4.1. BASR 07-24-2001 Item #4J.
.
•
City of
Elk -�-�
River
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott Harlicker, Senior Planne. ri
DATE: July 24, 2001
SUBJECT: Case No.'s V 01-05, ZC 01-05 and CU 01-25
Request by Louck Associates on behalf of Qwest for a Variance,
Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit
Request
Consider a request by Qwest for a variance request to the setback requirements, a zone
change to AT (Antenna Overlay) and a conditional use permit for a wireless
telecommunication tower and equipment pad.
Location
21475 Highway 169, east of Highway 169 and north of 213th Avenue
Zoning/Land Use
Al (Agricultural Conservation) and ME (Mineral Excavation) / A (Agricultural)
Attachments
• Location map
• Site plan
• Tower elevations
• Supporting documentation from applicant
Overview
Qwest is proposing to lease an area approximately 27'by 22'in order to construct a 150 foot
tall self supporting mono-pole which will support their wireless PCS antennas.The area the
applicant is leasing is part of a 5.2 acre lot. The lot also contains a single family residence.
410
Memo to Planning Commission/Qwest
July 24,2001
Page 2
The site is on the east side of Highway 169. On the west side of Highway 169 is a gravel •
mining operation, to the south is a single family residence, to the north is Elk River
Bituminous and to the east is land that is undeveloped.
The property is hilly and wooded.The tower will be located at the south end of the property,
near the top of the hill.The existing house on the property is located about 300'north of the
tower, at the bottom of the hill. There is a neighboring house located about 213'south of
the proposed tower. The area surrounding the tower is wooded. The only woods to be
removed is the area for a 12'wide access road and the area around the tower. The base of
the tower will not be visible from either home.
Variance
The applicant is requesting a variance to the setback requirement for antenna towers.The
required setback from all property lines is a distance equal to the height of the tower.The
proposed tower is 150 feet high which requires a 150 foot setback from all property lines.
The proposed setbacks for the antenna tower are:
• 400 feet from the north property line
• 125 feet from the south property line
• 75 feet from the west property line
• 150 feet from the east property line
A variance of 75 feet is needed from the west property line and 25 feet from the south
property line.
Staff refers the Board to Section 900.40 of the City of Elk River Code of Ordinances for the
five standards to consider when reviewing a variance.A variance may be granted only if it
meets the following five conditions:
1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship.
2. The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to
the property and the structure involved and which are not characteristic of, or
applicable to, other lands or structure in the same area.
3. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the
petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms
of this ordinance.
4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's
own action or inaction.
5. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health,safety or welfare
of the residents of the City or the neighborhood where the property is located and
will in keeping with spirit and intent of the ordinance.
S:\PLANNING\SCOTT\CU01-25.DOC
Memo to Planning Commission/Qwest
July 24,2001
Page 3
• The structural design of the tower allows the tower to bend to off-load the wind resistance
and not fall over. Therefore,the 150 foot setback is not necessary for safety reasons. The
150 foot setback from the south property line would place the tower at a lower elevation on
the hill and would require a higher tower in order to meet coverage requirements.Because of
the width of the lot, the 150 foot setback can not be met from both the east and west
property lines. The applicant has placed the tower so that it complies with the 150 foot
setback from the east property line. However, in doing this the setback from the west
property line,which is the right-of-way for Highway 169,is 75 feet.The tower will be about
200 feet from the Highway 169 pavement.
The hardship is particular to the land and structure involved in that the property is only 225
feet wide which does not allow any location on the site to meet the 150 foot setback from
both the east and west property lines.By shifting the tower to the north the tower will be at
a lower elevation on the hill and the tower will have to be taller to meet the coverage
requirements, therefore increasing the need for a variance.
The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the petitioner of
rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance.
There are two other site in the city with mono-pole towers,AT&T and APT,that do not
meet setback requirements. There are also 3 guyed lattice towers located near the
intersection of Count Road 33 and Proctor Road and a lattice tower near the high school
which do not meet setback requirements. The proposed tower does meet the setback
requirements of the underlying Al zoning district.
• The circumstances that create the need for a variance are not a consequence of the
petitioner's actions or inaction.The circumstance are a consequence of the shape and
topography of the lot.
The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health,safety or welfare of the
residents of the City or the neighborhood where the property is located and will in keeping
with spirit and intent of the ordinance.The neighboring residence and Highway 169 are both
more than 200 feet away from the tower, which is greater than the height of the tower.
Rezoning
In order to construct the proposed tower,a rezoning to AT is required.This overlay district
was established to manage the proliferation of antenna towers and to ensure their proper
placement regarding health,safety ands welfare of the community.This overlay district does
not change the underlying Al and ME zoning districts, all the uses allowed and the
dimensional regulations in the Al and ME districts will continued to be allowed on land
zoned AT.
In considering a rezoning request of this nature, consideration should be given to the
compatibility with surrounding land uses and whether the rezoning is necessary to provide
effective wireless telecommunication coverage for the city. The proposed rezoning is
compatible with the surrounding land uses. The applicant has shown that this location is
• necessary in order to provide effective wireless telecommunication coverage for the city.The
rezoning is also in consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the city.
S:\PLANNING\SCOTT\CU01-25.DOC
Memo to Planning Commission/Qwest
July 24,2001
Page 4
Conditional Use Permit •
Co-location requirements
The applicant has looked at co-locating on the wind generator on 2256 Avenue and the
existing towers at County Road 33 and Proctor Street.The towers on County Road 33 will
not provide the coverage they need and the rotating blades on the wind generator interfere
with the signal. At a height of 150 feet,the tower will provide the opportunity for two
additional carriers.
Construction requirements
The applicant will comply with the construction requirements outlined in the ordinance.
