across the metro area.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 99-XX AMENDING
CITY CODE SECTION 1 05.300 RELATING TO THE SALARIES OF THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCILMEMBERS.
7
-
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 11,1999
1.
Can to Order:
The October 11, 1999, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall,
Stamson and Vonhor, Planning Director Don Rye and Planner Jenni Tovar.
2. Roll Call:
V onhof
Kuykendall
Criego
Cramer
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the September 27, 1999 Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
--
4.
Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the public hearing procedure statement.
A. Case File #99-065 U.S. West Wireless Communications is requesting a
conditional use permit for co-locating a communication tower with the replacement
of an existing utility pole located within the Candy Cove right-of-way.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated October 11, 1999, on file in the
office of the City Planner.
The applicant is proposing to replace an existing utility pole (NSP) of approximately 27
feet in height with a new wood pole of 52~ feet in height. The current pole is located in
an easement on private property. The proposed pole will be located within the right-of-
way. This property is zoned R-l. Section 1110.600 of the City Code requires a
Conditional Use Permit for towers located with a light pole or power line support device.
Section 1110.500 requires a conditional use pennit for towers exceeding 45 feet and
attached to existing structures.
Staff recommended continuation of this matter to allow the applicant time to submit
required documentation relating to co-location as required by Section 1110.1200.
Dave Fischer, representing U.S. West Wireless, 426 North Fairview Avenue, St. Paul,
clarified the existing pole is 35 feet and with the extension, the pole will be 48 1/2 feet.
R:\COUNCIL\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\MNIOlI99.DOC 1
Planning Commission Minutes
October 1/, /999
-
The combined height with the antenna would be 52 1/2 feet plus the 2 foot lighting rod.
They would be adding 13 1/2 feet overall. Their objective is to provide coverage to
Highway 13 and the surrounding area. Fischer explained the Joint Use Agreement with
NSP. He also said they could not co-locate on any of the existing structures. U.S. West
felt this location made better business sense.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· Questioned the cross-anns sections for NSP. Fischer explained the unipac system
allowing antennas to be more compact and aesthetically pleasing. Tovar pointed out
the NSP lines on the map.
· Questioned the utility box. Fischer said it would be painted beige and blend with the
environment.
· Concern for maintenance. Fischer assured him they would take of it.
Comments from the public:
Les Sonnabend, Superintendent for the Prior Lake Schools, stated the site is right above
the schools tennis court. The School District maintains the site and is concerned with
mowing around the utility box. Sonnabend said he started working with Mr. Fischer 6 to
8 months ago. U.S. West set up a testing location off one of the school's poles last
spring. Sonnabend has not heard from Fischer or U.S. West until he received the City's
notice. The School District has already entered into a contract with another company to
use an electric pole above the football field. The District did not want to add more poles
to the environment. They never negotiated with Fischer on a cost, but did ascertain after
4 or 5 attempts the site was appropriate. U.S. West could choose any of the 6 existing
poles which would make better sites and provide coverage without adding another pole.
Sonnabend said he did not know the City's ordinances or concerns, however the School
District is not in favor of the site location.
Sonnabend went on to explain the District has a fenced in area that another company is
using. He said there is plenty of opportunities but it would cost U.S. West some money,
the District wouldn't be free.
Kuykendall questioned the fee. Sonnabend said there is no specific price. They would
check around and see what other locations charge.
Fischer responded to Sonnabend's comments that U.S. West would not be adding another
pole. U.S. West is trying to provide coverage to the area in a timely manner. To go
through and negotiate a contract with some other than who they have a contract with
would be a delay and wouldn't make business sense.
Commissioner Stamson closed the public hearing.
r:\counci1\plancomm\minutes\mn 1 01199.doc
2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 1 I. 1999
-
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
· Questioned Fischer on the location of the pole in the right-of-way line. Fischer said
he believed it was approximately 8 feet.
· Questioned if the box was within that area. Tovar pointed out the site on the survey
being 5.1 feet. There is no easement but it is in the City right-of-way.
· Questioned the alternative sites and asked if there are any engineering challenges
using the High School site. Fischer responded there were no other sites and no
engineering problems.
Kuykendall:
· Felt it was not unreasonable. The pole is existing, it is aesthetically pleasing. The
pole has to meet NSP's needs.
· The City is not in the business of trying to create business from one public entity to
another.
· Supported the request.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Kuykendall. There is already an existing pole.
· It meets the current use. It is a little bit taller.
· Supported the application.
Criego:
· Questioned Fischer on his intentions with the High School 6 or 8 months ago.
Fischer said they were trying to find out what kind of signal they needed.
· Questioned the length of time of the agreement with NSP. Fischer did not know an
exact date, possibly since 1968.
· Fischer said they originally were looking at the High School but did not know the
projected height. U.S. West was able to utilize NSP's pole and only add 13 feet.
Cramer:
· Questioned Fischer on his initial intent and the referenced the statute in his letter to
staff. Fischer responded their intent is to allow telecommunication usage in the right-
of-way. The statute was adopted in 1998.
Open Discussion:
Criego:
· Do not create a pole much higher than the standard.
· The School has lights, why not utilize the School's facility rather than creating
another pole system higher than NSP's? The School could come to some agreement
with the applicant regarding cost.
r:\counci1\plancomm\minutes\mn IOl199.doc
3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 1 I. 1999
Stamson:
· Agreed. The ideal situation would be for U.S. West to put it on the light post at the
High School. It would be revenue for the School and it would not be added height to
any pole. However, the proposal is not unreasonable. They are adding 13 feet to an
existing pole, which is probably the shortest pole in the area. It is not in a residential
area. This pole is not going to stand out in the area as being unusual.
V onhof:
· Concurred with Criego. The City would prefer to see less towers by multiple uses.
· It would be more consistent to seek out alternatives.
Kuykendall:
· Questioned the Telecommunication Act. Fischer felt State Statute 337 permits their
usage in the right-of-way. Fischer also said they originally went to the City and did
not feel a Conditional Use was necessary. They are going through the process to
appease everyone. None of the other utilities go through a CUP process and are
allowed the height.
· Tovar said utilities are permitted in the right-of-way. The ordinance is very specific
on communication towers requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Instead of going
through the amendment process, U.S. West opted to go through the CUP process and
expedite.
· The proposed site is on a NSP pole.
Cramer:
Questioned who had authority for the decision, State or local government. A brief
discussion on utility poles and standards followed. Rye read the ordinance.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH STAFF'S THREE
CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Kuykendall, Cramer, Criego, Stamson. Nay by Vonhof.
MOTION CARRIED.
Tovar stated this matter will go before the City Council on November 1, 1999.
B. Case File #99-066 U.S. West Wireless Communications is requesting a
conditional use permit for the construction of a free standing monopole
communication tower located in the right-of-way.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated October 11, 1999, on file in the
office of the City Planner.
The applicant is proposing to construct a freestanding 8I-foot tall monopole within the
County right-of-way. This property is zoned A (Agricultural) and SD (Shoreland
District). Section 1110.600 of the City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for
r:\council\planconun\minutcs\rnn I 01 1 99.doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 1 I. 1999
towers not meeting required setbacks with respect to public roads. Section 1110.500
allows for the pole height not to exceed 112.5 feet.
Staff recommended continuation of this matter to allow the applicant time to submit
required documentation relating to co-location as required by Section 1110.1200.
Comments from the public:
Don Johnston, 3960 140th Street, said he owns the property where U.S. West is
proposing the tower. Johnston said he is not opposed to towers or any progress, his
concern is for property value. U.S. West has some what of a cavalier attitude. He came
home from vacation and found their testing equipment on their property with no approval
nor contact with them whatsoever. He feels U.S. West should know where the property
lines are between public and private property. There was no apology given for the trash
left on Johnston's property. Johnson questioned how the location was determined, was
his property the only one considered, and easements. Johnston stated the pole will be in
their front yard and feels U.S. West is taking advantage of the situation.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Cramer questioned Johnston on the existing U.S. West poles across County Road 42.
Johnston said U.S. West lines are underground.
Criego asked to see Johnston's home on the map. Johnston stated to avoid more poles he
paid the utility companies to bury the electric lines following the County Road 42
construction. He also pointed out the intersection of County Roads 42 and 21 are going
to be gateway areas. This pole is going to be less than attractive and very noticeable.
Johnston suggested moving it approximately 200 feet north or 400 west or some other
location less obtrusive. Johnston said it would even be better in among the trees.
Cramer questioned Fischer on the existing U.S. West pole on County Road 21 and why
that site was not considered. Fischer said there would be more space on County Road 42
for the equipment. The pole is on private property. Tovar explained the County has
tower and setback requirements. There is a larger right-of-way along County Road 42.
Cramer said he failed to see the point. He is not opposed to the pole, but opposed to the
fact there is an existing central location on U.S. West property. Adding another utility
box would be okay.
Kuykendall questioned the site criteria. Fischer said there were several, topography,
amount of signal and results from dry tests. Kuykendall also expressed concern for
impact on the public and traffic safety. Fischer responded they took all of those issues
into consideration.
Fischer apologized to the Johnstons for the U.S. West's oversight in using Johnston's
private property.
r:\council\planconun\minutes\nml01199.doc
5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 1/. /999
-
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
. Asked Fischer at a later times to identify the actual costs in going through this
process.
. Emphasize with the property owner but sees no other alternative. This is the only site
in the public right-of-way. The Telecommunications Act is in place. Shifting the
location a few feet will not make any difference.
. Support the recommendation.
Criego:
. Believed ~ere are alternative sites. Locating an 81 foot tower in an Rl District is
sinful on U.S. West's part. They should be more sensitive to the community. U.S.
West can find other sites. They may have to negotiate for land or pay for land.
. Do not put a tower in front of some one's home.
Cramer:
. There is an alternative site in the area which already has a large utility box. It has
power poles in the area similar to the area by the High School. U.S. West might have
to get additional easements from the County, but they are getting the benefit because
that location is a higher elevation. U.S. West already owns the property and does not
have to offend residents of the community.
. The alternative property is zoned commercial.
. U.S. West needs to look at an alternative location.
V onhof:
. Questioned staff on County setbacks from the roadway. Tovar said she did not know
the County's ordinance. Rye responded there are design considerations. They are
required to establish a safety zone along side the travel roadway. There are criteria
for that based on the design standards.
. Agreed with Criego and Cramer that there appear to be alternative locations.
Stamson:
. In reviewing the ordinance it appears the intent was to co-locate the poles. The site
meets all the applicable zoning regulation. It is the County's preferred location.
There is no alternative existing tower.
. It is not ideal to have a pole in front of a home. It is a disadvantage living on a
County Road.
. The intent of a right-of-way is for utilities. That is what the Communication Act is
about, it is a utility like anything else.
r:\council\planconun\minutes\mn 1 01199.doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
October II, 1999
Open Discussion:
Cramer:
· Main opposition is there are existing U.S. West poles with major utility box.
· lfthe utility companies do not share poles, there would be a separate set of poles for
every utility. Combine the utilities and poles and use the existing structures.
Stamson:
· There is not enough space in the existing easement to site the facility. The
surrounding property is in abatement which makes it difficult to purchase. The
ordinance requires they attempt to negotiate, not that they have to.
Cramer:
· Before approving, would like to see something that says this facility will not fit in the
alternative area.
Kuykendall:
· Should not be second guessing professional engineers. They are the experts. If they
say they studied the area and did a 33 page report and feel there is no alternative, the
Commissioners have no choice. Work with what is presented.
Cramer:
· This group is to take all the information and come up with a level of common sense.
· There are other locations for the pole. There is a resident with the possibility of
having an 81 foot tower in his front yard. If it was just the box, would not object.
But this is a tower. There are other areas in the right-of-way up and down County
Road 42.
· Object to this location.
Kuykendall:
· Requested someone from U.S. West to clarifY and convince the Commissioners this is
the only location.
· Steve Mangold, the Regional Real Estate Manager for U.S. West Wireless, 426 North
Fairview, S1. Paul, responded to the Commissioners' concerns. His main points
included:
· This is a County Road, with approval by the County for this site.
· It is in the right-of-way.
· The adjacent property is zoned that U.S. West could have a tower up to 113
feet. They are proposing a much lower tower.
· There is an existing high tension distribution line on the north side of the
right-of-way. It is the proper area for their structure.
· U.S. West is using the State Statutes as guidelines.
· It is good business sense for the community.
· U.S. West did not whimsically pick this location. This matter was studied.
· It is at a busy intersection. Not a residential area.
r:\council\plancomm\minutes\mn 101 199.doc
7
Planning Commis8ion Minutes
October J J. J 999
Scott Shuckelman, engineer with U.S. West, explained why this area was selected as the
best site.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO ADOPT THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS LISTED BY
STAFF IN THE PLANNING REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof. Nays by Criego and
Cramer. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on November I, 1999.
Kuykendall suggested U.S. West document the expense of the preparation for this action.
It is a hidden cost to the public and exceeds cost the public is not aware of.
C. Case File #99-079 Amendment to Zoning Ordinance relating to setback
requirements for residential driveways.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated October II, 1999, on file in the
office of the City Planner.
The Planning Commission considered this ordinance amendment at a public hearing on
August 9, 1999, and recommended approval of the ordinance. The City Council also
reviewed the ordinance on September 9, 1999. The Council was concerned the criteria
established by this ordinance was not specific enough and would result in inconsistent
decisions, and referred the issue back to the staff to determine if more specific criteria
could be developed.
The proposed amendment is the same language previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission. Following the Council's directive, the staff discussed the proposed criteria
extensively. The staffwas unable to formulate any additional criteria.
Rye explained why this issue was brought back with the Duluth Avenue street project.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Comfortable with the wording. It is consistent with other areas of the ordinance.
. Support.
Criego, Cramer, Vonhof and Kuykendall.
. Agreed.
r:\counci1\planconun\minutes\nm I 0 I I 99.doc
8
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
OC-tD \ae,ft- I \ \ I o,Cfl
The Planning Commission selcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who
choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once, you allow everyone else to speak
before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to clairi5cat~Qn or
new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input
on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further tesitmony or comment will
not be possible except under rare conditions. The City Council will not hear
additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you.
ATTENDANCE- PLEASE PRINT
NAME
I p.s -Sb A../A,I /f h t>.N d
I ADDRESS
I t3~x ::)'1. 9 (~L
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PHLlST.DOC
PAOE 1
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JANUARY 3, 2000
9A
SUESAN LEA PACE, CITY ATTORNEY
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE OO-XX IMPOSING
AN I80-DAY MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR COMMUNICATION
FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
At the November 1, 1999 meeting, the City Council considered an
application by U.S. West for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
communications tower within the right-of-way of CSAH 42 at the
northeastern intersection of CR 21. Attached as Exhibit A to this
Agenda Report is Agenda No. 9A, from City Council's November 1,
1999 meeting. Also attached are copies of the Minutes from that
meeting approved at the City Council's November 15, 1999 meeting.
Agenda Report 9A from the November 1, 1999 meeting fully
addresses the issue of why U.S. West was required to apply for a
Conditional Use Pennit. The Planning Commission, consistent with
the staff's recommendation, recommended that the City Council
approve U.S. West's application for a Conditional Use Permit because
the application met the Conditional Use Permit criteria set out in Prior
Lake City Code Section 1108 and the City's Communications Tower
Ordinance set out in City Code Section 1110.
The City Council's action on a Conditional Use Permit is
"quasi-judicial." Quasi-judicial decisions are those where the City
Council is applying its ordinances to a specific fact situation. Under
Minnesota law, a Conditional Use Permit must be granted if the
applicant meets the specified standards in the zoning ordinance. ~
v. Township ofGro~, 206 N.W.2d 19,22 (1973).
At the November 1, 1999 meeting, a citizen addressed the Council
concerning his opposition to the approval of U.S. West's application
for a Conditional Use Permit to install a monopole in the right-of-way.
The opponent alleged that the construction of the monopole would
create a degradation of aesthetic and property values, commented on
the inadequacy of the chosen site and opined that the use is contrary to
the i111faJ1. of Minnesota law. This speaker addressed the visions of the
162~Ol.a~le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
1.\9 tiles 99cup\morator.doc AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page 1
Telecommunications Act of 1996, and Minn. Stat. ~ 237.162, which
deals in relevant part with "telecommunications right-of-way users."
Prior to bringing U.S. West's applications for a Conditional Use
Permit to the City Council, we spent a considerable amount of time
with City staff discussing the extent to which the City can properly
"manage the public right-of-way" concerning "telecommunications
right-of-way users." We also met with representatives from U.S. West
to gain their perspective. Attached to this Agenda Report as Exhibit B
is a copy of Minn. Stat. ~ 237.162.
There are three basic principles courts apply to the interpretation of
zoning ordinances and [statutes]. First, the terms are construed
according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Second, ordinances are
construed strictly against the City and in favor of the property owner
[in this case U.S. West as the applicant for the Conditional Use
Permit]. Third, ordinances must be considered in light of their
underlying policy goals. These principles are articulated clearly in two
Minnesota cases: Frank's NurseI:y Sales. Inc. v. City ofRoseville, 295
N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 1980), and Medical Services~ Inc. v. City of
Savage, 487 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. App. 1992).
We did a great deal of legal analysis before we brought U.S. West's
applications for Conditional Use Permits to the City Council.
LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City's ability to regulate telecommunications facilities is regulated
by the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Although the Act
does not altogether preempt local zoning authority, the Act is intended
to protect and facilitate the build-out of various telecommunications
services, wireless services; e.g., cellular telephone, paging, personal
communication systems, ricochet internet service providers, etc.; and
telephone line, coaxial cable or fiber optic cable.
In addition to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Minnesota
legislature has enacted a law dealing with local governments'
regulation of the public right-of-way and telecommunications
right-of-way users.
ISSUES:
In my judgment, both the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Minn.
Stat. ~ 237.162 define and limit the City of Prior Lake's ability to
regulate the telecommunications industry in general and specifically
the use ofthe right-of-way by telecommunications right-of-way users.
In order for the City Council and City staff to assure that its zoning
ordinances are not inconsistent with the Telecommunications Act of
1996 and Minn. Stat. ~ 237.162, a moratorium on telecommunications
facilities may be appropriate to allow the City time to study the issues
and evaluate the City's current zoning ordinances.
1:\99files\99cup\morator.doc
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES:
REVIEWED BY:
1:\99fi1es\99cup\morator.doc
Few courts have considered the propriety of moratoria on
telecommunication providers. Courts that have considered the issue
have evaluated the length and purpose of the moratorium. Although
the State of Minnesota allows general zoning "moratorium," the
Telecommunications Act requires that municipalities evaluate
applications for telecommunications towers within a "reasonable
period of time after the request is duly filed." In addition, under
Minnesota law the City is required to act on zoning related matters
within 60 days from the time a complete application is filed (with an
allowable extension of an additional 60 days).
In August 1998, the Federal Communications Commission announced
an agreement between the Commission's local and state government
advisory committee, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry
Association, the Personal Communications Industry and the American
Mobile Telecommunications Association that determined that 180
days, in most cases, was a reasonable amount of time to evaluate a
proposal to site a facility. However, under Minnesota's 60-day rule,
U.S. West's Application for a Conditional Use Permit must be
approved or denied by January 13, 2000. Failure to act on their
Conditional Use Permit applications will result in the applications to
be "deemed approved."
Minn. Stat. ~ 237.162 probably prohibits the City from requiring a
telecommunications provider to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for
the installation of a facility in the right-of-way; however, a local
government unit may "manage its public rights-of-way and [sic]
recover its right-of-way management costs." Minn. Stat. ~ 237.163,
Subd. 2.
Because of the potential conflicts between federal and state laws and
the City's zoning ordinances, the City should adopt a moratorium to
evaluate the treatment of telecommunications facilities as a land use
and reconcile city zoning ordinances to federal and state laws.
Atta~hed is a moratorium ordinance for your consideration.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Approve the attached moratorium ordinance;
2. Deny the attached moratorium ordinance; and
3. If the City Council elects not to adopt the moratorium, the City
Council should approve or deny U.S. West's Application for a
Conditional Use Permit as set out in the attached staff report from
~ember 1./[ City Council meeting.
ity anager
Page 3
,
+
ORDINANCE OO-XX
INTERIM ORDINANCE
REGARDING THE INSTALLATION AND LOCATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
the United States Congress adopted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to
protect and promote the deployment and delivery of telecommunications
services and to prohibit barriers affecting competition in the delivery of
telecommunications services; and
Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "Act") preserves the
authority of state and local governments over decisions regarding the
placement, construction, and modification of "personal wireless service
facilities" so long as local governments do not "unreasonably discriminate"
among providers of functionally equivalent services and do not adopt
requirements that "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting" the provision of
personal wireless services; and
the Minnesota legislature adopted Minn. Stat. ~ 237.162 which deals generally
with the right of local governments to regulate "telecommunications
right-of-way users"; and
provisions in the City's zoning ordinance requmng telecommunications
providers in certain instances to obtain Conditional Use Permits for facilities
located within a public right-of-way may be inconsistent with Minn. Stat.
~ 237.162; and
the Prior Lake City Council has adopted Section 1110 of the Prior Lake City
Code regulating Communication Towers and Antennas in order to protect the
public health, safety and general welfare of the community; and
Section 1110.503 allows the City Council to permit the height of a
communication tower or antenna to exceed the maximum permitted height
subject to approval of a conditional use permit if the applicant can
demonstrate that, by a combination of antenna design, positioning the
structure and/or by screening, the off-site views of the antenna from adjacent
properties are minimized; and
Section 1110.600 (4) states upon approval of a conditional use permit by the
City Council, a tower's setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a
public street varied to allow integration of a tower into an existing structure
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
1:\99fi1es\99cup\moraord.doc AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page 1
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
....
such as a church steeple, light pole, power line support device or similar
structure.
Minn. Stat. ~ 462.355, Subd. 4, provides in relevant part:
"If a municipality is conducting studies or has
authorized a study.to be conducted or has held or has
scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering
adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or
official control as defined in Section 462.352, Subd. 15,
. . . the governing body of the municipality may adopt
an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its
jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning
process and the health, safety and welfare of its
citizens."
the City of Prior Lake requires a reasonable amount of time to conduct studies
and evaluate the legal parameters under which it may regulate
telecommunication providers and to thereafter consider new zoning controls
or amendments to the existing zoning controls in its City Code; and
the City Council of the City of Prior Lake recognizes that Section 704 of the
1996 Act states that local authorities are required to act upon an application
for a facility site within a reasonable period of time; and
the Federal Communications Commission on September 17, 1996 issued Fact
Sheet No.2 titled "National Wireless Facility Siting Policies"; and
Fact Sheet No.2 on page 10 states in relevant part:
"In certain instances, state and local governments may
benefit from a brief, finite period of consideration in
order to set up a process for the orderly handling of
facility's siting requests. These brief periods of
consideration may be most effective if the state or local
government communicates clearly to wireless service
providers a specific duration of the moratorium, the
tasks that the local government entity intends to
accomplish during the moratorium, and the ways in
which the wireless service providers can help the local
government to achieve the stated goals of the
moratorium by, for example, providing additional
information about their needs and about their services."
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
I :\99files\99cup\rnoraord.doc
Page 2
1. A 120-day moratorium is hereby imposed on the installation of any
telecommunication facility in the public right-of-way.
2. This moratorium applies to all "telecommunications right-of-way users" as defined
in Minn. Stat. ~ 237.162, Subd. 4.
3. The City Staff and City Attorney are hereby directed to analyze and reconcile the
provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Minn. Stat. ~ 237.162, and the
City zoning ordinances as they relate to entities subject to the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 and telecommunication right-of-way users.
4. The City Staff and City Attorney shall meet with and seek input from
telecommunication providers regarding how to manage the public right-of-way as
permitted by Minn. Stat. ~ 237.162.
5. The City Staff and City Attorney shall develop recommendations pursuant to the
above-referenced study and meetings and provide said recommendations regarding
amendments to the City zoning ordinance to the City Council.
6. The City Council shall consider the recommendations of the City Staff and City
Attorney and if appropriate refer proposed amendments to the City's zoning
ordinances to the Planning Commission for their consideration and
recommendation.
7. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council ofthe City of Prior Lake this 3rd day of January, 2000.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the 8th day of January, 2000.
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
1:\99files\99cup\moraord.doc
Page 3
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
NOVEMBER 1, 1999
9A
JENNITOVAE4PLANNER
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 99-XX
APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
COMMUNICATION TOWER LOCATED WITIDN THE CSAH
42 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Historv:
us West has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
communication tower within the right-of-way of CSAH 42 at the
northeast intersection of CR 21. The property is zoned A
(Agricultural). The County is seeking approval from the City prior to
issuing any permits to the applicant.
The subject site consists of approximately 286 square feet within the
C.R. 42 right-of-way. The proposed monopole height is 81 feet and it
is located approximately 49 feet from the centerline of the traveled
roadway. There is a proposed utility box located on the ground, within
the right-of-way. The box is located within the leased tract and is 3~
feet high, approximately 4 feet by 4 feet square.
CurrentCucumsMnces:
On October 11, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
and recommended the City Council approve the Conditional Use
Permit with conditions. A copy of the draft minutes of the meeting is
attached to this report.
The Issues:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit should be reviewed in
accordance with the criteria found in Section 1108 of the City Code
and Section 1110. Section 1110 is the Communications Tower
ordinance. The criteria are discussed on the following pages.
f:\de.pt\planning\99fi1es\99cup\99-066\99-066cc.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
, "
City Code 1110.500 Height Restrictions allows for a maximum
height of 112.5 feet and that no tower be in excess height equal to the
distance from the base of the antenna to the nearest overhead electrical
power line. The proposed pole height of 81 feet meets this.
City Code 1110.600 Setbacks allows for a tower's setback to be
reduced or its location in relation to a public street varied to allow the
integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as a
church steeple, power line support device, or similar structure upon
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
City Code 111 0.1200 Co-location requires the applicant for a tower
permit to provide documentation related to co-location. Attached is a
letter dated October 7, 1999 from US West related to co-location.
Basically, the applicant states there are no other possible structures
within their search ring. The tower located on the Jeffer's property to
the west is insufficient structurally to support US West's equipment.
Section 1108.200 of the City Code sets forth the criteria for approval
of a CUP. These criteria and the staff analysis of compliance with
these criteria are set forth below;
1. The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use preserves the objectives of the existing ordinances.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the adjacent property as C-BO
(Commercial Business Office Park) and R-HD (Residential High
Density). The proposed use is consistent with an objective to
"maintain orderly development of and access to utilities."
2. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals
and general welfare of the community as a whole.
The proposed communication tower will not be detrimental to health,
safety, morals and general welfare of the community as a whole.
3. The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Use District in which the Conditional Use is
located.
The proposed communication tower use is consistent with the A
(Agricultural) zoning district. The proposed setback requires a
conditional use permit in this zoning district.
f:\dept\planning\99fi1es\99cup\99-066\99-066cc.doc Page 2
"
4. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental
facilities, services, or improvements which are either existing
or proposed.
The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on
governmental facilities, services, or improvements. The roadway is
within the fall zone of the tower and would be temporarily blocked if
the tower should fall to the south.
5. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and
enjoyment of properties in close proximity to the conditional
use.
The proposed monopole will not have undue adverse impacts on the
use and enjoyment of properties in close proximity. The pole is
similar to other structures within the right-of-way such as power poles.
The pole is located approximately 375 feet from the nearest house.
The owner of the property, Don Johnston, objects to the pole being
located in the right-of-way in front of his house. The Planning
Commission empathized with the property owner, but recognized the
pole to be within the right-of-way where other utility poles exist and
where the proposed use is appropriate. If the pole were to fall to the
north, the county has a 50 foot wide unobstructed utility easement to
minimize the impact on private property.
6. The use is subject to the design and other requirements of site
and landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a
professional landscape architect, or civil engineer registered in
the State of Minnesota, approved by the City Council and
incorporated as part of the conditions imposed on the use by
the City Council.
The landscape ordinance does not apply to this, as it is located within
the right-of-way. From a maintenance point of view, additional
landscaping is not desired within the right-of-way and this utility
service must be treated the same as others such as the telephone
company or electrical company where utility boxes are not required to
be screened.
7. The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared by a
professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota
which illustrate locations of city water, city sewer, fire
hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and cable lines, natural
gas mains, and other service facilities. The plans shall be
included as part of the conditions set forth in the Conditional
Use Permit approved by the City Council.
f:\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-066\99-066cc.doc Page 3
. "
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
Plans prepared by a registered civil engineer have been submitted.
They will be reviewed as a part of the building permit application.
The engineering staffhas reviewed the plans submitted.
8. The use is subject to such other additional conditions which the
City Council may find necessary to protect the general welfare,
public safety and neighborhood character. Such additional
conditions may be imposed in those situations where the other
dimensional standards, performance standards, conditions or
requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to achieve the
objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these
circumstances, the City Council may impose restrictions and
conditions on the Conditional Use Permit which are more
stringent than those set forth in the Ordinance and which are
consistent with the general conditions above. The additional
conditions shall be set forth in the Conditional Use Permit
approved by the City Council.
