HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-06 PACKET 04.Z.62EQU�S?' OF CI�( G(7l1PdCl� AC�`IUN COIJEdCIL AC�NDA
�EE���G ���� � . z
DAaTE s,6,9a ,
P62EPAREd BY: � Community Development Kim Lindquist
CIRIGINlaTlNG DEPARTMENT STAFF AUThi0f2
.e�.k««....�.�.���4�¢a.«.«...�.a.«kd���.kF.A����
� � ' *
Rdopt a resolution approving the condifional use permit for Sprint Spectrum 4o construct a
120-foot wireless communication monopole and accessory equipment building at 10475
Kimbro Avenue South.
: � - ♦
� a � � a
.
,� �. � � , , �
� ,.
/% • '' •:
■ • :
� � : �►
�..- . �. . , �
■ . .
■ • � � � �-
■
..�- .•
REVIEWED
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
;
i'� • 1
APPROVED
�
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
DENIED
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
� MEMO/LETTER: Memo from John McCool dated 4t28/98
� RESOLUTION: Draft
❑ QRDINANCE:
❑ EN�lN��R�t�G RECOIVfMENDA7lON:
❑ LEGAL RECOM(ViEiVDAT10Pd:
� OTNER: 1) Excerpt from the approved Planning Cammission minutes far the me�tings on
February 23 and March 23 and from 4he unapproved Planning Commissian
mirrutes from ,4pril 27, 1998
2) Statf Fteport and exhibits
R,DfV11NlST'RATf3F2S CC)�flMEhtTS: �
;� ,�_� f
City Administrafar DaY�
��«���,.�«�����««��s��4�k�4��$����*...�������x.A
CC9l1NCkL ACTI0IV �T",A9C�td: [] AF��FtCB9/EC3 [� DE�IEC1 ❑ Q�fFt�R
-+
•'� �
T0: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator
FROM: John McCoal, Senior Pianner
DATE: April 29, 1998
RE: Sprint Spectn�m's Conditional Use Permit Application
INTRODUCTION
Sprint Spectrum has appiied for a conditional use permit for the purpose of construcfing a 120.
foot high steei monopole tower and equipment building on property at 10475 Kimbro Avenue
South. The monopole will be used for the transmitting and receiving of wireless Personal
Communication Systems (PCS). The equipment buiiding will be constructed of a split-face
concrete biocks with an asphalt shingie roof.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission held public hearings conceming this matter at their regular meetings
in February, March, and April. At the first meeting, several neighboring residents voiced their
objections to the proposed monopole and its location and supported the idea of co-locating
antennas on existing towers/structures. The Planning Commission tabled SprinYs appiication
to adlow City staff and the applicant to research other location �ip4ions.
For the March meeting, the written staff report recommended denial of the appiication based
on findings that the applicant couid co-locate on the US West—Berryland monopole. City
ordinance Gearly states that the use of existing approved structures for siting new antennas
should be considered, and the applicanYs iMormation did not prove that co-locating their
antennas on the US West-Berryland monopole site will have a severe impact on their RF
coverage in Cottage Grove. After conferring with the City Attomey, staff amended their
recommendation to table the item to permit review of the application by a qualified
professional. The Planning Commission concurred with staff's amended recommendation. The
only pubiic comments received at this meeting were made by the representatives from Sprint
Spectrum.
"fhe Planning Commission again discussed this application at their April 27"' meeting. The
City's consultant, Garrett Lysiak, P.E. from Owl Engineering, attended the meeting and
Mayor and City Council Memo
April 29, 1998
Page 2
presented a summary of his analysis for the Sprint Spectrum application. Based on his
findings and the infbrmation contained in his report, the Planning Commission unanimously
approved SprinYs conditianal use permit application at the Goulet farm, subject to certain
conditions.
DISCUSSION
Consultant's Report
Mr. Lysiak analyzed not only Sprint's preferred site at the Goulet farm, but also the US
West-Berryland site and eight other candidate sites even though these other sites were
outside a one-mile search radius. The results of his analysis and "shadowing" study
confirmed the coverage predictions submitted last month by Sprint Spectrum.
The US West-Berryland tower was inspected and found not to be a typicai tower used by
US West in this area, though it stili complied with wind and icing requirements. Because of
the 12-inch diameter of the tower at the upper taper, it would have limited capacity in
instailing coaxial cabies inside the tower for future expansion to US WesYs system and
Sprint Spectrum's system if Sprint was to co-locate on US WesYs tower.
Mr. Lysiak reported that Sprint Spectrum could co-locate on the US West-Berryland
monopole, but it would not provide the desired coverage along Trunk Highway 10/61 and
may not accommodate the total number of coaxial cables under a maximized facility use
scenario. A copy of Mr. �ysiak's report is attached as part of the Planning staff report.
Tower Co/or
As a condition of approvai, staff had recommended that the proposed 120-foot tower be
painted light blue and maintained in an appropriate condition. Several Planning
Commission members q:�estioned the r.eed for this todver to be nainte@. The applicant
explained that the tower is a galvanized metai material that is siightly shiny when new, but
once insta{led and exposed to the outdoor e{ements, the exterior surface oxides and
gradually turns to a grayish color. The applicant felt this color blends with the horizon
better than any other color and does not pose long-term maintenance issues.
Staff reminded the Commission that the City did require US West to paint their 100-foot
monopole light b�ue. The lattice tower behind City Hall was not required to be painted
mainly because of its type of construction. Several Commission members felt it is
unnecessary to require SprinYs proposed monopole to be painted. The motion approving
SprinYs conditional use permit included all conditions recommended by staff, except for the
painting requirement. Should the Council wish to remain consistent with other monopole
approvals, a condition requiring painting should be added.
Mayor antl Glty CoLncil Memo
April 29, 1998
Page 3
ORDINANCE
The Planning Commission throughout the review of this application did discuss the existing
ordinance regulations. Some concem was expressed that the ordinance regulations may
be too restrictive in that they preclude the City from achieving their overali goals. The
primary goal would be to limit the number of towers by encouraging co-location. The other
goal would be to site the towers i� low visibility locations where impacts to surrounding
properties are negligible. The ordinance currently restricts piacement of freestanding
towers to agricuitural or industrial zoning districts only. The City's consuitant
recommended amending the ordinance to require certain structural standards for the tower
to ensure co-location could occur from a structural standpoint. Staff wiii be exploring this
modification in more detail.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a 120-foot monopole and
accessory structure at 10475 Kimbro Avenue South.