Design standards
The proposed tower will be a mono-pole with a flat gray,galvanized steel finish which will
blend in with the sky. The communications equipment at the base of the tower will be
screened from adjacent properties by existing vegetation.The tower and equipment will be
enclosed with an 8 foot high chain link fence. Access will be provided by a 12 foot wide
gravel drive.There will be a small parking and turnaround area for maintenance vehicles.
Signs and advertising
•
No signage or advertising are proposed.
Illumination
No lighting is proposed.
Recommendation
Variance
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment approve the variance request to the setback
requirements based on the following findings:
1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship in that the tower is
designed to collapse on itself and not fall over.The tower is over 200 feet from the
adjacent residence and Highway 169.The 150 foot setback from the south property
line would place the tower at a lower elevation on the hill and would require a higher
tower in order to meet coverage requirements.Because of the width of the lot,the
150 foot setback can not be met from both the east and west property lines.
2. The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to •
the property and structure involved and which are not characteristic of,or applicable
SA PLANNING
Memo to Planning Commission/Qwest
July 24,2001
Page 5
• to, other lands or structure in the same area.The hardship is particular to the land
and structure involved in that the property is only 225 feet wide which does not
allow any location on the site to meet the 150 foot setback from both the east and
west property lines.By shifting the tower to the north the tower will be at a lower
elevation on the hill and the tower will have to be taller to meet the coverage
requirements.
3. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the
petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms
of this ordinance.There are two other site in the city with mono-pole towers,AT&T
and APT, that do not meet setback requirements. There are also 3 guyed lattice
towers located near the intersection of Count Road 33 and Proctor Road and a
lattice tower near the high school which do not meet setback requirements. The
proposed tower does meet the setback requirements of the underlying Al zoning
district.
4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's
own action or inaction.The need for the variance is a consequence of the width of
the lot and the topography of the site.
5. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health,safety or welfare
of the residents of the City or the neighborhood where the property is located and
will in keeping with spirit and intent of the ordinance.
•
Rezoning
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning
request to AT based on the following findings:
1. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
2. The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide effective wireless
telecommunication coverage for the city.
3. The rezoning is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for the city.
Conditional Use Permit
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional
use permit for a 150 foot tall wireless telecommunication tower and supporting equipment.
111/
S:\PLANNING\SCOTT\CU01-25.DOC
, I
LANDFILL
•
1 i Ili '//,
I11
,...-\\- -7,2FTH MCKIE r 4,-,
0
.7•rxr.iw"v 1` I
IT/ III
/ 6® II1
I ill/ ' 14 W
/t I
t � � Y
1`! I
/------
I I I �IIU, I f3 L' g
�'
I I I �,11, i
.___
I I
Site 1
gA � ■ !
E-.. P I I l
1
•
. I'
I
1 I I
! ef...„__. .2,31,, 0,,, C....L A Allt■ i
I
�%\`
I I �: ;\
I �
I II r
I iI I
----7 I A y E N L Y .ter exMr,
IIt I Y t __. I
U 'ill' v 1 I L 1 Ic .. r--•.
N. .
Location Map 0
ElkV 01-05
River Case Number: CU 0 I-25
ZC01-05
i r H � s o
^, n wg
C W F�V '7J�OZ W S
• w, �� §2.v 2.8 5 ��
. 1 I 0
CI) T i `-' ; 259'
Z2
G •
• 0 Z
(.1)
x
w a
(0 °z w
co _ ¢ N }
• Cr) I Z S 2 z ° OO z
Z O
LC w z w 5 > cn o
0) Lo 2 aE > � wwo
. N M <Y
(I ) I I I I I
C \r W N N N N N
/ 0
• W Q U) -
J � W
W I
OC 0 z W
z
= �
Ln D
F- 7 LI-I
N _ in o
W _^ O > Z ui
v/ w U Q W U Q O
�yy
• c J < W J 0:N Z
_J Jw0^a0 Lu U JWO ?O
H U1 cr N co cD J Q NCC,o cD CO 'vj<0 W )-- 0 n�ZdN� Z CO j<Z t<¢
LU u,~�LC'(0 O rr 4...1
z d v �Zav`-,~ ¢ WZaw~
7 W cD Z V) t0 Z
a d-Nr&)Q Li OO Q O 1 is,O.U OO
J\ a U
0
0 . 0
EXHIBIT G
NN s $ O
V1 pOo
s
1.. 2>" pis d
4rl 8 5 z 1
ry3 — 6:'1 aQQ yy v 5 1 ki.
o aWw 6
V - - - a 3
aaaaaa _ �Fc 5 i
.<m .m.Z
e
E. IS S�nJI•r ... ,` a
ui d1
,,1 i
C:
e
e
r.
c,_
1
IS A 31101 0
IS f1IPWS,.
G,
U F— A C a\`sn°c
.t O)
co low
691. AVMHOIH Q
L
+J p
M N
0
Ay ,ou �N
!■
0 N
CI
C1 0
.
Ur�
it,
I
I .
, I .
, a.) : 8
-r ..
ii.2 2 0
Pr 2 t-
2
x51 M.OLA'
51 § Cr)
!
•
0 5
i<aaaaa .. CD
—
1 ;,
g
Z 0,
. .
•
0
. EN
. .2'.
UJ
0 :I... .
.._
•TC LL . CC '•,';'. WI 1.1.1
0 0 C
t‘l Z M 41 CD L.,
1..I..1.....•
. 1-i ■-• 0 1:-. . -'•. .
1...1
0 c0 0 CL
\ . 1
._,...----.....,_........_,_.....
i 1
-,.....„
\ N \-.....
, .
\ \ \ r. „,.:•,.
1:,
, \
\ '1....
1 ,
, .
I \ \
0
\ ...,
.. —
, ...