According to Brian Sorenson, Scott County Transportation Engineer,
the proposed pole location meets the county's clear zone requirements
and will more than likely not be located within any future CR 21 right-
of-way. The right-of-way and design for the extension ofCR 21 has
yet to be completed, but the pole is clearly located within the CSAH
42 right -of-way. No additional conditions are recommended for the
proposed use other than those listed below.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission concurred with staff and
concluded the proposed tower is consistent with the Conditional Use
Permit criteria and Communication Tower Ordinance. The Planning
Commission felt the use is consistent with other utility poles in the
area and is a reasonable use within the right-of-way and. the co-
location requirement has been met. The Planning Commission
recommends approval of this request with the following conditions:
1. The utility equipment box must be located as far from the curb as
possible, but within the right-ol-way and leased tract.
2. A building permit is required.
3. A County permit is required. Provide the City with a copy of the
County permit prior to commencing construction.
Budeet ImDact: The construction of the towers will have no fiscal
impact on the City.
The City Council has three alternatives:
f:\dept\planning\99fi1es\99cup\99-066\99-066cc.doc Page 4
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
1. Adopt Resolution #99-XX approving the Conditional Use Permit
for US West subject to the listed conditions.
2. Deny the Conditional Use Permit on the basis they are inconsistent
with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and/or the
Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the Council should direct the
staff to prepare a resolution with fmdings of fact for the denial of
these requests,
3, Defer consideration of this item for specific reasons.
Staff recommends alternative #1.
1. A motion and second to approve Resolution 99-XX approving the
Conditional Use P. 't, subject to the listed conditions.
Frank
f:\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-066\99-066cc.doc Page 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION 99-XX
APPROVING A CO~l)ITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A COMMUNICATIONS
TOWER WITHIN THE CSAH 42 RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR US WEST, INC.
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October
11, 1999, to consider an application from US West Inc. for a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for an 81 foot tall communications tower and the City Council
heard the case on November 1, 1999; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on said CUP has been duly published m
accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this
issue and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their
views and objections related to the CUP for US West; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council find the CUP for a
Communication Tower located within the CSAH 42 right-of-way for US
West in harmony with existing development in the area surrounding the
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council find the proposed CUP is
compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as
they relate to conditionally permitted uses, and further, that the proposed
CUP meets the criteria for approval of CUP as contained in Section 1108 and
Section 1110 Communication Towers of the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
that it hereby adopts the following fmdings:
FINDINGS
1. The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
community as a whole.
f:\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-066\cupr_scc.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
3. The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Use
District in which the Conditional Use is located.
4. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services, or
improvements which are either existing or proposed.
5. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in
close proximity to the conditional use.
6. The use is compatible with the general welfare, public safety and neighborhood
character.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
approves the CUP for US West, Inc on the property legally described as follows:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 115 North, Range 22 West of the Fifth
Principal Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Section 22, thence South 89 degrees 10 minutes 17
seconds West along the south line of said Section 22, a distance of 59.46 feet; thence North 00
degrees 49 minutes 43 seconds West a distance of 61.83 feet to the point of beginning of the land
to be described; thence South 89 degrees 10 minutes 17 second West a distance of 21.83 feet;
thence North 00 degrees 49 minutes 43 seconds West a distance of 13.17 feet; thence North 89
degrees 10 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 21.83 feet; thence South 00 degrees 49
minutes 43 seconds East a distance of 13.17 feet to said point of beginning.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, approval of the CUP, as shown in Exhibit A and on Sheet Z-3,
is subject to the following conditions:
1. The utility equipment box must be located as far from the curb as possible, but
within the right-of-way and leased tract.
2. A building permit is required.
3. A County permit is required. Provide the City with a copy of the County
permit prior to commencing construction.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use
Permit for US West. The contents of Planning Case File #99-066 are hereby entered into and
made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
Passed and adopted this 1st day of November, 1999.
f:\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-066\cuprscc.doc
Page 2
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
{Seal}
f:\dept\planning\99fi1es\99cup\99-066\cuprscc.doc
YES
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
NO
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
Page 3
-I~
-<(
<(0
t-VI
WO
Oz
'o::t<
0>5
C\ltl
z
z
d ~.
Z~
~
. Ir
Z~
-11.
::E
EXHIBIT A
I
'"
"!
N
....
....
b
r
~
z
I
,
",
~ """ .
N ....,
~ I
t: oj
~ ~
'" D..
ljl
------------1
,
,
,
I
I
,
,
I
I
,
,
I
,
8 ': ~
63.1_ i
:! '0 I
! 0 I I
\ 11':
~ . I
: : I ~
,
i I :i
I
! U
_______________:J" '1 / I
L ___.
..' I'
,,/ .'1
/1 1*1':
_, ~,/ I~__K~ ~IB
~N liB l~
t !~ .,~~
\ Q ~' 11 -/,1 ~zlii
~ : IA . ",
o : t___ y '__.
it!]1 nJl~il:
:I.: / It! ) "~I:
; ~! ,l._____ Ii iI':
jJ,>~ \/ .' ~\
,'I U)( ~-~I I"
l /.~ '1;.~ Ib
/f'! " ~-r - [. :1...____ _~
'I < j \ \. \-pt:r
',,- '\':"'-rl,
.-, .. --":':';":-:-~Il~ 1'1 t
----- ~~ \\ - )a
'l!~~ ,3
i!!..... .
... 'i!! Ib
ad~ B
~G.1-
l
r--------------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
l_________
I~~
f
'.- L~'n .'
MSt,6t.OON
g
;.
~"
,~
,
-'
c'
c'
, )
'\.j)
'.
'.
E ~ ~
z
1::>
.... ...
.J
r---T <S I
VI ~
~li
,,~
!i;
~1lI:
l""
.
,
.
~
.,;
It)
C\l
~
g
u.
I ~"
(;
I i
g~
i~
d
z
:t:
~
CI.!
o
I
i
....
...::
,," ,
.~...
~j5~~
e~lllo! ,
L_..._.._..~
Z
o
i=
a.
a:
o
(J)
W
o
~
I-
W
CJ)
L5
-I
o
W
CJ)
o
a.
o
0::
a.
:5
I-
0..
z..
~
~,g
~.E
.g. (I)
.1::0
..
C-o
~ 4)
0.<>
t- 0':
o
. III
N"
N-o
c .
o c
.- 0
.....-
0-0
~.~
...:::;:
0_
I- 0
G) .9-
....0
I.. C
g.c:
00..
.....1::
......
0....
"G:
:5"
=>.1::
0-
VI....
4)0
.1::....
....11I
o~
~l5 ..,
.1:::;J"',,-a"" :2
.... ~""'.1:: CillO 0
5(/)0):8~oocn
Ul-o.!o:~-;2
4)'o=>OI -:I=>
o 1Il,S Cf'o. E 4) 00;
ii,-E"c"- ~(Jl~
.1:: 0 C Ill!:'.! " "
.... Ol'c.4)~-oor--
"~.4.\~" ij-:
~= :I~.I: ~~:5~
.1::Cl EOI ....
a:; 5-otJ Ct ~ U 0
'-0"1:0-00,,
() co "Q .~ - 0 z ~ 8
4) "04) C
VI~8"s 0"'0
'O+' .c.....:;~~~
"6 0':5: 2' 5 :5 N :s
~ l5 a....-oz...... 0 <(
ooZ....O) 0"4) 0.... l.&.J
4)~COgtJQ)rn ~
~ig-:5o-g~
E;:t4)I"'):SZ"""Orn r-
o .1:: IX) 0 r:Iii-o ~
o ........:VI~..,:o C ll::
_-0 ,.cD Cl Cl~ 0 I-'
~50;....0.!00~ w
~~.!Oi,..,4)_fI) (I)
..,rnCO~~ClJCJ~1") -<
5t---'V c ....: eLaJ'V ~
"'-oi Oi:i'~..... en VI
I) O)ltl";i o....!!-o 4) 0. LaJ
.1:: "....:o.e 0-0 5~,!: i!:
....:;OolJ4)OO,SC l1.
c.l:" :lg....ZlE.~ 0
Eglii-o.3:1 OlCl <(
01 O""";tf'o....,..<>
.E~-;;~..o:a - 't- ~
o --1ft lJenOJo-<
;:J-O"020~.!~.....
E ~ 0 l5 -0 Iii 8 ~ 6.,1:
~ ~N ~ 6~ Zl'e,g 8-
O-oN.._ .
....N
eN
0.4)
_01
o C
~~
>.
'3
'0
o
E
o
d
o
:I
c
c
~
o
:s
'0
c
o
c
o
Oi
~
v
a.
:3
"
Ci)
N
o
N
,;
..
.3
..
o
'C
Q,
(J) N
Z d
o z
~ ~
Q j
Z '0
:::> Ii
~ ~
~ ,;
o z
o g
~ ~
UJ ~
;: <'3
CJ)
::>
):,
'0_ .0
eo 0'1
0" '"
ft-t ~
a- ..:
.. ..
".., .0
~::g: i
g.-8 ~ i
E 5 ~fI)
.!!~::q;
:S ve; >.
C ~ ~.g
:S1Il~:5
..Z-~:5:!:
5~.31X).!!!
~u1l~~
o ~i-'O
U:il~-o:
Q. FI..,_..>
o f5~~o.
Ir U_IrOO::
.-;
w
W
l1.
W
ll::
<(
::l
o
VI
g
,..:
IX)
N
!!?
III
I!!
o
z
0<(
~....~
~g...
g~i
<(
~ui'N'
~~lO
~~~
"'s
"'z
-z
;!:5
~
It)
Wi
N
(j
Z
-
~
<(
3=(J)
00::
Zo
odru
0>
-10:
W:::>
_(J)
U.
z
<(
C!)
W
0=
~
.....
C"
=-0
.co>
'500
~:5
.."
:sell
'"
~
"
"
"
;S
...
o
go
'0'"
.. C
,,'l:
00
.ov
.0
"
-0
~
e
&.
~
a.
:S
..
.s
! ~ 1:
~.., ii
:2 'E
-El~ ~
~~~ ~
-:=.a ;
~ 0 ~ ..
-.!! 0 ~
0-5: :e.
~i~ ~
- v
.s~: "
j c] "0
a:8e j'
~~~ ~
,.:
N
co It)
I ...
8 ;f
~ 0
.<:~~
:{;;;/
'\~~
~~
;.i
,
.
o
.
--I
.
.--1
~
~
II
~
x ~
W Vl W W
Cl.. 3:
0 w 0... -1
Z w 5 ~ 0
r-
Vi 0...
~ r-
t') t;j z 0 z z Z -1
Z ~ 0 w
w :S w ~ t') ~
~ :r: 0 f=
Vl ~ Cl.. a:: ~ Cl.. (f)
<( z :S 5 w
IY w w 0 2
.J U r- Z .J W 0
0 t: 5 Vi w w
r-
n v lO"lQ
N I I I . L ,
I I N N N ,N
N N
.
o
:::e
o
o
0::
W
::J
.Z
Uw z
-I~ w
-I .J
'~(!;NN~
tI1GJ__~~
:n~:gg$
o
C\I~
f'..(j)
Cf)C\I
L01
LO~
I-<(~
CJ) WI-..
CJ) WOW
W CI:(J)t:
r-Wcn
--I . (f) Z
W~:CZI-
Q;q~~b
> a: ""'" W~ 0
> -r-~(j)
..- g::i~
CJ) ~a:1-
W .Z
> O:J
> ceo
CJ) a.. 0
::::>
:::e
o
o
0::
W
::J z
.Z 0
~~ In
-I z
ui~ ~ :! ~ a
:i :n~:gg$:
~ GJ~zr!,r!, ~
0:: :::e"<t"<to
, '
:.:i':
. .
.i'
..
'.
,.
~
'; ~
'1'-
h,
o
J(JIpfI1JlH
~z A 'fMHDIH
~
W
~
(J)
w
9
~
'n~ 'l813
d
'Y~
I
1
j
I
1
'"1}'
~. : !
: ;.~
"!"
. :~.
:: :
'"I'.
", ~
o V 0 II
UJ
...J
~ 0
~ ~
~ ~::IO
201
N
,..
i
:r
~
b
~
5l
b
~
o
I
o
l!1
"
".
W I
II.. !!l ~
S~~7 ~ ~
.' f -,~ El I [',
8 r ~I j J
!! ill I ! !
~ I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
-J
~
(t'
t:l
N
I")
(()
...J
o
~
Z
o
U
X U
~o Za
lL..ro 0<(
~L fE:-,
~ ----bCJJ
o
II ^ VMHnlH
W
tr
o
:r:
~*
~
w
VI
o
VI
tr
W
:::!
<.:ll~
zlL..
r=VI
~I~
Xtr
-...Jo W ~
~ ~ro
~~
~z
~I I
VlO
:Jw
~
w
W
tr
~
VI
:r:
~
o
v
f
f
I
1
I
I
I
I
\
l
o
o
~
z
w
:::!
w
VI
L5
~
::i
i=
:J
<.:l
Z
i=
VI
X
w
~
~~
~5 I
3= a.
VI...J
:J~
:::! I
N
V
>-
~
:r:
<.:l
I
Z
<.:l
+ Vi
z
<(
6
w
~
~
W
tr
U
Z
o
u
z =
:5'j'
0..-
~
W II
...-=
ifjtD
0'-....
W
t:>
o::w
:5<t
ZU
W(f)
o
I
o
lO
,J , ~ I
, !II
" ';~ . II ~
" . 101 l('
;H ~
I ~ I
[ II I ,,:
'.- ,". .. g 'I i
," I i i
, Ii
" ,', ;;;;;;;;;J
. <J<J
~.' ~ lIO-,l=1I9/l :3lVJS
, 0
. :.
HlnOS ONf>iOOl N011V^3l3
, -- -""""'l
,9l ,9 ,0
lNJndll10]
.ISlM sn
o
o
V>/N]_
Sol'
",
]10. lYll"
lSlM sn
.0-.8L
o
o
o
,-
OOY ONINlwon .o-.z
..
.
i
I
!
i
I
\
i
\
l
r
I
,
""
.,.j
',;'t
I
~
II
II ~!
I ~hl r
It I
w
V)
<(
rn
w
I-
W
0::
U
Z
o
U
o
Ux
...Jo
~CD
DO
I
I')
-
U
I-
U
w
Z
Z
o
U
Vl
6
~
5
C-
o
I-
r
J
II
II ~
/I 5
I-
/I ~
0::
II l>-
/I
II
o
.....
,
I')
L
.
n
II
II ==
/I 5
II ~
w
II
II
u, '
i:1 ~
~i ~ ~
!
&
'/I'';;\> f '
'(0 I '.
:~'ro;I,O 0
'~ I
I ~ ;,
J.'l:l j'
! , I
..,.
N
a
o
(f)/
3:-
!=!"
>=
I-N
Z"
w'-
~ .,
Q..W
- -'
::J<(
au
W(f)
,i
I
"
LlJ.1VEST@
Advanced PCS™
i. jJ
Min294
81' AGL
...--.......1
PRIVATE
Not for disclosure outside ofU S WEST Wireless, L.L.C.
Do not distribute or reproduce without permission from U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C.
;.--
t ....~ . iJ. _~;I
.~..
USWEST Wireless L..LC~
US West Wireless L.L.C.
426 North Fairview Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104
FAX: 651-642-6942
October 7,1999
Jane A, Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: MIN294 Monopole in Right of Way near Intersection ofHwy 21& Hwy 42
Prior Lake Planning Commission:
US WEST Wireless is proposing to build a communications pole in the right of way near the intersection ofHwy
21& Hwy 42. This letter is intended to address your concerns as defined in the Prior Lake zoning code section
1110.1200.
The coverage area includes Highway 42 and Highway 21, as well as the surrounding commer,cia! and residential
area within 1.5 miles. The area is in a valley where the elevation varies between roughly 870 feet and 970 feet
AMSL. US WEST Wireless does not currently provide service in this area.
The proposed pole is located near the intersection of Hwy 21 & Hwy 42 at a ground elevation of 869 feet AMSL
and a height of 81 feet. This places the antennas at about 950 feet AMSL. A drive test confirmed that mounting
our antennas at this elevation in the proposed location would meet our coverage objectives.
Since the tower height is more than 80 feet tall, Prior Lake's zoning code section 1110.1200 part I requires us to
consider collocation options within 1/2 mile of the proposed pole. The only structure that may be capable of
meeting our RF objectives is an 80 foot guyed tower near the dog pound. Unfortunately, the tower's owner
passed away and his estate is in abatement. Since it is unlikely that the tower could support the weight of our
antennas and cables, and the future of the tower is in question,we chose to pursue a monopole in the right of way.
I!l,accordance with Prior Lake's zoning code section 1110.1200 part 3 the proposed pole would be built to
accommodate comparable antennas for at least I additional user.
Respectfully,
~~/~~
Scott G. Schecklman
RF Engineer
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Registere rofessional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
10 J g /94
Registration No: 15408
~-:=:;'-7"~
~ r= n. \\., . .', "
- .......
1-. .:-..: ~ \ '2. J '.:..i ,-- i:.
\\\\\\LS~;,:\ \'j',
\ V'\ . l;\\i\
.~~~.
Date:
Fr':
I '
,
!
i
MIN29~ (1/2 mile search radius)
m
WES
o
z
o
1,0 1998 DeLonne. Street Atlas USA
Mag 15.00
Fri Oct 08 10:04 1999
Scale 1:15,625 (at center)
! 1000 Feet
500 Meters
LNW
Guyed Tower
.
------ Local Road
- Major Connector
i!.t! Point of Interest
Water
Proposed Site
*
E
. E
I
I
to I
'C !
c
NE
~~
-l
Z
m
z
rn
o
(/l
";>
..;
~
z
en .-, f""'. r7 ~ :'~ II <> :
_ ~;:: r;::::' r=: \ \ \V I \5;J .; \, . ~
\\i':\~\\ \.~\
\~~ Gel \ \ SS9 \~\
. US West CSAH 42 Proposed rv1onopole
Location Map
-
. .
.
.
.
.-
~~
.
!
.
. .
.
I'
~
il'i
~
..
. ~
... .
Site Location
,
-
-
~
z
~
.
. ~
g
l40TH ST. N.E
..
.-
, -..
~ . -.
'# ~ JIr.
~
~ .
.
o
I
400
800 Feet
I
~
N
Planning Commission Minutes
October //, /999
Stamson:
. Agreed. The ideal situation would be for U.S. West to put it on the light post at the
High School. It would be revenue for the School and it would not be added height to
any pole. However, the proposal is not unreasonable. They are adding 13 feet to an
existing pole, which is probably the shortest pole in the area. It is not in a residential
area. This pole is not going to stand out in the area as being unusual.
V onhof:
. Concurred with Criego. The City would prefer to see less towers,;9Y)IH~1tiple uses.
. It would be more consistent to seek out aItematives.""':'t.:fl";~;~;J~~,,
.;:~!~:~~ 'i';tt~~~~I~.
Kuykendall';"'h;.:,;/;ll?Jt"(',:]';,. ,.
. Questioned the Telecommunication Act. Fischer feIt,Stifte Statute 337 permits.'tlleif"
,.,., . ...."pr
usage in the right-of-way. Fischer also said they originally w~nt to the City andiiid
not feel a Conditional Use was necessary. They.ate'go~ng thrl?~gI; the process t~
appease everyone. None ofthe other utilities go through a ptw process and are
allowed the height.:S~IE:~h,
. Tovar said utilities are permitted in the}jght-of-way. The'6td.pance is very specific
on communication towers requiring a"Gbitditional Use Perrni.t~Iii'g(ead of going
""'\.""":";":'>~"" 'v'"
through the amendment process, U.S. "N.:~st opte~t~tgo througH the CUP process and
..,"\ y-;jl~'i:;;Bi'
expedite. ~~i\ . ,,,,,'iJ' ""V?
. The proposed site is on a~~~T:P~le. ""~~r-;r il
cramer:,..j7,#$;;~+/\'~1~;~~, ,,.
Questioned who had authority for the decision, State' or local government. A brief
. ;'-,;;,,,_-,;,-~:-,,:,:""";:__'f' ,'/
discussion on utility'-'pole~f'~d stanalitdsJollmyyo. Rye read the ordinance.
. -:';'~~,,1K~<> 'L~;r-"""';'" V~;!.;~\~:..,.~\~;t{~~j;~:;;:)i'
>'."'.','!,,
MOTION BY.~vYJ(.ENDALL;\~ECOND BY CRAMER, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCILfAPPROYE.IHE CONDI1JONAL USE PERMIT WITH STAFF'S THREE
COND~TIONS. ''i';';\ . -;o'
::.;~>;;~
'i;:..::3
Vote taken indicated ayes by Kuykendall, Cramer, Criego, Stamson. Nay by Vonhof.
MOTION CARRIED.
Tovar stated this matter will go before the City Council on November 1, 1999.
ry
B. Case File #99-066 U.S. West Wireless Communications is requesting a
conditional use permit for the construction of a free standing monopole
communication tower located in the right-of-way.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated October 11, 1999, on file in the
office of the City Planner.
1:\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mnlOI199.doc
5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 1/. 1999
The applicant is proposing to construct a freestanding 81-foot tall monopole within the
County right-of-way. This property is zoned A (Agricultural) and SD (Shoreland
District). Section 1110.600 of the City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for
towers not meeting required setbacks with respect to public roads. Section 1110.500
allows for the pole height not to exceed 112.5 feet.
Staff recommended continuation of this matter to allow the applicant time to"1submit
',--......':'I'.~"': '.-'-
required documentation relating to co-location as required by Section 11l0:1200~'
Comments from the pnblic: . it,;V~},~~~,>.
Don Johnston, 3960 140th Street, said he owns the property~J:i~~~~p.S. West is'~~"
proposing the tower. Johnston said he is not opposed to toWers ormy progress, liis~i9
concern is for property value. U.S. West has some whflt:~ a cav~lier attitude. He sge
home from v~cation and found their testing equipm~nt:9E:~eir p,€eg,~-& with no approval
nor contact wIth them whatsoever. He feels U.S. West shoH.lq)mow'where the property
-\-.,,,,:(f
lines are between public and private property. There was n(r;~PQlogy given for the trash
left on Johnston's property. Johnson que_~!!9~~d how the locati~~~r.,.a.s."i~etermined, was
his property the only one considered, and e,#ements. Johnston sfated,-the pole will be in
their front yard and feels U.S. West is takiIi~\~dt1ili~~i:9fthe situiHon.
~\ iP~;':};ij/,P
Questions from the commi~~~~~~~~,~:7.~~t(' "_~):;
....;...< ." "'-':" .i~,).
Cramer questioned Johnst6h on th~~~isting U.S:;:~e.st poles across County Road 42.
Johnston said U.S. W~selines are ~derground. ~1~~~'"
'&>-<"'ci'i,~~;;,.,. .... ,::~;'~J1nTf~~"1;~~,iY
Criego asked to see Johnstoii'sKomtoiflhe':m~p. Johnston stated to avoid more poles he
paid the utility companies to bfuyJhe electric lines following the County Road 42
constructicm.' He als<fpointed oU'tthe,}ntersection of County Roads 42 and 21 are going
to be gateway areas. This"pole is going to be less than attractive and very noticeable.
Johnston suggested moviIlg it approximately 200 feet north or 400 west or some other
location'less obtrusive. Johnston said it would even be better in among the trees.
, . .
Cramer questioned Fisch~r on the existing U.S. West pole on County Road 21 and why
that site was not considered. Fischer said there would be more space on County Road 42
for the equip men!. 'The pole is on private property. Tovar explained the County has
tower and setback requirements. There is a larger right-of-way along County Road 42.
Cramer said he failed to see the point. He is not opposed to the pole, but opposed to the
fact there is an existing central location on U.S. West property. Adding another utility
box would be okay.
Kuykendall questioned the site criteria. Fischer said there were several, topography,
amount of signal and results from dry tests. Kuykendall also expressed concern for
1:\99fi1es\99p1comm\pcmin\mn I 01 1 99.doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1999
impact on the public and traffic safety. Fischer responded they took all of those issues
into consideration.
Fischer apologized to the Johnstons for the U.S. West's oversight in using Johnston's
private property.
The public hearing was closed.
'''IJ~t:t~,~ ;'
Comments from the Commissioners:
~,:.)~;'~:~0~,:~~
'"?!;.~'~rl ..,.~;;~
Kuykendall: ...~'H "~f~~>\
· Asked Fischer at a later time, to identify the actual costsj~'goirig through t1lls'~,
>;:~j~':~;~r' "O_~.:;~' '''~s~;~~~,:",.;}1-
process. . "",}? ,'c;-:;.' 'I
· Emphasize with the property owner but sees no othei~lterna:tiye. This is the 0~9~~ite
in the public right-of-way. The Telecommunicatiori:~~ct is ip~l~ce. Shifting the
location a few feet will not make any difference:' _~r-""i"'~
. Support the recommendation. . ,
. .;[~0\0'?:"~. . "';~~~rdJt'"
Cnego.;,.....',...,",,,...,'.....'''' . '...'~...,..d
.t..;.:\ >~.S't"i~;.":~'~~~,~.. ".,.~!...
· Believed there are alternative sites. Lo'catingcan>Slt{oot towerJin an Rl District is
sinful on q,S. West's part. They should'~~ mgre''i~~ii~1~y~~to the community. U.S.
..~~;~,-_..: </ "'-~"'--~/.
West can fihd other sites. ,.Jhey,may have:to~negotiate.for land or pay for land.
..;:,~.~"",_."-C.~;,;:'.,, .1...... .y
. Do not put a tower in fro,iifbfsqmeone's haine.
.~{:JlY;~i~1; ;q~~ar
Cramer: . ...'';\~;''~~,Wy;Y
· There is an altenr~ii~)He in-th~Tare~::wlri,~htaiready has a large utility box. It has
--~~:"rt::::i-.'" ':!t..N'J-....~;~,'.:.,."9~.../~_~,:. :;'.;.""r'~;.""
power poles in the area'sfuij:lar to fmrarea~by the High School. U.S. West might have
~~, _,c' ,: '.A
to get additi()Il,al,easementsfro,m the County, but they are getting the benefit because
that l()pit{oii":is'a'iri,~er ele~ati6h.U.S. West already owns the property and does not
havefo offend residents ofthecofumunity.
· . The.alternative propertY is zoned commercial.
· 'U.S.'West needs to look. at an alternative location.
.1
V onhof:-" .
· Questionedsiaff,oh County setbacks from the roadway. Tovar said she did not know
the County'sordinance. .Rye responded there are design conside.rations. They are
required to establish a safety zone along side the travel roadway. There are criteria
for that based on the design standards.
· Agreed with Criego and Cramer that there appear to be alternative locations.
Stamson:
· In reviewing the ordinance it appears the intent was to co-locate the poles. The site
meets all the applicable zoning regulation. It is the County's preferred location.
There is no alternative existing tower.
1:\99fi1es\99plcomrn\pcmin\mnlOI199.doc
7
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11. J 999
. It is not ideal to have a pole in front of a home. It is a disadvantage living on a
County Road.
. The intent of a right-of-way is for utilities. That is what the Communication Act is
about, it is a utility like anything else.
. '"
~'li,,';:/
~....~ '-I';
.~. ,
. ,{,t!3Ui2~;;/'
.,-:;..,.41
..:.:?}l1
.:l':Y .-~>\.
"#l~~Vh~
..;~
. ::~~;~i.~~~~;~~ j_
...,j.,,?
::fi/
. ":.~
1:\99files\99plconun\pcmin\mnIOI199.doc
8
,}@2fg;;.
. '
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11. 1999
Open Discussion:
Cramer:
· Main opposition is there are existing U.S. West poles with major utility box.
· If the utility companies do not share poles, there would be a separate set of poles for
every utility. Combine the utilities and poles and use the existing structures.
>~>{:~?;:~; >
Stamson: >~>
· There is not enough space in the existing easement to site the facility~>t,The
'/ "~''''.~:.~
surrounding property is in abatement which makes it difficuIUo~purcliase. The
-':>_::~-" -'~:~:,:./"l'
ordinance requires they attempt to negotiate, not that they havi;do.t,:*~;~\
~7:?;E:c~>'>i}~~~tt,~
,-,>,.."..",.. :j",~~~ ~
Cramer: . ".;{Jt/ " '~~;t;:;y
· Before approving, would like to see something tha~~~iYs this'facility will not fitjkthe
alternative area. . :;;;:~:Y'::o. . ,:;~.,>',
.~~-:.;~~~-t;~~}y~ ~~~>
Kuykendall: "~~~i~~
· Should not be second guessing profes~i().nal engineers. TIle~lre tIle experts. If they
say they studied the area and did a 33j;~'~~~ort and feel th.cit~is~o alternative, the
Commissioners have no choice. W ork'\vjth"'Whlf::isJ)~,t?sented)P
Cramer: <'" "'\;""",},,t
· This group is to take all.tli~-mfoimation ancl'c.ome up with a level of common sense.