F:\GROUPSIPLANNING\t 998\CITYCOUN�sprintldmbro.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 98-XXX
A RESOLUTtON APPROVING A CONDITIONAL 11SE PERM(T FOR
THE INSTALLATION OF A COMMERCIAL ELECTROMAGNETIC
COMMUNICATION LOCATED AT 10475 KIMBRO AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, Sprint Spectrum has applied for a conditional use peRnit to construct a 120-
foot high monopole and accessory buiiding on property legaily described as:
All that part of the foliowing: That part of the Northeast 1!4 of Section 26, Township 27
North, Range 21 West described as follows: Commencing atthe point of intersection of
the centerfine of Kimbro Avenue, as presently traveled and the south line of said
Northeast 1/4; thence East along the South line of the Northeast 1/4 a distance of 660
feet; thence West and parallel to the North line of the Northeast 1/4 to the centerline of
Kimbro Avenue; thence Southeasteriy along the centerline of Kimbro Avenue to the
point of beginning, except that part thereof which lies West of a line 40 feet East of and
paraliel with the following described line: Commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said
Section 28; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 16 minutes 14
seconds West along the South line of the Northeast 1!4 of said Section 26, a distance
of 2487.21 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 6
degeees 1? rrzinutes 13 seconds West a distance of 6.13 feet; thence northerly 399.98
feet along a tangential curve concave to the East having a controi angle of 1 degree 19
minutes 44 seconds and a radius of 17,245.45 feet, thence North 4 degrees 51 minutes
29 seconds West and tangent to the last described curve 332.94 feet and there
terminating according to the government survey thereof and situate in Washington
County Minnesota
Described as foilows: Commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 26; thence
North 79 degrees 51 minutes 52 seconds West, assuming the South line at the
Northeast 1/4 of said Section 26 bears South 89 degrees 16 minutes 14 seconds West,
a distance of 2111.64 to the Leased Premises Site to be described: then North 48
degrees 33 minutes 10 seconds West, a distance of 50.00 feet; thence south 41
degrees 26 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of 50.00 feet; thence South 48
degrees 33 minutes 10 seconds East, a distance of 50.00 feet; thence North 41
degrees 26 minutes 50 seconds East, a distance of 10.70 feet to a point hereinafter
- . . �. •• �a
referred to as Pdint "A"; thence continuing North 41 degrees 26 minutes 59 seconds
East, a distance of 39.30 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 2,500.0 square
feet.
Together with a 20.00 foot easement for access, utility, ingress and egress, over,
under, and across the above described property, the centeriine of which is described
as follows: Commencing at the above described Point "A"; thence South 27 degrees 40
minutes 34 seconds East, a distance of 84.18 feet; thence South 29 degrees 30
minutes 09 seconds West, a distance of 65.50 feet; thence South 85 degrees 40
minutes 51 seconds West, a distance of 36.98 feet; thence North 45 degrees 50
minutes 26 seconds West, a distance of 94.38 feet; thence North 31 degrees 57
minutes 59 seconds West, a distance of 105.54 feet, thence North 47 degrees 43
minutes 02 seconds West, a distance of 135.63 feet; thence North 65 degrees 16
minutes 47 seconds West, a distance of 104.88 feet; Thence South 89 degrees 45
minutes 44 seconds West, a distance of 38.79 feet, more or less to the Easterly Right
of Way of Kimbro Avenue South and there terminating. Containing 13,437.7 square
feet.
Commoniy described as 10475 Kimbro Avenue South, Cottage Grove, Washington
County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, Sprint Spectrum is requesting approval to install wireless communication
antennas onto a new 120-foot high monopole and construct a 15-foot X 20-foot accessory
structure; and
WHEREAS, pub{ic hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the
property and a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulietin; and
WhiEF2EA3, th� Pianning Commissior held public heaiings �n �ebruargr 23, 199�, Msrr,h
23, 1998 and Apri127, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the public hearings were open for public testimony, and several neighboring
la�downers did object to the applicanYs proposal at the February 23, 1998 Planning Commission
meeting. Their objection pertained to its appearance and location; and
WHEREAS, the applicant was present at all three me2tings; and
WHEREAS, the City hired a qualified professional e�cperienced in wireless communication
systems to analyze the data submitted by the applicant and potentiai candidate sites for co-
location. The study conGuded that Spnnt Spectrum couid co-iocate on the US West-Berryland
monopole, but would not provide the desired coverage along Trunk Highway 10l61 and may not
Resolution No. 98-XXX
Page 3
accommodate all the coaxial cables both users would need under a maximized facility use
scenario; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the application, subject to
certain conditions listed below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Councii of the City of Cottage
Grove, Washington County, Minnesota hereby approves the conditional use permit
application filed by Sprint Spectrum to allow construction of a 120-foot high monopole and
accessory buiiding on property lega�ly described above, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must comp�ete a buiiding permit application for the monopole and
accessory building and the City must issue the permit before any construction could
begin.
2. No advertising shall be displayed on or a�xed to the monopole.
3. The applicant shall plant a minimum of six techney arborvitae or three 6-foot high
evergreen trees on the northwest side of the leased site to screen the base of the
tower from Kimbro Avenue South. A bona fide cost estimate of the landscaping
impro�ements shall be provided to the Pianning Division and a letter of credit in the
amount of 150 percent of such estimate shall be submitted to and approved by the
City. Upon completion of the landscaping improvements, the applicant shall in
writing inform the City that said improvements have been completed. The City shall
retain the financiai guarantee for a period of one year from the date of notice to
insure the survival of the plantings.
4. The monopole shall be designed for co-location of at least two additional EMCF.
5. If the property is rezoned and the new zoning classification does no4 permit an
EMCF in conformance with the code provisions, the existing EMCF shaii be
removed prior to preliminary piat approval or building permit issuance, whichever
occurs first.
6. If the EMCF is abandoned or unused, it shall be removed within 12 months of the
discontinuance of operations at the site, unless a time extension is granted by the
City.
7. The EMCF service shall not interfere with public safety communications or any other
wireless communication frequencies.
8. The EMCF provider shall notify the City at least 10 calendar days in advance before
introducing new services or changes in transmitting or receiving services from this
site.
Resolution No. 98-XXX
Page 4
9. The equipment building shall be constructed with exterior materials that are
comparable to the adjoining storage building. The color shouid be earth tone,
subject to staff review and approvai.
Passed unanimously this 6th day of May, 1998.
John D. Denzer, Mayor
/_�i�ii
Caron M. Stransky, Ciry Clerk
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1998
Page 3
EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
FOR APRIL 27, 1998
6.1 CUP98-03
Sprint Spectrum has applied for a conditional use permit to aliow the
construction of a 120-foot high electromagnetic communication facility and to
construct a 15-foot by 20-foot accessory building at 10475 Kimbro Avenue South.
This is a continued public hearing from the February 23, 1998, and March 23, 1998
meetings.
John McCool summarized the staff report and provided background information on the
previous meetings. He recommended approval subject to the 10 conditions identified in
the staff report.