\ / • ii
\ . ',5) . \ I i -•\,- .;"
,oe'. I', \ Ct ( C..
,
,9„ . i . .-,' • '-'- Ci V-
c...„ \ 7.1
,-. '2
I"'./..0 , c., 1\- - IL, / .II I- 6
, z ,,, \ e ...,-.z . 1 CO IA
. • ..," j, ____ „____ v/— Pt ----.--- '
., 14.1
—1 % \
\ ..e,. \ I, L - ,-..,--- -7 44)- /
-,_ .---, ',7%\.-
.,, ., 1 „ I \ /
0
,--,
\ ‘ \ 4
\ .---- -----r-- N•
\I_ \ ",.. •,.. ..-,,,
. \ 'N,,
.. -------Z.7".. I- - \
_.__...... /
.. .,.,
. ....
N .. •, ..., ‘
.. ,... ... N
. . ...---- .
',.....,, -",„ N. -,.... •-
__--ld •
.... .....------',. ..---,.
...........,...■-12- "--"'
,,... ,, -■.....-,
Ns ''...„,„, .......--
N, ,,,...,..u.1„c____ ..... \ .
,..
-. ..._„„......
• .,
-• ‘,.., ',.., -----"--'---------------- 1
,,,....--- ..s ,,,. .___•,,_...
, ,,,, •-■CI
-••-"--' Cc:
r_p
(..,
17.
.1 VI 0 VI
VI<
0 z <
. CA
0
_.-•' 0 a. cn x . 1
41 .-
1-
Ul r,
UJ CV
0
•
. .
g a N O
b N 4 °m W
�1�w,� — N,�,�2(7 Q Z F_
4 t W 0 Q '
L = J W I N.
3 444444 i 3` W 1
w
z .
J
W
W
ct
H
O
W
0
C
0
X
a
z oW
S W z
1
U W J p o z
_ N J
6N m a z
^a
U J x U O S
Z
w a.
x 3r O~ ~ O LA
z ON ccv L....1 O
JE U 3 OI . 1
a
z 0 m
U x + X X X— X— X 1
t I Z
til oN ( I r—T_Ifl I a. 0
_ 4,\�, '' I W o
` H I
X11===
a o O
N °o
11 w Z5• YI ° J
• i
Q) "53 2Nd V g NI 1
=444444 -
likr-"1”!2
,Z2 ,9L 0 ,b .9 ,6 L,9L „0—,1.=„91./l :31V3S
NOIiVA313 1S3M
691• AVMHJIH
N011VONf104
30V219 1V 1N3Wdif103 3NI1SIX3
In n
xo $ii.":f,,:HY!f t•f. rf.�:FF=;,.rra.:'nf r l„;,., :
11... •FI�•FHFHHFFHF I•F1=/•FI'HHr •41 i
i41:M.k".Ffa•i•FFMiltnaHi: irr#•i$-
S33211 0N1H38 5332!1 ONV
33N3d 1S3M0 33N33 ON1H313
1N3Wdif103 1S3M0
."\---- VNN3INV Sd9
3001218 331 IS3MO
ill .
t „0—,L4 l
,If. {i:IL. `.:I.LI`;IX1 --ice —•`\ 1
310dONON1 1S3M0
(dA.l)
SVNN3INV IS3M0
II - -II
0021 ONINIHO11 0—
•
7200 Hemlock Lane
Since 300
Minneapolis, MN 4
55 369
June 25,2001 Planning
Tel 763 424 5505
Mr. Scott Harlicker Civil Engineering
City of Elk River fax 763.424.5822
218 Third Street13065 Orono Parkway Land Surveying
P.O.Box 490 home@loucksmelagan.corn
Elk River,MN 55330 Landscape Architecture
www.loucksmclagan.com
Environmental
Re: Application for Tower Overlay Zoning,CUP and Variance.
Loucks Project No. 00466W Archaeology
Dear Mr.Harlicker:
This letter accompanies applications by Qwest Wireless for Tower Overlay Zoning, Conditional Use
Permit and Variance that would allow for the construction of a Personal Communication Services(PCS)
antenna site at 21475 Highway 169, in Elk River. The site is surrounded by mature woods which would
totally screen the lower part of the site from view. The proposed 150 foot monopole would be 213 feet
away from the nearest neighboring residence to the south.
We feel that this application meets the criteria for approval of the Tower Overlay zone and Variance
criteria. Attached are responses to the Variance Criteria and well as the response to each of the
requirements of the Tower Overlay Zone.
If you need any further information, please contact me at 763/424-5505. I appreciate your time and
consideration.
Sincerely,
LOU S ASSOCI TES
ed D.Andrews,AICP
Senior Planner
Enclosures Tower Over Zoning change,CUP,and Variance Application and fee
Written responses to Variance Criteria
Written responses to Tower Overlay Zone Requirements
Exhibits A,B,C,D,E: Required engineers letters
Exhibit F: Co-location commitment letter
Exhibit G: Site Plans
25th.
Anniversary
1976-2001
L • .
arcu
RESPONSE TO VARIANCE CRITERIA
(responses in bold)
900 .40 (5B . )
That the literal enforcement of the ordinance would
cause undo (unnecessary, unavoidable, extreme)
hardship.
The literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause unnecessary
hardship. Qwest Wireless has done due diligence to find a site that is
high enough to fill the gap in coverage with one tower,that is screened as
much as possible from view off site. This property is the best possible
location from a community planning perspective and radio frequency
perspective. Without the proposed tower,people working, residing,and
traveling through northern Elk River will continue to be in a dead zone
for purposes of telecommunications.
ii. That the hardship caused by special conditions and
circumstances which are peculiar to the land and
structure involved and which are not characteristic
of, or applicable to, other lands or structures in
the same district
The proposed site has the highest elevation along the southern portion of
the property where it would be substantially screened from view by the
existing trees. However,the property is more narrow at the southern
half,due to the substantial right of way acquired for Highway 169 at this
location,which makes it impossible to meet setback requirements. The
lower the elevation,the higher the tower must be to obtain proper
coverage,and in turn,the greater the setback requirement. There are
no other properties in the search ring that are high enough and large
enough with mature landscaping for screening. The variance has been
minimized as much as possible,to meet the intent of the zoning
ordinance. The 150 foot tower will be 213 feet form the nearest
residence.
iii. That the literal application of the provisions of
this Ordinance would deprive the petitioner of
rights enjoyed by other properties in the same
district under the terms of this Ordinance.
The literal interpretation would deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed
by other properties in the same district. The literal interpretation of the
ordinance would result in a continual gap in coverage and deprive the
citizens, businessmen and passers by,the rights and services presently
enjoyed and utilized elsewhere in the City.
iv. That the special conditions and circumstances are
•
not a consequence of the petitioner' s own action or
inaction.
The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the
petitioner's own action or inaction. Qwest Wireless has done due
diligence to evaluate every property within the search area as well as
existing towers in the general proximity of the search area. The special
circumstances are a result of the narrowness and existing slope of the lot.
The lot is more narrow and irregular due to the extra width acquired in
the construction of Highway 169 in order to accommodate the difference
in elevation. (See Site Plan). Although a variance to the setbacks is
required with this proposal, every effort has been made to minimize any
impact of the variance in order to meet the original intent of the
ordinance.
v. That the variance will not be injurious to or
adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of
the residents or the City or the neighborhood
wherein the property is situated and will be in
keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.
The variance will not be injurious to or adversely effect the health safety
and welfare of the residents of Elk River, rather it will promote the
welfare of City by improving telecommunications services in northern
Elk River. The necessary variance has been minimized as much as
possible to meet the purpose,spirit,and intent of the ordinance.
S
• RESPONSE TO TOWER OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
(responses in Bold)
900. 10 (19. ) Antenna Tower Overlay Zoning District
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Antenna Tower Overlay
District is to protect the public health, safety, general
welfare, and to accommodate the telecommunication needs of
residents and businesses by providing a specific zoning
district for the use of land for the establishment and
operation of wireless telecommunication towers . Since this
use is unique, a special zoning district is appropriate,
and the City of Elk River reserves the right to determine
the suitability of a rezoning request to Antenna Tower
Overlay District based on criteria which includes the
following:
i. The compatibility of the rezoning request with
surrounding land uses
The use will be compatible with the surrounding land uses. The
proposed design and location for the tower will be screened as
much as possible with existing mature trees. The proposed
• equipment and lower part of the tower will not be able to be seen
from surrounding properties or Highway 169 corridor. Only the
upper portion of the tower will be able to be seen above the top of
the tree line. The tower will be a monopole design with a
galvanized steel finish,which will blend into the sky background.
ii. That the proposed rezoning is necessary in order
to provide effective wireless telecommunication
coverage for the City
The proposed tower overlay zone is necessary in order to provide
effective wireless telecommunication coverage for the City. There
are no tower overlay zoned properties in the search ring area. The
closest existing tower is over a mile to the south of this proposal.
The existing tower site was tested by our Radio Frequency
Engineer and failed to meet radio frequency test requirements.
iii. The rezoning is in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan for the City.
The proposed tower overlay zone is in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan for the City. The proposed tower will
provide wireless communications in a location where there is a
current gap in coverage and where calls are dropped. It will
promote effective communications and welfare of the City's
businesses and residents in the northern Elk River area.
D. Co-Location Requirements. All commercial wireless
telecommunication towers erected, constructed, or located
within the City shall comply with the following
requirements :
i. A proposal for a new commercial wireless
communication service tower shall not be approved
unless the City finds that the telecommunications
equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be
accommodated on an existing or approved tower,
building or other structure within a one mile search
radius (one half mile search radius for towers under
120 feet in height, one quarter mile search radius for
towers under 80 feet in height) of the proposed tower
due to one or more of the following reasons:
a. The planned equipment would exceed the
structural capacity of the existing or approved
tower, building or structure, as documented by a
qualified and licensed professional engineer, and
the existing or approved tower or structure
cannot be modified, reinforced 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, building or structure as documented by a
qualified and licensed professional engineer and
the interference cannot be prevented at a
reasonable cost.
c. Existing or approved towers, buildings or
structures within the search radius cannot
accommodate the planned equipment at a height
necessary to function reasonably as documented by
a qualified and licensed professional engineer.
d. Other unforeseen reasons that make it not
feasible to locate the planned telecommunications
equipment upon an existing or approved tower,
building or structure.
The proposed tower is over a mile away from the nearest •
existing (Burlington Northern/SBA) communication tower site
• to the south. This existing tower site was tested and was
determined to not work by a professional RF Engineer. (See
Exhibit B)
The wind generator site located on 225th Avenue NW was also
reviewed by an RF Engineer and was determined not to work
for the purposes of cellular communications due to the rotating
blades,which would interfere with the signal.
Loucks Associates on behalf of Qwest Wireless has done due
diligence over the past year to find a site which works both
from a community planning perspective and radio frequency
feasibility perspective. The proposed new site is the only
available site in the search ring that is high enough to provide
adequate service to the coverage area while minimizing tower
height and conspicuousness.
ii . Any proposed wireless telecommunication service
tower shall be designed, structurally, electrically
and in all respects constructed, to accommodate both
the applicant' s antennas and comparable antennas for
at least two additional users if the tower is over 100
feet in height or for at least one additional user if
the tower is more over 60 feet in height. Towers must
be designed to allow for future arrangement of
antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted
at varying heights.