· There are other locatipns for thejiole. There 'is .~~esident with the possibility of
having an 81 foot~<?\yer in his fiont yard. If itwas just the box, would not object.
:,::p:r.:'.\'::_ <"'~..-,-:,~ '. __ _ _,}'
But this is a tower. "1fi~r~ ar,S>2~~r3~e~;!HJhe right-of-way up and down County
Road 42.'i.':~~( ~"'''-(''A~.;~~:i1''
. Obj ect to this,.1Qcation.' ".;~-;~"-
.:;J;iJ~~!{.;~:':'~:'.~:;.~}.> . >~_:.,:,>;;"
Kuyke~dall: '... .:'
..Requested someone from U.S. 'West to clarify and convince the Commissioners this is
the Only location.
· Steve~Mangold, the Regional Real Estate Manager for U.S. West Wireless, 426 North
Fairview;$tPaul, responded to the Commissioners' concerns. His main points
included:.~..
· This is:a County Road, with approval by the County for this site.
. It is ih the right-of-way.
· The adjacent property is zoned that U.S. West could have a tower up to 113
feet. They are proposing a much lower tower.
· There is an existing high tension distribution line on the north side of the
right-of-way. It is the proper area for their structure.
· U.S. West is using the State Statutes as guidelines.
. It is good business sense for the community.
· U.S. West did not whimsically pick this location. This matter was studied.
1:\99fiIes\99plcomm\pcmin\nm 1 01 I 99.doc
9
Planning Commission Minutes
October II. /999
. It is at a busy intersection. Not a residential area.
Scott Shuckelman, engineer with U.S. West, explained why this area was selected as the
best site.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO ADOPT THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS LISmED BY
,.:... ~;;l!:.;.:~~-:~l.~
STAFF IN THE PLANNING REPORT.'-' .
'V,':L>,
Vote taken indicated ayes by Kuykendall, Stamson and V onhof.,~~ys bY":(;ri~~o and
Cramer. MOTION CARRIED.""~'~iH:::~
<{83JCk1:.).:~t~.)~
This item will go before the City Council on Novemb~~:!~~1999~ -'i;~V:"
,...iT "~ /,
Kuykendall suggested U.S. West document the expense1->fthe prq,ar~tion for this action.
.; '...-~J',~;o.,_ _'___",':':~'_~
It is a hidden cost to the public and exceeds cost the public'1.,~.nofa:ware of.
"ti;1r?~.,
C. Case File #99-079 Amendment to~oning Ordinanct;!rclating to setback
,..c.""......"....:.:), ..y
requirements for residential driveways.;t'i"H>!Y>_.,..'~:fi,:~
".~'.. "'"if<~)<~;?~~!"",. _ ..f/
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning R~po!tdated;()~19ber 11, 1999, on file in the
....\,.. .j' ....".,;Y
office of the City Planner. .,:~~tJE'0? t~i.;V,;JY
~,~_::J>";;~;';;~1'~; ,..~~\
The Planning Commissi9#~~nsid;~~a this ordi~~fe~endment at a public hearing on
August 9, 1999, and r~cc?mmended~~proval ofthe;ifrdinance. The City Council also
;.,,' .'<", -J~.. . -'~ ,j
reviewed the ordinance'on"'Sept~Irib~:Q;;ci~9~~i'jFhe Council was concerned the criteria
'. "'~ - ..:'>'~-.,<.;,\,,--.".' ,-. --,. ..>;;"
established by this ordinanc~~'Yas no(speCific'}enough and would result in inconsistent
decisions, and.f(~feII~d the issu~~ck to the staff to determine if more specific criteria
could be developed.'5>.. . . "...~
(;-,. ","
, --.
The proposed amendmentis the same language previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission. Following the Council's directive, the staff discussed the proposed criteria
extensively. The staffwas\mable to formulate any additional criteria.
Rye explained ",'!IY this issue was brought back with the Duluth Avenue street project.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Comfortable with the wording. It is consistent with other areas of the ordinance.
. Support.
1:\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 1 0 1199 .doc
10
SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDS DIVISION
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAll.- EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
(612) 496-8346
0'(< --
D ~~~O\\b'[g~
OCT 2 6 1999 i~
~
J e....~
BRADLEY J. LARSON
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
October 22, 1999
,I
NIr. Don Rye
Prior Lake PlanilingDirector
Prior Lake City HctU
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Subject:
V.oS. West NIonopole Tower Proposal
Dear Don:
This. is to clarify Scott County Highway Department's involvement and position on the U.S.
West proposal to locate a monopole within County Highway right-of-way aJong CSAH 42. We
were approached by representatives of U.S. West concerning placement of the monopole in the
CSAH 42 right-of-way immediately west of the CSAH 21 intersection a couple of months ago.
This location was the only location presented.' '- Our comments were that they would need to
contact Prior Lake and get approval based on your ordinances and requirements before we could
take action on an Utility Permit to install the monopole in our right-of-way. We stated that our
main requirement, in addition to any that the City might impose, would be that the pole be
located beyond the safety "Clear Zone" of CSAH 42 traffic.
As to other locations to locate this monopole, none were discussed other than this proposed one.
From our positions, as long as the placement of the monopole is outside the safety "Clear Zone"
and does not interfere with other utilities or highway operations, the actual location along
CSAH 42 or other highways is not an issue.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bradley 1. Larson, P.E.
Director of Public W orks/Highway Engineer
BJL/jkf
E-mail:Barb Marschall, Scott County Commissioner
Jack Witt, Utility Inspector ,
C: Don and Terry Johnston, 3960 NW 140th St., Prior Lake
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
City Council Meeting Minutes
November 1,1999
BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report and the action previously
brought to the Council.
MADER: Concerned that townhouse and cluster lots below minimum width standards do not require
specific criteria and are subject only to City Engineer approval. Asked if there is no criteria defined,
doesn't that create the possibility of inconsistency. Suggested providing a minimum setback (Le. not.
less than) rather than leaving the decision to the discretion of the staff member.
KANSIER: Noted that staff felt this was an adequate approach given that townhouse and clu~ter
developments are subject to stricter guidelines through the preliminary plat process. Is comfortable
with this language because being so specific could not possibly apply to every circumstance. For
example, in the case of the Glynwater development, the design was to eliminate curb cuts and change
the aesthetics of the development by not viewing only big garages from the street.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
The Council returned to the 7:45 p.m. public hearing (Item 7 A).
Consider Approval of Resolution 99-119 Awarding Bid and Authorizing the Mayor and City
Manager to Execute the City's Standard Contract for the Construction. of a Community Park /
Athletic Complex on the Former Busse Property.
BOYLES: Review the agenda item in connection with the staff report and reviewed the bidding process,
items to be completed, and staff recommendation for the bid award.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-119
AWARDING BID AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CITY'S
STANDARD CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMUNITY PARK / ATHLETIC
COMPLEX ON THE FORMER BUSSE PROPERTY.
HOKENESS: Described the proposed park development on the former Busse property, which would
include four softball/baseball fields and four full-sized soccer fields. Also noted the development of
unique natural barriers including run-off ponding, biofilters and berming. Stated that the staff will
continue to work with nearby property owners to address their concerns as the park development
progresses.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
The Council took a brief recess.
NEW BUSINESS:
Consider Approval of Resolution 99-XX Approving Conditional Use Permit for a Communication
Tower located within the CSAH 42 Right-of-Way.
TOVAR: Discussed the specific location of the monopole, the monopole design, and the conditions of
the CUP approval as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff.
4
City Council Meeting Minutes
November 1,1999
MADER: Asked if the tower on the Jeffers property that has been determined to be structurally unsound
could be reconstructed.
TOVAR: Referred to an October 7th letter from US West as contained in the staff report which states
that it is unlikely that the tower could support the monopole and that it is unclear how long it will take
. before the property title can be cleared up.
SCHENCK: Asked if there is a fee imposed by the City or the County.
TOVAR: Noted that a building permit is required, but no usage fee is required, similar to other utilities. .
MADER: Clarified that the statute allows for charge of a usage fee, but only if the fee is proportionate to
the costs associated with maintaining the right-of-way, and if a similar fee has been charged for other
utilities in the past.
BOYLES: Noted that there is an additional complication because this is a County right-of-way.
SCHENCK: Asked what other cities allow these types of monopoles, and to what extent.
Dan FISCHER (representing US West, the applicant): Noted that this application is relatively new to US
West. US West believes this use is consistent with other utilities. The Telecommunications Act does
allow users within the right-of-way. It is even a more consistent use placing the pole in the right-of-way
than locating it in the middle of a field. In utilizing the application, US West is attempting to keep the
design as unobtrusive as possible. Also noted US West's willingness to work with staff as the
ordinance is reviewed for possible revisions in order to maintain specific criteria for allowing the use in
the future.
MADER: Read from the statute which allows cities to regulate the use of multiple and competing
facilities within public rights-of-way. Understood that to mean there was some latitude for the City to
regulate the use.
PACE: Clarified that a permitting process which was different from that presently required by the
ordinance, although discussed with the US West representatives, was not something staff would or
could commit to, nor did staff imply implement any administrative process whereby these uses would
not come before the Council for consideration. Advised that it is in the Council's best interest to put
policies in place to manage such uses, even though it cannot specifically prohibit them.
SCHENCK: Asked the US West engineer why there is an advantage to putting the monopole in a ditch,
and if the southwest side of CSAH 42 would work.
SCOTT SCHECKLMAN (US West Radio Frequency Engineer): By putting the monopole in the lowest
spot, the signal reaches where it is weakest (i.e. fills up the hole). There is no reason from an RF
perspective that the Jeffers location wouldn't work. US West chose to remain consistent with the other
line of poles in the area and locate the tower at the proposed location.
WUELLNER: Asked about the average distance between poles, and if the tower on the. Jeffers property
is structurally unsound. Also asked about the life of this type of technology.
5
City Council Meeting Minutes
November 1, 1999
SCOTT SCHECKLMAN: Approximately 1 to 1.5 miles in a suburban area, and slightly farther apart in rural
areas. Also noted upon the structural engineers review of the site, it is unlikely, based upon the size of
the tower, that it could support the monopole. The advantage of radio frequency is that it is much more
reliable and faster than satellite signals. The estimate is that this technology will continue to increase
for the next 10-15 years.
PETERSEN: Concerned about the unsightliness of numerous monopoles. Also noted that to locate the
pole in a ditch has the potential to damage the equipment if vehicles would end up in the ditch during
bad weather.
SCHECKLMAN: Described the strategies to camouflages the antennas as much as possible.
DAVE FISCHER: Discussed the alternative locations researched and why the proposed site was chosen,
including the lack of overhead power lines, space available for the pole, and no need for additional
easements from adjoining property owners.
MADER: Asked if communications companies share poles, and if it would be reasonable for US West to
rebuild the tower on the Jeffers property and combine uses so that there would only be one tower in
the area.
FISCHER: US West has joint use agreements with other power companies. In this case, there was not a
current power company to share a pole with at this location due to the number of wires. Also, with the
Jeffers property in abatement, it is not clear how long until US West could enter into a ground lease
agreement, and what the future of that particular property would be. US West is trying to provide
service as soon as possible.
Mayor MADER asked for public comment.
DONALD JOHNSTON (4960 - 140th Street N.W.): Read a brief statement in opposition to the proposed
monopole tower due to (1) degradation of the aesthetic value of their property and diminution of their
property value; (2) it would open up the management of a whole new use for wireless companies
causing major disruption of the status quo; (3) the site is inadequate in size and easement access; and
(4) the use is contrary to the intent of the statute, which will be revisited in the next legislative session.
Commented that Prior Lake could become an antenna park. Requested Council action denying the
CUP, a 6-month moratorium, or specific restrictions upon approval as to camouflaging the pole to
preserve the aesthetic value of the surrounding residential properties and providing compensation for
diminution in property value.
KEDROWSKI: Does not support the proposal. Believes an action approving the use would open a much
larger issue for the City and set an unfavorable precedent for the community. Concurred that the
ordinance does need to be revisited in order to address these issues.
MADER: Commented that a number of issues have been raised and that there may be possible
alternatives available. Does not support the proposal at this time.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO DEFER ACTION ON THIS ITEM TO A
SUBCOMMITTEE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES OF THIS USE AS WELL AS
POSSIBLE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS.
6
City Council Meeting Minutes
November 1,1999
FISCHER: Requested a decision by the Council be made at this time either in support or denial, so that
US West may consider further action, if necessary.
The Council took a brief recess.
MADER: The City Attorney has advised that the Council has until Jan. 13, 2000 in order to take action
on the Conditional Use Permit.
MADER WITHDREW THE PREVIOUS MOTION, AND COUNCILMEMBER WUELLNER WITHDREW
HIS SECOND.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO DEFER ACTION ON THIS ISSUE AND TO
DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE A PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
IN ORDER TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ISSUE AND POSSIBLE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS PRIOR TO THE JAN. 13, 2000 DEADLINE.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader,. Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner, and Schenck, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of Resolution 99-XX Approving the Conditional Use Permit for a
Communication Tower located within the Candy Cove Right-of-Way.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO DEFER ACTION ON THIS ISSUE AND TO
DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE A PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
IN ORDER TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ISSUE PRIOR TO THE JAN. 13, 2000
DEADLINE.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner, and Schenck, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of Resolution 99-120 Initiating the Vacation of a Portion of Red Oaks Road
Adjacent to Lots 27-37, Red Oaks.
BOYLES: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, the options available to resolve
the issue, and the recommendation by staff.
MADEa: Asked if vacating the roadway eliminates City access for fire and police access.
KANSIER: Noted that the City and remaining property owners must received easements for access from
Ms. Roehr before the vacation would be initiated.
PACE: The easement agreements that would be acquired prior to initiating the vacation would have to
provide access easements for the City emergency vehicles and the remaining properties. The draft
easements before you are shown as a good faith intent by the property owners to proceed in this
fashion.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-XX INITIATING
THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF RED OAKS ROAD ADJACENT TO LOTS 27-37, RED OAKS.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried.
7
, V' It};}.O~V-'-' w_.' .--
)
.36; Laws 1996. c. 340.
l23. 4 2. err. May 10.
Hi8ton.cal and
)" for "clauses (1) to
Jbd. 5. inserted tempo-
,cate of authority as an
GO and added an inten-
icable state or federal
1 or telephone ot' t.e1e-
a ground for revoc:a-
"I,
n subd. 1. in par. (a),
:ting the commission tn
')V~rnment unit under
ted par. (d). relating to
:he governing bodies of
1d deleted par. (e). re-
tion requirements of a
:ommunications carrier
m or operation or fadI-
In subd. 9, substituted
d" Cor "with" rollawing
rted reference to the
Act of 1996, and made
er municipal franchiBe
[. under tenns of )aWl
tion. U SWeat. Com-
e Redwood Falls. App.
w denied.
j municipal tranchiAing
idencing legislative in-
unicipalities to require
company. U S West.
:ity of Redwood Falla,
~eview denied.
telephone company to
~ lines in concrete duet
of any penon cutting
for purposes of compa-
..hich company requeat,.
ement of city tranc:hiae
my tD eneue ita ftbe!'
or agree to limita~on ot
nslerred authority GY8I'
r .. - .w.r-'.--- - - --_ ..JJ#,Vj,J.3i,,3~.'.J9
limiLed retained municipal authority to regulate
loc:ation of telephone linea did nol encompaaa cily'.
requirement. that. company encase ita fiber opUc
15'17/ST. 15:17/NO_ 4260632759 P to2U Ita
I1na in concrete auct or oUlel'WUle agree rA.
Uon 01 Uability. US Weat Communications. Inc.. v.
City oC Redwood FaUa, App.l997, 508 N.W.2d 512,_
review denied.
6'(~\ 'BI, B
237.161. Expired
Historical and Statutory Notes
Subdivision 6 oC UUa section provided Cor the expiring, this section was amended by LIIWS 1994.
expiration of this section July 1, 1996. Prior to ~. 534, art. 1. G 1.
237.162. Public rirhta-of-way; ~efinition.
Subdivision 1. Generally. The tenns used in sections 237.162 and 237.163 have the
meanings given to them in this Section.
Subd. Z. Local rovemment unit. "Local government unit" means a county, home rUle
charter or statutory city, or town. g' .
Subc;L 3. Public ~ght-of-way. "Public rig~t-of-way" means th.~ ~,~, Pe~2!'_ '!.._ .
a public roadway, highway, street, cartway, bl&~ycle lane, and public IIdeWalk m whic.
local government unit has an interest, inclu. other dedicated rights-of-way for 'travel
purposes and utility euementa of local govenunent units. f
A public right-oC-way does not include the airwaves above a public right-or-way with regard
to cellular or other nouwire telecommunications or broadcast service.
SubeL 4. Telecommunications right-of-wa,y 'WIer. ''1'elecomm~c.ation.a.1;ig~t-or~1!a.YI
user" meaD8 a person owning or controlling a fac!Dity iDthepublic right-of-way, or seekin, to;
own or control a fac:ility in the public right~!-~, that is used or is intended ~,be use~ Jor,
transporting telecommunications or other voice or data inCorma . n. A cable communication
system detirie an regulate un er c pter 238,-and te ecommunications activities related to
providing natural gas or electric energy servi~ ,whether provided by a public utility'..
defined in section 216B.02, a municipality, a m~pa1 gas or power agency organized ~er
chapter 453 or 453A, ora cooperative electric ~.~tion organized under ehapter 3(1lA, ~
not telecommunications right-of-way WIerS tor ~ th~ . purposes of this section and sec:tion
237.163. ,,; :;-:>"
Subd. 5. Excavate. "Excavate" mellDB to dig, into or in any way remove, physic:a1ly
disturb, or penetrate a part of a public right-of-way: ' , '
Subel. 6. Obstruct. "Obstru,c:t" means to pbU:e"a tangible object in a public right-of-Way
so as to hinder tree and open passage over that oi'any'part of the rightr-of-way.
, ,~ . .
Subd. '1. Ri~ht~t-way pennit. "Right-<lf-way.pennit" means a pennit to perform woTk
in a public: right-of-way, whether to excavate or obstruct the right-of-way.
....1.
SubeL 8. Manage the public right-of-way. :~e the public right-of-way" means the
authority of a local government unit to do any or~'2~,the following:.'
(1) require registration; j '.'-".;,' '
(2) req~e construction performance bonds and iDsurance coverage;
(3) establish installation and construction stand&rds;
(4) establish and define location and relocation requirements for equipment and lacilities;
(5) establish coordination and timing requirements;
(6) ,require telecommunications right-of-way users to submit, for right-of-way projects
commenced after May 10. 199'7, whether initiated by a local govenunent unit or any
telecommunications right-of-way user, project data reasonably necessary to allow the local
government unit to develop a right-of-way mapping system, such as a geographical informa-
tion mapping system;
('7) require telecommunication right-of-way US81"IJ to submit., upon reque.st of a local
government unit, existing data on the location of the user's facilities occupying the public
right-of-way within the loc:al govenunent unit. The data may be submitted ill the form
21
.'
~~'>."'" "~rf"'."U
. of... of~' . . '.. ","',; ...:" .;.':~' .
''''1Jf
. ."
. .'
'~~'~'" ...... '
" .~. ..;r~~I. .-:::~:.. .. . -' ",
.
FROM
,
(THU) 12. 30' 99 15: IS/ST. 15: 17/NO. 4260632759 P
I 237.162
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
maintained by the user and in a reasonable time after receipt of the request based on the
amount of data requested;
(8) establish right-of-way pennitting requirements Cor street. excavation and obstruction;
(9) establish removal requirements for abandoned equipment or facilities. if required in
conjunction with other right-of-way repair, excavation, or construction; and
(10) impose reasonable penalties for unreasonable delays in construction.
Subd. 9. Ylanagement costa or rights-of-way management. costs. "Management
costs" or "rights-of-way management costs" means the actual costs a local government unit
incW"S in managing its public rights-of-way, and includes such costs, if incurred, as those
associated with registering applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying right-of-way pencit
applications; inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protect-
ing, or moving user equipment during public right-oC-way work; determining the adequacy of
right-of-way restoration: restoring work inadequately perfonned after providing notice and
the opportunity to correct the work: and revoking right-of-way pennits. Management costs
do not include a ent b a telecommunications ri ht-of-wa user for the use of the ublic
ng -0 -way, the fees an cost 0 tigation re ting to the interpretation of this section or
section 237.163 or any ordinance enacted under those sections, <?r the local unit of govern-
ment's fees and costs related to appeals taken pursuant to section 237.163, subdivision 5.
LaW3 1997, c. 123, , 3.
Historical and Statutory Notes
rules required under t 237.163, subd. 8, but local
govemment units may exercise the authority that
existed before Nov. 1. 1996, with regard to the
power.t deac:ribed in that. clause, until thoae rules
are adopted.
1997 Le(islation
Laws 199'1, Co 123, t 12, provides in part that
i 3 (enacting this section) is effective May 10,
1997, ~cept. that. lIUbd. 8, d. (3), ia effective upon
the earlier of March I, 1998, or the adoption of the
237.163. Use and regulation of public rights-of-way
Subdivision 1. Legislative. finding. The legislature ~ds, and establishes the principle
that, it is in the state's interest that the use and regulation. of public rights-of-way be carried
on in a fair, efficient, competitivel~ neutral, and substantially unifonn manner, while recogniz-
ing such regulation must reflect t e distinct engineering, construction, operation, maintenance
and public and worker safety requirementa, and standards applicable to various users of
public rights-of-way. Because of the otential for installation b t.eleeommunieation eompa-
nies of multi Ie and compe g a ties wi' e u lie ri hts-of-wa, e e . ature ds
1 18 necesaary ena e roV18lons 0 section and section 7, 62 to 8 C Y
au onze 0 governmen umts to re a e use 0 u c n ts-of-wa b te ecommuni-
ea ODS ng -0 -way users.
SuM 2. Generally. (a) Subject to this section, a telecommunications right-oC-way user
authorized to do business under .the laws of this state or by license of the Federal
Communications Commission may construct, maintain, and operate conduit, cable, switches,
and related appurtenances and facilities along, across, upon, above, and under any public
right.-of-way.
(b) Subject to this section, a local government W1it has the authority to manage. its public
rights-oC-way and t.o recover its rights-of~way. management costs. The authority defined in
this section may b@ exerciSed at the option of the local government unit. The e.."(ercise of this
authority is not mandated under this section. A local government unit may, by ordinance:
(1) require a telecommunications right-of-way user seeking to excavate or obstruct a public
right-oC-way Cor the purpose ot providing telecommunicatiol18 services to obtain a right-of-
way pennit to do so and to impose pennit conditions consistent with the local government
unit's management of the right-of-way;
(2) require a telecommunications right-of-way user using, occupying, or seeking to use or
occupy is public right-ot-way for the purp05e ot providing telecommunicatiorus serviceD to
register with the loeal government unit by providing the local government unit with the.
fonowing infonnation:
22
3
TI-
ad.
. I
rer
(
eff:
(
pia
gO\
unc
(
is
per
~
oC [
are;
the
req'
rei::
wa)
per.
(l
a 10
use
ex~
(c
or c
whe
this
tray
sha!.
that
81
appl
com
(b
gOVE
welf
(c
tiom
tern.
pern
(l
(2
peep
its ci
(3
(4:
unle!
(5)
stan.
oCth
FROM "A"l'lU---
JMMUN1L p-
~quest based on the
\ and obgtnlction:
lities, if required m
cnd
On.
lSt9" uManagement
leal government unit
: f incurred, as those
: right-or-way permit
supporting, protect-
ning the adequacy of
providing notice and
_ Management costs
the use of the public
on of this gection or
local unit of govern-
37.163, subdivision 5.
"7,163, subd. 8. but local
!rcise the authority that
196, with regard to the
clause, until those rules
~ablishes the principle
rhts-of-way be carried
~nner, while recogniz:'
peration, maintenance
e to various users of
:ommunication compa-
'I the legislature finds
237.162 to specifically
-way by telecommuni-
ions right-or-way user
:ense of the Fedel'.l
,nduit. cable, switches,
and under any public
'i to manage' its public
Ie authority defined in
t. The exercise oC this
nit may, by ordinance:
lte or obstruct a public:
s to obtain a righ~f-
: the local government
~, or seeking to ,use 01'
nunieationa Iw'Yu~el to
~rnment unit with the.
(THU) 12 30' 99 15: 19/5T, 15: 17/NO, 4260632759 P 4.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS . t 237.163
(i) the applicant's name. gopher state one-call registration number under section 2160.03,
addre88, and telephone and facsimile numbers;
(ii) the name, address. and telephone and facsimile numbers of the applicant's local
representative:
(iii) proof of adequate insurance; and
(iv) other information deemed reasonably necessary by the local government unit for the
efficient administration oC the public right-of-way; and
(3) require telecommunications right-oC-way users to submit to the local government unit
plans for. construction and major, maintenance that provide rea..!lonable notice to the local
government unit of projects that the telecommunications right-of-way user expects to
undertake that may require excavation and obstruction of public rights-of-way.
(c) A local government unit may also require a telecommwlication's right-of-way user that
is registered with the local government unit pursuant to paragraph (b), clause (2), to
periodically update the information in its registration application.
Bubel 3. Restoration. (a) A telecommunications right~r-way user, after an excavation
of a public right-of-way, shall provide for restoration of the right-of-way and surrounding
areas, including the pavement and its foundation, in the same condition that existed before
the excavation. Local government units that chOoSe to perlonn their own surface restoration
required 88 a result of the excavation may require telecommunications right-of-way users to
reimburse the reasonable t!oats of that surface restoration. Restoration of the public: right-or~
way must be completed within the dates specified- in the right-of-way pennit, unless the
pennittee obtains a waiver or a new or amended right-of-way permit.
(b) If a telecommunications right-of-way user '~~cts not to restore the public: right-of-waY.
a loeal government unit may impose a degradation fee in lieu of restoration to recover costa
associated with a decrease in the useful life of the public right-of-way caused by the
excavation of the right-of-way by a telecommunica~~ right-ot-way user. "
(c) A telecommunications right-of-way user that'~turbs uncultivated Iodin the eXcavation
or obstruction of a publie right-of-way shall plant' gr8sseS that are native to Minnesota aDd.
wherever practicable, that are of the local eca-type. as part of the restoration required under
thia subdivision. unless the owner of the real pro~ over which the public right-of-Way
traverses objects. In restoring ~e right-of-way.. the telecommunications right-ot-way user
shall consult with the department of natural resour~s regarding the species of native grasses
that conf'onn to the requirements of this paragraph~,.',.
Subel 4. Pennit denial or revocation. (a) A local government unit may deny any
application for a right-of-way pennit if the telecommunications right-at-way WIer does not
comply with a provision of this section. : ..
(b) A local governmeQt unit may deny an application lor a right-of-Way pennit if the local
government unit determines that the denial is neeeuary to protect the health, safety. and
weltare or when necea8ary to protect the public: righ~f-way and its current use.
(e) A local govl;!r.unent unit may revoke a right-of-way permit granted to a teleconununica-
tions right-of-way user, with or without fee refund, in the event of a gubstantial breach of the
tenns and conditions of statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation or any material condition of the
permit. A substantial breach by a pennittee includes, but is not limited to, .the following:
(1) a material violation of a provision at the right,...of-way pennit;
(2)a.n evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the right-at-way pennit, or the
perpetntion or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the local government unit or
its citizens;
(3) a material misrepresentation of fact in the right-of-way permit application;
(4) a failure to eomplete work in a timely maimer, unless a permit extension is obtained or
unless the failure to C!omplete work is due to reaaons beyond the pennittee's control; and
(6) a lailure to correct.. in a timely manner. work that does not confonn to appliC2hle
standards, conditions, or codes, upon inspection and notification by the IDeal govemment UDit
oC the faulty condition.
23
FROM
.
. ~
~ ~..J'. IoUtJ
(THU) 12. 30' 99 15: 20/ST. 15: 111:E'~'\36~il~(Of.ll\':JU1.UN~
(d) Subject to this subdivision, a local government unit may not deny an application Cor a
right-of-way pennit for Cailure to include a project in a plan submitted to the local
government unit under subdivision 2, paragraph (b), clause (3), when the telecommunications
light-oC-way user has used commercially reasonable effort!! to anticipate and plan Cor the
project.
(e) In no event may a local government unit unreasonably withhold approval of an
application Cor a right-oC-way pennit, or unreasonably revoke a pennit.
Text of subd. 5 Tepea~d effective June 30, 1999.
Subd. 5. Appeal. (a) A telecommunications right-of-way user that: (1) has been denied
registration; (2) has been denied a right-oC-way permit; (3) has had its righti-<lf-way permit
revoked; or (4) believes that the fees imposed on the user by the local government unit do not
contonn to the requirements of subdivision 6, may have the denial, revocation, or (ee'
imposition reviewed, upon written request; by the governing body oC the local government
unit. The governing body oC the local government unit shall act on a timely written request
at its next regularly scheduled meeting. A decision by the governing body a.f.finning the .
denial, revocation, or fee imposition must be in writing and supported by written findings
establishing the reasonableness of the decision.