Garrett Lysiak, professional engineer with Owl Engineering, who was retained by the
City, gave a report on his analysis. He stated that he reviewed the information from
Sprint to learn what their goal was in building the tower in the proposed location. He
then reviewed the city's zoning ordinance. In his analysis, he looked at the location of
other towers in Cottage Grove to see if they could accommodate Sprint. He also toured
the sites to examine the terrain and possibie obstructions. He stated that
telecommunications systems are designed to cover a whole area, which requires
multipie sites.
Lysiak explained that Figure 1 was a propagation study that shows the predicted
coverage of the Sprint PCS system as they have proposed it. The proposed site gives
good coverage along T.H. 10/61. Figure 2 represents co-locating on the U.S. West
tower at Berryiand, which shows poor coverage. He explained that radio service is
highly dependent on line of sight and that obstructions such as trees, heavy vegetation,
or terrain wiil severely impact the signal. Figure 3 showed a shadowing study for the
proposed tower location. Figure 4 showed the Berryland site, which is obstnacted by
terrain on the north side of the highway.
�yziak expiained that the NSP sites would not work as the tower would have to be 200
to 300 feet tall so the power lines wouldn't interfere with the signal. He talked with U.S.
West about their tower at Berryland and found out that it is not the typical tower that
they utilize in this market. The typicai tower is much bigger in diameter. The tower wili
handle 80 mile-an-hour winds and half-inch ice as the code requires but can't hold the
amount of cables both companies would need for maximized use.
He stated in his analysis that, in general terms, they could co-locate at Berryland but it
would give somewhat diminished coverage in the northern section on T.H. 10/61 on
their system, He also expressed concemed about the structurai integrity of the tower if
the maximum number of cables for both systems were installed.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1998
Page 4
Japs asked �yziak if the Berryland tower was under-engineered for meeting multiple
uses. Lyziak answered that it wasn't; that other antennas could be co-located but the
Sprint system could not due to its configuration. He also stated that the proposed Sprint
tower could handle at least Nvo to three more users.
Auge asked if, from an engineering standpoint, there was a recommendation for tower
standards. Lyziak answered that one way was to put a wind loading specification on
proposed to�vers. We stated that as technology improves, the antennas will get smaller.
Auge opened the public hearing.
Gary Gandrud, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, attomey representing Sprint,
stated that they agreed with the findings of the City's consultant and the staff report. He
further stated that they wouid submit to the conditions, but questioned the need to paint
the tower blue.
Brown asked if the pole wasn't painted blue, what color it would be. Gandrud answered
that the pole is galvanized steei, which is grayish-siiver in color.
Japs asked how long the pole would meet Sprint's needs and if they would be able to
accommodate other users on it. Gandrud answered that the pole could accommodate
three users.
Sawyer asked how the appearance of the pole wouid change if other users were added.
Gandrud answered that panels wouid be added but everything else would be inside.
Auge asked if anyone eise in audience wished to speak. No one eise spoke.
Auge c%sed the public hearing.
Boyden asked why the color blue was chosen to paint the pole. McCool answered that
it blends with the sky better than other colors. it was asked if there were any galvanized
poles in the city. McCool answered that the NSP towers are gaivanized steel. The
�erryland tower was reGuired to be painted light blu�. The tovrer behind city hall i§ a
framework-style tower and was not required to be painted. Gandrud stated that he
thinks the blue-painted towers stand out more than galvanized poles. Podoil agreed
with Gandrud and asked who would inspect the tower for chips and repainting.
Kleven moved to approve fhe application with conditions 1 through 9 attached,
delefing condifion 10, which requires fhe po% fo be painted light blue. Foster
seconded.
There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes
Monday, March 23, 1998
Page 3
EXCERPT FROM APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR
MARCH 23, 1998
6.1 CUP98-03
Sprint Spectrum has applied for a conditional use permit to ailow the construction of
a 120-foot high electromagnetic communication facility and to construct a 15-foot by
20-foot accessory building at 10475 Kimbro Avenue South. This is a continued
pubiic hearing from the February 23, 1998, meeting.
McCool summarized the staff report. The written staff �eport had recommended denial of
the application. However, staff would like to amend their recommendation and have the
Planning Commission table the application until the next m2eting to allow the City to obtain
a consultant on radio frequencies to evaluate the information provided by Sprint.
Podol/ stated that this a continued public hearing. The comments from the hearing
in February are still part of the record. Podoll opened the public meefing.
Gary Gandrud, attomey with Faegre & Benson, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis,
spoke on behalf of Sprint PCS. He introduced others who were in attendance on behalf of
Sprint PCS: Alex Detrick, a radio frequency engineer for Sprint; Phil McMuilen, consultant
with Sprint PCS for the metro area; Mike Thompson, property specialist with Sprint PCS;
and Evan Rice, also with Faegre & Benson.
Gandrud provided background on Sprint PCS since they entered the Twin Cities market.
He stated that Sprint has 164 sites currently on line; 50 percent are towers and 50 percent
are on existing buildings; and 25 are co-location towers. Sprint serves Cottage Grove resi-
dents and those who travel through the city. He stated the Sprint chooses sites to provide
a strong signal to their customers. He stated that tney are not trying to avoid co-location
and they would use the Berryland �it� if it provided a strong enougn signal. He further
stated that Sprint promofes and endorses calocafion. Currently, they co-locate with U.S.
West on 12 sites. He noted that staff recommended approval of the Goulet site in the
February 18 staff report on this application.
Gandrud stated that after the lease deniai with LS Power, Sprint evaluated 12 sites for an
alternative site. He stated that U.S. West will accept a co-location on their 100-foot tower
but they won't re-engineer the tower. Sprint could be on the tower at 85 feet to allow
separation of signal. Co-locating at 85 feet does not provide for adequate coverage.
Gandrud stated that staff changed their recommendation based on four items listed in the
March 23 staff report. The first issue is that the applicant has the ability to co-locate the
antenna on the monopole located at 10900 Point Douglas Road. Gandrud responded that
Sprint wouid not be able to pravide adequate coverage from that location. Two, co-location
at this site could work if an additional site was located on an NSP transmission tower to the
north and east, a mile away. There are several probiems with that. The City's ordinance
Planning Commission Minutes
Monday, March 23, 1998
Page 4
does not require it. Section 13 on Page 4 states that "all commercial EMCFs shall not be
approved unless th8 City Council finds that the equipment cannot be accommodated on an
existing approved tower, building, or structure between one mile of the search radius." The
NSP line is more than a mile from their search ring. The ordinance aiso states that co-
location is allowed if there is an existing structure.
Staff finding #2 states that the City's EMCF regulations and requirements clearly state that
the use of existing approved structures for siting new antennas shouid be considered to
reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. Gandrud stated that they in-
vestigated 12 sites in Cottage Grove. As Mr. Thompson detailed in the attachment to his
letter, all of the sites provide either inadequate coverage or are not available. The drive-in
theater site met their criteria but not the City's ordinance. The Berryland site does not ailow
Sprint to complete its communication system.