The proposed tower will meet this requirement. It will be designed to
accommodate at least two additional users.(See Exhibit E)
E. Construction Requirements. All antennas erected,
constructed, or located within the City shall comply with
the following requirements:
i. All applicable provisions of this code.
ii . Towers and their antennas shall be certified by a
qualified and licensed professional engineer to
conform to the latest structural standards and wind
loading requirements of the Uniform Building Code and
the Electronics Industry Association and all other
applicable reviewing agencies.
iii . With the exception of necessary electric and
telephone service and connection lines approved by the
City, no part of any antenna or tower nor any lines,
cable, equipment or wire or braces in connection with
either shall at any time extend across or over any
part of any right-of- way, public street, highway,
sidewalk, or property line.
iv. Towers and their antennas shall be designed to
conform with accepted electrical engineering methods
and practices and comply with the provisions of the
National Electrical Code.
v. All signal and remote control conductors of low
energy extending substantially horizontally above the
ground between a tower or antenna and a structure, or
between towers, shall be at least eight feet above the
ground at all points, unless buried underground.
vi. All towers shall be protected against
unauthorized climbing. The bottom of the tower
(measured from ground level to 12 feet above ground
level) shall be constructed in such a manner to
preclude unauthorized climbing. The tower, antenna
and supporting equipment shall be enclosed by an eight
foot high chain link fence with a locked
gate.
vii. Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated
with, corrosive resistant material .
viii. Only one tower shall exist at any one time on any
lot or parcel. The minimum lot size requirement shall
be one acre.
Qwest Wireless is aware of these construction requirements as well as the Uniform
Building and Electrical Codes, and has designed the facility to meet these
requirements for the building permit application submittal.
F. Design Standards. All antennas erected, constructed, or
located within the City shall comply with the following
requirements:
i. Towers and antennas shall be designed to blend
into the surrounding environment through the use of
building materials, color, textures, camouflaging
architectural treatment, screening and landscaping,
except in instances where the color is dictated by
federal or state authorities such as the Federal
Aviation Administration.
ii. Commercial wireless telecommunication service
towers shall be of a monopole design unless the City
Council determines that an alternative design is
preferred.
• The proposed tower will be a monopole design without guy wires and
will have a flat gray, galvanized steel finish to blend in with the sky.
Mature landscaping will be preserved around the facility so that only
the upper portion of the tower will be able to be seen above the tree
line off site.
G. Signs and Advertising. No advertising, logos or
identification of any kind is permitted, except as may be
required by Federal and State authorities.
No advertising or logos will be placed on the tower or facility for
purposes of signage or advertising.
H. Accessory Structures and Equipment.
i. All accessory equipment related to towers and
antennas must be housed within a structure. Existing
structures shall be used whenever possible. Any new
accessory buildings or structures shall be
architecturally designed to blend in with the
surrounding environment.
All communications equipment will be housed within two enclosed
casing structures. These structures are about the size of a refrigerator
• each and will not be able to be seen from the adjacent properties due
to the existing dense mature landscaping on site. The natural
surrounding wooded environment of the property will be maintained.
ii. The use of compatible materials such as wood,
brick, or stucco is required for associated support
buildings . Equipment located on the roof of an
existing building shall be screened from public view
with building materials identical to or compatible
with existing materials .
N/A. This is not a roof top installation.
iii . Ground mounted structures shall be screened from
view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of
non-vegetative screening better reflects and
compliments the architectural character of the
surrounding area. Removal of existing vegetation
shall be minimized through careful site selection and
design.
The entire facility including the lower part of the tower will be
entirely screened from view by existing landscaping. The only
vegetation removed will be the minimum amount necessary to
• accommodate a 14 foot access and the 22 by 27 foot lease area.
Careful selection of the driveway location and facility was done to
minimize removal of any trees, and to maximize screening so that the •
facility will not be seen off site.
I . Illumination. Towers and antennas shall not be
illuminated or display strobe lights unless specifically
required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other
Federal or State authority. When incorporated into the
approved design of the tower, light fixtures used to
illuminate ball fields, parking lots, or similar areas may
be attached to the tower at the City' s discretion.
The tower will not be illuminated unless required by the FAA. Qwest
Wireless has done its due diligence and it is not anticipated that a light
will be required.
J. Tower Setbacks and Tower Height. Towers shall conform
with each of the following requirements:
i. Towers shall not be located between a principal
structure and an adjoining public street.
The proposed tower will not be located between the principal
structure and an adjoining public street.
ii. In industrial zones towers and accessory •
structures shall be setback 30 feet from the front
property line, 25 feet from the side property line and
20 feet from the rear property line. In all other
zones and from any property line abutting a
residential use, towers and accessory structures shall
meet setback requirements equal to the height of the
tower from all property lines.
The property is within the A-1 agriculture zone. A variance has been
applied for as part of this application. The proposed tower will be
over 400 feet away from the north property line, 125 feet away from
the south property line, 150 feet from the east property line, and 75
feet away from the west property line. The facility will not be able to
be seen from the adjacent properties, and a letter from a professional
engineer has been attached to certify that the tower is designed not to
collapse in a distance greater than the setback(See Exhibits D & G).
iii . The maximum height of any tower, including
antennas and other attachments, shall not exceed 150
feet.
iv. The height of a tower may be increased by 24 feet
to accommodate each additional user above those
required by co-location up to a maximum height of 198
feet.
The tower is proposed to be 150 feet high and is designed to
accommodate two additional users,which complies with this
requirement. This is the minimum height necessary to provide
adequate coverage while maximizing the distance from the residence
to the south. If the tower was placed further to the north, elevation in
the property is lost, and the tower itself would need to be higher to
meet coverage objectives.
v. Engineered fall zone analysis shall be conducted
by a qualified structural engineer; this report shall
specify in writing that any collapse of the tower
would occur within a specified fall zone within a
lesser distance than the setback.