(b) Upon affirmation by the governing body oC the denial, revocation, or fee impoaition, the
telecommunications righ~f-way user shall have the right to have the matter resolved by
binding arbitration. Binding arbitration must be before an arbitrator agreed to by both the
local government unit and the telecommunications right.-of-way user. U the partiel cannot
agree on an arbitrator, the matter must be resolved by a three-person arbitration panel made
up of one arbitrator seleeted by the loeal government unit, one arbitrator selected by the
telecommunications right-of-way user and one person selected by the other two arbitrators.
The coati and tees of a single arbitrator shaD be bome equally by the local government unit
and the telecommunications right-of-way USe!'.
In the event there is a third arbitrator, each party shall bear the expense of ita own
arbitrator. and sball jointly and equally bear with the o~her party the expense of the third
arbitrator and ot the azobitratlon,
Each party to the arbitration ahall pay ita own costa, disbursements, aDd attorney lees.
Subc:l. 6. Feea. (a) A local government unit may recover its rigbt-ot-way management
eosts by imposmg a fee for registration, a fee tor each right-ot-way pennit, or, when
appropriate, a fee applicable to a particular telecommunications right-of-way user when that
user causes the local government unit to incur costa as a result of actions or inactions of that
uaer. A loc:al ggyenummt. wu:h. may Dot recover Q'om a telecommunications nght-or-way uaer
costs caused by another entity's activity in the right-of-way. .
(b) Feea, or other rightrof-way obligationa, imposed by a local government unit on
telecommunications rightrol-way users under thia section must be:
(1) bued on the actual coata incurred by the local government unit in managing the public:
rlghk>f-way;
(2) based on an allocation among all users of the public right-of-way, including the local
government unit itself, which shall reflect the proportionate costs imposed on the local
government unit by each oC the various types ot uaes of the public rights-of-way;
(3) imposed on a competitively neutral basis; and
(4) imposed in a manner so that above-ground uses ot public Jigh~C':"way do not bear
costs incurred by the local government unit to regulate underground uses of public righ~f-
way.
(c) The righta, duties, and obligatiorui regarding the use of the public right-of-way imposed
under this seetion must be Q lied to all users of the public right-ot-way, including the local
government unit . e reeognizlng re a on mus re ect e 1 engineering, construc-
tion, operation, maintenance and public: and worker wety requirements, and ltAndardl
applicable to various users oC the public righbl-oC.way. For users subject to the franchising
authorit.y or a local government unit, to the extent those rights. duties. and obligationa are.
24 ~
FROM
(THU) 12. 30.99 15: 21/ST. 15: 17/NO. 4260632759 P 7
04/19/99
[REVISOR]
RR/I<S
AR2986ST
1 (5) the development by the local government unit of a cost study that includes
2 the allocation of the cost of building and maintaining the high-density corridor,
3 principles of cost recovery, and the allocation of capacity within it, which must be
4 submitted to public hearing and review by tJ'le governing body of the local government
5 uni ti and
6 (6) the opportunity for any party providing utility service in the applicable
7 right-of-way to appeal the governing body's adoption of the cost study to the
8 commission.
9 C. Existing telecommunications facilities shall not be relocated to the high-density
10 corridor, unless required pursuant to part 7819.3100.
11 7819.1000 FEES AND PENALTIES.
12 Subpart 1. Permit fee. A local government unit that requires a permit for excavation.
13 in or obstruction of the public right-of-way shall make its permit fee schedule available
14 to the public. The pennit fee schedule must be established in advance and designed to
15 recover the local government unit's actual costs incurred in managing the public
16 right-of-way.
17 Subp. 2. Allocation of permit fees. Permit fees must be based on an allocation among
18 all users of the public right-of-way, which shall include the local government unit itself,
19 so as to reflect the proportionate costs imposed on the local government unit by each of
20 the various types of users of the public rights-of-way. Although the local government
21 unit must be allocated its proportionate share of pennit fees, the local government unit
22 need not transfer funds to pay permit fees.
23 Permit fees must be allocated in a competitively neutral manner and must be
24 imposed in a manner so that aboveground uses of public rights-of-way do not bear costs
25 incurred by the local government unit to regulate underground uses of public
26 rights~f-way.
7819.1000
6
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
NOVEMBER 1, 1999
9B
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 99-XX
APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
COMMUNICATION TOWER LOCATED WITHIN THE
CANDY COVE RIGHT-OF-WAY
History:
US West has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
communication tower within the right-of-way of Candy Cove. The
property is zoned R-I (Low Density Residential). The subject site
consists of approximately 145 square feet within the Candy Cove
right-of-way located across the street from 15822 Candy Cove. There
is an existing 38 foot tall NSP power pole, currently located in an
easement on the adjacent property. The applicant intends to remove
the existing pole and replace it with a new 54Yz foot high pole in the
right-of-way (see Exhibit A, survey). There is a proposed utility box
located on the ground, within the right-of-way. The box is located
within the leased tract and is 3 Yz feet high, approximately 4 feet by 4
feet square.
Current Circumstances:
On October 11, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
and recommended the City Council approve the Conditional Use
Permit with conditions. A copy of the draft minutes of the meeting is
attached to this report.
The Issues:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit should be reviewed in
accordance with the criteria found in Section 1108 of the City Code
and Section 1110. Section 1110 is the Communications Tower
ordinance. The criteria are discussed on the following pages.
16260'rg~1i?'E~g~A'(j~\9s:l'!':j5ri8; Lake, Minnesofa''!f!b 7 2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
City Code 1110.500 Height Restrictions allows for a maximum
height of 45 feet and that no tower exceed a height equal to the
distance from the base of the antenna to the nearest overhead electrical
power line. The Council may approve a conditional use permit to
allow an antenna located on/with an existing or proposed structure up
to 25 feet above the structure ifthe applicant can demonstrate that, by
a combination of antenna design, positioning of the structure and/or by
screening erected or already in place on the structure, off site views of
the antenna from adjacent properties are minimized. The proposed
pole will be 54 % feet tall. With the granting of the CUP, the
proposed height will be comforming to the ordinance.
City Code 1110.600 Setbacks allows a tower's setback to be reduced
or its location in relation to a public street varied to allow the
integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as a
church steeple, power line support device, or similar structure upon
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
City Code Section 1110.1200 Co-location requires the applicant for a
tower permit to provide documentation related to co-location.
Attached is a letter dated October 7, 1999 from US West related to co-
location. While there are other sites that they could co-locate on (High
School football field light poles) they have made a business decision to
utilize their existing resources within the right-of-way as proposed.
The Planning Commission concurred with their position of co-locating
with NSP as being acceptable and compliant with the ordinance.
Section 1108.200 of the City Code sets forth the criteria for approval
of a CUP. These criteria and the staff analysis of compliance with
these criteria are set forth below;
1. The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use preserves the objectives of the existing ordinances.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as R-L/M (Low to
Medium Density Residential). The proposed use is consistent with an
objective to "maintain orderly development of and access to utilities."
2. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals
and general welfare of the community as a whole.
The proposed communication tower will not be detrimental to health,
safety, morals and general welfare of the community as a whole. There
are no structures located within the fall zone of the tower. The high
school tennis courts are located to the east, and the nearest house is
f:\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-065\99-065cc.doc Page 2
located approximately 200 feet from the proposed pole, across the
street.
3. The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Use District in which the Conditional Use is
located.
The proposed communication tower use is consistent with the R-l
(Low Density Residential) zoning district. The proposed height and
setback requires a conditional use permit in this zoning district.
4. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental
facilities, services, or improvements which are either existing
or proposed.
The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on
governmental facilities, services, or improvements. The roadway is
within the fall zone of the tower and would be temporarily blocked if
the tower should fall to the west.
5. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and
enjoyment of properties in close proximity to the conditional
use.
The proposed monopole will not have undue adverse impacts on the
use and enjoyment of properties in close proximity. The pole,
although taller, is similar to those used for other structures within the
right-of-way.
6. The use is subject to the design and other requirements of site
and landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a
professional landscape architect, or civil engineer registered in
the State of Minnesota, approved by the City Council and
incorporated as part of the conditions imposed on the use by
the City Council.
The landscape ordinance does not apply to this, as it is located within
the right-of-way. From a maintenance point of view, additional
landscaping is not desired within the right-of-way.
7. The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared by a
professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota
which illustrate locations of city water, city sewer, fire
hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and cable lines, natural
gas mains, and other service facilities. The plans shall be
included as part of the conditions set forth in the Conditional
Use Permit approved by the City Council.
f: \dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-065\99_065cc.doc Page 3
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
Plans prepared by a registered civil engineer have been submitted.
They will be reviewed as a part of the building permit application.
The engineering staffhas reviewed the plans submitted.
8. The use is subject to such other additional conditions which the
City Council may find necessary to protect the general welfare,
public safety and neighborhood character. Such additional
conditions may be imposed in those situations where the other
dimensional standards, performance standards, conditions or
requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to achieve the
objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these
circumstances, the City Council may impose restrictions and
conditions on the Conditional Use Permit which are more
stringent than those set forth in the Ordinance and which are
consistent with the general conditions above. The additional
conditions shall be set forth in the Conditional Use Permit
approved by the City Council.
Additional conditions recommended for the proposed use are listed
below.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission concluded the proposed tower
is consistent with the Conditional Use Permit criteria and
Communication Tower Ordinance. The Planning Commission felt the
use is consistent with other light poles in the area and is a reasonable
use within the right-of-way and the co-location requirement has been
met. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request
subject to the following conditions:
1. The utility equipment box must be located as far from the curb as
possible, but within the right-of-way and leased tract.
2. A building permit is required.
3. A permit to work within the right-of-way is obtained from the
Engineering Department.
Budget Imoact: The construction of the towers will have no fiscal
impact on the City.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution #99-XX approving the Conditional Use Permit
for US West subject to the listed conditions.
2. Deny the Conditional Use Permit on the basis they are inconsistent
with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and/or the
Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the Council should direct the
f: \dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-065\99_065cc.doc Page 4
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the denial of
these requests.
3. Defer consideration of this item for specific reasons.
Staff recommends alternative # 1.
1. A motion and seco to approve Resolution 99-XX approving the
Conditional Use P. it, subject to the listed conditions.
f:\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-065\99_065cc.doc Page 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION 99-XX
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A COMMUNICATIONS
TOWER WITIDN THE CANDY COVE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR US WEST, INC.
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October
11, 1999, to consider an application from US West Inc. for a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for a 54 Y2 foot tall communications tower and the City
Council heard the case on November 1, 1999; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on said CUP has been duly published In
accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this
issue and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their
views and objections related to the CUP for US West; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council find the CUP for a
Communication Tower located within the Candy Cove right-of-way for US
West in harmony with existing development in the area surrounding the
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council find the proposed CUP is
compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as
they relate to conditionally permitted uses, and further, that the proposed
CUP meets the criteria for approval of CUP as contained in Section 1108 and
Section 1110 Communication Towers of the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
that it hereby adopts the following findings:
FINDINGS
1. The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
community as a whole.
f: \dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-065\cuprscc.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
3. The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Use
District in which the Conditional Use is located.
4. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services, or
improvements which are either existing or proposed.
5. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in
close proximity to the conditional use.
6. The use is compatible with the general welfare, public safety and neighborhood
character.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
approves the CUP for US West, Inc on the property legally described as follows:
A strip of land 7.08 feet in width over part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 36, Township 115 North, Range 22 North of the 5th Principal Meridian, Scott County,
Minnesota, to the easterly line of said strip described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the easterly extension of the north line of Block 1, Centennial
Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof and situate in Scott County, Minnesota with the
west line of Candy Cove Trail; thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 43 seconds East assumed
bearing along said easterly extension a distance of 60.49 feet to the east line of said Candy Cove
Trail; thence South 7 degrees 37 minutes 57 seconds East along said east line a distance of
52.89 feet to an angle point in said east line; thence South 18 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds
East continuing along said east line a distance of 57.76 feet to the point of beginning of the line to
be described; thence South 18 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds East continuing along said east
line a distance of 20.58 feet and said line there terminating.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, approval ofthe CUP, as shown in Exhibit A and on Sheet Z-3,
is subject to the following conditions:
1. The utility equipment box must be located as far from the curb as possible, but
within the right-of-way and leased tract.
2. A building permit is required.
3. A permit to work within the right-of-way is obtained from the Engineering
Department.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use
Permit for US West. The contents of Planning Case File #99-065 are hereby entered into and
made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
Passed and adopted this 1st day of November, 1999.
f:\dept\planning\99fi1es\99cup\99-065\cuprscc.doc
Page 2
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
{Seal}
f:\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-065\cuprscc.doc
YES
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
NO
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
Page 3
.-;',
, s
. s
\
J
CENTENNIAL STREET
w
,
,
NORTH UH[ or BLOO< " -~-~
COH[HHIAI.. .AOQlnON
N89.40' 43"E
- --r
o 20
~~
SCALE
2491-71
186
40
I I
IN
w
60
I
FEET
EXHIBIT A
MIN -
;
, s
\
\
,J '., \
\1 II / ~
N89.40' 43"E "
_-- \ 60.49,' .\\.---,
=-_ _____.L-\I_'
~i1,1 _\---~\. &0 .--\------~\\---4~\~
.----- \I '2t
" I , vi
\I ,. \I \j
% \I '" \ II -l,
\\\~\ \ ~\I\I \ '. \~
;I'" ~ \I \I 'to
r.(J. ~?J, \I '" "\ ~ \:
\ '"k \I \ II V' ~ EASTL1'\.Y lM: OF
\I \ \\ / CAHOY <:<l'IE mAOl
~.~ '\ " \~~
II \0.
<g,
\ II I ~ ,r- SEE D
II \ " ,
\' -40 II I ~ :'
II l1?'i'e-s ~ II, 1.....\,' i
\ II ~ ~I"X" .:.---_/i
>>.-- \ -- ,
II " \ .. '-, .'
" II ~ I ,. POWER POlE
\ J\\ ~ ~. ;/~~'~ ' PRO~:EDA;I
~ ~~~q,t:~
\ ~~ 0 ~ \~ ~
~"O ~\-~
'e1 ~ 4 ~ ~ ~
\ '" 1" to -'. 0.,,, II
'e ~ 'A c - -_
\
II II
\ II II
II II
II" . II
\ \, \ \ \.
\ _ -- EASTL1'\. Y EXTENSION ~--
I THE NORm LINE Of BLOCK
I' f. CENl!NNfAl.. AoomON
295
SURVEY FOR:
lEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Part of the existing right-of-way of Candy Cove Trail located in
Southwest Quarter of Section 36. Township 115. Range 22. Scott
U. S. WEST WIRELESS
the Southeast Quarter of the
County, Minnesota.
CERTlFICA TlON:
I hereby certify that this map was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Registered land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Dated this 1st day of July, 1999. ~I f,ll / !
Revised this 14th day of September, 1999. /AIV~
by: Jack Balke
Minnesota License No. 20281
PROPOSED LEASE TRACT DESCRIPTION
A strip of land 7.08 feet in width over part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36,
Township 115 North, Range 22 North of the 5th Principal Meridian, Scott County. Minnesota, the easterly line of
said strip is described as follows:
Commencing at the Intersection of the easterly extension of the north line of Block 1, CENTENNIAL
ADDITION. according to the recorded plat thereof and situate in Scott County, Minnesota with the west
line of Candy Cove Trail; thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 43 seconds East assumed bearing along
said easterly extension a distance of 60.49 feet to the east line of said Candy Cove Trail; thence South 7
degrees 37 minutes 57 seconds East along said east line 0 distance of 52.89 feet to an angle point in
said east line; thence South 18 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds East continuing along sold east line a
distance of 57.76 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 18 degrees 40
mfnutes 05 3cconcs East contiiiufng along. said east line a distance of2C.58 feet and 5Gid :;ne thei"e
terminating.
HOR
r----------------------------------------------------------~---------,
I I
j DETAIL \ i
I I
I <.1' '
i NO SCALE \'~ :-- P.O.8. i
, , I
, ' I
I ' I
I ' I
: ,~.{ 'to : POWER POLE - ~ :
i ~1\'\9 oe. --,' TO BE REMOVED \ :
I 1. \ I
I ' .
: I \ ~ :
I ~ '
I '
, '
I '
, '
, '
I '
, I
I '
! "'__ TREE LINE :
I '
I I
I '
I I
, I
,
I
I
I
:
,
,
I
,
,
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
, I
~______________________~_____________________________________________J
IETAIL
AND
JWER SITE
,
,
,
.
,
,
I
I
,
,
,
\
\
EGAN
FIELD & NOWAK
SURVEYORS
INC.
7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
TELE: (612) 546-6837
! I'D
. I J
I ! I
I I
~ I I
ll~ <I<l<lk <l
,00
, ,
...:
;";i
I
,
...............
CJ)
CJ)
W
--I
W
0:
-
$
-f-
CJ)
w
$
CJ)
:::J
~
w ~ \\
~~~
()
.
--I
.
...-I
.
.....
.
?;
.
o
.
a:
obi
~
~
C\JLO
. ,........ (j)
W(V)C\J
cnLO.
...JIJ")~
<(<J::~
0: I- ..
f-Ol=!
WCJ)-
>~U)
021-
O~I-
>- 0
OW~O
Z~CJ)
<J:: <( ..
0-1>-
C\la:1-
C\JOZ
co_::J
LOa: 0
"--(LO
x
w
o
z
C) t;:j ~
z w :::!! Z
~fii~~
0::: w Z W
or=!UI-
i= 5 in
Z
:s
a.
VJ W
~ 0-
5 ~
l-
E] ~ ~ Z
t:l i= :::!! C)
5~5(/)
Z-lOW
w W W 0
W
I-
in
~ N n ~ l{J (()o
J , I , '0'
NNNNNN
o
:::!
o
o
Q:
uj
::l
.Z
Uw
.J~ Z
.J ~
vi~~~~ ~
I-- [3~:g~m....
U -':;;: I I Z
W li!'-"ZNN:r:
0-, 3::r::::!;1;;1; ~
..... .
0::: ""'1 Iii ~ :5:::,::, t3
CL ~z~:g:g ~
<0 ~Z
a. lIlN...:.... 0
a. ::l~Vlo.,-" U
-0(
>-
0:::
o
I--
U
W
0:::
o
. ;
. I:l
lJ
~~~
r/~i
11 H
o
I ....
i~~ 8
~~a iJi
~ d i ~
8 r
~
~I
IN a
r ~
W
--1
o
Q
o
o
o
5:
:::!
o
o
Q:
uj
::l
t.i~ 5
~ --J~ Iii
-' Z
vi~~;!~ :r:
~ [3~:g~m ~
:::! G:i:;;: I I W
Q:'-"ZNN ~
~ 3:i!:~;1;;1; 0
.- f-O::~-...-....:.:
~ [3~~;o;o ~
Q: 3: 0.<0\0.....
t: \0 ~z
~VlN"':....O
E ::l~lIlo.... U
"
....."."
. ."
[/lW
I-
(J)
\.
jU!O
,
I
I
I
I
!
l
i
I
. ~ I .
.: ~ .
';.1;'
.~ :'
'; :!
"
-r I
I
(:).I 0- I
~ I
3
z I
~
e
I I
, I
I
I
1
i
!!
~
'-' ~'j
~VJ z~
~ll! ~g
w~ ~i
g3 :;;~
~i ~z
~~ ~.-.
..
I
~
l-
.'
~
--
\\.o.....;!!:- -- ---
----- -
-----
00
/ ,~
_____ 3 -' -
_______ (:).II c>"01 ~ 11'....
d'
---
g~
o!
d'
~ ----
--
_01 ~~E:::::= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..
,,~
~3 ~~
a~ ~..
o
'"0
'"
'"0
----
--
-
~ ; . : -
;.'
(:)0::
~w
I-S:
!QO
X 0..
W
-10
-1<(
<(w
I-I
V} 0::
~~
~O
V)
<(w
z-1
zO
wo..
I-
ZO
<(0
o
ti;S:
~~
V}z
::J~
(:)0
ZZ
;::: <(
!QwO::
X....JO
wOI
wo..~
>0::<(
OW
:2S:w
WO....J
O::o..~
R.O.'I'l. \..\~t.._ --
-- d'
--
-- -
d' I-
Z
/ w
:2
0..
5
d' 0
W
l-
V)
d' ~
/ V}
::J
d'
. -1 /
d' C~I'lO'( CO\jt.. "n~},\L
/
olv
/
/
d'
(:) /
zO::
;:::ww
V}s:-1
5<00 &
Sf ~~
-----
~~
(:) .
zV}
;:::w
V}W
-0::
Gjl-
--
------
---
---
---
---
" :.::
<l<l
i
II
..;;;;;;J
f-
Z
w
/""--'\. :2
0..
/""--- ( " ::J
/ '- 0
'- w
---- " f-
(f) I t:>0 '\ (f)
w
<( ZZ \~
Z w ( 1=<(
Z -.I (f)wct: t:>
W Z(f)
f- 0 I --.10 I=tj ::J
Z 0.. Xo:c
<( 0 Wo..u ~ct:
\ w Z Xf-
f- 0 >ct:<( w )
(f) 0 o~w
w ~ {\ {--\
~ :20-.1
~ ( \ ~o..~
(f) w / P
::J Z
l --\ J\ ,/ )
\-.
---
\,., --. /" y-
(0
I
N
LI1
t:>
~f5
(f) ~
5< 0
Wo..
-.10
-.I <(
<( W
f- :c
~ct:
[jJ~
ct: 0
W
-.I
o
t:>o..
~ct:
f-W
(f)~
5<0
Wo..
. t:I
lJ
~h
, -!'
Ii ~
f!! I
s d :
(()
co
0 f-
(f)
L;5
0 0
Z I
~ ~
0 11
0
-1 IX)
Z .........
0
i= w
~ -1
W <(
-1 U
W (f)
!
u;>1
J N a
! :
"~
<l
o
Ux
i:1lo
I-CD
~
S
~
. ~
~:~~ r!~ :.~'
'"'Ii! I ~ij ~
3f l ~~ J a
Ii ~ I I
w
V)
<(
CD
W
I-
W
a::
U
z
o
U
l-
V)
<(
U
w
a::
Q
"<t
n
/I
N
" "I
/I ~
/I ~ a
w
/I
/I
-'
u
~
r
o
I
...,
L
I-
U
W
Z
Z
o
U
V)
is
~~
.-11
/I
II f5
/I :>
I-
/I ~
a::
II u-
/I
u
; .....
I
<.0. .... I
."
J ~ ;
I ; .
o
UJ/
~-
!=!"
> :
f-N
Z"'-
W'-
2 "
QW
--I
:::><{
ou
WUJ
'"
r ..J
";If'.
US West Wireless L.L.C.
426 North Fairview Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104
FAX: 651-642-6942
October 7, 1999
Jane A. Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: MIN295 Utility Pole Collocation on Candy Cove Trail.
Prior Lake Planning Commission:
US WEST Wireless is proposing to collocate on a utility pole in the right of way on Candy Cove Trail. This
letter is intended to address your concerns as defined in the Prior Lake zoning code section 1110.1200.
The coverage area includes Highway 13, 160th Street, Highway 21 and Franklin Trail, as well as the surrounding
commercial and residential area within 3/4 mile. US WEST Wireless does not currently provide service in this
area. This area contains several patches of dense vegetation and has an average ground elevation of
approximately 950 feet AMSL (Above Mean Sea Level). Therefore an antenna elevation of at least 1005 feet is
needed to clear the average tree top level.
For communications poles less than 80 feet in height, Prior Lake's zoning code section 1110.1200 part I requires
consideration of collocation options within Y4 mile of the proposed pole. The following structures are within Y4
mile and could meet our RF coverage requirements:
· High School Light Poles
· US WEST / NSP Utility Pole (Subject)
· Cable TV Tower
US WEST Wireless made a business decision to locate on its own asset.
The proposed utility pole is located near the intersection of Candy Cove Trail SE and Centennial Street SE, ata
ground elevation of 960 feet AMSL and a height of approximately 30 feet. Extending the height of the pole to
48.5 feet would allow us to mount antennas with their centers at about 1005 feet AMSL. A drive test was
conducted to confirm that mounting our antennas at this height would meet the coverage objective.
Sincerely,
~/~~
Scott G. Schecklman
RF Design Engineer
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Registe~ ofessional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Signature:
Date:
USW/NSP Utility Pole
* .
High School Light Pole
T
T
Ro
Se
Street Atlas USA
fag 16.00
ri Oct 0810:131999
cafe 1 :7,812 (at center)
500 Feet
---i
o
~
- Local R~d
rn
- Slale Rome
-+-+- Railroad
T Cemetery
Water
;?i
en
m
-!
200 Meters
.~\
nW:r-: h\,
lr r~ ~ f5 \ i \J IS ,\.\ i..:
~I'- LS- -'I'
li\\\,\'L.5 ;d ii:
\I~[ ~ 11999 1M
I
- - --... . '~~n...... I t.LECOM CO
"
P.1/1
100 FILI.MORE STFlEET
SUITE 800
DENVER, COlOFlADO 80206
303-333-2424
303.333-1110 FAX
TRIA><
'TEl..EcOMMUNICAnoNs
COMPANY. L..L..C.
October 8, 1999
Dave Fischer, Real Estate Consultant
US West Wireless
426 N. Fairview Ave., Room 101
St. Paul, 1v!N 55104 . -
Fax (651) 642-6942
RE: Prior Lake Tower Site
Dear Mr. Fischer:
I am sorry 10 infonn you that we cannot accommodate your request to add equipmem to our
tower site located at 15777 South Highway 13 in Prior Lake, Minnesota.
If I can be of further assistance, pI.... feel1h:e to contact me at the teI.phone number listed
above.
J;;?'lc
Contract Administrator
-, ,,--
1,,'-
',','
'-9
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1999
1. CalI to Order:
The October 11, 1999, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chainnan
Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye and Planner Jenni Tovar.
2. Roll Call:
V onhof
Kuykendall
Cri ego
Cramer
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
i
I
I
/
I
if
[ ~ I
.1
1/
II
r
I
I
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the September 27, 1999 Planning COmmission meeting were approved
as presented.
4. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the public hearing procedure statement.
A. Case File #99-065 U.S. West Wireless Communications is requesting a
conditional use permit for co-locating a communication tower with the replacement
of an existing utility pole located within the Candy Cove right-of-way.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated October 11, 1999, on file in the
office of the City Planner.
The applicant is proposing to replace an existing utility pole (NSP) of approximately 27
feet in height with a new wood pole of 52~ feet in height. The current pole is located in
an easement on private property. The proposed pole will be located within the right-of-
way. This property is zoned R-l. Section 1110.600 of the City Code requires a
Conditional Use Pennit for towers located with a light pole or power line support device.
Section 1110.500 requires a conditional use pennit for towers exceeding 45 feet and
attached to existing structures.
Staffrecommended continuation of this matter to allow the applicant time to submit
required documentation relating to co-location as required by Section 1110.1200.
Dave Fischer, representing U.S. West Wireless, 426 North Fairview Avenue, St. Paul,
clarified the existing pole is 35 feet and with the extension, the pole will be 48 1/2 feet.
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNl 01199.DOC 1
. --:---.-..~--,",,"-_._---_.,---, .- --------.-----
---------.----
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1999
The combined height with the antenna would be 52 1/2 feet plus the 2 foot lighting rod.
They would be addiug 13 1/2 feet overall. Their objectiVe is to provide COverage to
Highway 13 and the SUlTOlU1ding area. Fischer explained the Joiut Use Agreement with
NSP. He also Said they could uot co-locate ou any of the existing structures. U.S. West
felt this location made better business sense.
Comments from the Commissioners:
.................
...................
....................
....................
..;:;:;:;:;::::..............;.::::::;..
KUYkendall:..
· Questioned the cross-anus sections for NSP. Fischer explain~,c system
~~o;;~~gl::;:~~ ~::ore compact and aesthetiCallY",=:!' TOV~ed out
· Questioned the utility box. Fischer said it would be P#td'IJiifge and blend~
· ~~:=:'~~~aintenance. Fischer assured hi~Uld Ikfit. ,
. ..:,";;t'?ii:,.. ..,f}""'.........,:,,',;,;;';::-
CO_ents frolD the PUhliC:",__. "
. ..........
Les Sonnabend, Superintendent for the ~,e Schools, sta~te is right above
the schools tennis court. The School Disdffi~ the site ~ concerned with
mowing arolU1d the utility box. Sonnaben~d 1i~2.rlfihg with Mr, Fischer 6 to
8 months ago. U.S. West set up a testing 10clllioptWfr on~ school's poles last
SPring. Sonnabend has not 1j,~p1 Fisch. U.S. WeliY'lU1til he received the City's
notice. The School Dis~JI_y enterei/lll;Ito a contract with another company to
Use an electric pole abllldf!he footbl! field. Th~ct did not Want to add more poles
to the enviromnent,J.lL neVer 'l,el!6tiated with#Cher on a cost, but did asCertain after
4 or 5 attempts theS'ite ~t could choose any of the 6 existing
poles which would make .sites ciii~e COverage without adding another pole.