The third staff finding is that the NSP electric utility poles north of the Goulet and Berryland
sites should be considered as future applicant sites for EMCFs. Gandrud stated that
antennas cannot be bui{t on wooden towers. If they utilize the metal towers, they would
have to construct roads and take agricultural lands. Those towers would not provide the
coverage the Berryland site does, which does not give them adequate coverage. The NSP
towers are over a mile outside the search area and are contrary to the city ordinance.
Staff finding #4 states the information provided by the applicant does not prove that co-
locating their antennas on the Berryland monopole sites wiil have a severe impact on their
radio frequency coverage in Cottage Grove. The ink blot maps submitted by Mr.
Thompson showed that the location at the Berryland site will leave significant barriers so it
would be impossibie to receive a Sprint PCS signal within any building. Gandrud noted that
staff agreed in their February staff report that the Goulet site would work.
Mike Thompson, Sprint PCS, outlined how they choose a site: 1) the site must be abie to
be leased; 2) the site must comply with the City's zoning ordinance; 3) the RF ability must
meet customer service standards to provide in-building coverage; and 4) the tower must be
�ble 4o be constructed at a reasonable cosf. Thic�mpson shawed a map of the 12 candidate
sites that they researched and described the history for each site. After the construction
engineer, property specialist, and radio frequency engineer finished their research, it was
determined that the Goulet property was the best site candidate. They did extensive re-
search on the Berryland site and talked with U.S. West about collocation. U.S. West told
them that the foundation would not support a tower over 100 feet tali and they would not be
wiliing to re-engineer the tower to add additional height as it would delay their schedule.
They looked at a tower on Burlington Northern property, with whom they have a master
lease agreement, but it was too far southwest of the search ring. They also sent a written
proposal to 3M for both a monopole site and a water tower site, but 3M toid them that it
would not fit with the future plans for their property.
Thompson showed pictures of the Millard property taken from the proposed tower site,
which showed the existing windbreak that would screen the site from the road; and pictures
of what the Millards wouid see from their property, which includes farm equipment and
Pianning Commission Minutes
Monday, March 23, 1998
Page 5
buildings on the Goulet property that would obstruct the skyline view. Thompson also
showed pictures from the Hale property which showed differing elevations and heavy
vegetation. Thompson reiterated that Sprint has done everything they could to comply with
the community's ordinance, including a detailed technical analysis of the most likely site
candidates.
Jerry Goulet, 10475 Kimbro Avenue, stated that he has lived in the rural area for 15 years
and has been a Cottage Grove resident for 35 years. His farm is zoned agricultural and the
long-range plan shows that it will stay that way. He stated that this is a better way to eam
additional income than starting a livestock operation. He asked the Commission to approve
the application.
Alex Detrick, Sprint Radio Frequency Engineer, 511 - 11th Street SE, Minneapolis, stated
that utilizing the Berryland site would not meet SprinYs coverage needs. He showed
coverage maps illustrating the areas covered utilizing the Goulet property and co-locating
on the U.S. West tower at Berryland. He stated with co-location there should be a 20-foot
separation between antennas, so SprinYs antenna wouid be at 80 feet. The example he
showed was at 90 feet, which still showed a deficiency in coverage area.
Japs stated that he realizes cost is a factor in providing this service. He asked if there was
a specific reason why LS Power would not aliow a tower built on their site.
Thompson answered that it was never fully explained to Sprint. Negotiations were broken
off abruptly and a member of the management company was terminated. They expiored
re-opening negotiations, but haven't been successful. He believes it was due to long de-
lays in the plant activation process.
Japs asked how much it would cost to put up the proposed pole on the Goulet property.
Thompson responded that it depends on foundation size, access, design, land improve-
ments, and other variabies. They have not yet done any site designs. He gave an
estimate of at least $100,000 per site for overai� construction costs for a new pole. Japs
then asked what the cos: wo;�ld be to put one on #he Berryland site and one on the NSP
tower. Thompson expiained that that would not solve the coverage probiems because the
prob{em areas are to the west and not to the north.
Podoll c%sed the public hearing.
Rice asked about why they couid not locate in Ravine Park. Lindquist answered that free-
standing monopoles are not permitted in parks. Freestanding poles are only permitted in
the agriculturai and industriai zoning districts.
Japs asked if it was possible to locate a tower at the intersection of Highway 61 and County
Road 19. McCool answered that there is prope�ty available but it is not zoned properiy.
The area to the south of Highway 61 is zoned industriai and the area to the northwest is
agricultural but the area to the northeast of Highway 61 is primarily residentiaf.
Planning Commission Minutes
Monday, March 23, 1998
Page 6
Brown stated that he lives about three-quarters of a mile north of the proposed site and he
personally has no objection to the Goulet site. Lindquist reiterated the staff recommenda-
tion that they would support SprinYs appiication as long as staff was comfortable that co-
location was not a viable option. Staff is recommending a continuation so that the City can
hire a consultant to assess the information that Sprint has provided. Their previous review
would stand if the consultant agrees with Sprint.
Kleven stated he wants to see a review by an independent source. He suggested that the
City require communications companies to share towers. He also asked what the FCC and
state laws require. He requested that the city attorney attend the next Planning Commis-
sion. Kleven then asked if towers are required to be built to a standard that would aliow
other entities to utilize them. Thompson answered that poles must accommodate other
carriers.
Kleven moved to continue the application to the April 27, 1998, Planning
Commission Meeting. Japs seconded the motion.
Japs asked why another pole could not be built on the Berryland property. Lindquist stated
that the ordinance has a separation requirement.
Kleven stated that he doesn't want our ordinance to be a hindrance, but he wants to know
what the City's options and constraints are, Lindquist answered that under federal law the
City has to provide reasonable opportunities and options for telecommunications com-
panies to function.
The motion to tab/e the application until the April 27 Planning Commission meeting
passed 5 to1 with Brown voting nay.
Planning Commission Minutes
Monday, February 23, 1998
Page 4
EXCERPT FROM APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR
FEBRUARY 23, 1998
6.2) CASE CUP98-03
Sprint Spectrum has applied for a conditional use permit to aliow the construction of
a 120-foot high electromagnetic communication facility and to construct a 15-foot by
20-foot accessory building at 10475 Kimbro Avenue Sauth.
Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended approval contingent on the ten
conditions listed in the staff �eport.
Auge asked if the applicant was present and had any questions regarding the staff report.
Michael Thompson, Properties Specialist with Sprint Spectrum dba Sprint PCS, 2900 Lone
Oak Parkway, Suite 140, Eagan, MN 55121, had no serious objections to the staff report.
He stated, though, that they feit that a galvanized pole wouid be less conspicuous than a
pole that was painted light biue. He also stated that a painted pole is more di�cult to
maintain.