(See Exhibits D&E)
K. Time Limit on Tower Completion. Once a tower is
approved by the City, the tower must be substantially
completed within one year, including any structures
accompanying the tower, following the date of tower
• approval.
The proposed application will meet this requirement.
L. Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications. No
new or existing telecommunication service shall interfere
with public safety telecommunication. All applications for
new service shall be accompanied by an intermodulation
study which provides a technical evaluation of existing and
proposed transmissions and indicates all potential
interference problems. Before the introduction of new
service or changes in existing service, telecommunication
providers shall notify the City at least 10 calendar days
in advance of such changes and allow the City to monitor
interference levels during the testing process .
Qwest Wireless operates within it's own unique frequency which is regulated
by the FCC, to avoid any potential interference problems (See Exhibit A).
Qwest Wireless will notify the city of the expected time of operation
commencement with the application of the building permit.
M. Support of Public Warning Systems. Telecommunication
providers that utilize antennas erected after the effective
date of this ordinance shall participate in the Emergency
Alert System (EAS) , as defined by FCC Rules and
Regulations, Part 11, by broadcasting warnings of severe
weather and other life threatening emergencies to users of
personal communications equipment served by the antennas . •
Telecommunication providers may be exempt from the
requirements of this section under the following
circumstances:
i. The telecommunication provider demonstrates that
participation in EAS is not technologically feasible;
The cellular communication service Qwest Wireless provides is not
public media and does not broadcast to the general public. Qwest
Wireless does, however, provide E-911 service to its customers.
ii . The telecommunication provider is unable to
acquire any FCC waiver or exemption from licensing or
other regulations that would prohibit participation in
EAS; or
iii . The state or regional EAS planning committee
determine that participation by the telecommunication
provider is not necessary.
N. Additional Submittal Requirements. In addition to the
information required elsewhere in this code, development
applications for towers and/or antennas shall include the
following supplemental information: •
i. A report from a qualified and licensed
professional engineer that provides the following:
a. Describes the tower and/or antenna height
and design including a cross section and
elevation;
b. Documents the height above grade for all
potential mounting positions for co-located
antennas and the minimum separation distances
between antennas;
c. Describe the tower' s capacity, including
number and type of antennas that can be
accommodated;
d. Documents what steps the applicant will
take to avoid interference with established
public safety telecommunications;
e. Proof that the proposed tower complies with
regulations administered by the Federal Aviation
Administration and the FCC; and
• f. Demonstrates the tower' s and/or antennas
compliance with all applicable structural and
electrical standards, and includes an engineers
stamp and registration number.
(See Exhibits A,C,D& E)
ii . For all commercial wireless telecommunication
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.
(See Exhibit F)
0. Antennas Mounted on Roofs, Walls, and Existing Towers.
(Not applicable to this application.)
P. Abandoned or unused Portions of Towers. Abandoned or
unused towers or portions of towers and accompanying
accessory facilities shall be removed as follows :
• i . All abandoned or unused towers and associated
facilities shall be removed within 12 months of the
cessation of operations at the site unless a time
extension is approved by the City Council . In the
event that 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 assessed against the property.
ii. 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 the
issuance of a new conditional use permit.
Qwest Wireless will meet these requirements. Site abandonment is
also addressed as part of lease arrangement with the owner.
•
Wireless L.L.C.
426 N.Fairview Avenue Room 101
St.Paul,Minnesota 55104
ride th he l •
Qwestm
June 21,2001
Planning Commission
City of Elk River
Minnesota
Re: Qwest Wireless Site MIN 466 at 21475, Hwy 169, Elk River, MN 55330
Dear Members,
Qwest Wireless would like to build a PCS site at 21475, Hwy 169, Elk River, MN.
We appreciate the interference concerns of our lessors. Qwest Wireless has
licensed the PCS spectrum, from 1865-1870 MHz and 1945-1950 MHz, from the •
FCC. The FCC strictly regulates any out-of-band transmissions. Consequently, the
Qwest Wireless PCS system must and will operate within the licensed band and will
not interfere with other communications systems.
Please contact me directly at (651) 642-6357 if you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Manish R Vaishnav
RF Design Engineer
•
EXHIBIT A
Wireless L.L.C.
426 N.Fairview Avenue Room 101
St.Paul,Minnesota 55104
•
ride the light
June 21,2001 Qvve S t..
Planning Commission
City of Elk River
Minnesota
Re: Coverage and capacity study for Qwest Wireless site MIN 466 located at 21475 Hwy
169, Elk River, MN 55330
Dear Members,
Qwest Wireless operates a Personal Communications System (PCS) in the Minneapolis—St.
Paul greater metropolitan area. When choosing an appropriate location for a cell site, we try to
meet both the coverage and capacity objectives we want to achieve in that particular service
area. For cell sites located in highly residential and commercial areas, our objective as a PCS
provider is to provide good in-building service and wireless data service to as many businesses
and homes as possible. During this process, the RF design engineer must balance signal level
requirements of the area with capacity limitations of the system while incorporating his
knowledge of the terrain and the density of surrounding clutters.
In order to meet the requirements of continuous coverage and fill in our footprint in the north of
the Minneapolis—St. Paul greater metropolitan area, particularly along Hwy 169 and we are
proposing a 150' site at the 21475 Hwy 169, Elk River.
During our search for a location for the proposed cell site, we also evaluated other locations in
the area, but unfortunately they did not work out.
- The Burlington Northern Tower to the south west of the proposed location was looked in as
a possible location but the Tower was interfering with the existing sites in the Elk River area.
