97-565� d�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
�:,.�..
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
An ordinance amending Chapters 60 and 62 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to zoning,
The Council of the City of Saint Paul does ordain:
Section 1
That Section 60.209. I., definitions, of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by adding a new
definition as follows:
P r 9 -� ea ° s a ° - °a a' ° im m . e - -
Section 2
TLat Section 60.412. (16), (R-1 thru R-4 Districts), of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.412. Principal uses permitted.
(16) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing ,'" �"; ,; .�� structure at least si�cly (60) feet
F:�`�::tE� !
.: - - -- - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - -
a
Council File # � t�
� m e � .� 1 � _ � / [.j I � / Ordinance #
�� t �G {
Green Slieet # J `�
ORDINANCE
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �
r ., ��.�� � _ �
The antennas shall not e�end more than fifteen (15) feet above the structural height of
the structure to which they aze attached.
"8 t.°i 9 8 8&� A 8 i b° q' � °
1
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
b9
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
� isa�,(„��.7'���'O�E,✓�r�;'`.����?��r�i�����.,,��-�e��r%��Z��� �'°.:�„ • I � I �
e:� Transxnitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing
shucture whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary ��
, it shall be �
nse per"t�t�"etl�7r�af"�as�an:accesso�zti��n�: �ec 62�SQb:�'and shall be screened
from view
appropriate.
Section 3
That Section 60.413. (R-1 thru R-4 Districts) of the Saint Paul Legislauve Code is hereby amended by re-
numbering existing clause (18) as (19), adding new clause (18), and amending clause (17) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.413. Principai uses permitted subject to special conditions.
(17) Cellulaz telephone antennas � located on an existing x-: '_t ss�� shucture �least �,�y.�-;� x
sixty (60) feet high, subject to the following conditions:
- , - - - - - -- - - - - --
--- - - - - - - : -- - - - -- - - -- - - -
- -- - - -: -- - -- - - - - - -- - - -
- --- - - • -- -- - - - - - - -- -- - -- - ---
- -- - - - - .0 - - ::- - --
- --- -- - --- - - ..- - - - -- - :: - - - - -- -
-- - - - - :: -- -- - - -- - ----
-- - - -- -- - - - -- - - -. -- - - -
: - -- - - - - -- - - ----- - - -
- - -. � - - - -
° a, -e -e o e- a � - e• o ° s e
' ' e - e - e� - ' o e a e= � e f.
2
�����
r,,;�t�z;��„�
��
�:
q� -Sts
etic Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing
structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary €ert��;
, it shall be '
nse ��d=a����a����ta��e�ss�. 6����`"��*B2�vI��, and shall be screened
,-_..� w z _� .� . � .
from view by landscaping where appropriate.
�*
_ ',
g �__ � , p
.@ 9° @
_ o _ _
,em ° ° •c e �
'& . 0
° m° o a
s
3
a1-Sf�'
� ���� ��� f ����� ���-���� ��������������!�. �".� �� °�
e . �w,e� �.,�r'.oc,va � con.rz �nr ✓it��rf&.m.rl�%� ,y.a�:«• „ri✓�m .+s � Lr�a,�u, aiszs o.s�fe, v° �S�kb�!e�` �
13$ F'�Q�I��,��5 '�,_,_ct,�D7��%dil,i)1iT�
139 -
140 f' �fe� `�s,a�f���e�re�}i,e�"c�'el�as �e�-�as�e��,e"k�s�el3
141 �ay , < , �c�f-ca¢c�emvnstrafst�atzYZS-nmre�appz��aE��fzsL�r�
142 �oe�err Freestanding poles shall be a monopole design.
143 _ _ �._,H
144 g: "Fxa��sii#�g,receiv�ganct.s�fc��iuig�equ�puse�ts��e�ousedwafh3t�an:e�ssf�ug
�f.�
145 st�c�ute�e�se�r�ss�r2e �a3te�e�men���`�dr� ts,�ueeess�ar�„��s1�71 �e
146 �er�1:2��`�cd��ega�af�a��t=acc�sso�'���,;�ec �2 �`d�i, an�# sc�e�ee"�'�o-r�c�e�
, _� � ._ ..� .,=_ .a, �.. �r .