Auge asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Boyden asked if there wouid be
any interference with public safety communications. Thompson stated that they had
compieted an intermodulation study on the frequencies they use pius all known frequencies
within a one-mile radius of that site and found no interference. A letter from their radio
frequency engineers is on file. Sprint PCS operates on the 1.9 gigahertz range, which is far
higher than any public service frequencies in use.
Auge opened the public hearing.
Colieen Millard, 10590 Point Douglas Drive South, stated that the new pole would be
located right behind their house and thaf she objects to the construction of the monopole.
She thinks the pole wou!d not fit �n with the raatural beauty of ?he area. She noted that there
is other property in the area without homes in front of it. There is also commercial areas
where is cou{d be built. She stated that a real estate agent to{d them it would decrease the
property value of their home.
Grenfell asked if there were trees, shrubs, or open spaces between the iwo properties.
Miilard answered that it is wide space. There are trees in front of the GouleYs house, but
they aren't 120 feet high. Grenfell then asked if the accessory building would be visible.
Miliard stated that they probably would not be able to see it.
Podoll asked if they could see the Chemolite/LS Power compiex from their home. Miliard
answered that in the wintertime they could see the lights.
Planning Commission Minutes
Mo�day, February 23, 1998
Page 5
Thompson stated that in other projects they cooperated with the zoning jurisdictions and
the neighbors of their sites. They have conducted studies of the effect of communications
towers on market values of adjacent properties, and found no significant change.
The tower they are proposing is a streamlined, self-supporting, cylindrical steel
communications tower with no truss structures and no guy lines. There are over a hundred
of these towers in service throughout the metropolitan area. Their choice of sites was
limited due to conditions imposed on them by the electromagnetic communications facilities
ordinance. They initially wanted to install a tower at the LS Power Plant. Last year the
Commission and the City Council approved a site at this location. The out-of-state owners
of the plant chose not to pursue a lease with them. They looked at the drive-in movie
theater site and were advised by the Planning Department that due to the planned future
use of the area, it probably would not be approved. Zoning for Ravine Regional Park does
not allow for construction of a tower. They studied the U.S. West site at Berryland Farms
and found that it was technically inadequate for their needs. Under the current zoning
ordinance, the height of the U.S. West cannot be increased due to setback requirements.
The proposed site was the only area that they could effectively use from both a technical
and a zoning standpoint.
Japs asked why they couldn't buiid at the LS Power Plant. Thompson stated that although
the plant management and regional management were in favor of it, the out-of-state
owners did not want to pursue a lease with Sprint. Thompson does not know the reasons.
They worked for four months on this lease.
Japs wanted clarification on why the Berryland site was not pursued. Thompson
responded that communications competitors do co-locate when possibie. They had their
engineers run a prediction model and discovered that the site is at a much lower elevation
than the Goulet property on Kimbro Avenue and that the height of the tower is limited to
100 feet due to set back restrictions in the EMCF ordinance. There is a general agreement
between carriers to have a vertical separation of 20 feet to prevent interfierence. U.S. West
would be on the top, and Sprint would be at the 80-foot level, which would not give them
the coverage necessary. The facility is aiso located southeast of its ideal location.
Japs asked if they were pianning to buiid a separate tower or co-locate on the same tower.
Thompson stated that they would co-locate if the tower were high enough. Japs asked if
they could put a talier tower within the same vicinity. Thompson answered that they
couldn't because it wouldn't be in compliance with the ordinance. Japs stated that he is
concerned about placing these towers all over the city and that an effort should be made to
consolidate them where possible. Thompson responded that they would prefer to do that
because it is less expensive; however, it is impossible in this particular case due to
technical and zoning reasons.
Japs asked staff which ordinances would be violated. Auge stated that the federal
government mandated that locations for communication facilities be provided. The EMCF
ordinance allows for facility locations with limitations such as tower height. Thompson
stated that they would be in violation of the three-to-one setback requirement. Lindquist
stated that the ordinance requires a three-to-one setback so that businesses would not
come in and put in an antenna a property line. The ordinance is set up so that the City can
Planning Commission Minutes
Monday, February 23, 1998
Page 6
legally allow options to businesses, but not allow it in the more populated areas of the
community. LS Power is an acceptable site from a legal perspective, however, the city
can't ensure that they will accept a lease agreement. It is the company's responsibility to
make lease arrangements with owners of property that meet their needs.
Japs wanted to know if variances could be issued due to extenuating circumstances so that
the towers could be consolidated. Thompson stated that it is their policy to locate on
existing structures wherever possible, but there are no sites available within that area.
Auge asked about raising the height of the U.S. West tower. Thompson answered that he
doesn't know what the construction status of the tower is or if it can be raised higher due to
the setback requirement. Auge then asked if the could force U.S. West to share the tower.
Thompson answered that they couldn't but most carriers work together if technically
feasible. Lindquist stated that the site is larger than where the U.S. West pole is and asked
if the setback could be changed. Thompson answered that the Berryland site is relatively
small. From the s�rvey, it appears that the pole was buiit up to the limit of what the
ordinance allows.
Podoll asked why the drive-in site was denied when that is a commercial area and the
proposed site is in a residential area. Lindquist stated that the ordinance aliows free-
standing towers only in agricultural and industrial zoning districts. The proposed site is in
an area zoned agricultural. Podoll asked what the drive-in was zoned. Burbank answered
that a portion is zoned agricultural but the ordinance also states that if a property were
rezoned residential, the tower would have to be removed.
Grenfell asked how many feet sho�t they were from the three-to-one requirement.
Thompson answered that the property line wouid have to be shifted 60 feet. Japs asked if
a variance could be issued. Thompson stated that they already have two sites in Cottage
Grove, both located on water towers. He further stated the EMCF ordinance requires that
they make provisions for at least two other carriers on a 120-foot pole. They wiil
accommodate that. Boyden stated that he doesn't think the Commission or the City is
authorized to piace burdens on private industries to accommodate other businesses. Japs
suggested building the 129-fQOt tower on the Berrylanc� �ite, transfer U.S. West t� that
tower, and remove the existing 100-foot tower.
Auge asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission.
J�dy Hale, 10532 Point Douglas Drive, stated that there has to be another area where a
tower couid be built, and that she supports co-location on existing towers.
Thompson stated that the Berryland Farms site is too far south and at a lower elevation
than they require from a technical standpoint. Kleven asked how U.S. West could work on
the 100-foot pole. Thompson answered that it depends on where their other poles are
located.
Auge closed the public hearing and opened it up for discussian by the Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes
Monday, February 23, 1998
Page 7
Podoll asked if there are future provisions for additionai land to be made available for
outbuiidings if somebody else wants to use this tower. Thompson answered that they are
leasing a 50-foot b� 50-foot (2,500 square feet) parcel of land from the landowner for a 15-
foot by 20-foot equipment building to house their electrical equipment.