Please feel free to contact me directly at 651 642 6357 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
1
RF Design Engineer
Manish R Vaishnav
•
EXHIBIT B
QWEST WIRELESS, L.L.C. •
426 North Fairview Avenue, Room 101
St. Paul, MN 55104
June 25, 2001
Planning Commission
City of Elk River
Elk River, Minnesota
Re: Monopole Collapse Design for the Proposed Qwest PCS Site MIN-466 located on property at 21475 Hwy
169, Elk River, MN 55330
To the Planning Commission,
Qwest Wireless is proposing to construct a PCS site at the above address. The equipment and monopole will be
located outdoors at grade.
The manufacturer of the pole has not been determined as of the writing of this letter. The manufacturer will be
determined after zoning approval. Qwest will submit certified foundation drawing and calculations, and certified
pole drawings and calculations specific to this site at the time of building permit application.
Qwest Wireless and its' predecessor, US West Wireless, require that the manufacturer of the monopole submit •
certified drawings and calculations for the design in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. The
State Building Code recognizes ANSI EIA/TIA 222, Structural Standard for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna
Supporting Structures.
Qwest Wireless and its' predecessor have never had a failure. The Qwest Corporate Structural Engineer has
never heard of a failure in his ten years in the wireless industry or the twenty-two years of his professional
practice. I have been the Regional Structural Engineer for three years and practicing engineering for over thirty
years, and know of no failures of monopoles.
I am enclosing a copy of a letter written by Mr. Steven Krohn, P.E., and the Manager of Engineering
Communications Structures for Valmont Industries in Valley Nebraska. He is a licensed professional engineer
and has written a knowledgeable comprehensive letter concerning the method of failure of monopoles. The
design of monopoles is not my area of expertise, nor is it for any of the structural engineers at Qwest. Qwest
uses the expertise of the licensed professional engineer retained by the monopole manufacturer in the same
manner as any company would purchase a metal building from a metal building manufacturer. Please read Mr.
Krohn's letter.
If you have any questions I can be contacted on my direct wireless line, 612-272-0089.
Sincerely,
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or
Cd,,C, \.064-44—C--- report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Licensed
Dale R.Thorne, P.E. Professional Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Structural Engineer
Print Name:
Dale R.Thome P.E.
MN license no. 17205 S
Signature:
Date 0 — nse# 17205
EXHIBIT C
1----AUG.25.1998— 2:26PM COMM TWR 402 359 5856 COMM TWR 76
N0. 0 P.1%
AUG 25 '98 0.3
: 16PM
liAmh Ym
IP VALMONT
MICROFLECT
Valmont Industries,Inc.•West Highway 275•P.O.Box 358
Valley,Nebraska 68064-0358 U.S.A.•(402)359-2201
August 25, 1998
US West Wireless,LLC
426 North Fairview Avenue
Suite 101
St.Paul,MN 55104
Attention: Mr.Adrian Schottroff
Subject: Failure Modes for Poles and a Description of the Design Criteria
US West Wireless Site: SCL005
Valmont Order No. 17453-98
Dear Mr. Schottroff:
you about the mode of failure for pole type structures used to
III support wireless phone a antennas nnas
I have been asked to a Y and equipment, and give some information to allow you to
n
judge how remote the chances of failure occurring who tdsbe. I think would be appropriate to
J
start off by a brief description of the design criteria
pol.s Valmont supplies are designed in accordance with E.I.A./T.I.A•222 Revision i Fes."
entitled"Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting
structures for a
This is an approved A.N.S.I. standard�that
enion that goes into a�nsivedtai about the design
number of yeazs. Revision E is the provisions of
of pole type structures. The provisions of the standard have,as their foundation,p ability. This
other nationally known specifications and standards that have a long history not of
history should be of interest to you considering the hundreds of thousands(if spelled out of
sites throughout the United States which l Transmission Pole Structures" (published by A.S.C.E.),
publications like"The Design of Steel and"Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Luminaries and Traffic
Y gn oars in and Traffic
Signals"(published by AA.S.H.T.O.). Many of the concepts used to design poles
are included in the E.I.A./T.I.A.222 Revision F Standard.
The E.I.A./T.I.A.222 Revision F requirements dictate a basic design wind speed. The wind
state, Valmont's policy is to use
speed.o be used depends on the location of the site within Statistically,the wind speed listed
the wind loading in E.I.A./T.I.A.222 as a minimum loading.
f
in E.I.A./T.I.A.222 has been determined to be that wind wens that i is the averreoccurrence a of a
50 years. This wind is also a"fastest mile"wind which means
wind passing a point. For example, a 70 mph average'fact�omile in would take appay
• seconds to pass a point. This standard"fastest mile"wind imposed to account for sudden
to the particular installation. There is a 1.69 gust response factor imp
EXHIBIT D
AUG.25.1998 2:27PM COMM TWR 402 359 5856 COMM TWR NO.760 P.2/3
AUG 25 '98 01:16PM
VALMONT.
MICROFLECT
•
Valmont Industries,Inc.•West Highway 275•P.O.Box 358
Valley,Nebraska 68064-0358 U.S.A.•(402)359-2201
changes in wind speed, a height coefficient to account for increasing wind speed with height, and
an exposure coefficient to account(to some degree)the terrain effects.
The loads generated by this wind and•the weight of the members(along with any ice considered)
are then used to size members of the pole. There is at least a 25%factor of safety required under
these con iitions. This assumes that the wind blowing from the worst possible direction. Some
directions are worse than others,depending on the equipment attached to the pole,the
arrangement, and the orientation. The wind must exceed all our estimates for magnitude,
duration, be at the worst orientation and overcome the factor of safety. Let us assume that a pole
becomes overloaded. The typical consequence of this overloading is"local buckling"where a
relatively small portion of the shaft distorts and"kinks"the isteel. hied does e entire free
falling pole. After the buckle,the cross section of the pole capable
vertical(weight)load and a substantial portion of the load that caused the buckling. The pole is •
likely,however,to be out of plumb. This may be somewhat dramatic and the buckled section
should be replaced.