Sonnaben~:lJMl not ~e City's ordinances or concems, however the School
DiS~,.OftIi1ii~e sitO'1;\ii>n.
SO.end Went on to e.in theiDistrict has a fenCed in area that another Company is
u~.~ said there is piJlly of OPportunities but it would Cost U.S. West Some money,
the DiS~ldn't~.
KUYkendall 'J!#Ifthe fee. Sonnabend said there is no specific price. They Would
check around ~J!,'$@e What other locations charge.
Fischer responded to Sonnabend's COmments that U.S. West Would not be adding another
pole. U.S. West is trying to provide Coverage to the area in a timely manner. To go
throUgh and negotiate a contract with some other than who they have a contract with
would be a de13y and wouldn't make business sense.
Commissioner Stamson clOsed the public hearing.
1:199fi1esI99p/commlpcmin\mn / O//99.doc
2
,I
I '
Planning Commission Minutes
October 11, 1999
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
.. Questioned Fischer on the location of the pole in the right-of-way line. Fischer said
he believed it was approximately 8 feet.
· Questioned if the box was within that area. Tovar pointed out the site on the survey
being 5. I feet. There is no easement but it is in the City right-of-way. ~
· Questioned the alternative sites and asked if there are anyengineeri!1S!iEna-WWiges
using the High School site. Fischer responded there were no oth~t::$.U~~ and no
engineering problems.,:::::(iiJiiJ?:.....::?iiii!ii!!!i!iiiit:::::..
Kuykeudall: ~ " .
· Felt it was not unreasonable. The pole is existing, it i#stheilliaIly pleasing~
· ~~~~ ~~ :":nN~:;u~::~ of trying to crea~s ~e public enbl:
· Supported the request. ":::q::ii:!!iili!!i!iii!i;::::' .
";;;:::::::;:;:;:::;"
.......... .
.................... .'~.
..::~~tJtHI~tJ~It:i:::::::.. "
.
.
· Questioned FischJ~t!i?h his inteq;i6ns with thellIjigh School 6 or 8 months ago.
.
· QiM~:g9ped Fischer o:H!!!lls initial intent and the referenced the statute in his letter to
staff.~er resp#d their intent is to allow telecommunication usage in the right-
of-way. .:::~Ii!ji~:j~::\vas adopted in 1998.
Open Discussiqilt.
Criego:
· Do not create a pole much higher than the standard.
· The School has lights, why not utilize the School's facility rather than creating
another pole system higher than NSP's? The School could come to some agreement
with the applicant regarding cost.
1:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 101 I 99.doc
3
--'''-'-.... ""---"--'-"'~~"'"'''''''''''''''''''-'''"'':::~'--~~~ .~.~*.. ~,......~.._. "'"""",.-.~--
Planning Commission Minutes
October J I, 1999
Stamson:
· Agreed. The ideal situation would be for U.S. West to put it on the light post at the
. High School. It would be revenue for the School and it would not be added height to
any pole. The proposal is not unreasonable. They are adding 13 feet to an existing
pole, which is probably the shortest pole in the area. It is not in a residential area.
This pole is not going to stand out in the area as being unusual.
V onhof: ,,:::~{;fi;irrr;!},:t:
· Concurred with Criego. The City would prefer to see less tower~:d?li!m:~1tiple uses.
:ny::::::be more consistent to seek ont altematives.",~(" "'
· Questioned the Telecommunication Act. Fischer felt.::,$,:iiif""Shlfute 337 perml'fSi!illr!ti>
usage in the right-of-way. Fischer also said they qqgHially .*:~nt to the City anqii~Ua
not feel a Conditional Use was necessary. TheX:~i.!!igping thl!~h the process"to
appease everyone. None of the other utilities g3" tht6.I~.. a:g0P:::P;focess and are
allowed the height. ":::;::ti!t!ii!!iiif:::.
· Tovar said utilities are permitted in th~:::r.ight-of-way. The::qrwpance is very specific
. ~~~::::~;:;::gS~~~~~;~:~sand
Cramer: "^ '\ 'if
Questioned who had a.gtH6rity for tli~rdecision, S~gt~ibr local government. A brief
discussion on nti1i~~~ye read tbe ordinance.
MOTION BY KUYKENI5:.'~ SECONIfBY CRAMER, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCI~,:~;eIE{}(p' THE C@R[pIT~ONAL USE PERMIT WITH STAFF'S THREE
COr:FS:~4' y
V:9tf:!t~en indicated aY~~!i!RY Kuykendall, Cramer, Criego, Stamson. Nay by Vonhof.
Mb~~ARRIED. .1
Tovar state'di!iil~::,,~a.~i~f!iWi11 go before the City Council on November 1, 1999.
..::::~t!!t!I~~~:::::t!:::::..\
Case Fi(i~ii#~l9-OQ6 U.S. West Wireless Comqmnications is requesting a
ditionaI usiWpermit f~ the construction of a free 's{~nding monopole \.
nnicalion tower loca~ in the right-of-way. ""-, \\
Planner nni Tovar presented t~lanning Report dated OctOb~,,( 1, 1999, on file ini~e
office of tb City Planner. ,." \\
"-
The applicant is posing to construct a fi standing 81-foot tall monopo within the
County right-of-way. This property is zoned Agricultural) and SD (Shore d
District). Section 1110. 0 of the City Code reg . es a Conditional Use Permit r
1:\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mnIOI199.doc
4
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A COMMUNICATION
TOWER WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE R-l
DISTRICT (CASE FILE #99-065)
US WEST WIRELESS
EAST SIDE OF CANDY COVE R-O-W, SOUTH OF
CENTENNIAL STREET NORTH OF 160TH STTREET
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
~YES _NO-N/A
OCTOBER 11,1999
The applicant is proposing to replace an existing utility pole (NSP) of approximately 27
feet in height with a new wood pole of 52Yz feet in height. The current pole is located in
an easement on private property. The proposed pole will be located within the right-of-
way. This property is zoned R-l. Section 1110.600 of the City Code requires a
Conditional Use Permit for towers located with a light pole or power line support device.
Section 1110.500 requires a conditional use permit for towers exceeding 45 feet and
attached to existing structures.
REVIEW PROCESS:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit should be reviewed in accordance with the criteria
found in Section 1108 of the City Code and Section 1110. Section 1110 is the
Communications Tower ordinance. The criteria are discussed on the following pages.
City Code 1110.500 Height Restrictions allows for a maximum height of 45 feet and
that no tower exceed a height equal to the distance from the base of the antenna to the
nearest overhead electrical power line. The Council may approve a conditional use
permit to allow an antenna located on/with an existing or proposed structure up to 25 feet
above the structure if the applicant can demonstrate that, by a combination of antenna
design, positioning of the structure and/or by screening erected or already in place on the
structure, off site views of the antenna from adjacent properties are minimized.
f: \dept\p lanning\99files\99cup \99-065\99-065pc .doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
City Code 1110.600 Setbacks allows a tower's setback to be reduced or its location in
relation to a public street varied to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or
proposed structure such as a church steeple, power line support device, or similar
structure upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
City Code Section 1110.1200 Co-location requires the applicant for a tower permit to
provide documentation related to co-location. Attached is a letter dated September 2,
1999 from US West related to co-location. Basically, they feel there is no need to
demonstrate co-location on other existing sites within the search ring, as the antenna are
being combined with an NSP pole.
SITE ANALYSIS:
The subject site consists of approximately 145 square feet within the Candy Cove right-
of-way. There is an existing pole, currently located out ofthe right-of-way, which will be
removed and replaced with a 54~ foot high pole (see Exhibit A, survey). There is a
proposed utility box located on the ground, within the right-of-way. The box is located
within the leased tract and is 3~ feet high, approximately 4 feet by 4 feet square.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS:
Section 1108.200 of the City Code sets forth the criteria for approval of a CUP. These
criteria and the staff analysis of compliance with these criteria are set forth below;
(1) The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use preserves the objectives of the existing ordinances. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property as R-L/M (Low to Medium
Density Residential). The proposed use is consistent with an objective to
"maintain orderly development of and access to utilities."
(2) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community as a whole.
The proposed communication tower will not be detrimental to health, safety,
morals and general welfare of the community as a whole. There are no
structures located within the fall zone of the tower. The high school tennis
courts are located to the east, and the nearest house is located approximately 200
feet from the proposed pole, across the street.
(3) The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Use District in which the Conditional Use is located.
f: \dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-065\99-065pc.doc
2
The proposed communication tower use is consistent with the R-l (Low Density
Residential) zoning district. The proposed height and setback requires a
conditional use permit in this zoning district.
(4) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
services, or improvements which are either existing or proposed.
The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental
facilities, services, or improvements. The roadway is within the fall zone of the
tower and would be temporarily blocked if the tower should fall to the west.
(5) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties in close proximity to the conditional use.
The proposed monopole will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and
enjoyment of properties in close proximity. The pole is similar use to other
structures within the right-of-way.
(6) The use is subject to the design and other requirements of site and
landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional
landscape architect, or civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota,
approved by the City Council and incorporated as part of the conditions
imposed on the use by the City Council.
The landscape ordinance does not apply to this, as it is located within the right-
of-way. From a maintenance point of view, additional landscaping is not
desired within the right-of-way.
(7) The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared by a professional
civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota which illustrate locations
of city water, city sewer, fire hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and
cable lines, natural gas mains, and other service facilities. The plans shall
be included as part of the conditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permit
approved by the City Council.
Plans prepared by a registered civil engineer have been submitted. They will be
reviewed as a part of the building permit application. The engineering staff has
reviewed the plans submitted.
(8) The use is subject to such other additional conditions which the City
Council may find necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety
and neighborhood character. Such additional conditions may be imposed
in those situations where the other dimensional standards, performance
standards, conditions or requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to
f: \dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-065\99-065pc.doc
3
achieve the objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these
circumstances, the City Council may impose restrictions and conditions on
the Conditional Use Permit which are more stringent than those set forth in
the Ordinance and which are consistent with the general conditions above.
The additional conditions shall be set forth in the Conditional Use Permit
approved by the City Council.
Additional conditions recommended for the proposed use are listed below.
CONCLUSION
The proposed use is generally consistent with the standards for conditional uses.
However, the applicant has not provided documentation demonstrating the antenna
cannot be co-located on an existing tower/pole/structure. Prior to making a
recommendation, the Planning Commission should continue the request so the applicant
can provide the rationale as required by ordinance. This rationale must be provided by a
registered engineer stating attempts made, radius area required and possible locations,
and why those alternative sites will not be adequate. The following would be
recommendations for future approval:
1. The utility equipment box must be located as far from the curb as possible, but
within the right-of-way and leased tract.
2. A building permit is required.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the CUP with specific conditions as presented
or with changes recommended by the Commission.
2. Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny part or all
of the application based upon consistency ofthe proposal with specific regulations of
the Zoning Ordinances.
3. Defer action on this request and provide staff or the applicant with specific direction.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #3.
ACTION REOUIRED:
Motion and second continuing the public hearing to October 25, 1999 to allow the
applicant to submit required documentation relating to co-location as required by Section
1110.1200.
f: \dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-065\99-065pc.doc
4
\
J
, s
, s
CENTENNIAL STREET
w
w
N89'40' 43"E
- ~-
,
,
NORm UHE or BLOO< 1, - - - ~
CEHTtNNTAL .AOQlTIQN
o 20 40 60
~~ I
SCALE IN FEET
2491-71
186
EXHIBIT A
MIN
G
\
\
~ \
J"
II
w II ,
\~ 11'/ ~
N89'40' 43"E '
.-_ \ 60.49 "'1\.__._
~.- ___-,\-~:\-- ~o ---~\~~~~~;\~
.-- \ II -l
, ' I~
II ~ II I 'j;
~ II '" \ II -a,
\\ \~\ ~\I~I \ I~I \~
;1,1 * II II I~
~\-\ ~~~ I~I "'\ "'\ \ 1\':
\ " ~ E..mLY UNE or
\\ "" " CANOY COVE TRAIL
~ ~ \ ,\/
~~j1R '" II V~
",~ \ '\ ';t.
'@.
\ \\ ,~ r- SEE (j
\\ ' ,:'
\~ \\'~,:
\\ l1?/i'es '" ... r-'': !
\ "'w,,~ \\ "', I
\\ ~ X.:f.r.-----I :
\1'- \ -, I
II " \ .. ", :
" II lit I rPOWER POlE
\ JI 0 :' ~ ' PRO~\OSED 1\
\\ ~ "'~~ ~"'~~. \ ~\OLE.m\
<ll~ :;(. ~'" f- ~ 'e.~ :.
\ ~~ 0 ~""f ~ ~\~ ,:
~ G'> 0 ';. ~ ~ c::. ,
~~ Vl ~ t ~ ~ ~\\ "
IJ'~~ -<0. II
\ ~ ~ ,.. 'A c:-'"
\
\ \. \ \.\
\ '\ \ \\
\ ~ _ _ EASTERlY EXlENSlON or
, 11-lE NORm lINE OF BlOCK
" 1, CENTENN1"'- "DOmON
, s
295
SURVEY FOR:
u. S. WEST WIRELESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Part af the existing right-of-way of Candy Cove Trail located In the Southeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Mlnnesata.
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this mop was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Dated this 1st day of July, 1999. ~/ II~ I f
Revised this 14th day of September, 1999. W'vl!!J.t.--
by: Jack Boike
Minnesota License No. 20281
PROPOSED LEASE TRACT DESCRIPTION
A strip of land 7.08 feet In width aver part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36,
Township 115 North, Range 22 North of the 5th Principal Meridian, Scott County, Minnesota, the easterly line of
said strip is described as follows:
Commencing ot the intersection of the easterly extension of the north line of Black 1, CENTENNIAL
ADDITION, according ta the recorded plat thereof and situate In Scott County, Minnesata with the west
line of Candy Cove Troll; thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 43 seconds East assumed bearing along
said easterly extension a distance of 60.49 feet to the east line of said Candy Cove Trail; thence South 7
degrees 37 minutes 57 seconds East along sold east line 0 distance of 52.89 feet to an angle point in
said east line; thence South 18 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds East continuing along sold east line 0
distance of 57.76 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 18 degrees 40
minutes 05 seconds East continuing along sold east line 0 distance of 20.53 feet and sold :;ne there
terminating.
--------~-----------------------------------------------------------,
IETAIL
NO SCALE
\
~
iU P.O.B.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
DETAIL
AND
)WER SITE
/'
,
,
,
POv.1::R POLE - ~
TO BE REMOVED \
.
,
.
,
~
,<:>A-"t.
~1,"9 e --,
1.0
"- - TREE LINE
HOO
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
I
,
,
,
\
\
EGAN
FIELD & NOWAK
SURVEYORS
INC.
7415 WAYlATA BOULEVARD
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
TELE: (612) 546-6837
25214R1
i,;
",
J ri
;';i
i
I
,
<l <l
()
.
--I
.
--I
en
en
w
--I
W
a:
-
S
f-
en
W
S
en
:J
'In
I
~
.
....
C\JLO
· ~ (J)
~(Y)C}I
...Jtg~
<c<(~
a: I- ..
I-O~
WCI)-
.>WCI)
~OZ
do~t::
a: >- ~o
oUJa
z~CJ)
<( <( ..
O....J>-
C\Jocl-
C\Joz
co_=>
~a:o
(La
x
W
o
z
Ow
Zw
3: :c
<( Ul
ct:w
oi::!
1=
I ..-
,Ill
'll r~ 8
Ii~~~ Ii ili
I ~~I~ r 2iR g
It ~ 8 B~ ;
~NI')VIOIO
, I I I I'
NNNNNN
z
::3
a. Ul W
w ~ l1..
a. ~ 5 ~
~ZClz~
~::3~g~t3
Z~~~~V1
Ul-z...JoW
5Viwwwo
o
~
o
o
0::
LJ
::>
.z
uw
..J~ z
..J ~
"e5C!;NN ~
I- Ia~;oo;:; iE
u ~<1f)'f'f z
W l:!lLZNN 6
-, li':J:~;1;;1;...,
o f-Ii2J ..
ct: 11Ilo::>~ti
l1.. ~z~:g:g;5
- U) -............z
Q. lIlN~....O
Q. ::>....lIlQ.LL u
<(
>-
ct:
o
I-
U
W
ct:
o
o
~
o
o
0::
LJ
::>
tif5 ~
..J~ In
..J1I:.... Z
.I.iJO....N:J:
~ ~~~~m ~
~ w< I I W
o::lLZNN~
Z li'iE~;1;;1; 0
>= Iii~::f~ti
0:: ~z~:g:g;5
f- U) """""'z
z ~~~n:.;.: 8
,
~I
I N a
R :
w
-'
o
0...
o
o
o
~
i.
, .
0,\,"
~, ;:
~
! :
. ..
!-i;
~
fI
~
if) W 35 p~ lU!O
~
(f)
~
-r I
I
8-1 I
i I
i I
~
I I
I I
I
I
I
--
J!
id
III
.
GO
..
!
'"
~
------
1'.0.... ::!!:- --- ---
- - - ---- ---
/ .~
&
________8-1--- -'-
_ _ _ . / C,..o1c<f1!.'\1I""
&
----
------
&
~ ------
------
~O~ 0'- 0' ~~~
I ----- ~~
ii
51 Ii
o
~
b
N
b
-----
~
,,'
a O.'tl. \...\~t.. - -
r-. --
...---
~~~ /
~OO ~
9~~
------
/
~
C>o:::
zw
r=3=
~o
X 0..
W
..JD
..J<(
<(w
I-I
V} 0:::
~~
wO
0:::
V)
<(W
Z..J
zO
~o..
ZO
<(0
o
1-3=
V)
~~
V}Z
::>.Id
c>0
ZZ
1=<(
VlWo:::
X..JO
wOI
o..U
W Z
>0:::<(
OW
::!3=W
WO..J
o:::o..~
--
/
~
/
~
/
---
---
~
/
~
~
y
~
~~
C>
zV}
r=t:J
~o:::
XI-
W
IX)
---
'0
~
I-
Z
w
::!
!:!:
::J
o
W
l-
V}
w
3=
V}
::J
w"-
t:: II
(f), .
. -
00
0..........
W"-
t.')
cr ..
::s~
Z<(
W~
/
~
" CO\lt. i~P-\\..
Cp-",O \
--...-
---
---
---
..:.
",.\
>,:
~ \ .
<I
lfl
<(
Z W
Z ...J
W 0
~ 0..
<( 0
I- 0
lfl 0
w ~
~ ~
lfl W
::J Z
~
9
;;;;;;;;;J
. III
. -
J.,
~~~~
I a/U~ f
. ~ I
~
Zlfl
Ft::J
!!:?o:::
XI-
W
I-
Z
W
::;E
0..
::J
a
W
I-
'\ ~
\~
::J
"--\..
r-- I ""\...
/ '- ........."
---
/
(
/
\
(\
~ \
--
\ \ \
"- J
~o
ZZ
F<(
lflwO:::
-...JO
XOI
W U
wo..z
>0:::<(
o~W
:::Eo...J
llto..~
"
.
to
I
N
L()
~
Z 0:::
Fw
lfl~
5<0
wa..
j~
<(w
I- I
lfln:
~w
w>
0:::0
\ '-./ __ /" .J'
-
......-
)
r-^'
,/ p
/ )
!!! !
d i
!
to
IX)
I
0 I-
(f)
L5
C> 0
Z I
~ -
0 II
0
-1 CX)
Z ""'-
0
i= W
~ -1
<{
-1 U
W (f)
W
...J
o
00..
Zo:::
Fw
lfl~
5<0
wa..
,
u:>1
I N a
! ~
'\
I
~
o
Ux
-'0
~lD
~
>
0...
o
I-
r
.
o
I
i-1
L
w
V)
4:
lD
W
W
a:::
U
z
o
U
l-
V)
4:
U
W
a:::
0...
I-
U
W
Z
Z
o
U
V)
i5
. ::I
_I
..~~~
I ~U I !
I I I
n
II
II ~
II ~
II ~
w
II
II
u
-"
II
II ~
II>
l-
II ~
a:::
II u-
II
II
t'
!!I ~
d i ~
!
I ...
,
<al
p
I riY 9
! I
"""
N
o
o
U11
3: .
~II
> .
I-N
Z...........
W'-
~ .,
o...W
- -.J
:J<C
au
W U1
" U S WEST Wireless. L.L.C.
426 North Fairview. Room 101
51. Paul. MN 55104
August 18, 1999
~
LI~WEST
lifes better here" @
Jane A. Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. Se.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: MIN295 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for US West Wireless to
collocate antennas on an existing 35' AGL NSPI US West Communications pole that
will be replaced with a 48.5' AGL (54.5' overall height with antennas and 2' lightning
rod) pole in the Right - of - Way located on Candy Cove Trail SE, Prior Lake, MN.
Dear Jane,
US West Wireless (USWW) submitted a Right of Way application June 23, 1999 through the Prior
lake Public Works department for the placement of fayade mounted antenna on an existing
NSP/US West Pole located within the Right - of - Way located on Candy Cove Trail. This
application was then forwarded to the Prior lake Planning Department and has been requested
that our site be submitted as a conditional use permit. Although US West has agreed to go through
a conditional use permit process for this site, it is U S West's opinion per Minnesota State Statutes
237.162 that this application should be an administrative review (permitted use with conditions)
through the public works department for the following reasons listed below:
1. Before the fayade mounted antenna would be placed on the NSP pole, US West
Communications would replace the old NSP pole with a 48.5'AGl pole. US West Wireless would
then add 4' panel antennas and 2' lightning rod to the existing pole to extend the overall height to
54.5' AGL. US West Communication's desire to exchange and upgrade its telephone poles is not
subject to review under the Prior lake Zoning Ordinance, Section 1110 (Communication Towers),
but instead is subject to the statewide rules and regulations of the Public Utilities Commission
governing Rights - of - Way.
2. US\NW's application for administrative review to mount an antenna on the fayade of existing
. poles is a permitted use with conditions under section 1110.503 paragraph #3 and should have
been reviewed under that provision as an administrative review Q:>ermitted use with conditions).
3. Pro competition federal and state law require that local regulation of telecommunication services
and facilities not interfere with the deployment and provisioning of telecommunications services
and facilities.
4. USWW submits that its application to replace an NSPI US West Telephone pole was not within
the jurisdiction of the Prior lake Planning and Zoning Department as a conditional use permit
process, but should have been processed through the public works department in accordance with
the Right - of - Way rules and the statewide construction standards. Once the exchange of the
poles had occurred, the application for review as a permitted use with conditions was clearly within
USA
,00
~a.o.w ( Prior Lake CUP Application)
36USC380
1
the authority of the Planning & Zoning Department and should have been reviewed in accordance
with Section 1110.503. If the review had been conducted, subject to final adjustments between
USWW and the Planning & Zoning Department, the permit should have been issued. This
particular application is not a case of a new communications tower being disguised as a telephone
pole. This is a real existing NSPI U S West Communications pole that will be a permitted,
conforming use as a utility pole in the Right - of - Way, on which a fac;:ade mounted antenna will be
placed.
The pro-competition Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Sate of Minnesota's laws
regarding Telecommunications Right - of - Way, provide that local authority to manage the public
Right - of - Way must be on a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral manner.
As long as US West Communications replaces its pole in accordance with applicable statewide
standards, the application of collateral burdensome zoning regulations is not appropriate.
Compliance with the administrative review (permitted with conditions) process for fac;:ade mounted
communication antenna should be all that is required.
The conditional use permit process is problematic for a number of reasons. Application of the
setback requirements will unfairly discriminate against wireless providers in favor of wire line
providers, and will also discriminate against USWW in favor of other wireless providers using
competing technologies ( NSP data transmission). Subjecting telecommunications providers such
as US West Communications and U S West Wireless to this type of process creates an undue
administrative and expense burden to both the City and Wireless Communication providers.
USWW submits that its request is exactly the type of approach that was envisioned when the pro-
competition federal and state telecommunications laws were enacted. Allowing USWW to use U S
West Communications I NSP poles will enable it to take advantage of already existing
infrastructure, without causing the construction of new facilities which will add needless cost to the
process and consumer.
The use of poles in a grid is crucial to assure proper coverage in the areas served. The increased
pole height is necessary to assure quality of service, because without it USWW will not be able to
place its facilities above the "clutter" (low buildings and trees). Through this approach, USWW will
be able to compete with other local telecommunications providers, which will benefit the consumer
through more competition (more choices and better prices).
USWW does understand the concerns of the Prior Lake Planning Department, but we feel this
could be achieved through an administrative review through the public works department as a
permitted use with conditions rather than through the conditional use permit process.
Please find enclosed a Planning Administrative Form, for application of a Conditional Use Permit to
be considered an to replace an existing NSP I US West Communications pole with a new 48.5'
pole (54.5' AGL overall height, including the 2' lightning rod) in the Right - of - Way located on
Candy Cove Trail SE in Prior Lake, MN. This request is being made on behalf of US West
Wireless L.L.C. (USWW).
US West Wireless L.L.C. must locate a site in this area in order for USWW to deliver complete
service coverage along County Rd. 13, Candy Cove Trail and the surrounding Community of Prior
Lake. The Conditional Use Permit is requested by the City of Prior Lake in order to replace and
MIN295- R.OW. ( Prior Lake CUP Application)
2
existing pole with a new pole that will allow US West to provide Wireless Communication Service
to the Prior Lake are surrounding Candy Cove Trail in the Minneapolis/St. Paul market. USVVW
conducted a drive test in this area to identify a need for 52.5 'AGL (overall height with antennas
excluding the lightning rod) at this location.
We hope this correspondence and enclosures explain our application and address the
requirements by the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. Should you have any questions
regarding the attached Application for Conditional Use Permit or would like to discussPCS
technology further, please feel free to contact me at 651-642-6291 or on myPCS phone at: 612-
998-4784. 'appreciate the assistance that we have received from you, and we lookforward to
working with you to better serve the community in this area.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
David W. Fischer
US West Wireless L.L.C.
Real Estate Consultant
Enclosure
cc Steve Mangold, US West Wireless L.L.C. Minneapolis, RE Manager
MIN295- R.OW. ( Prior Lake CUP Application)
3
EXHIBIT A
US West Wireless L.L.C. CUP Application
I Site Information:
Current Zoning
US West Wireless L.L.C.
David W. Fischer, USWW Consultant
Right- Of - Way located on Candy Cove Trail SE, Prior Lake, MN
55372
R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Applicant
Contact
Site Location
I Adjacent Zoning
Residential
I Case History
This site is an existing 35' NSP IUS West Communications Pole.
I Introduction
US West Wireless L.L.C. - Minneapolis is requesting a Conditional Use Permit in order to replace
an existing 35'AGL pole with a new 48.5 pole (54.5' overall height with antennas and 2' lightning
rod) in the Right-of Way located on Candy Cove Trail. The Conditional Use Permit is being
requested as per the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance:
Subject
Conditional Use Permits
PCS Technology
PCS is a wireless telecommunications services personalized to the individual. There is a
growing demand for improved wireless services, and a new infrastructure is needed to meet this
growing demand. The following information is provided as an overview of general PCS services
and technology.
Background
In early 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) auctioned licenses for the
1900 MHz band of the radio spectrum within the 51 Major Trading Areas fVlTAs) of the United
States for use by Personal Communications Services. USWW purchased licenses within these 51
MTAs. These licenses, enable US West Wireless to offer Personal Communications Services in 14
states throughout the country.
What is PCS?
Telephone numbers used in PCS handsets will become tied specifically to an individual,
and the types and features of services that each subscriber desires will be customized to his or
her unique needs. A PCS telephone number will belong to a person for as long as he or she
MIN295- R.OW. ( Prior Lake CUP Application)
4
. ,
wants it, and the chosen services (for example stock quotes on selected companies, voice mail,
and caller identification) will become specific to the individual holding that telephone number.
PCS technology will allow a variety of telecommunication services, including:
. Local and long distance telephone services and cable services;
. AII-in-one Wireless Communication Services:
. Portable phones, pagers, and fax transmission;
. Numeric paging on the phone's screen;
. Interactive paging (2-way paging which allows the sender to track where the
message is sent, and when it has been received.)
. Voice mail service;
. Caller ID;
. International roaming capability;
. Reduced power needs (allows smaller units and longer battery life); and
. In the future, PCS will allow computer use and video images over the PCS network.
Assigning a unique PCS telephone number to a customer will allow the individual to place a call
and I or send information across regional, national, and international borders. The network will
do all the work of tracking the customer, knowing where he or she is at all times.
Benefits of PCS over Cellular
PCS has several advantages over existing cellular telephone service, including better
service quality through the use of digital technology, more compact radio equipment,
increased mobility, enhanced service features, and price.