Auge suggested that this item be continued to research other location options. Japs
agreed, and suggested that they look into the Berryland and drive-in locations. Rice wants
to take a look at painting the poles.
Kieven made a motion to continue the item for 30 days. Grenfell seconded the
mofion. The mofion was approved unanimously.
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT CASE: CUP98-03
ITEM: 6.1
PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 4/27/98 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 5/6/98
APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
Sprint Spectrum
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 120-foot monopole
communication antenna and accessory equipment building.
SITE DATA
� . ,_ �
ZONING:
CONTIGUOUS
LAND USE:
SIZE
�7�.F.�ii'il
10475 Kimbro Avenue South
Ag-1, Agricultural Preservation District
NORTH: Agricultural
EAST: Agricultural
SOUTH: Agricultural
WEST: Rural Residential
Monopole height = 120 feet
Accessory structure = 15 feet by 20 feet
fd/!A
i � I111 l � � � ►1
Approval, subject to the conditions listed in this Staff Report.
I � ' 1 ' � I �'
F:\GROUPS\PLANNING\ 1998 WCREPOR119803-4-27-98-covr.doc
`�
''� ;_ , ;'?:� w�„ ^�
I \ '�: ;o� i
`��\ ��
i ��� _`:, �,
j �; \
' ,; Tti
110 Street South
PROPOSED SITE FOR
120' HIGH MONOPOLE
�.�rF �' y r- � weea ' �
w�o I .� �'�.+i ��N�,ay� wax �� \ �+
5 ` J �9't"=9-� �
Jx �Lcy � �%:..,_� `vaeo � �� I1CeM .tle50 ��/ � , .� �.
r m9 ,% �� ' . . .
(�{)y��Q`�}�$�:� �w � �� 100' High Mon
- �% r��` i ° � � � • 1
, �,��
_ �� �HI
` ��
_ ,�p �
" � �
�i y 3 `� � \
' � h � ] \ 1091a \ � \
Aj( U ✓ j� �{
R����11�����Jj b9W �� \\\\
� � lS
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANNING STAFF REPORT
CASE CUP98-03
APRIL 27, 1998
��:Z�]Z��'3��
Sprint Spectrum is requesting approval of a Conditionai Use Permit for a wireless
Personal Communication System (PCS) to be built at 10475 Kimbro Avenue South. The
leased site consists of a 50-foot by 50-foot area. The applicant proposes to construct a
steel monopole tower that is 120 feet in height. The steel tower and foundation will be
designed to account for soii conditions, local wind loading guidelines and the type of
equipment to be attached to the tower. �ocated at the base of the pole, a masonry shelter
rneasuring approximately 15 feet by 20 feet will house the ground equipment. A 6-foot
high chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire on top of the fence will surround
the structure in a 38-foot by 38-foot square.
A copy of the site plan {Exhibit A), monopole tower/compound (Exhibit B), and accessory
structure (Exhibit C) are attached.
BACKGROUND
At the February 23` public hearing, the Planning Commission inquired about the possi-
bility for Sprint Spectrum to co-locate their proposed antennas on a monopole that the
City approved at 10900 Point Douglas Road (Berryland). This EMCF is approximately
2,900 feet southeast of the proposed Goulet site. The Planning Commission tabled Sprint
Spectrum's conditional use permit application to allow staff and the applicant to investi-
gat� th� possibility of c,o-locating o1 this rnonopole.
Prior to the March 23, 1998 meeting, the app(icant submitted additionai information
pertinent to their candidate site search process and some modeling exercises that were
performed for the LS Power, Berryland, and Goulet sites. The Planning staff report had
recommended denial of the application based on the facts that: 1) they could co-locate on
tne US West monopole (Berryland site); 2) the City's ordinance clearly states that the use
of existing approved structures should be considered; and 3) the applicant's information
did �ot prove that co-locating their antenna on the Berryland monopole would have a
severe impact on SprinYs RF coverage.
At the March 23'� me2ting, the applicant expressed concerns that they would not have the
ability to provide acceptable levels of service to certain areas if they were required to co-
locate on the US West monopole. Because of the differing opinions, staff changed their
Suppiementary P{anning Staff Report
Case No, CUP98-03
April27, 1998
Page 2
written recommendation by recornmending to the Planning Commission that they consider
tabling this request and hire a qualified professional to conduct an independent evalua-
tion. The Commission concurred with this latter recommendation and a consultant was
hired.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Telecommunicafions Act of 1996
At the March Commission meeting there were several inquiries concerning the ability to
control new cellular and personal communications services in the community. The intent
of this section is to merely highlight what the law's impacts are for locai governments and
the general authority granted to the local government to manage the use of public right-of-
ways and, with respect to cellular and other wireless services, to enforce zoning require-
ments that protect public safety, public and private property, and community aesthetics.
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 generai(y preserved locai zoning controi
over such towers. This resulted in the City adopting an electromagnetic facilities ordi-
nance (EMFO) in September of 1996. It is our opinion that the ordinance complies with
the 1996 federal act. At the same time, however, the law places some federal restrictions
on that authority.
In order to maintain zoning authority over wireless telecommunications facilities, local
governments must not:
1. Unreasonably discriminate among wireless telecommunications providers that
compete against one another;
2. Prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provisions of wireless
telecommunications service;
3. Make a decision denying a request without it being in writing and based on
evidence in a written record before the council or commission;
4. Delay beyond a reasonable period of time on requests far permission to place
or construct wireless telecommunications facilities; or
5. Deny a request to construct a facility on grounds that its radiofrequency
emissions would be harmful to the environment or the health of residents if
those emissions meet FCC standards.
Supplementary Planning Staff Report
Case No. CUP98-03
Apri127, 1998
Page 3
As requested by the Planning Commission, a representative from the City's legai counsel
has been invited to attend the Pianning Commission meeting on April 27 to answer any
questions you may have concerning the City's electromagnetic facility ordinance and/or
case law that would be relevant to this application.
ConsuitanYs Report and Findings
Garrett �ysiak, P.E. of Owl Engineering & EMC Test Labs, inc. was hired by the City to
provide an independent evaluation of Sprint Spectrum's proposal to construct a new 120-
foot monopole at 10475 Kimbro Avenue and other candidate sites. Without going into a
lot of detaii of Mr. Lysiak's report, he has documented that Sprint Spectrum could co-
locate on the existing US West monopo►e without significant loss to coverage. He aiso
expressed concerns for the structural integrity of the existing pole and the limited
capabilities for US WesYs and Sprint Spectrum's future antenna installations on this same
pole. A copy of his report (Exhibit D) is attached. Mr. Lysiak will be at the meeting to pro-
vide a verbal explanation of his findings.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on information provided by the City's consultant, staff recommends that this
conditional use permit application to construct a 120-foot high monopole and an
accessory equipment building at 10475 Kimbro Avenue be approved, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant must complete a building permit application for the monopole and accessory
building and the City must issue the permit before any constr�ction could begin.