There are 3 mechanisms which prevent the pole from a free fall typ e failure. First, as the pole
pole more
distorts this distortion may relieve the load from the pole either by orienting p •
favorably in the wind or, if buckling has occurred,by reducing the moment arm of the wind
force. The second mechanism involves a redistribution of the stress in the pole after buckling
toward the remaining portion or the cross section that has unused capacity. The third
phenomenon and more important,is the nature of the force being applied. We expect the wind to
produce this force. A wind that would cause a buckle would be larger than the basic wind speed,
the gust factor,and the factor of safety combined. A gust would soon dissipate and,after this
peak wind is gone,the stress in the pole would be reduced. Poles are flexible,forgiving
structures which are not generally susceptible to damage by impact loads such as a wind gust or
earthquake shocks. It takes some time for the entire structure to"see"the impact loading. Even
after a local buckle,the pole has significant capacity. It is this capacity along with the transitory
nature of the loading that prevents a pole from"falling over".
Pole design and testing have provided the public with a very reliable product. Poles have gone
through extensive full scale testing,resulting in a history of being extremely reliable. The public
I think,has been served well. Valmont has provided structures that have performed well
during the earthquakes in California,the hurricanes in the South,and a number of
tornadoes. To my knowledge,Valmont has never experienced an in service failure of a
communication pole due to weather induced overloading,even though,as in the cases of
Hurricane Hugo and Hurricane Andrew,the wind speeds may have exceeded the design
wind speed. •
•
•
_ N0.760 P.3/3
----° AL'G.25.1998 2:27PM COMM TWR 402 359 5856 COMM TWR AUG 25 '98 01:16PM W.
Ask
111, VALMONT:
MICROFLECT
Valmont Industries, 2 01
Valley,Nebraska 68084-0358 U.S.A.•(402)359.
s of pole structures(i.e.,high mast lighting
in various types p poles,street and parking lot poles,
Valmont Industries has been designing transmission p
poles,communication poles,electrical(utility)
signal poles)for many years. As in the case of communications monopoles,
fifteen Valmont
has traffic sign p and manufacturing of these poles ear
has been actively engaged in the designing zoning and planning
,
board structural integrity of the monopoles is occasionally questioned b°y experience. a building
board commissions when this concern is not justified be engineering
same plot of land,no one would
of the same height as a monopole were to be constructed question what it would hit if it were to fall down to the gm grounds even though the building and the
i ed in accordance with the same building code requirements to safely
monopole would be designed
IP withstand the same wind loadings.
I hope this have. I can be
ed. Please feel free to call with any comments you may
at has help
reached at 1-800-345-6825 extension 3727 and will be glad to discuss any concerns you may
have.
Sincerely, ,(/
I hereby certify that this plan,specification,or report
me or under my direct supervision and Steven M. ohn,P.E.
was prepared by Engineer under Steven M.that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engin cation Structures
the laws of the state of •1►�:?sota. Commune
Signature:
� ��/ Industrial Products Division
,��/1 Iil Valmont Industries,Inc.
Steven M.Krohn � .No.:25aS4
Date: �
•
•
•
QWEST WIRELESS, L.L.C.
426 North Fairview Avenue, Room 101
St. Paul, MN 55104
June 25, 2001
Planning Commission
City of Elk River
Elk River, Minnesota
Re: Monopole Structural Design for the Proposed Qwest PCS Site MIN-466 located on property at 21475 Hwy
169, Elk River, MN 55330
To the Planning Commission,
The manufacturer of the pole has not been determined as of the writing of this letter. The manufacturer will be
determined after zoning approval. The manufacturer is required by Qwest to provide monopole drawings and
calculations certified by a currently licensed professional engineer in the State of Minnesota at the time of
purchase of the monopole. Qwest will submit copies of these certified drawings and calculations, and certified
foundation drawings and calculations specific to this site at the time of building permit application.
•
I am enclosing a copy of certified monopole drawings for a site that was constructed in 1999, which are identical
to the monopole proposed for this site. The drawings contain the following information requested by the Planning
Commission in the Ordinance:
1. Sheet 2; item 8 of the NOTES identifies two additional collocators, with nine antennas each, at
heights of 147 feet and 132 feet with six feet separation of antennas. (19.D.ii., 19.N.b. and c.)
2. Sheet 2, item 7 of the NOTES states that the design conforms to EIA/TIA-222-Ffor 80 miles per
hour wind speed with concurrent radial ice of one-half inch thickness, which is a Minnesota State
Building Code design requirement. (19.E.ii.)
3. Sheet 2, item 6 of the NOTES states that the monopole is hot dip galvanized per ASTM A-123.
(19.E.vii.)
4. Sheet 3, DETAIL 9 shows the first climbing peg twelve feet above the top of the monopole base
plate. (19.E.vi.)
5. The monopole height is shown on sheet 2. (19.N.a.)
6. The monopole diameters are shown in the lower left-hand corner of sheets 3 through 6. The
diameter at the base plate is three feet ten and five eighths inches, and at the top, one foot four and
three eighths inches. (19.N.a.)
If you have any questions I can be contacted on my direct wireless line, 612-272-0089.
Sincerely, I hereby certify that this plan,specification, or
n report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duty Licensed
Professional Engineer under the laws of the
Dale R.Thorne, P.E. State of Minnesota
Structural Engineer Print Name:, Dale R.Thome P.E. •
MN license no. 17205
Signature:,Y:h2,1-,S—z—V:212 -A--.
Date erase#, 17205
EXHIBIT E