Digital Technology:
PCS utilizes the latest digital technology. This will facilitate cleaner voice
quality, but more importantly, clean data communication. APCS customer will be
able to communicate through voice and data simultaneously using the same
handset without interference to either activity. In addition, computer users will be
able to run applications and retrieve data faster from remote locations using their
handset. PCS technology also provides less static and fading, and there are
fewer dropped calls.
Improved Security:
Digital technology provides more security than analog, the technology
traditionally used by the cellular industry. Calls in digital format cannot be
overheard with the kind of simple scanners currently used to eavesdrop on
cellular calls. Although it is technically possible to overhear a call, it requires
special gear and technical skill which most eaves droppers lack.
Improved Equipment:
PCS will utilize smaller antennas and smaller base Transceiver Stations,
more advanced telecommunication technology that will result in less expensive
rates to the consumer. In addition, equipment will be more compact both at the
handset and at the antenna sites. Handsets will be lighter than today's cellular flip
phones, and the handsets will utilize longer lasting batteries. Because of the
PCS' assigned radio spectrum, there will be more antennas, but they will likely be
less noticeable than those used by the cellular industry. US West Wireless L.L.C.
MIN295- R.OW. ( Prior Lake CUP Application)
5
. ,
has been working diligently to replace existing US West Telecommunication
facilities, lease antenna sites on City water towers, and existing buildings prior to
attempting to lease any sites for new ground built towers.
Increased Mobility:
With PCS, mobility means seamless roaming across existing cellular and
land line service areas. A PCS handset can be taken anywhere and be expected
to function the same as in the coverage area of the original service provider.
One Telephone Number:
With PCS, one Personal Communications Number (PCN) will be assigned
to each individual user. Today, when a person changes their residence, the old
land line telephone number is frequently lost because these numbers are
assigned and based on geographic area. Cellular telephone numbers are also
lost when carriers are switched because cellular service companies are provided
a limited range of numbers, and the numbers have to be recycled or reused. A
PCN associates a telephone number with a person, regardless of where he or
she is located, and regardless of who is the service provider.
Lower Cost for Service:
PCS will be cheaper in the long term because it will utilize digital
technology. Initially, the cost for the service and handsets will be similar to that of
cellular. However, with increased demand, both carriers and manufacturers will
be able to lower their price significantly. Eventually PCS service will be less than
cellular and will be close to the cost of land line telephone service.
Increasing Demand
Today, cellular telephone systems in the US are expanding at the rate of over
28,000 new subscriptions a day, far beyond the growth rate of new subscriptions for wire
line telephone service. The popularity of cellular telephone service is due to the freedom,
mobility, and enhanced productivity that it provides. No longer are people tied to fixed
telephones or pay phones. Yet cellular telephone services is just one step toward
another type of service, one expected to revolutionize telecommunications. The next
rung on the evolutionary ladder is PCS.
Interference Issues
US West Wireless L.L,C. will resolve technical interference problems with other equipment
located at the site on the Commencement Date or any equipment that becomes attached to the
Site at any future date when USWW desires to add additional equipment to the Site
The PCS system operates on a specific set of channels licensed exclusively to USWW by the
Federal Communications Commission for provision of high quality mobile service for the benefit of
the public good. The filtering of spurious signals is very tightly controlled via standard radio
electronic filters. PCS telephones operate within strictly regulated set of allotted frequencies. All
USWW sites must be operated in accordance with our FCC license to provide PCS service to this
area. USWW is currently licensed to operate in markets nation wide with hundreds of antennas.
There has not been any instance of television or radio interference reported.
MIN295- R.OW. ( Prior Lake CUP Application)
6
.'
Land Site
A pre-assembled Base Transceiver Station (BTS), which contains radio frequency
transceivers and self-contained batteries for back-up power, is connected to amplifiers,
commercial electrical service and public T-1 Line service. A control unit equipped with its own
built-in HVAC will also be located on the sire, housed by the BTS unit. The control unit will be
under 24-hour security and fire surveillance by US\fWII. Up to six antennas will be mounted on the
tower at 000<i:l, 120<i:l, and 240<i:l from true north.
Antennas
Antennas attached to the tower/site will transmit and receive FCC-approved radio signals
which carry voice and data between the PCS system users and the US\fWII central switching
network. The physical size of the antennas may vary. The antennas required for this site are
approximately about 48 inches long and 7.5 inches wide and 2.2 inches deep.
The antenna sites necessary for PCS coverage are defined by the RF engineering design.
Surrounding topography, trees and buildings also playa role in arriving at the appropriate antenna
height. The US\fWII engineers have determined that antenna height to be 52.5' feet.
Equipment
The Base Transceiver Station (BTS) houses radio, computer and climate control
equipment for this site. This equipment is powered by the local power company (using normal
120/240 volt, single phase, AC electricity). It will be connected to the US\fWII mobile switching
center via traditional telephone lines. No water or plumbing will be necessary for any of the sites
which US\fWII erects, since no people are present at our sites on a daily basis. There will only be
occasional, brief visits (average about once a month, for 1 to 3 hours per visit) for routine
maintenance. Fire protection is provided by OSHA approved Halon inside the equipment cabinet.
US West Wireless is looking forward to providing PCS service to the Prior Lake Community in the
future. Thank you for your cooperation regarding this request. If you have any questions
regarding the application for the site please contact me in my office: 651-642-6291 or on myPCS
phone: 612-998-4784.
Respectfully,
~~~
David W. Fischer
Real Estate Consultant
US West Wireless L.L.C.
MIN295- R.OW. ( Prior Lake CUP Application)
7
, ,
U S WEST Wireless. L.L.C.
426 North Fairview, Room 101
St. Paul, MN 55104
LI~WEST
September 2, 1999
Iifes better here'@
1 \').
Jane A. Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. Se.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: MIN295 - Response regarding Prior lake's request for additional information upon
review of US West's application for a Conditional Use Permit to collocate on an
existing NSP pole located within Prior Lake's right of way.
Dear Jane,
US West Wireless L.L.C. recently submitted a Conditional Use Permit Application for collocationof
an existing NSP pole that US West Communications will replace within the right of way and extend
the height to 48'6'. Once US West Communications replaces the pole, US West Wireless will
collocate on the new structure. The overall height with antennas and lightning rod will be 54'6".
This would be performed undsr the joint use agreement between US West and NSP to replace
desired poles. This application information is for the Planning Commission meeting September 27,
1999. Upon Prior Lake's receipt and review of US West's Application, the following information
was requested: A narrative demonstrating attempts to collocate on existing structures and why
separate and new facilities are necessary. I have provided a brief narrative addressing this
request below:
US West feels there is not a need to demonstrate collocation on other existing sites within the
search ring, since US West's application is a collocation on an existing pole. The height extension
will be performed by US West Communications under the guidelines of the public utilities
commission for utilities allowed in right of ways.
Separate and new facilities must be located in his area in order for USWN to deliver complete
service coverage along Candy cove Trail SE and the surrounding Community of Prior Lake. The
Conditional Use Permit is requested in order to collocate on an existing NSP pole in the right of .
way that will allow US West to provide Wireless Communication Service to the Prior Lake are
surrounding area. USWN conducted a drive test in this area to identify a need fora 48'6" pole
(54'6" overall height with antennas and lightning rod) at this location.
U S West Wireless believes that any such approval ofUSWN's right of way permit authorization or
other exercise of zoning authority to place wireless telecommunications in rights of ways would be
consistent with the strict parameters and guidelines that the Minnesota legislature has established
to govern the issuance of right of way use permit authorizations. U S West feels that this
application should be subject to the statewide rules and regulations of the Public Utilities
tr"!isAon governing rights of way per the Minnesota State Statute 237j63
q~
Proud _Sponsor
MIN2iQJs~ocation Requirement Letter
1
~ ..
We hope this correspondence and enclosures explain our application and address the
requirements by the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. Should you have any questions
regarding the information provided above, please feel free to contact me at 651-642-6291 or on my
PCS phone at: 612-998-4784. I appreciate the assistance that we have received from you, and we
look forward to working with you to better serve the community in this area.
@w~
David W. Fischer
US West Wireless L.L.C.
Real Estate Consultant
Enclosure
cc Steve Mangold, US West Wireless L.L.C. Minneapolis, Fe Manager
MIN295 - Collocation Requirement Letter
2
'\
r.
r~5
..~ ~
.qCj-~
Eagle Creek Avenue S.E./. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 /tPhone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: __
.0 Rezoning, from (present zonini)
to (pro~osed zonini)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
~ Conditional Use Pennit
o Variance
o Other:
Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
sheets/narrative. if desired)
.~~.
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
Property Owner(s} [If different from Applieants]: C;~ ~ \Or /...6l.uL
Address: . \ ~"Z...OO ~lc.. c.tu.tL. A
Home Phone: . . Work Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee _ Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement __ 12-l:>u.1.
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
-
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
. Signature of Planning Director or Designee
lu-app2.doc
Date
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road, SE
(Southwest of the intersection of CR. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday,
October, 11, 1999, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon as possible thereafter.
APPLICANT:
US West Wireless Communications
SUBJECT SITE:
Candy Cove easterly right-of-way between Centennial Street and 160th Street (CR
44) .
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A strip of land 7.08 feet in width over part of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 115 North, Range 22 North of the 5th
Principal Meridian, Scott County, Minnesota, to the easterly line of said strip
described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the easterly extension of the north line of
Block 1, Centennial Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof and situate
in Scott County, Minnesota with the west line of Candy Cove Trail; thence North
89 degrees 40 minutes 43 seconds East assumed bearing along said easterly
extension a distance of 60.49 feet to the east line of said Candy Cove Trail;
thence South 7 degrees 37 minutes 57 seconds East along said east line a
distance of 52.89 feet to an angle point in said east line; thence South 18
degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds East continuing along said east line a distance of
57.76 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South
18 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds East continuing along said east line a distance
of 20.58 feet and said line there terminating.
REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for co-locating a
communication tower with the replacement of an existing utility pole located
within the Candy Cove right-of-way. Section 1110.600 of the City Code requires
a Conditional Use Permit for integrating a tower with an existing or new utility
pole.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend this hearing. The
Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Questions related
to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by
calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Jenni Tovar, Planner
City of Prior Lake
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON September 25, 1999.
f:\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-065\99-065pn.doc
'./ ' \
/ r'r---
,..c'~~
I; .
I
I
~
I
f
Q
j
,
1
i
j
,
j
j
I
,
i
'- !;,' ~'.
'.
,......_'-".....~.._ _.J,___'__.j-_.~ ....'.. _' _,_ ....~.. ~,'
Article
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
. _' ..;/' __...#.~..'~:....A..._.'_ _.. .,:...._.__.",. .. ,;.;__ ...... __,,~ __.._ "-_
BETWEEN
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
AND
NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
ARTICLE INDEX
. !
,
Scope of Agreement
Explanation of Terms
Normal Joint Use and Space Utiliza~ion
Specifications
Operating Routine
Establishing Joint Use of Existing Poles
Establishing Joint Use of New Poles
Right of Way for Licensee's Attachments
Maintenance of Poles and Attachments
Division of Costs
Procedure When Character of Circuits is Changed
Termination of Joint Use
Transfers of File
Annual Payment
Readjustment of Annual Payment
Defaults
Liability and Damages
Existing Rights of Other Parties
Assignment of Rights
Waiver of Terms or Conditions
Ai~l r-
41
."
11
.,
III
.
.l
gl
~
I .
.
J..
,\. i
.... ",' .-....
(.J"
':. ,
"
'.
:A... _,ft'''. ...,;,.'..-.....J" ,,'_
.- .
t.'_ ...."7 _.!_.... "',
_.i... .,'~_
,;
· I
ARTICLE INDEX (Cont' d. )
Article
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Payment of Taxes
Bills and Payments for Work
Service of Notices
Term of Agreement
Existing Agreement
Notes changes made to 1965 Agreement in 1981
revision
*
'- "';
: ~. ...",
..--\
it )~< 'j
. ...c'~_ -- ....- __.;.; ..._..~ :.~~.;._~ _~'__..' .~: ~_~.- ~- _-:.. 4. !. .:."" _" . ,..___--"...
"
,.~~ ~,. ..., r
. ~
I
I
!
.
f
~
._'.:. _ ,.i.t.: _. ':'....:L-.'..._ "4'_~' P ';,_:::, _. .
.. .~. ..,~..;.; ';. ;:.,....-_... ,""'., ;..-...._-".!:~:-~;; _.....:_; .,....:.~~___.. ';.. :..:...~. __L
......".. ~-.,.;"". '.. -- '.... ~
*
25.02 ~e effective date of this Agreement shall be the first day
of Oct. 1981.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to
be executed in duplicate, and their corporate Beals to be affixed thereto
by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, on the ~ ~~
day of -dj>eIL , 198;&
Witnesses:
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
By~~~~~
Supe isor, Distribution Servtces
. c?'.L./. Ll;~.../
And
Witnesses:
NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
~C-J.J ~.~_
~~...
By
Vice President -
Distribution Services
.I( - 2.. -1-2J
- 25 -
-~_....__._--_....,.....,.....-"
!'" '....:.:::.....;:;-cs-::;.' r~c:l. -\'<<11 \!Ji ii'" f. "
. , I,' C-' lJ'J \i..' I' \
~ LS'~ r' . ..., I.
..... ,..-.... '---l ' ,
\' ~ :::J ~ . ..d' ,
r SEp. 8 ~\~I
U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C.
426 North Fairview, Room 101
51. Paul, MN 55104
Proud Sponsor
36USC380
LI~WEST
lifes better here' @
September 7, 1999
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Jane A. Kansier, AICP
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
RE: MIN 295
Dear Jane,
Per sections 1110.1500 and 1110.1200 of the Zoning Code, the information
for construction has been submitted with professional stamped drawings. (See
attached drawings).
US West Wireless is regulated by the FCC and is licensed to operate in the
two Gigahertz band. It is a requirement of the license to stay within this
frequency band and not interfere with adjacent licenses. US West Wireless has
done extensive testing to protect public safety radio systems. No known
interference issues exist.
Anthony Segale
Executive Director - Wireless
426 North Fairview Avenue
Room 101
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
I hereby Clftify ttIIt this"" "***"....
was prepared by me. under m, direct supervision
and that lam a duly Rqistered ProfeuiaIaI E1tf....
_1IIo...~m
Si&NIn ~ ~
It
DatI: ~ J '7/91 IqIllftIiIn .... IS40I
,
Attachment
1I~1YEST@
Advanced PCS™
Min295
54'6" AGL
PRIVATE
Not for disclosure outside ofU S WEST Wireless, L.L.C.
Do not distribute or reproduce without permission from U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C.
SUBSECTIONS
1110.100:
1110.200:
1110.300:
1110.400:
1110.500:
1110.600:
1110.700:
1110.800:
1110.900:
1110.1000:
1110.1100:
1110.1200:
1110.1300:
1110.1400:
1110.1500:
1110.1600:
Zoning Code
SECTION 10
COMMUNICATION TOWERS
Subject To Change
Purpose and Intent
DefInitions
Uses Permitted With Conditions
Height Restrictions
Setbacks
Tower in Residential Use Districts
Lighting
Signs and Advertising
Accessory Equipment Shelters
Design Standards
Co-Location Requirements
Abandoned or Unused Tower or Portions of Towers
Permit Required
Additional Submittal Requirements
Antennas Mounted on Roofs, Walls and Existing Towers
1110.100
1110.200
(1)
(2)
SUBJECT To CHANGE. This subsection outlines the regulations for
Communication Towers and Antennas, which, because of their sensitive
nature, are subject to changing regulations. These types of uses are often
regulated by Federal and State laws as well as locate zoning ordinances.
PURPOSE AND INTENT. In order to accommodate the communication
needs of residents and businesses while protecting the public health, safety
and general welfare of the community, the City Council fmds these
regulations are necessary to:
Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to
accommodate new wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the
number of new towers necessary to serve the community.
Ensure antennas and towers are designed, located and constructed in
accordance with all applicable code requirements to avoid potential damage to
adjacent properties from failure of the antenna and tower through structural
standards and setback requirements.
May 1, 1999
City of Prior Lake
llIO/pl
1110.300
Zoning Code
(3)
Require antennas and tower sites to be secured in order to discourage
trespassing and vandalism; and
(~
(4)
Require tower equipment to be screened from the view of persons located on
properties contiguous to the site and/or to be camouflaged in a manner to
compliment existing structures to minimize adverse visual effects of antennas
and towers.
DEFINITIONS
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 (peS), specialized mobile 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, personal wireless services shall not
be considered public utility uses, and are defmed separately.
("\
. .
. ,
:,j
Satellite Dish Antenna. A devise incorporating a reflective surface that is
solid, open mesh, or bar configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish,
cone, horn or cornucopia. Such device is used to transmit and/or receive
radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and orbitally based uses.
This definition shall include, but not be limited to, what are commonly
referred to as satellite earth stations, TVROs (television, receive only) and
satellite microwave 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 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 .
(
\
'. /
May 1, 1999
City of Prior Lake
1110/p2
Zoning Code
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 ordinance.
1110.400
USES PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS. Antennas and towers are Uses
Permitted with Conditions in all Use Districts, unless otherwise noted in this
ordinance. The use is subject to the provisions listed in subsections 1110.500
through 1110.1600 below.
.<1
1110.500 HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.
1110.501 Hei~ht Determination. The height of towers shall be determined by
measuring the vertical distance from the tower I 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 at the tower I s point of attachment and tower
must meet the height restriction of this subsection.
1110.502 Maximum Hei~ht. Except as provided subsection 1110.503, maximum
heights for towers are as follows:
(1) In all Residential Use Districts, the maximum height of any tower, including
all antennas and other attachments, shall be 45 feet, except that 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 5 feet.
(2) In the C-l (Neighborhood Business) Use District, the maximum height of any
tower, including all antennas and other attachments, shall not exceed 1 foot
for each 4 feet the tower is setback from property located in a Residential Use
District up to a maximum of 52.5 feet, except that 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 5 feet.
(3) In the A (Agricultural) Use District and in all other Non-Residential Use
Districts, the maximum height of any tower, including all antennas and other
attachments, shall not exceed 1 foot for each 4 feet the tower is setback from
property located in a Residential Use District up to a maximum of 112.5 feet,
except that 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 5 feet.
City of Prior Lake
May 1, 1999
1110/p3
Zoning Code
1110.503
Exceptions. The following are exceptions to the maximum height restrictions
for towers:
(~..
(1) Multi-Use Towers. Multi-use towers may exceed the height limitations of
this subsection by up to 20 feet.
(2)
Amateur Radio Antenna. In accordance with the preemption ruling PRBl of
the Federal Communications Commission, towers supporting amateur radio
antennas that comply with all other requirements of this subsection are
exempted from the height limitations of the subsection up to a total height of
70 feet, provided that such height is technically necessary to receive and
broadcast amateur radio signals.
.>
(3) Towers and other antenna devices over 45 feet in height which are attached to
a structure and not freestanding may be located in a Residential Use District
under the following conditions:
a. The towers and antennas are located upon existing or proposed structures
allowed as permitted uses, uses permitted with conditions, and
conditional uses in the underlying Use District and/or upon public
structures; and
C'\
, ';")
b. The towers and antennas are limited to a height of 15 feet projecting
above the structure.
c. Subject to approval of a conditional use permit, the City Council may
permit antenna heights of up to 25 feet above the structure if the
applicant can demonstrate that, by a combination of antenna design,
positioning of the structure and/or by screening erected or already in
place on the structure, off-site views of the antenna from adjacent
properties are minimized.
1110.600 SETBACKS. Towers shall conform with each of the following minimum
setback requirements:
(1) In Non-Residential Use Districts, towers shall meet the principal structure
setbacks of the underlying Use District with the exception of the I-I
(Industrial) Use District, where towers may be located 5 feet from the rear
property line, provided that the rear property line abuts another property in
the I-I Use District, and the tower does not encroach on any utility easements.
(
''--, r.,/
City of Prior Lake
May 1, 1999
1110/p4
1110.700
(2)
(3)
1110.800
Zoning Code
(2) In Residential Use Districts, the required setback for an antenna and tower not
rigidly attached to a building shall be equal to the height of the antenna and
tower. Those antennas rigidly attached to a building and whose base is on the
ground, may exceed this required setback by the amount equal to the distance
from the point of attachment to the ground.
(3) Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street,
with the following exceptions:
~ In the I-I (Industrial) Use District, towers may be placed within a
side yard abutting an internal industrial street.
~ On sites adjacent to public streets on all sides, towers may be
placed within a side yard abutting a local street.
(4)
Upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City Council, a tower's
setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public street varied to
allow the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as
a church steeple, light pole, power line support device, or similar structure.
TOWER IN RESIDENTIAL USE DISTRICTS. Towers in Residential Use
Districts are subject to the following additional restrictions:
(1)
Towers supporting amateur radio antennas and conforming to all applicable
provisions of this Ordinance shall be allowed only in the rear yard of parcels
in Residential Use Districts.
Towers supporting commercial antennas and conforming to all applicable
provisions of this Ordinance shall be allowed only as accessory uses to the
following principal uses in Residential Use Districts:
~ Religious Institutions, when camouflaged as steeples or bell towers.
~ Education! Academic uses.
~ Public service structures.
Only 1 tower shall exist at anyone time on any 1 parcel in a Residential Use
District.
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
May 1, 1999
City of Prior Lake
1110/p5
Zoning Code
for camouflage purposes, light fixtures used to illuminate parking lots or other
similar areas may be attached to the tower.
(~
1110.900 SIGNS AND ADVERTISING: No sign, advertising or identification of any
kind intended to be visible from the ground or other structure is permitted,
except applicable warning and equipment information signage required by the
manufacturer or by Federal, State or local authorities.
1110.1000 ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT SHELTERS. Equipment shelters are
permitted as an accessory use to an essential service subject to the following
regulations:
(1) An equipment shelter shall not exceed 336 square feet in area.
(2) Exterior building materials for equipment shelters shall be brick or a material
which simulates the appearance of a brick fascia, and shall be architecturally
compatible with the surrounding area.
(3)
Equipment shelters must meet the setbacks of the underlying Use District,
except that setbacks between equipment shelters may be varied so long as the
proximity does not create a health safety issue.
()
.;)
(4) There shall be no outside storage of equipment or vehicles permitted as part of
the equipment shelter.
(5) In order to avoid unsightliness and to mitigate against possible diminution in
property values, the location and placement of an equipment shelter accessory
to an essential service(s) shall be subject to site plan review. The site plan
must receive approval of the Planning Director, the City Engineer and the
Building Official.
1110.1100 DESIGN STANDARDS. Proposed or modified towers and antennas shall
meet the following requirements:
(1) Towers and antennas (including antenna cables) shall be designed to blend
into the surrounding environment to the maximum extent possible through the
use of building materials, colors, texture, screening, landscaping and other
camouflaging architectural treatment, except in instances where the color is
dictated by federal or state authorities.
( .
~--~.
City of Prior Lake
May 1, 1999
1110/p6
Zoning Code
(2) Commercial wireless telecommunication service towers shall be of a
monopole design. Alternative designs which would better blend into the
surrounding environment may be approved by the City Council through the
Conditional Use Permit process.
1110.1200 CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENT. All personal wireless communication
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 applicant demonstrates that the
telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be
accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a 1 mile
search radius for towers over 120 feet in height, or a 1/2 mile radius for
towers between 80 and 120 feet in height, or a 1/4 mile radius for towers less
than 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 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 engineer.
c. Existing or approved towers and buildings within the search radius
cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to
function reasonable as documented by a qualified and licensed
professional engineer.
(2) The applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to co-locate on
existing towers and structures was made, but an agreement could not be
reached.
(3) Any proposed commercial wireless telecommunication service tower shall be
designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects to accommodate both
the applicant's antenna and comparable antennas for at least 2 additional users
if the tower is over 100 feet in height, or at least 1 additional user if the tower
is over 60 feet in height. Towers must be designed to allow future
City of Prior Lake
May 1, 1999
1110/p7
Zoning Code
rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at (_~'
varying heights. __
1110.1300 ABANDONED OR UNUSED TOWERS OR PORTIONS OF TOWERS.
Abandoned or unused towers or portions of towers and accompanying
accessory facilities 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. If the tower is
leased, a copy of the relevant portions of a signed lease which required 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 a tower is not removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations
at the site, the tower and associated facilities may be removed by the City and
the costs of removal may be assessed to the property owner.
(2) Unused portions of towers above a manufactured connection shall be removed
within 6 months of the time of antenna relocation. The replacement of
portions of a tower previously removed requires a new penirit application.
(3)
After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an
improved state.
(D
1110.1400 PERMIT REQUIRED. No tower or antenna shall be constructed, altered or
expanded without fIrst obtaining a building permit.
1110.1500 ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. In addition to the
information required for a building permit application listed in subsection
1109.501, the following information must be submitted with an application for
a tower or antenna:
(1) A report from a qualifIed and licensed professional engineer which does the
following:
~ describes the tower height and design, including a cross-section and
elevation;
~ documents the height above grade for all potential mounting
positions for co-located antennas and the minimum separation
distances between antennas;
~ describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of --
antennas that it can accommodate; (~j
City of Prior Lake
May 1, 1999
1110/pS
Zoning Code
~ documents what steps the applicant will take to avoid interference
with established public safety telecommunications; and
~ demonstrates the tower's compliance with all applicable structural
and electrical standards and includes the engineer's stamp and
registrati~n number, and documents compliance with the provisions
of subsection 1110.1200.
(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, so long as there is no negative
structural impact upon the tower and there is no disruption to the service
provided.
1110.1600 ANTENNAS MOUNTED ON ROOFS, WALLS AND EXISTING
TOWERS. In addition to submittal requirements required elsewhere in this
Ordinance, an application for a building permit for antennas to be mounted on
an existing structure shall be accompanied by the following ,information:
(1) A site plan showing the location of the proposed antennas on the structure and
documenting the request meets the requirements of this Ordinance;
(2) A building plan showing the construction of the antennas and the proposed
method of attaching them to the existing structure, and documenting the
request meets the requirements of this Ordinance;
(3) A report prepared by a qualified and licensed professional engineer indicating
the existing structure or tower's ability to support the antennas; and
(4) An intermodulation study to ensure there will be no interference with existing
tenants or public safety telecommunication providers.
May 1, 1999
City of Prior Lake
1110/p9
Correspondence
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
January 10, 2000
Dave Fischer
Steve Mangold
US West Wireless
426 N Fairview Avenue #101
St. Paul, MN 55104
RE: Telecommunication Facilities in Public R-O-W
Enclosed is a copy of Ordinance 00-01 implementing a 120-day moratorium on the
installation of any telecommunication facilities in the public right-of-way. Please let me
know if you have any questions.
'ncereIY~ Jvuv
nni Tovar
Planner
Enclosure
.J.\fs1.\sy~\dep.t\plannin,g\9..9fil~\99CIJP\99-065.\moratorltr.~ P~e 1
16200 cagle creek Ave. ~.t:., Yrior Lake, Minnesota .5.5372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61;::) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
,l
October 27, 1999
Dave Fischer
US West Wireless
426 N Fairview Avenue #101
S1. Paul, MN 55104
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a City Council Agenda and Staff Report for the November 1, 1999 City
Council meeting. You or your representatives are expected to attend the meeting. The
meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at 16776 Fish Point
Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot attend the meeting,
please call me so your item can be deferred to the next meeting. If you have any
questions, please contact me at 447-4230.
incerely, j
, ~
nni Tovar
lanner
Enclosure
f:\dept\Qjanning\99files\99cu'p\99-065\agendlet.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
, .1
...
US West Wireless L.L.C.
426 North Fairview Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104
FAX: 651-642-6942
October 7,1999
Jane A. Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: MIN295 Utility Pole Collocation on Candy Cove Trail.
Prior Lake Planning Commission:
US WEST Wireless is proposing to collocate on a utility pole in the right of way on Candy Cove Trail. This
letter is intended to address your concerns as defined in the Prior Lake zoning code section 1110.1200.
The coverage area includes Highway 13, 160th Street, Highway 21 and Franklin Trail, as well as the surrounding
commercial and residential area within 3/4 mile. US WEST Wireless does not currently provide service in this
area. This area contains several patches of dense vegetation and has an average ground elevation of
approximately 950 feet AMSL (Above Mean Sea Level). Therefore an antenna elevation of at least 1005 feet is
needed to clear the average tree top level.
For communications poles less than 80 feet in height, Prior Lake's zoning code section 1110.1200 part 1 requires
consideration of collocation options within'!. mile of the proposed pole. The following structures are within '!.
mile and could meet our RF coverage requirements:
. High School Light Poles
. US WEST / NSP Utility Pole (Subject)
. Cable TV Tower
US WEST Wireless made a business decision to locate on its own asset.
The proposed utility pole is located near the intersection of Candy Cove Trail SE and Centennial Street SE, at a
ground elevation of 960 feet AMSL and a height of approximately 30 feet. Extending the height of the pole to
48.5 feet would allow us to mount antennas with their centers at about 1005 feet AMSL. A drive test was
conducted to confirm that mounting our antennas at this height would meet the coverage objective.