2. No advertising shali be displayed on or a�xed to the monopole.
3. The appiicant shall plant a minimum of six techney arborvitae or three 6-foot high
evergreen trees on the northwest side of the leased site to screen the base of the
tower from Kimbro Avenue South. A bona fide cost estimate of the landscaping
improvements shall be provided to the Planning Division and a letter of credit in the
amount of 150 percent of such estimate shall be submitted to and approved by the
City. Upon completion of the landscaping improvements, the applicant shalf in writing
inform the City that said improvements have been compieted. The City shall retain the
financial guarantee for a period of one year from the date of notice to insure the
survivai of the plantings.
4. The monopole shali be designed for co-location of at least two additional EMCF.
Supplementary Planning Staff Report
Case No. CUP98-03
April 27, 1998
Page 4
5. If the property is rezoned and the new zoning classification does not permit an EMCF
in conformance with the code provisions, the existing EMCF shall be removed prior to
preliminary plat approvai or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first.
6. if the EMCF is abandoned or unused, it shaii be removed within 12 months of the
discontinuance of operations at the site, unless a time extension is granted by the City.
7. The EMCF service shall not interfere with public safety communications or any other
wireless communication frequencies.
8. The EMCF provider shaii notify the City at least 10 calendar days in advance before
introducing new services or changes in transmitting or receiving services from this site.
9. The equipment building shall be constructed with exterior materials that are
comparable to the adjoining storage building. The color should be earth tone, subject
to staff review and approval.
10. The monopole shall be painted light blue and maintained in an appropriate condition
(e.g., paint chipping or pealing).
Prepared by:
John McCool, AICP
Senior Planner
Attachments: Location Map
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit B- Propc§�d Monopolelcompo�nd plan
Exhibit C— Proposed Accessory Structure Pian
Exhibit D — ConsultanYs Report
F:\GROUPSV�LANNING\7 998�PCREPORTU803-427-9&rpt.�
r _ � ____ .-
�
1 �
I j�, _.
1 � �
;,;
� � ` �
I�(, ;.
'�;`` �7
� �� F:
�� `si
�(� s ��
�& x� � ('� �
`. �ll ; t� �
�� 1
" �� \
�� o .,,
�;� l _
� �� 1 �
y
S�
GI
� ..
a < ,
�, � I
� �� _ It._
�� �
r 1�
i
� �
� �
r
DETAILED AREA
� � �
\ " O
� FO
0
���'�i \'�
HOUSE
SEE DETAIL
�,,,.m \
PR£M7SES
/ ( \
j FARMLAND \
j ��
MONOPOLE LOCAIZ; N
�� LEASED AREA
1 � �� �
I � NJp �
, l - z,.. ;��
� � _-��- _
� , \ \� �
\ \ \�� FARMLAN�
\ � � � ,r
, > , �7 ,
\� ` ��,�� � �
\ �� � ,�� �,
� � ,
• �.'l'..".'.. � 1
E ,.;:.;;; ;:.:�; MACHINE SHED
�6K IILV � gg,1
;
� ?
i
1
' � / \ �..!,� '� _ , ND H
�,-- s� r,� �:s�
r,,.a,; — _ i
� �� ` _�
679J0 . Y «.� ''+ �' — ---�
T � �
� � � !
0
� %�
��:
�
�
Y
5 �' e !
��' 3 v �' Y 3
`§ �� �# � C � �
�� a� E Y �' �
'� f � ^Y � ' ➢ D
�?G a� � e � �{ �
L.�'. �i •� S � �
Y` °6 � 4
<e 3 3� j' g� x�i
4 . �tl gYq g 5 S y
r �- "3- r t'i y
�s �'� � 3 �� ;e g `
P q Y t r" a s s :
ie g°y yx „ �
� s5 u� ��: � �� 2'€ � 3
4
Ny�
z
ov
NN
�N
W
�o
wj
>w
N�
Z
w
�- w
xw
WN
�
��
�
l
�
'>
i
�
�
x� �e$ $ s ,� *a
�` €�F $� �� -'.� n
��� �`� �� x= �� 6�9
� L c _ £ Y
��y � �`F {` LY ��~q8
s"2 �Yz7 7 gy ,': x�Y
� s a �B�` ; �" a� ����
RZ�. ��� °� 9i 4� x$��
�a] �e4 �i ' �a R ' �8�'�
�48F �4� "x �e_ �5 ,.,,.,
� a � � � �
� x
a E a � 6
Y f� S9 'i Y�= KZ
i S,� 5� � x F 00•
�g i, �a e �q Sf OU
W
� :� 1.� �? Q �� ,r5 a�
w
3� Y' .� � °b w
L� � d e� tl �U i
�A I a$� 4 . iE �ai,
�}� 5 �g �c §e -iv
32 a'eg �3 �� .: e-3
� d� $ 3 .. �S-
S � j r� a
8 Fk I ( �� ¢i:P
�
'� � � t a $� ��:�x
ff� ' {
�e�Y•
�a 6� � ¢ L A 3 ° n� �?5
ys?� ! P y � � �z §a���
� � { 3 � E ..� d..
� � 2 � �£ �II ��YH.
3Y e 2 ° y T� Ybd
e'� 3 Y: ' d Y� IIf..Y
y 5 > a �3��'y $p Ey � x p
`��9Si�Y . .y 6 d� �:�-•
�
^w �` s3
�� C �` — u �
Y
m
r
� ��f
�a;
EXHIBIT C
� �
CONSULTING CAMMUNICATIONS ENGiNEERS
EMC TEST LABDRATOfliES
� ,
8899 Hasiings 5t. NE, Minneapnlis, MN 55449
(612) 785-4115 • Pax (612) 785-0fi31
i-800-797-1336
REVIEW OF SPRINT PCS PROPOSAL
FOR THE LOCATION OF AN
ELECTROMAGNETIC COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY IN COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
Prepared By: Garrett G. Lysiak, P.E.
April 22,1998
Hpr-��-7a vc:c�r
OWL ENGINEERING, IN�.
CONSULTING COMMUNICATIUNS ENGINEEflS
EMC TEST LABORATORIES
t• a�o ,
6899 Nastings St. NE, Minneapolis, MN 55449
(612) 785�115 • Faz (st2) �as-4s3�
1-800-797-t338
BACKGROUND
Sprint Spectrum ("SprinP') is requesting approval of an Electromagnetic Communicatians
facility in the City of Cottage Grove. The proposal requires that the City issue a conditional use
permit in order to construct the facility. The ptanning commission, in their meeting on February
23, 1998, tabled the Sprint proposal in order ro have the potentiaf of co-location to an existing
facility operated by US West anatyzed. This study examines the technical issues for this co-
locatio� and offers an opinion of the Sprint proposal.
