Loading...
1997-07-22 Council Planning Comm Workshop1 j n 11111 1 1 1 1 ` 1 Mill 1,. Lei ' JULY 22, 1997 The second joint Cell/PCS Workshop between the Planning Commission and the City Council was held on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 PM. The following Councilmembers were present: Smith, Huber, and Koch. The following Planning Commissioners were present: Dwyer, Tilsen, Lorberbaum, Betlej, Koll. Duggan. Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmember Krebsbach, and Commissioner Friel were excused from the meeting. Also present were City Administrator Kevin Batchelder, Director of Public Works Jim Danielson, Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister, and industry representatives Marie Grimm of AT &T Wireless and Dave Hagen of Sprint PCs. PRESENTATION OF ISSUE Mr. Hollister reviewed the current status of the Draft PCs Ordinance. Mr. Hollister recalled that the Council had passed a one -year moratorium on all Cellular/PCS applications on December 3, 1996, to expire unless extended by the Council on December 3, 1997. Mr. Hollister continued that the first joint Council/Planning Commission Workshop on the subject of antennae was held on April 19, 1997, and that the results of that workshop were encoded into a draft ordinance. Mr. Hollister continued that since the initial workshop, both the Planning Commission and the City Council had seen the draft ordinance twice and had made revisions to the draft ordinance. Mr. Hollister added that the Cellular/PCS industry had also expressed their concerns both orally and in writing to the Planning Commission, and that the industry was also present that evening in the form of Ms. Grimm and Mr. Hagen. Mr. Hollister said that the City was mandated by the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 to "reasonably accommodate" Cellular and PCs technology, and that the central issue of the Workshop was to what extent the City had to accommodate the desires of the Cell/PCS industry in order to satisfy the federal mandate for "reasonable accommodation" while still protecting the unique aesthetic character of the City of Mendota Heights. I 1 � The Workshop participants then discussed the following aspects of the draft Cellular/PCS ordinance: Height Limitations Mr. Hollister explained that the industry felt that the 75 foot height limit originally contained in Section 21.6(4)d was too short. Mr. Hollister said that according to the industry, 75 feet represented the minimum height necessary for effective communication under ideal topographical circumstances. Mr. Hollister continued that the industry requested that the City raise the height limit to accommodate co- location and reduce the number of towers needed in the City, and that a 25 foot bonus be granted if the pole is designed to accommodate a second user. Commissioner Duggan said that the claim that 75' was too short was based on trees and line -of- sight, and that any applicant wanting a tower more than 75' high should be required to make the case that it is necessary based on the specific topographical circumstances. Commissioner Koll agreed with Commissioner Duggan. Commissioner Duggan added that the ordinance should encourage co- location and "stealth" or "camouflaged" design. Commissioner Tilsen felt that the height limit should only be 75' even with co- location and produced a home -made map of existing NSP towers where he felt that antennae could be permitted. Mr. Hagen said that his company could not adhere to Commissioner Tilsen's plan to place all the antennae on existing NSP poles, because the industry had already set up its grid pattern and chosen necessary sites, and also because the industry will need to increase the number of sites based on increased usage. Mr. Hagen reiterated that 75' was too low for a free - standing antennae, but that 100' could possibly work. Commissioner Tilsen responded that Mendota Heights is a small community, and that the existing NSP utility grid should provide sufficient locations for all service providers within the City. Mr. Hagen said that although NSP is mandated to work with the industry, the City could not mandate that the antennae be placed on existing NSP poles. Mr. Hagen continued that locating towers or antennae on NSP structures or property was fraught with logistical concerns such as access, electrocution, and general safety. Mr. Hagen said that Sprint PCS had a general agreement with NSP to try to use poles, and that the antennae needed 2 to be 15' above the utility poles, which he considered to be preferable to free - standing antennae. Councilmember Smith said that the City should try to minimize the visual impact of the antennae and towers. Councilmember Smith said that the City had to balance technology with aesthetics. Councilmember Smith said that she did not want to see 160' freestanding antennae poles in the City of Mendota Heights. Mr. Batchelder said that the City could hire a communications expert to choose a few sites where antennae would be allowed and which the City would own and operate, chosen based upon the expert's knowledge of the needs of the industry. Ms. Grimm said that no expert would have access to all the information necessary, since it is proprietary information. Commissioner Dwyer said that the industry could give confidential information to the expert. Ms. Grimm said that there were cases in court over mandated sites. Ms. Grimm said that her company would be happy to provide information to the City, and that basically her company wanted access to major transportation corridors. Councilmember Smith said that the sites most coveted by the industry thus far seemed to be the high school and the water tower, but that a more desirable location could emerge based on expert advice. Ms. Grimm said that she used to be a St. Paul