Sincerely,
.~./ ~4A/~
Scott G. Schecklman
RF Design Engineer
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly RegisteI: ofessional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Signature:
Date: /
T
RO
Sf:
Street Atlas USA
iii
(J)
m
Mag 16.00
Fri Oct 0810:131999
Scale 1 :7,812 (at center)
500 Feet
o
~
- Local RQ!id
ttI
- State RoWte
--+--+- Railroad
-I Cemetery
Water
200 Meters
USW/NSP Utility Pole
* .
High School Light Pole
T
\ \ 100'1
\leI. I,..
_.... __~ r_~'--; ,../..
; ".~ \ . \.._...----~--..--. ___-----~1
\ ---------.
l.-
I.
OCT 08 '99 01:12P~TRIAX TELECOM CO
P.l/l
100 FIL.L.MORE STAEET
SUITE 600
DENVER, COLORADO 80206
303-333-2424
303.333-1110 FAX
TRIAX
'T'ELECCMMUNICAllONS
COMPANY. L..L.C.
October 8, 1999
Dave Fischer, Real Estate Consultant
US West Wireless
426 N. Fairview Ave., Room 101
St. Paul, MN 55104
Fax (651) 642.6942
RE: Prior Lake Tower Site
Dear Mr. Fischer:
I am sorry to infonn you that we cannot accommodate your request to add equipment to our
tower site located at 15777 South Highway 13 in Prior Lake, Minnesota.
If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me at the telephone nwnber listed
above.
jj;fb
Contract Administrator
\ \ \999
\,\, ': \\ OC\
, ,', \. ,1 ,,/
\\ \\ \ }....
'\S\~L_-------
------..... ,..----
I
October 6, 1999
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed is a copy of the Agenda for the Monday, October 11, 1999, Planning
Commission meeting as well as a copy of the Planning Report. You are expected to
attend this meeting. If you have any questions or cannot attend the meeting, please call
the Planning Department at 447-9810.
Sincerely,
Cw.~~
Connie Carlson ~
Planning Secretary
.
'enc.
L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\MEETL TR.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
FilE COpy
September 22, 1999
Dave Fischer
US West Wireless L.L.c.
426 N Fairview Avenue #101
St. Paul, MN 55104
RE: City of Prior Lake Review for Application Completeness for CUP Applications Case
Files 99-065 and 99-066
Dear Dave:
On September 16, 1999, the City of Prior Lake Planning Department received previously
requested information regarding the proposed communication structures. The Planning
Department has determined that this application is complete and will begin formal review. We
will notify you of any pertinent issues, which may arise asa result of your int.ernal review and
preparation of our staff report. .
We have scheduled your request to be heard by the Planning Commission on October 11, 1999.
The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is located at the Fire Station on County Road 21 and Fish
Point Road. You or you representative is expected to be in attendance. If you cannot make the
meeting, please let me know. You will be receiving a copy of the public notice and a copy of the
staff report with recommendation prior to the meeting. We have also tentatively scheduled your
request to be heard by the City Council on November 1, 1999.
The City approval process can be substantially less than 120 days, and we intend to move this
matter through the process in a timely manner which provides a complete, professional review.
Occasionally, however, due to meeting schedules, it is sometimes necessary to extend the 60 day
review period. This letter also serves as your official notice that the City is extending the 60 day
deadline for an additional 60 days from November 14, 1999 to January 13, 2000.
In addition, Sections 1109.902 through 1109.904 of the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance
require the applicant to reimburse the City for all consultant fees associated with the project. A
copy of this section is attached for your information. We arranged a meeting with the City
Attorney at your request. Also, some of the issues raised at that meeting by inference will
require additional legal research. Please be advised that you will be billed for any expenses
incurred as a result. The City Attorney will bill the City directly, and the City will, in turn, bill
you for the costs.
If you have questions please call me at (612) 447-9813.
,./~cere1Y' . _. j
I ,rtA/J"'-A ~
"__ / I v~:_~
nni Tovar
Planner
1:\99fi1es\99cup\99-066\comQ.lete.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Zoning Code
)> Interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance
)> Sign Permits
1109.902
Reimbursement for City Costs. The purpose of this subsection is to provide a
procedure to reimburse the City for its costs of review, analysis, and evaluation
of development proposals, conditional use permits, comprehensive plan
amendments, zoning amendments and enforcement of this Ordinance in cases
where, due to the level of complexity of the application under consideration,
excessive costs beyond those normally incurred by the City as a result of the
administration of this Ordinance are incurred. The excess costs result from
problems presented in review, analysis, and evaluation which necessitate
intensive investigation and research. The intent of this subsection is to insure an
adequate level of review of these cases and to insure that the adverse effects of
development on the City are minimized and that compliance with goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and this Ordinance are obtained.
"
1109.903 Conditions Where Reimbursement is Authorized. The City may, in its sole
discretion, require reimbursement of City costs under the following conditions:
(1) When the City Manager finds multiple Planning Commission and City Council
meetings are required to review a particular item and additional staff time is
expended subsequent to the initial meeting.
(2) When the City Manager finds it necessary to retain consultants and experts to
review requests and advise its staff of specific impacts of a proposal, including
but not limited to impacts on traffic, utilities, drainage, and aesthetic or
environmental characteristics of the community.
(3) When it is necessary for the City Attorney to review a proposal.
(4) When the City Manager finds that other extraordinary costs are incurred by the
City as a result of the administration of this Ordinance.
1109.904 Procedure for Reimbursement. The City shall notify the applicant at the
earliest possible time that the City will incur additional costs and, if possible,
provide the applicant with an estimate of the expected additional cost.
The. applicant shall pay the estimated additional cost to the City by certified
check or bank money order. If the amount paid to the City initially is insufficient
to cover all City costs, the additional amounts shall be billed to the applicant.
Any money which has not been used to pay additional costs after the applicant's
request has been processed shall be refunded to the applicant.
No Certificate of Occupancy far any project subject to this subsection shall be
issued until all money owing to the City has been received. All costs billed under
this subsection shall be based on the actual cost to the City of staff time,
overhead, material costs, and actual billings from consultants, experts and
attorneys.
City of Prior lAke
May 1, 1999
l109/p12
(--~
n
~)
(
\..
September 8, 1999
Dave Fischer
US West Wireless L.L.C.
426 N Fairview Avenue #101
St. Paul, MN 55104
RE: Conditional Use Permit Applications
Dear Dave,
On September 7, 1999 the Planning Department received additional requested
information for processing of your Conditional Use Permits (File#99-065 and File#99-
066). Upon review of the information received, both applications remain incomplete.
The following information must be submitted for each site in order for us to proceed with
processing your requests:
1. Complete legal descriptions for publishing. We received a copy of the survey on
September 7, 1999. The legal descriptions are inadequate. The legal description
needs to reference a specific property such as "adjacent to lot XYZ".
2. The mailing labels and property owners list for all properties within 350 feet of the
proposed sites needs to include a map indicating from where the 350 feet radius was
taken and which properties are within 350 feet.
Once we receive the required information we will proceed with the processing of your
application. Ifwe receive everything by Friday, September 17, 1999 your item will be
placed on the October 11, 1999 Planning Commission agenda and November 1, 1999
City Council meeting. Let me know if you have any questions.
Smcerely, . j nDAJ
f)!r!~
1El;v~ -
L:\99FILES\99CUP\99-065\incomplete2.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-------.SEP. 7.199g--11=07A~-US WEST WIRELESS STP,~~~""'f ...' '''~'''i1::' "yO "-NO,.08~P.l/.::I" .',..--
: WI: " .' '. .
0'
. I. .:
, .
USWEST Wireless. LLC.
. '
o '
~, Fax:CQverShe'et- ,--"
. I , ':. '..,' . :' . .', ,". .' .
~
....
I '
" 00,
Date:
;'. TO: ,....- ~
.. ~~ e~V\r \u"^~
, 0
'FAX Number: c., 1Z.~.'t\.f1 ~'ft,~'
Te'epho"e:
, '
FROM: "'-:i)AvG. ~5~
" Send~nsi, 'Fax:
Telephone:,
851-842-4719
851-642-
cc: ..
~otal Pages: _
(Including Coyer Sheet)
Cominents:
~k.""~-
l..\ri~ J\.f<.. \La- ~o .r..~r~ '(0-' ~~ T''1i'''~~~.
3?0~ ~~M>1.c.--.. w: L" ~. of' ~ 4. e-s\l......~....... e\r 0\-', ') '\
" 'le.~ yc-- 0,( t.....,\.e~.
"
:', ~~ ~ ~ t~~~\o~
"
O~\~~ .
-
.-
, :;--.
.
.
. .
1
~
,.',
. US WEST Wireless, LiLaC.
4~& North Fairview Avenue. Room 101
St. Paul, MN 55104
Fax #: 851-842-4719
"
.1
!
August 20, 1999
Dave Fischer
US West Wireless L.L.C.
426 N Fairview Avenue #101
St. Paul, MN 55104
RE: Conditional Use Permit Applications
Dear Dave,
. On August 19, 1999 US West submitted applications for Conditional Use Permits for a
. .telecommunications monopole located within the CSAH 42 right-of-way and a utility
pole with antenna on property located along Candy Cove Trail. Both applications are
incomplete as submitted. The following information must be submitted for each site in
prder for us to proceed with processing your requests:
1. Site plans to show dimensions ofthe monopole and utility boxes to right-of-way, curb
and centerlines of roadways.
2. Specifications on the utility boxes.
3. Your attempts made to co-locate. Explain why separate and new facilities are
necessary.
4. Letter from Scott County regarding their intent to approve your right-of-way permit
upon approval from the City.
5. Copy of Agreement with NSP regarding permission to share the power pole, and their
permission to replace the existing pole.
6. Mailing labels and property owners list for all properties within 350 feet of the
proposed sites.
7. Required additional submittals as indicated in Section 1110.1500 ofthe Zoning
Ordinance. These submittals relate to engineering and co-location.
Once we receive the required information we will proceed with the processing of your
application. Ifwe receive everything by Friday September 3, 1999 your item will be
placed on the September 27, 1999 Planning Commission agenda and October 18, 1999
City Council meeting. Let me know if you have any questions.
cerel~ JP1lCW
nni Tovar
lanner
F:\DEP1\PLANNING\99FILES\99CUP\99-065\incornplete.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Miscellaneous
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME: Candy Cove Communication Antenna
An application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
Communications Antenna on a utility pole (NSP power pole).
APPLICANT: US Wireless Communications
CONTACT PERSON: Dave Fischer (651) 642-6291
SITE INFORMATION
PID#: N/A
LOCATION: Easterly R-O-W between Centennial Street and CR 44 (16-0th
Street)
EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential
DISTRIBUTE TO: D APPLICATION FOR:
X Frank Boyles X Greg IIkka Administrative Land Division
X Bret Woodson X Sue McDermott Comprehensive Plan Amend.
X Ralph Teschner Jeff Evens X Conditional Use Permit
X Paul Hokeness Lani Leichty Home Occupation
X Bob Hutchins Verlyn Raaen Rezoning
X Don Rye X Doug Hartman Site Plan
X Jane Kansier X Fire Chief Preliminary Plat
X JenniTovar X Bill O'Rourke PUD
DNR - Pat Lynch X Minnegasco Final Plat
County Hwy. Dept. Watershed Dist. Variance
MNDOT X Telephone Co. Vacation
SMDC X Electric Co.
X Triax Cable Met. Council
Date Received 8/19/99 Date Distributed 9/22/99 Date Due 9/30/99
Complete Application 9/16/99 Date Distributed to 9/22/99 DRC Meeting 9/30/99
Date DRC
Publication Date 9/25/99 Tentative PC Date 10/11/99 Tentative CC 11/1/99
Date
60 Day Review Date 11/14/99 Review Extension 1/13/00
f:\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-065\referral.doc
Page 1
I have reviewed the attached proposed request Candy CoveR-O-W Communications
Antenna CASE FILE #99-065 for the following:
Water City Code Grading
Sewer Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks . 'Natural 'Features Legal Issues
Assessment Electric ~ Roads/Access
Policy
Septic System Gas Building Code
Erosion Control Other
Recommendation: -A Approval
Denial
Conditional Approval
Signed:
:;)i~ M~.11 Date:
9/2<flqg
I
Please return any comments by September 30,1999, to
Jenni Tovar, Planner
City of Prior Lake
16000 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (612) 447-9812
Fax: (612) 447-4245
f:\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-065\referral.doc
Page 2
I have reviewed the attached proposed request Candy Cove R-O-W Communications
Antenna CASE FILE #99-065 for the following:
Water City Gode Grading
Sewer Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks .. 'Natural'Features Legal Issues
Assessment Electric . Roads/Access
Policy
Septic System 'Gas . Building Code
Erosion Control "'- Other T"C. L.'c..
Recommendation: L Approval
Denial
Conditional Approval
Comments:
~ 0 \>>"'a~Lf.~ S
a .
scatt ..ri.ce
T.E.L:t;'PH9,~f:'i.P:,o.;~'e~Jff:;. '.': i . .!'
Don Barlage
OSP Engineering & Design
4690 Cokral;tI SIreel. S.E.
PIQ' Lake. MiIT1eSCIa 55372
TeIegha'e; (612) 447-3158
Dil1lCt DIal: (612) 226-71164
MobIle: (612) 91 ~5887
Fa.: (612) 226-3758
_ "Serving Mitllluo,aj'Qr (IV!!:. SO !..e:!:.',f. ..
Signed: ~k ~~ .
Date:
C\ - 2.. 4- ~ ~
Please return any comments by September 30,1999. to
Jenni Tovar, Planner
City of Prior Lake
16000 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (612) 447-9812
Fax: (612) 447-4245
f:\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-065\referral.doc
Page .2
I have reviewed the attached proposed request Candy Cove R-Q-W Communications
Antenna CASE FILE #99-065 for the following:
"
Water City Code Grading
Sewer Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks Natural Features Legal Issues
Assessment Electric Roads! Access
Policy
Septic System Gas Building Code
Erosion Control Other
Recommendation:
Approval
Denial
~conditional Approval
Comments: ! ~ /
, /v 6-6-zJ
S6~
V/2/'fc;-../ ( ,.u =- S'
4
(
It _~Tl2uC7,-,,1Z~~ b>V6/.N6c;~
.2 gu, ~ 1'-"""-" jJ;;-a~Yn {I
.
Signed:
Please return any comments by September 30, 1999, to
Jenni Tovar, Planner
City of Prior Lake
16000 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (612) 447-9812
Fax: . (612) 447-4245
f:\dept\planning\99files\99cup\99-065\referral.doc
Page 2
f\\
lI~WEST@
Advanced PCS™
Min295
54'6" AGL
PRIVATE
Not for disclosure outside ofU S WEST Wireless, L.L.C.
Do not. distribute or reproduce without permission from U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C.
, S
, S
CENTENNIAL STREET
w
w
N89"40' 43"E
- --r
,
,
NORltt UN[ Of' BlOCK " ___~
a:NTENNfAL AOOInOH
o 20 40 60
~~ I
SCALE IN FEET
2491-71
188
MIN -
I
J
\
\
,J \. /\
\ N89"40'43"E" ~
..-- \ 60.49 ,,'1\.___,
_____.L-\\_'
~~ __,\---~\ 60 -.-\--..--~~\.---\:'~
...-- \I ~
, I \~
\ \I .. \I,~
"if, ~~ \I ofl\ \ \I \ ~
\~ \ \ 'n\\~\ \~\ \ ~
"#J'i * \I \I \ ~
~1-\ '~~ ",\~\ ofl\ "\ \ \/
\ \\, ~ EASTUll Y lINE or
\I \ " : CANOY CO~ TRAIL
~~ \ '\ " \~;~
\\ \0.
~
\ '\ \~ ,,.--SEE
\~ \I \~ :'
\\ kt.-?('S ~ ~ \ '-1 "
\ \I ~ ~~ \~-..:-----/
\\ ,'~ \ '. ---"
/ \\ ~: rPbWER POlE
\ J\ ('). ,I \\ ' PRO~OSED T,
\1 ~ OJ '.. g).~ ':"'otE AN,
~ ~ ofl<$>. 7-. ~O. ~~ \
.,,~ ~ ~q, f: ~ ~~ !
\ 2~ (') ~\f _ ~ ~\\ ;
~ClO ~\ "C ,
eel V1 ~ t ~ ~ ~\\ "
"'~(t\ -<0. II
\ \,: ~ .\ ~"\------~\.
\ ~ ~ \\
II ~
\ '\ \ '\
\ ';~ . " \
\ \~\ \\\
G
\ ' - - EASrrRl Y EX1l:NSlON Of
, THE NORTH LINE Of BlOCK
" t, CENlENNIAl ADOtTION
, S
295
SURVEY FOR:
u. S. WEST WIRELESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Port of the existing right-of-way of Candy Cove Trail located in the Southeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 115, Range 22. Scott County, Minnesota.
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this map was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota.
Doted this 1 st day af July, 1999. ~I f ,fi J f
Revised this 14th day of September, 1999. Wv~
by: Jack Balke
Minnesota license Na. 20281
PROPOSED LEASE TRACT DESCRIPTION
A strip of land 7.08 feet in width over part of the Sautheast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36,
Township 115 North, Range 22 North of the 5th Principal Meridian, Scott County, Minnesota, the easterly line of
said strip is described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the easterly extensian of the north line of Block 1. CENTENNIAL
ADDITlON, according to the recorded plot thereof and situate in Scott County, Minnesota with the west
line of Candy Cave Trail; thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 43 seconds East assumed bearing along
said easterly extension a distance of 60.49 feet to the east line of said Candy Cove Trail; thence South 7
degrees 37 minutes 57 seconds East along said east line a distance of 52.89 feet to an angle point in
said east line; thence South 18 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds East continuing along said east line a
distance of 57.76 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 18 degrees 40
minutes OS :;econds East continuing alang sold east line a distance of 20.58 feet and soid line there
terminating.
OET AIL
r--------------------------------------------------------------------,
I I
1 DETAIL \ i
I I
I lJ' .
i NO SCALE ~ r- P.O.B.
. ,
I ,
I ,
: ''5';~ '
: 1,.,9 0. --,
I ~ 1.00
I
I '
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
,
,
,
,
POWER POLE - ~
TO BE REMOVED \
.
,
,
.
.
~
'OlE AND
o TOWER 51 TE
"- -TREE LINE
f: ANCHOR
,
,
,
,
"
,
I
I
I
,
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I I
L____________________________________________________________________J
\
\
EGAN
FIELD & NOWAK
SURVEYORS
INC.
7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
TELE: (612) 546-6837
25214Rl
'-..
I
I
!
-ofTl
OX
~Ui
:u~
-oC'l
o
r
fTl
O:u
<fTl
fTl-
:uZ
IUl
fTl~
)>r
Or
-ofTl
OX
~Ui
:u~
C'l
I
I
I
I.
~.
U1
N
I
OJ
;
(J) rr1
~ r
r ~
f1.l ::!
0
, Z
OJ I
;
\I 0
0
I .,. ^
Z
0 (;)
;
~.
(J) q
-;
./........."'"
.J \
.......
!~~
?.
~;
F
------/-\ ""\
/- r)
~, . \ ---
. \)
V
\
/
)
/
I
~ r
"J
(
Z.,C.
fTl Ul
==
:E.' ~
o Ul
o -l
o )>
-0 Z
o iT1
r Z
fTl Z
)>
Ul
-0 -0 :U"
OOfTl
r::;:s:
fTlrTlO
~:u~
()-OfTl
IOx
Or-
:ufTlUl
)>:=1
ZZ
OC'l
fTl
;d~
fTlUl
fTl:=l
UlZ
C'l
--
CXl
,
tr
h..
t..
~!
tr.
0'
ft;
~:-
~
F'
55\
~ \.
-l '-
fTl........ /
,0 """ '
c \. J-../
~ "\.---../
fTl
Z
-l
~
OJ
<< . I I I -.
, ~ N I 2 In i n I
I ~ I ~ ! ~ IUe
- i.Ql I 5; '~i.
. ~ I.
e o I (jI .. II
I
:
August 18, 1999
~
LI~WEST'
. U 5 WEST Wireless, L.L.C.
426 North Fairview, Room 101
St. Paul, MN 55104
liies better here" @
Jane A. Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. Se.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: MIN295 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for US West Wireless to
collocate antennas on an existing 35' AGL NSPI US West Communications pole that
will be replaced with a 48.5' AGL (54.5' overall height with antennas and 2' lightning
rod) pole in the Right - of - Way located on Candy Cove Trail SE, Prior Lake, MN.
Dear Jane,
US West Wireless (USWW) submitted a Right of Way application June 23, 1999 through the Prior
Lake Public Works department for the placement of fa9ade mounted antenna on an existing
NSP/US West Pole located within the Right - of - Way located on Candy Cove Trail. This
application was then forwarded to the Prior Lake Planning Department an~ has been requested
that our site be submitted as a conditional use permit. Although US West has agreed to go through
a conditional use permit process for this site, it is U S West's opinion per Minnesota State Statutes
237.162 that this application should be an administrative review (permitted use with conditions)
through the public works department for the following reasons listed below:
1. Before the fac;:ade mounted antenna would be placed on the NSP pole, US West
Communications would replace the old NSP pole with a 48.5'AGL pole. US West Wireless would
then add 4' panel antennas and 2' lightning rod to the existing pole to extend the overall height to
54,5' AGL. US West Communication's desire to exchange and upgrade its telephone poles is not
subject to review under the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance, Section 1110 (Communication Towers),
but instead is subject to the statewide rules and regulations of the Public Utilities Commission
governing Rights - of - Way,
2. USv.MI's application for administrative review to mount an antenna on the fa9ade of existing
poles is a permitted use with conditions under section 1110.503 paragraph #3 and should have
been reviewed under that provision as an administrative review (permitted use with conditions).
3. Pro competition federal and state law require that local regulation of telecommunication services
and facilities not interfere with the deployment and provisioning of telecommunications services
and facilities,
4. USWW submits that its application to replace an NSPI US West Telephone pole was not within
the jurisdiction of the Prior Lake Planning and Zoning Department as a conditional use permit
process, but should have been processed through the public works department in accordance with
the Right - of - Way rules and the statewide construction standards. Once the exchange of the
poles had occurred, the application for review as a permitted use with conditions was clearly within
USA
Q5e.,O
~iQD"W. ( Prior Lake CUP Application) 1
36 use 380
the authority of the Planning & Zoning Department and should have been reviewed in accordance
with Section 1110.503. If the review had been conducted, subject to final adjustments between
USWW and the Planning & Zoning Department, the permit should have been issued. This
particular application is not a case of a new communications tower being disguised as a telephone
pole. This is a real existing NSPI U S West Communications pole that will be a permitted,
conforming use as a utility pole in the Right - of - Way, on which a fac;:ade mounted antenna will be
placed.
The pro-competition Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Sate of Minnesota's laws
regarding Telecommunications Right - of - Way, provide that local authority to manage the public
Right - of - Way must be on a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral manner.
As long as US West Communications replaces its pole in accordance with applicable statewide
standards, the application of collateral burdensome zoning regulations is not appropriate.
Compliance with the administrative review (permitted with conditions) process for fac;:ade mounted
communication antenna should be all that is required.
The conditional use permit process is problematic for a number of reasons. Application of the
setback requirements will unfairly discriminate against wireless providers in favor of wire line
providers, and will also discriminate against USWW in favor of other wireless providers using
competing technologies ( NSP data transmission). Subjecting telecommunications providers such
as US West Communications and U S West Wireless to this type of proce~s creates an undue
administrative and expense burden to both the City and Wireless Communication providers.
USWW submits that its request is exactly the type of approach that was envisioned when the pro-
competition federal and state telecommunications laws were enacted. Allowing USWW to use U S
West Communications I NSP poles will enable it to take advantage of already existing
infrastructure, without causing the construction of new facilities which will add needless cost to the
process and consumer.
The use of poles in a grid is crucial to assure proper coverage in the areas served. The increased
pole height is necessary to assure quality of service, because without it USWW will not be able to
place its facilities above the "clutter" (low buildings and trees). Through this approach, USWW will
be able to compete with other local telecommunications providers, which will benefit the consumer
through more competition (more choices and better prices).
USWW does understand the concerns of the Prior Lake Planning Department, but we feel this
could be achieved through an administrative review through the public works department as a
permitted use with conditions rather than through the conditional use permit process.
Please find enclosed a Planning Administrative Form, for application of a Conditional Use Permit to
be considered an to replace an existing NSP I US West Communications pole with a new 48.5'
pole (54.5' AGL overall height, including the 2' lightning rod) in the Right - of - Way located on
Candy Cove Trail SE in Prior Lake, MN. This request is being made on behalf of US West
Wireless L.L.C. (USWW).
US West Wireless L.L.C. must locate a site in this area in order for USWW to deliver complete
service coverage along County Rd. 13, Candy Cove Trail and the surrounding Community of Prior
Lake. The Conditional Use Permit is requested by the City of Prior Lake in order to replace and
MIN295- R.OW. ( Prior Lake CUP Application)
2
existing pole with a new pole that will allow US West to provide Wireless Communication Service
to the Prior Lake are surrounding Candy Cove Trail in the Minneapolis/St. Paul market. USWW
conducted a drive test in this area to identify a need for 52.5 'AGL (overall height with antennas
excluding the lightning rod) at this location.
We hope this correspondence and enclosures explain our application and address the
requirements by the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. Should you have any questions
regarding the attached Application for Conditional Use Permit or would like to discussPCS
technology further, please feel free to contact me at 651-642-6291 or on myPCS phone at: 612-
998-4784. I appreciate the assistance that we have received from you, and we lookforward to
working with you to better serve the community in this area.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
David W. Fischer
US West Wireless L.L.C.
Real Estate Consultant
Enclosure
cc Steve Mangold, US West Wireless L.L.C. Minneapolis, RE Manager
MIN295- R.OW. ( Prior Lake CUP Application)
3
EXHIBIT A
US West Wireless L.L.C. CUP Application
'.Site.lnformation:
Current Zoning
US West Wireless L.L.C.
David W. Fischer, USWN Consultant
Right- Of - Way located on Candy Cove Trail SE, Prior Lake, MN
55372
R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Applicant
Contact
Site Location
I Adjacent Zoning
Residential
I Case History
This site is an existing 35' NSP IUS West Communications Pole.
I Introduction
US West Wireless L.L.C. - Minneapolis is requesting a Conditional Use Permit in order to replace
an existing 35'AGL pole with a new 48.5 pole (54$ overall height with antennas and 2' lightning
rod) in the Right-of Way located on Candy Cove Trail. The Conditional Use Permit is being
requested as per the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance:
Subject
Conditional Use Permits
PCS Technology
PCS is a wireless telecommunications services personalized to the individual. There is a
growing demand for improved wireless services, and a new infrastructure is needed to meet this
growing demand. The following information is provided as an overview of general PCS services
and technology.
Background
In early 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) auctioned licenses for the
1900 MHz band of the radio spectrum within the 51 Major Trading Areas f'ATAs) of the United
States for use by Personal Communications Services. USWN purchased licenses within these 51
MT As. These licenses, enable US West Wireless to offer Personal Communications Services in 14
states throughout the country.
What is PCS?
Telephone numbers used in PCS handsets will become tied specifically to an individual,
and the types and features of services that each subscriber desires will be customized to his or
her unique needs. A PCS telephone number will belong to a person for as long as he or she
MIN295- R.o.w. ( Prior Lake CUP Application)
4
wants it, and the chosen services (for example stock quotes on selected companies, voice mail,
and caller identification) will become specific to the individual holding that telephone number.
PCS technology will allow a variety of telecommunication services, including:
. Local and long distance telephone services and cable services;
. AII-in-one Wireless Communication Services:
. Portable phones, pagers, and fax transmission;
. Numeric paging on the phone's screen;
. Interactive paging (2-way paging which allows the sender to track where the
message is sent, and when it has been received.)
. Voice mail service;
. Caller 10;
. International roaming capability;
. Reduced power needs (allows smaller units and longer battery life); and
. In the future, PCS will allow computer use and video images over the PCS network.
Assigning a unique PCS telephone number to a customer will allow the individual to place a call
and / or send information across regional, national, and international borders. The network will
do all the work of tracking the customer, knowing where he or she is at all times.
Benefits of PCS over Cellular
PCS has several advantages over existing cellular telephone servi<::;e, including better
service quality through the use of digital technology, more compact radio equipment,
increased mobility, enhanced service features, and price.
Digital Technology:
PCS utilizes the latest digital technology. This will facilitate cleaner voice
quality, but more importantly, clean data communication. APCS customer will be
able to communicate through voice and data simultaneously using the same
handset without interference to either activity. In addition, computer users will be
able to run applications and retrieve data faster from remote locations using their
handset. PCS technology also provides less static and fading, and there are
fewer dropped calls.