ANALYSIS
The first step in the analysis was to analyze the technical exhi6its submitted by Sprint for the
proposed tower facility at 10475 Kimbro Avenue South (625V4). This step required that the
surroundin� facilities that comprise the Sprint communications system to be analyzed. This step
is important since it is impossible to analyze the proposed facility by itself. The Following sites
were anaiyzed in this section: 625V4, OISVI, Ol6Vl, 674V1, 153V1, 15IV4, 167V1, 707V1
and 699V3.
The results of this analysis can be found in figure 1.This analysis shows the predicted coverage
of the Sprint PCS system using the proposed tower site at Kimbro Ave. The areas that are
colored "RED" are areas where poor radio coverage is predicted. T'his analysis sets up initial
conditions that are required in order to evaluate the effects that different site locations wilf have
on Qte Sprint communications system.
r�far �c-- o vc.c-rr
OWL ENGINEERING, IN�.
CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS
EMC TEST IARORATORIES
r v-f
f{894 Hastings Sl. NE, Minneapolis, MN 55449
(672) 785�115 • fax (612) 785�4631
t-&l0-797•1338
The next step in the analysis was to move the proposed communications facility to the US West
monopole located at Berryland. Figure 2 shows the resu(ts of this action. As can be seen in this
exhibit there is a predicted "poor" coverage area in an area to the Northwest of site 625V4 along
highway I O/6 L This poor coverage area is outlined in Figure 2A.
This poor coverage area was further examined by preparing a Shadowing Study. This study
simpty determines where the line-of-sight occurs using the two tower locations. This data is
important since if there are any ground obstructions in the line-of-sight of the radio path it coutd
cause unwanted signal attenuation. Figure 3 shows the results of the shadowing study usi�g the
Sprint proposed tower Iocation. This same analysis was repeated using the US Wes[ tower, figure
4. [ have outlined in figure 4A the area where predicted shadowing will attenuate the radio
signal. This area corresponds to the same area of predicted poor coverage as shown in figure 2,
These results confirm the coverage predictions submitted by Sprint to the city in their proposal.
QN-SITE VISITS
On Aprit 15, 1998 representatives of Sprint, the City and Owl Engineering visited several of the
proposed sites in order to determine if any problems were found that could prevent the
construction oFa communications facitiry.
Apr-22-98 02=24P
OWL ENGINEERING, IN�
CANSUCf1NG COMMUNICATIQNS EN6INEEPS
EMC TEST 11180RATURIES
r�r.��
8899 Nastings St. NE, Minneapolis, MN 55449
�siz� �es-a��5 • �c �e�z� 7es-au�i
1-6f30-]97•1338
The proposed Goutet property (625V4) was inspected. The proposed tower location is located off
the road and has che required drop-zone. Some add'ational screening will be required to shield
some adjoining propeRy owners from any visual impact.
Two neacby NSP towers were visited and it was found fhat one site consisted of wooden pole
construction which had the neutral wire located in the center of the tower. If any construction at
this site were perfocmed it would be limited in height by the power line locations,
The other NSP tower used a lattice tower construction. This tocation could be used for a
communications facility. However, based on the other Sprint communications tower (ocations it
was determined that another tower would have to be constructed by Sprint to provide the desired
communication coverage area.
The US West Berryland site was inspected. This tower is a monopole that had recently been
completed. [f 5print were to co-locate at this facility their antennas would have to be positioned
at the 85-foot level of the tower. Data provided by US West indicated that the tower is presently
in compliance with the wind and icing requirements. This tower is no[ the normal tower used by
US West in this area. I was advised that this rower had a 12-inch diameter at the upper taper. At
present US West has six (6) coaxial cabtes in the tower and if Sprint were to co-locate on chis
tower they advised me that they would initially install nine (9} more coaxial cables in the tower,
Data supplied to me indicated that US West could maximize the site and would have a total of
nine (9) cables and Sprint could have a total of twelve (12) cables on the towec This would mean
OWl ENGINEERING, IN�
� CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS
EMC TEST LABORATpR1ES
8899 Haslings St. NE, Minneapolis, MN 55449
(612) 785d115 • Fax (612) 785-4631
1-800-)9'I-1338
that there wouid be a potentiai of up to twenty-one (21) coaxial cables required being tocated in
the tower. Since the d'sameter of the present coaxial cables is almost 1'/z' it would appear lhat the
present 12 inch diameter of the upper tower taper section would not accommodate the number of
cables that could be used in both of the radio systems.
My analysis did not include and structural considerations which will have to be performed in
order to determine that the tower could be used with all the proposed antennas and coaxial cables
on both the radio systems.
SUMMARY
My analysis of the proposai shows that the use af the NSP power towers will require Sprint to
construct additional towers in the city in order to provide the ptanned communications coverage.
The use of the US West monopole a[ Berryland did not provide the required coverage along
highway t 0/61 in the area to the northwest of the tower. Additionally the present diameter of the
tower may not accommodate the total number of coaxial cables required by US West and Sprint
in a maximized facility.
Based on my engineering analysis of the Sprint proposal to locate a monopole tower at 10475
Kimbro Avenue South (625V4) it is my opinion that this location will provide the required radio
system coverage within the requirements of the city zoning and minimize the total number of
Apr-22-98 02:25P
OWL ENGINEERING, IN�.
CONSULi1NG COMM�NICATIONS ENGINEERS
EMC TEST LA80RATORIES
� o�
8899 Hasiiogs St. NE, Minneapolis, MN 55449
(fi12) 765-4115 • Fax (612) 785-4&31
1-800-797-1338
towers required by Sprint. Additionally, the tower design proposed by Sprint will accommodate
additional caniers in the future, if required.
i �
� � � � _ /.
Garrett G. Lysiak, P.E.
2 �
Q � ¢
x y
w °
co „
a i c c m.
w E''.�.a'z ° mo�
� =o"=,=�
ca o ."�iw°
J +�
Z Pu� u
U' 0 ti E c�i
O ff n 9 6 4
� a`i=F�ic�cx�i
O a
0 0
e ` °' e
o�m9
moo�
� m m �
1
�Iz m°J �i�::z:i:&:i:
ZY 2i a
i�0� O o �o �o 0 0 a �0 0 0 0 0 �o
�° o o ^� ^� ^� ^� o o °� °� °�
° °s�o_om= ��="°s
�� o e°s ms �s =s �� m� �m mm
s �� _ _ _ ., _
. I .. .. .. .� .. .. .. .. ..
�
� N
�
�
W
O U M
N LL
N �
V �
N ti
J W `
m
N � �
I �
am
� `
wm �
� � m
s
� � rv j
U t
6
4 �
e �� �
..r . _�� ......�
�
�� ��9 �
����
/����/�
� �Q�Q
���y�'
�� ���'O' �