Councilmember, and that she understood that the City had the flexibility and justification to impose conditions or grant variances on tower applications. Commissioner Betlej suggested hiring a good consult to create a special Overlay Zoning District specifically for CeIUPCS antennae. Commissioner Koll asked if stealth technology could be used to adorn a cell tower and make it a Mendota Heights landmark. Mr. Hagen said that Sprint PCS did not want to give their plan for coverage, and that the City could not legally specify parcels for the antennae. Councilmember Smith said that while the City may not be able to specify parcels for antennae, the City could specify areas of the City for antennae. Councilmember Smith said that the City should encourage co- location. Councilmember Smith said that she did not want to significantly change the zoning in Mendota Heights. Councilmember Smith added that the City could scientifically determine the optimal location for most providers based on topography and encourage service providers to co- locate there. 3 Councilmember Huber advised against hiring a consultant, because it was impossible to plan for the long term. Ms. Grimm said that regarding co- location, the individual providers could not take the initiative for co- location due to anti -trust laws, but that the City could provide incentives for co- location. The Workshop participants concluded discussion on height limitations by editing the current draft of the ordinance to include a 75' height limit and a 25' "co- location bonus ". Setbacks Mr. Hollister explained that the industry felt that the requirement that antennas be 25' plus the height of the tower from the nearest lot line originally contained in 21.6(4)d was too strict. The Workshop participants responded by removing the 25' component and merely requiring the tower to be at least its own height from the nearest setback line. Prohibition in Residential Zones Mr. Hollister explained that Section 21.6(4)a currently prohibits antennae within R -1, R- IA, or R -2 zones. Mr. Hollister continued that the industry felt that this is too restrictive, particularly in light of how much of the City falls within these zones (roughly 70 %): Mr. Hollister added that both US West and AT &T Wireless requested that at a minimum institutional sites within these zones be granted an exception. The workshop participants chose to leave the prohibition as it was. Non- interference Mr. Hollister explained that Sprint PCS had objected to the requirement that the applicant submit a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing non - interference along with a copy of the FCC approval of the antennae in regards to non - interference. Ms. Grimm said that this requirement was redundant with FCC regulations. Councilmember Smith said that potential interference clause should remain. The workshop participants again opted to let this requirement stand. in Abandonment Bond Mr. Hollister explained that Sprint PCS objected to the requirement for submission of an "Abandonment Bond" to the City equal to 150% times the current cost of removal and disposal in Section 21.6(8)g. Mr. Hagen said that Sprint PCS felt that this is a unique burden placed upon antennae, and no other structures. Mr. Hagen said that in the case of his company the bond was unnecessary because as his company developed infill tower locations, it would keep existing sites. Ms. Grimm said that the antennae and poles are too valuable to abandon, even in terms of scrap metal value alone. Ms. Grimm said that the bond requirement as written was especially onerous because it had no time limit. Ms. Grimm said that her company did remove one site at First National Bank in St. Paul, and that her company now has only 5 sites in the City of Saint Paul. The workshop participants opted to let the bond requirement stand. Maps Mr. Hollister explained that the industry also objected to the requirement to submit maps 1 showing all existing and proposed antennae of both the applicant and competitors within a five mile radius due to the proprietary nature and competitive sensitivity of such information (Section 21.6(8)i). Mr. Hagen added that the requirement to submit all existing and future sites of his own company and of his competitors within a five mile radius was an onerous burden, although he couldn't speak for AT &T. Councilmember Huber said that even if the industry shared all their plans today, in the long term changes in demand are unpredictable, and thus today's plans won't make sense in the future. The workshop participants reduced the radius to two miles, and limited the information to merely the applicant's own locations. Requiring a Conditional Use Permit for Building- Mounted Antennae Mr. Hollister explained that AT &T Wireless objected to this requirement and that AT &T felt that building- mounted antennae should be a permitted use for up to 15' in height. The workshop participants opted to let this requirement stand. 5 Councilmember Koch said that the draft ordinance had become too complicated, and asked why a special ordinance is needed every time a new issue arises. Mr. Hollister asked the industry representatives present how high the highest free- standing tower in Minnesota was. Ms. Grimm said that the highest tower she was aware of was owned by Arial in a rural area and was 165' high. Timetable The Workshop participants then directed Staff to pursue the following timetable for further revision and eventual adoption of the Cell/PCS Ordinance: August 26: Informal Discussion by the Planning Commission September 23: Formal Public Hearing by the Planning Commission October 7: Formal Adoption by the City Council Motion made to adjourn by Huber and seconded by Koch. ), AYES: 3 NAYS: 0 The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Patrick C. Hollister G