Improved Security:
Digital technology provides more security than analog, the technology
traditionally used by the cellular industry. Calls in digital format cannot be
overheard. with the kind of simple scanners currently used to eavesdrop on
cellular calls. Although it is technically possible to overhear a call, it requires
special gear and technical skill which most eaves droppers lack.
Improved Equipment:
PCS will utilize smaller antennas and smaller base Transceiver Stations,
more advanced telecommunication technology that will result in less expensive
rates to the consumer. In addition, equipment will be more compact both at the
handset and at the antenna sites. Handsets will be lighter than today's cellular flip
phones, and the handsets will utilize longer lasting batteries. Because of the
PCS' assigned radio spectrum, there will be more antennas, but they will likely be
less noticeable than those used by the cellular industry. US West Wireless L.L.C.
MIN295- R.OW. ( Prior Lake CUP Application)
5
has been working diligently to replace existing US West Telecommunication
facilities, lease antenna sites on City water towers, and existing buildings prior to
attempting to lease any sites for new ground built towers.
Increased Mobility:
With pes, mobility means seamless roaming across existing cellular and
land line service areas. A PCS handset can be taken anywhere and be expected
to function the same as in the coverage area of the original service provider.
One Telephone Number:
With PCS, one Personal Communications Number (PCN) will be assigned
to each individual user. Today, when a person changes their residence, the old
land line telephone number is frequently lost because these numbers are
assigned and based on geographic area. Cellular telephone numbers are also
lost when carriers are switched because cellular service companies are provided
a limited range of numbers, and the numbers have to be recycled or reused. A
PCN associates a telephone number with a person, regardless of where he or
she is located, and regardless of who is the service provider.
Lower Cost for Service:
PCS will be cheaper in the long term because it will lJtilize digital
technology. Initially, the cost for the service and handsets will be similar to that of
cellular. However, with increased demand, both carriers and manufacturers will
be able to lower their price significantly. Eventually PCS service will be less than
cellular and will be close to the cost of land line telephone service.
Increasing Demand
Today, cellular telephone systems in the US are expanding at the rate of over
28,000 new subscriptions a day, far beyond the growth rate of new subscriptions for wire
line telephone service. The popularity of cellular telephone service is due to the freedom,
mobility, and enhanced productivity that it provides. No longer are people tied to fixed
telephones or pay phones. Yet cellular telephone services is just one step toward
another type of service, one expected to revolutionize telecommunications. The next
rung on the evolutionary ladder is PCS.
Interference Issues
US West Wireless L.L,C. will resolve technical interference problems with other equipment
located at the site on the Commencement Date or any equipment that becomes attached to the
Site at any future date when US\NW desires to add additional equipment to the Site
The PCS system operates on a specific set of channels licensed exclusively to USWW by the
Federal Communications Commission for provision of high quality mobile service for the benefit of
the public good. The filtering of spurious signals is very tightly controlled via standard radio
electronic filters. PCS telephones operate within strictly regulated set of allotted frequencies. All
USWW sites must be operated in accordance with our FCC license to provide PCS service to this
area. USWW is currentll! licensed to operate in markets nation wide with hundreds of antennas.
There has not been any instance of television or radio interference reported.
MIN295- R.OW. (Prior Lake CUP Application)
6
land Site
A pre-assembled 8ase Transceiver Station (8TS), which contains radio frequency
transceivers and self-contained batteries for back-up power, is connected to amplifiers,
commercial electrical service and public T-1 Line service. A control unit equipped with its own
built-in HVAC will also be located on the sire, housed by the 8TS unit. The control unit will be
under 24-hour security and fire surveillance by US\NN. Up to six antennas will be mounted on the
tower at OOO~, 120~, and 240~ from true north.
Antennas
Antennas attached to the tower/site will transmit and receive FCC-approved radiosignals
which carry voice and data between the PCS system users and the US\NN central switching
network. The physical size of the antennas may vary. The antennas required for this site are
approximately about 48 inches long and 7.5 inches wide and 2.2 inches deep. .
The antenna sites necessary for PCS coverage are defined by the RF engineering design.
Surrounding topography, trees and buildings also playa role in arriving at the appropriate antenna
height. The US\NN engineers have determined that antenna height to be 52.5' feet.
Equipment
The 8ase Transceiver Station (8TS) houses radio, computer and climate control
equipment for this site. This equipment is powered by the local power company (using normal
120/240 volt, single phase, AC electricity). It will be connected to the US\NN mobile switching
center via traditional telephone lines. No water or plumbing will be necessary for any of the sites
which USWW erects, since no people are present at our sites on a daily basis. There will only be
occasional, brief visits (average about once a month, for 1 to 3 hours per visit) for routine
maintenance. Fire protection is provided by OSHA approved Halon inside the equipment cabinet.
US West Wireless is looking forward to providing PCS service to the Prior Lake Community in the
future. Thank you for your cooperation regarding this request. If you have any questions
regarding the application for the site please contact me in my office: 651-642-6291 or on myPCS
phone: 612-998-4784.
Respectfully,
~~~
David W. Fischer
Real Estate Consultant
US West Wireless L.L.C.
MIN295- R.OW. ( Prior Lake CUP Application)
7
U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C.
426 North Fairview, Room 101
51. Paul, MN 55104
September 2,1999
LI).WEST'
lifes better here'@
Jane A. Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. See
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: MIN295 - Response regarding Prior Lake's request for additional information upon
review of US West's application for a Conditional Use Permit to collocate on an
existing NSP pole located within Prior Lake's right of way.
Dear Jane,
US West Wireless L.L.C. recently submitted a Conditional Use Permit Application for collocationof
an existing NSP pole that US West Communications will replace within the right of way and extend
the height to 48'S'. Once US West Communications replaces the pole, US West Wireless will
collocate on the new structure. The overall height with antennas and lightning rod will be 54'S".
This would be performed under the joint use agreement between US West and NSP to '"eplace
desired poles. This application information is for the Planning Commission meeting September 27,
1999. Upon Prior Lake's receipt and review of US West's Application, the following information
was requested: A narrative demonstrating attempts to collocate on existing structures and why
separate and new facilities are necessary. I have provided a brief narrative addressing this
request below:
US West feels there is not a need to demonstrate collocation on other existing sites within the
search ring, since US West's application is a collocation on an existing pole. The height extension
will be performed by US West Communications under the guidelines of the public utilities
commission for utilities allowed in right of ways.
Separate and new facilities must be located in his area in order for USWN to deliver complete
service coverage ~Iong Candy cove Trail SE and the surrounding Community of Prior Lake. The
Conditional Use Permit is requested in order to collocate on an existing NSP pole in the right of .
way that will allow US West to provide Wireless Communication Service to the Prior Lake are
surrounding area. USWN conducted a drive test in this area to identify a need fora 48'S" pole
(54'S" overall height with antennas and lightning rod) at this location.
U S West Wireless believes that any such approval ofUSWW's right of way permit authorization or
other exercise of zoning authority to place wireless telecommunications in rights of ways would be
consistent with the strict parameters and guidelines that the Minnesota legislature has established
to govern the issuance of right of way use permit authorizations. U S West feels that this
application should be subject to the statewide rules and regulations of the Public Utilities
tJrrsisAon governing rights of way per the Minnesota State Statute 237 :lS3
Qse9
Proud _S'ponsor
MIN2~s~ocation Requirement Letter
1
.J
We hope this correspondence and enclosures explain our application and address the
requirements by the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. Should you have any questions
regarding the information provided above, please feel free to contact me at 651-642-6291 or on my
PCS phone at: 612-998-4784. I appreciate the assistance that we have received from you, and we
look forward to working with you to better serve the community in this area.
~w'r
David W. Fischer
US West Wireless L.L.C.
Real Estate Consultant
Enclosure
cc Steve Mangold, US West Wireless L.L.C. Minneapolis, R: Manager
MIN295 - Collocation Requirement Letter
2
.. ."
. Yr. r--
,A'-
1;- .
I
I
~
I
f
~
I
f
i
I
i
i
i
j
t
f
...l
>. 1 ';~: ., . ..
.... ' .,'~. ..' ~ ,
. . .~~.~..~. . .,.
'oJ. .... ~.~....:.......;J '...... ,~~,,_,:<';.-''';'''~-' ~._... ":~:. -... .....--~
.....
'.....
',.',
})
"
':"'''i;,.l.f" __.-.._ :.~......~..~.:-._ _.J'~'__,'.r..-'';'' .0..- _.. ,.-:_~"
..'--..~. .,;;..:.,' ._.._~_...i..:...A....___ _,_..:.i___:........:_~ ....... '.... '-'-. ....-. .
Article
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
lB.
19.
20.
BETWEEN
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
AND
NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
ARTICLE INDEX
Scope of Agreement
Explanation of Terms
Normal Joint Use and Space Utiliza~ion
Specifications
Operating Routine
Establishing Joint Use of Existing Poles
Establishing Joint Use of New Poles
Right of Way for Licensee's Attachments
Maintenance of Poles and Attachments
Division of Costs
Procedure When Character of Circuits is Changed
Termination of Joint Use
Transfers of File
Annual Payment
Readjustment of Annual Payment
Defaults
Liability and Damages
Existing Rights of Other Parties
Assignment of Rights
Waiver of Terms or Conditions
; ',"'. ,\ ~
'. ',.
:. .:; .", .
~ ,~. , . '1
- . : ~ ,\ .
..' . . ~ .
, , ',", .' ,.'t-, "'i:'
~.J.", .__", "-,'",.~",,,,:,,,'A.,,,,_,,,~._:.'-",,"~.J._
. _ ... ......,."OJ_. __ .~...' .
.~f_ ..::,"., ....<f.'~."'~ .".. .
l~'r
At,
."
I}
.1
.
.
.l
.l
ARTICLE INDEX (Cont' d.)
Article
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Payment of Taxes
Bills and Payments for Work
Service of Notices
Term of Agreement
Existing Agreement
Notes changes made to 1965 Agreement in 1981
revision
*
.
'-. ':" ',' ':' .'
. . \i
__i.. ....',:,._ 'l. '.' .'..~.;. ....:: ~ ... .._ _',oU
. ' ;: ~>. ,:' ,. 1-. :'\. . . .. ! . j: '. '. \' .-
.' .. '. , . ,I; . . .'~ . , ,. . l~' j
_.;';~."~:"~~:_~~..:;,....., ..;~..,,' -0.._. ! .~..'_ _' .~.___~-_ .:"_''''::__'~:'''-'':''~-~-:__'''.''~'_ ';,,::' ~:~.. -... ,...~,~....:.. -:_.::.,..;.~........,., ~~_......_~..~~'...:..~.;...,-~ .~.~_~~.,;_. .:..:........:;.,.. __...,.
".. ~ ,
\ ."
.... ;
..:
I~".._..- --.;:.. _~
* 25.02 ~e effective date of this Agreement shall be the first day
of Oct. 1981.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to
be executed in duplicate, and their corporate seals to be affixed thereto
by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, on the ~ ~~
day of -.dr>e/~ , 198;&
Witnesses:
NORl'HERN STATES POWER COMPANY
{~
Services
r<.Ld- J:l1~
.
And
Witnesses:
~t...lJ ~.~.
:By
Vice President -
Distribution Services
- 25 -
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
COUNTY OF scan )
)ss
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
. - GAY of the CilY.)1fPrior ~~scott, State of
Minnesota, being dul sworn, says on the ~ day of .. 1999, she served
the attached list of persons to have an interest in the '1Q -~t;;; IA ~ till+- ()..,lj)
~ ~ P-oW , by mailing to them a copy thereof,
enclosed' an envelope, postage prepaid, and be depositing same in the post office at
Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the parties.
Subscribed and sworn to be this
day of , 1999.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MAILAFFD.DOC
PAGB
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake
Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road, SE (Southwest of the intersection of CR. 21
and Fish Point Road), on Monday, October 11, 1999, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon as possible
thereafter.
APPLICANT:
SUBJECT SITE:
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST:
US West Wireless Communications
Candy Cove easterly right-of-way between Centennial Street and 160th
Street (CR 44).
A strip of land 7.08 feet in width over part of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 115 North, Range 22 North of
the 5th Principal Meridian, Scott County, Minnesota, to the easterly line of
said strip described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the easterly extension of the north line
of Block 1, Centennial Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof and
situate in Scott County, Minnesota with the west line of Candy Cove Trail;
thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 43 seconds East assumed bearing
along said easterly extension a distance of 60.49 feet to the east line of
said Candy Cove Trail; thence South 7 degrees 37 minutes 57 seconds
East along said east line a distance of 52.89 feet to an angle point in said
east line; thence South 18 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds East
continuing along said east line a distance of 57.76 feet to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence South 18 degrees 40
minutes 06 seconds East continuing along said east line a distance of
20.58 feet and said line there terminating.
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for co-locating a
communication tower with the replacement of an existing utility pole
located within the Candy Cove right-of-way. Section 1110.600 of the City
Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for integrating a tower with an
existing or new utility pole.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend this hearing. The Planning Commission will
accept oral and/or written comments. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the
Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30
p.m.
Jenni Tovar, Planner
City of Prior Lake
PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON September 25, 1999.
Date Mailed: October 1, 1999
f:\deptwlanning\99files\99cup\99-065\99-065pn .doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I!'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \0 0>1- t-;l 0;1:<
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \0 0 0 01'0 0>1- ~ (Xl 0
f-l f-l f-l f-l f-l f-l f-l tv 0 tv W lJ1 W>l- >< ........Ul
0 01'0 01'0 01'0 01'0 01'0 f-l lJ1 0 lJ1 \0 0 \0>1- '1:l tv
0"\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 lJ1 0 lJ1 W 0 W>I- ~ ot-;l
W tv tv tv tv tv W tv -..l tv 01'0 0 01'0>1- "<: ........~
lJ1 (Xl (Xl (Xl 0 0 0 (Xl W (Xl tv tv tv >I- (I) f-l><
>I- ti \0
'0 '0 P:: '0 P:: '0 '0 P:: t"l '0 P:: t"l '0>1- \OUl
~ ~ Ul ~ Ul ~ ~ Ul Ul ~ Ul Ul ~>I- \0"<:
H H t-;l H t-;l H H t-;l 0 H t-;l 0 H>I- III
>I- rt
f-lC-i 'df-ltl 'df-ltl'df-ltl 'dlJ1t"'dlJ1t" 'dlJ1tlH 'dlJ1tIi UlUltv'd 'dlJ1tIi 'dlJ1G1tl~f-lt-;lZ'dlJ1G1>1- Z 0(1)
~~ ~lJ1q ~lJ1q~lJ1q ~w;I:<~w;I:< ~WHUl ~oI'ot"lOqlJ1H~oI'ot"l ~wt"lt"lUl OO~wt"l>l- ~ \03
H(Xl~ H(Xl~H(Xl~ HoI'o:;:HoI'o:;: HOUltl HO~qH\O~HO~ H-..lOUl P::~~H-..lO>l- 3
(Xlt"l Otv Otv Otv 0ol'o~0ol'o~ Oot-;l Of-l t-;lt-;ltv Of-lZ 0lJ1~ f-l0 :;:0lJ1~>I- (I) W
oI'oUl ~tvt"l ~tvt"l~tvt"ll ~ t"l~ t"l ~ ~-..l ~ ~P::t"llJ1;1:<~ ~ ~ G1~tv~~t"l~ G1>1- 01'0
f-lZ f-lZ :;:Hf-l o I'Ij () () ()HOtvt:<:lHUl () H >l- I?'
ot" t"()1'Ij t"()1'Ijt"01'Ij t"0"\0t"0"\() t"t"l()\O t"t"ltlHoI'ot-;lt"t"t"ltl t"t:<:I~HlJ1 t"t-;lt"t"l~>I- lJ1
~I?' ~~~ ~~~~~~ ;l:<ot"l;l:<ot"l ;l:<Ult-;l ;I:<~ t"llJ1t"lt"l;l:<~ ;I:<~ Z-..lot" ;I:<~ >I- ;I:< -..l
~ ~ ~~O ~ Ult"Ot" ~ Ul ~ ;l:<t"llJ1~t"lt"l~ ;1:<>1- P.
t"ltl t"lUlC-it"lUlC-i t"lt"l tl t"l~t"lt"l t"lt"l Ul ~t"t"lt"l >I- P.
><C-i ~>< t-;l t-;l 01'Ij ~~~~ G1t"l ~Ul ~tl '0 t"l ~tl>l- ti
t"l ~0t-;l~0t-;l ~UlI?'~UlI?', ~01'Ij ~~~ () ~ HH q O~ H>I- (I)
8~ ZOt-;l tlH H~H ;I:< H~ Ht";I:< Ul t-;l Ht">I- III
~ o 0 t"l~ t"l~: 0 ~ffi :2t"l ~ffi ~t" ~ ~t">I- III
<:;1:< <: <: tlt"l o 0 0 >I-
t"lt"l lJ1t:<:1 lJ1t:<:1 lJ1t"l lJ1 t-;llJ1 I lJ1~ lJ1 01'0 UllJ1 lJ1 ZlJ1 ZlJ1 Z>I-
lJ1 lJ1 lJ1 lJ1 0lJ1 01 lJ1 lJ1Ul (Xl ~t-;llJ1Ul lJ1Ul 0 HlJ1Ul >I-
'dtIi wt-;l wt-;l wt-;l W HW HI WUl Wt-;lt"lO O;l:<Wt-;lt"l wt-;l w OWt-;l >I-
~ ;j~ ;j~ ;j~ -..l Z-..l Z' -..It''l -..l ()W ~t-;l-..l () -..l tv -..l >I-
~~ tv t"ltv t"ll tv tvUl~oI'o t"ltvUl~ tvUl (Xl t-;ltvUl >I-
H H H t-;l t-;ll t"l t"l t"l I ~ t"l >l-
t" t" t" t-;l t-;ll t-;l 0 >I-
;l:<t-;ll t"l t"ll ~ 0 >I-
><t"l Ul Ul Ul I 0 Ul >I-
Z t"l t"l t"l :;: :;:, f-l t"l >I-
H HI Ul ~ >l-
t" t"1 t"l >I-
tl tll ~ H >l-
I <: ()
I t"l
I
tv tv tv tv I tv tv tv tl
0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 1-"
0 0 0 01 0 0 0 III
f-l f-l f-l f-ll f-l f-l f-l rt
I
0 0 0 01 0 0 0 Z
(Xl (Xl (Xl (XlI (Xl (Xl (Xl t-;l ~
0 0 0 01 0 0 0 ........ 3
0 0 0 01 0 0 0 () (I)
I
0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 Ul ;I:<
-..l -..l -..l -..l I -..l -..l -..l ('J P.
f-l f-l f-l f-l I f-l f-l f-l ::T P.
\0 \0 \0 \0 I \0 \0 \0 ti
I (I)
I III
lJ1 lJ1 lJ1 lJ1 I lJ1 lJ1 lJ1 Ul III
0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 '1:l
\0 \0 \0 \0 I \0 \0 \0 f-l t"
I (I)
0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 Ul l!l
w w w W I W W w '1:l ~
tv tv tv tv I tv tv tv tv i-'
I
f-l f-ll f-l f-l I f-l f-l f-l Ul ~
0"\ 0"\ 0"\ 0"\ I 0"\ 0"\ 0"\ '1:l 0
01'0 01'0 01'0 01'0 I 01'0 01'0 01'0 W P.
I (I)
lJ1 lJ1 lJ1 lJ1 I lJ1 lJ11 lJ1 Ul i-'
0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 '1:l (I)
lJ1 lJ1 lJ1 lJ1 I lJ1 lJ1 lJ1 01'0 ti
I
lJ1 lJ1 lJ1 lJ1 I lJ1 lJ1 lJ1 Ul
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '1:l
-..l -..l -..l -..l -..l -..l -..l lJ1
Ul
'1:l
0"\
Ul
'1:l
-..l
Ul
'1:l
(Xl
Ul
'1:l
\0
tv tv tv tv tv tv tv ><
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (I)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ultv lJ10ZoUltv f-lOUltv t"ltv Ultv t"l'd Ultv t"Otv t"()tv '0
t"llJ1 wo wt"llJ1 . wt:<:llJ1 ~o t"llJ1 ~........ t:<:IlJ1 0t"llJ1 0t"llJ1 ~ t-;lUl
0\0 \O~lJ1f-lo\O 01'0 f-l 0\0 (Xl ()\O 0 0\0 t-;l~f-l t-;l~f-l ti ;I:<()
t-;lw o\Ot-;lw -..l\Ot-;lw ~~ t-;lw t-;lw I 0"\ I 0"\ ('J \00
10"\ (XlUl WI 0"\ ;l:<WIO"\ 10"\ -..lUl 10"\ ot"lW ot"lw (I) ot-;l
wo lJ1f-lOO"\wo O"\wo >< - wo f-lt"l wo o~o o~o i-' f-lt-;l
0"\ tv ........1'IjlJ1O"\tv HlJ1O"\tv ~ 0"\ tv ;l:<f-l 0"\0 W 0 tv 0 t"
\0 t"oI'o tv -..l Ztv -..l 0 ........ f-l HW Htv # ()
~o t"l t-;lw~f-l w~o f-l ~o ~: ~o ~~o ~~o ~
1'Ij()~tv Ultv 0
'0 t-;l0 0'0 t"l0'd 01'0 '0 '0 0 0
I ~Otvl f-ltvl I :;: I ~~ ~~ t"
f-l tv t-;l-..lf-l ........-..If-l W f-l f-l f-l (I)
f-l -..l:;: Of-l oI'o0f-l lJ1 f-l ........ f-l Itl Itl l!l
lJ1 lJ1 Hf-llJ1 0lJ1 lJ1 01'0 lJ1 oZ oZ ~
. f-lZ Ul 0 0 i-'
~ 11"0 W~ :;:W~ H ~ I?' ~ f-l f-l
-..l\OUlO"\ f-l0"\ Z
. t"ll ........ Ul
t"\Of-lf-lG1 oI'of-lG1 Ul :;: G1
t:<:I t"llJ1........f-lt"l f-lt"l t"l t"l f-l t"l
I I'Ij II"lJ11 t"llJ11 f-l I ........ I '0
0 t-;l~ 10 ~ 0 ........ 0 oI'olJ10 ~
tv HUltvtv tv tv 01'0 tv -..ltv
tv tvG1:;:tvtv . tv tv tv Ul' tv t"l
oI'oP::f-l 01'0 Ulol'o t:<:Io Ul
wt-;l........ -..If-l :;:0"\ f-ltv rt
01'0' f-l ........ ~
W 01'0 0 ........;1:< 01'0;1:< rt
\0 -..l 0 oI'o() () r:: f-l
III
Properties withi n 350' of
proposed Candy Cove Pole location
.
.
.
.
.
.
r......"._.
-'
.
.
6
t3 12 11
.;
o
I
500
1000 Feet
~
N
-l
[II
a:
b 0)
r -l (')
a: 0)
0.. -
0
C")
z -
Cl 0)
Cl
<(
-l
<(
z
5 z
W
I-
0.. Z
a: w
0.. U
(')
co
u:i
~
5
0..
-l -l -l
a: a: a:
I- a: l- I- I- a:
w Cl w en w Cl
~ ~ Cl ~ -l > Cl
<( 0
u 0 u Z u 0
0 ~
0 I- >- ~ ~ z >-
a: en Cl w Cl
0.. 0 Z Z I- Z
co <S en <S z <S en
..... w w w
co 3: ~ U N 3:
"<t 0 (; N 0
~ ,... 0 ,... CXl 0
10 (') 10 ;1; 10 (')
10 ..... 10 ..... ..... 10
10
C 0..
~ N N N N N N N N N
.9 ,... ,... ,... ,... ,... ,... ,... ,... ,...
(') (') (') (') (') (') (') (') (')
"a; 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
.Q I-
a> en z z z z z z z z z
"0 3: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
D.. w w w w w w w w W
"t:l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a> :5 :5 :5 :5 :5 :5 :5 :5 :5
1Il U
0 ~ a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a:
a. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ii: ii: ii: ii: ii: ii: ii: ii: ii:
....
a. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0..
E ~
0 w w w
-= w ~ en en en
(:) en w w -l -l -l W
LO W -l en a: en ~ ~ ~ en
C") a: a: a: <( I- a:
l- I- Cl 0.. en l- I- I- Cl
en w Cl W -l W W W Cl
3: ~ > <( > ~ >
0 w 0 0 z 0 0 0
u 0 u u u u ~
en ~ z
I- >- >- w >- ~ >-
en Cl Cl I- Cl Cl
Z en z z z z z en
0 <S w <S w <S <S <( w
co 3: 3:
..... u U
en
::l
0 ~ N N N 1Il
J: co x
3: ~ 0 c; N N N 0
,... 0 ,... ClO ClO ClO 0 ..;
0 (') 10 (') 10 ;1; 10 10 10 (') ~
10 ..... 10 ..... ..... ..... ..... 10
Cl oa;
-l E
3: z to
w CD
~ W ~ 0
l- I
W en u 0)
Z ::l W gl
W ..., [II
~ 5 [II z a.
<( l- S ~ S ::J
W 0
Z z Ii: <( Ii: 0)
3: <( 0 Z J: b I- b 0 gl
0 ~ w 1:) <( u Cl 1:) 1Il
en w en z z z
..., :s a: a: a: oc:: Q)
w en ..., en Iii ~
::l III ~ <( <( <(
u is Cl is 0)
z [II -l a: LL LL LL gl
W LL Ol en <( w w w Ol
a: -l r:: w z z z z r:: 0)
~ ::l ~ a: <( <( <( c:
<( Cl <( W ::l ::> ::l Cl "c
0.. ~ ..., [II Cl Cl Cl ~ c:
0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... 0 0 co
0 N ..... Ol (') ,... ,... ,... ..... 0.
N (') 0 N 0 N N N 0 -:-:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cl co co co co (') co co co co
ii: (') (') (') (') co (') (') (') (')
Ol Ol Ol Ol ..... Ol Ol Ol Ol
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
N N N N N N N N N
.~'\
c
S //2
SEe.
36 r 1/5
~. .' .
4~~/ \~
Fft5P\J, '041' ..~
,., ~
'; ".' .\....\. Cl\''\
,'-\\ 1 ~. "";J
\, l \
\~\ \
''\\~,'
\'!>
,ACT H.
d5" .-. ~/
_"-.T
'L-a.."
INDClICMOINT ICKOOL OIIT.' 711
</!-~ );.&_ ~',~ l~O
~
c
."
. ~
.
l
\:
~
5'/01. /t
.0
. i"':';"
C> (;:
'C-J ~
,,- ~
. ..... "
9<::. .Z)
......~ ""\ . ~
~I\~' --:...
=. .ro''-
~ \~ ~~
'f\ .V) ""
~ ~'C
~ '<I ?t~\ \ ,
~~''-- ~ ~~, ~
-;:'.~ "'~~.~ ...--::." '..
._-'; (~.::: ::. ~?~ :). ~~ ',.
'1 ~'\ '~ ~ ~.'- ~~
~ '() ~ '\'
~
'""-'
......~
.~..\ ~
~\
~
~
.:;;
- \'~-
'...t.1 .,.....
~ -..,
.. ~ "t -:.
~ '~.-
~Z~~:.
\ '~."'" .
) l;;", '{":~
~
I
"":'f 11 t
'1". l/; -
~-_._--- .--.---
- ..~-------
L--2------.-.--.
..~_._--.~ --
.........----..-..--...
\
J
, s
, s
CENTENNIAL STREET
w
w
N89'40' 43"E
- -.-
I
I
tiORn1 UNE OF BLOCK t. ---~
C[N1lJ'INtAt. AOOInoN
o 20 40 60
~_... I !
SCALE IN FEET
2491-71
EXHIBIT A
MIN -
, s
\
\
I
J II \ ...-- EASTERlY EXTENSION or
~ THE NORllfUHE Of BLOCK
. " ',I, ,_~
\~ 1\ " A
N89'40' 43"E "
_-- \ 60.49 /lL__,
- _____..L.-\I-'
\ \-\ " __-\__"-1;'~
\\ \, "\I~\ I~\ \ ~
;I'" ~ \I \I \ '<0
~1-\ ;. I~\ '^\ ~\ \ Ij
\ k ", ..... (ASl't:P\.Y 1J<I( ~
II \ \, :' CANOY CO\IE TRAil.
~~ "\ \\:~
\\ \ o.
.~
\ \\ \ ~ ,~- SEE []
\\ \ " ,
\\ "0 il?1?" \\ \~ ,/ i
\ \\ '^~,s ~X\\ _:---_/ 1
\\,- \ -, ,
\\ " \ " ", :
" \\ ~, rPOWER POlE
\ J\ 0 :' \\ ' PRO~\OSED T1
\\\ z OJ ~\ .-l'OlE AIle
~\~ ~ ~~~~ t~>b~ \~ "j!
\ ~ ~ () ~. ,,~ ~ ~\\ ,:
~"O ~\~~ C ,
'e' ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ fl,\\ :
\ \,~ 1 ~ ~..\"'---\--
\ ~ 'f \\
~ ~
\ \\" \ . \\
\'-\\ <\
'^