147 �� ��seag�whet� app,ra��e;
148 h. The zoning lot on which the pole is located shall be at least one (1) acre
149 in area. Section 4
150
151 That Section 60.462. (8) (RM-3 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
152 follows:
153
154 Sec. 60.462. Principal uses permitted.
155
156 (8) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing :� �,��� structure at least sixty (60) feet
�� ;. .. n, , - k� a;� �
��.�
, ,
p l g .., -...�o- � ,m: �., , . � . M,i; . a� ... ;.a�� �� � �.. ' :� .0 �az.�`�� °a�} tw_ .� �
1 50 � � - m'
�v, � a xra .a�.� � u. .&' - ' sa'� � . r,_ . a'
159 _,. �' `�' ` _ _ � .x� � � � �kiek
160 M _ .� . :.,�� �,�v : „ �, - �,� �, . �r�
161
162 .
163
164
165
166 .
167
168 �:
169 .
170
171 � ' , ' ' a
172 . ' ,
173 ,�
174 .
175
176 Section 5
177
178 That Secfion 60.463 (RM-3 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by re-numbering
179 existing clause (8) as (9), adding new clause (8), and amending clause (7) to read as follows:
180
181 Sec.60.463. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions.
182
183 (7) Cellular telephone antennas � located on an e�sting �ae��� shucture a�-}east rp ;:,";;� L. ��
184 sixty (60) feet high, � v�.,. �c���e�,�'��,, �;;���
185 � . � v -' ��*� w:"r-�
0
18 p 6 � /
10
10�
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
Y_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ " _ " _
- - - :.�.,,.:._ - - - - - -
-- - -= -- - - - - • - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- ::- -
- - - - - - - - --- --- - --- - - -- -.- - -- - -
;
Section 6
207 That Section 60.512. (S) (OS-1 District) of the Saint Paul Legisla5ve Code is hereby amended to read as
208 follows:
209
210 Sec. 60.512. Principal uses permitted.
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
22$
229
230
231
232
233
234
(8) Celiular telephone antennas --'-°_- "-- _- -°-° located on an existing structure, _���
��. ��� _. �' _
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - :: -
�
i °96. 9 ° B 8. 3° " tt4 6 i &°
e
5
., -
' �1 � � • � � , i ' - ��- - -� - �-� � -.� .
: � •
�
� 1 � I ' i �. i• u •� �• i � � i � ��
.
� • " " "� � " " _" � "� \� . t' 9 IDi " _ _ _ '" " ' � ' �
� 1" � � �i� �1
i�
I Y_____ _ " __________ __ _" _ _ _ _ __"_ _ ____
�. _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ "_
� _ _ _ _ " _ _ " _ " - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
� � _ _ _ _ " _ " _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I� _ _ _ _ " _ _ _ _ _ _ _ " _ _ _ _ _
�
� i� �
•
,a� e- a aa - . {Y4 '@ < -c .e s e• �e aae. -e ae <i
- a • e� - o= a- - •# -
� • b 6. " V S . D B 8 a " e 0 �
�� " 6 t9Y "Y e. 6 9 BO' 4 6'@ i" 0 i 6" . i
�
• " 8. '0 "! }' Y 9 "'6 ' 4 em. i f"' 1°
� BB ° k
��
� - o. - a - a s S' ! e ' i 0
•� s . -a •e e '' c ' aa • m -
.
�: • e. 'm -e m - a� a- e A 0Ra "8 . " c " Y
� B . & @ e 0
' � " t " 0 f D 6 E° ! t f
" f.
� a ' 9` � e o9 ° 6 °°e _ _ _ " 9 °B
,� �° 8 0. B B 0�& .� ° t"° b
• 0° 9a 89 " i S e eS8 S• 80 ' 8 a '"0 8°
.SB " ° °6 s ° ° 86 ° i' "0 t �
\
i� H. � b° 1."4 °S °f B 1 6" . 8 .8! Y" 4. 0°
9' i' � d , G ' 0 � B B i' " " " 8' /
�
284 d� ���a�s ��s��e` � �ex���;,��?!;to¢�������e���° -� ' `� � S�N
�,r����,�<<���N� � � �• ����,e � ��< �� ���-�� � <�9
285 ea�����z�n���2��T. : : zdf/k'la� `an��c����gz�i�;���f'�c�fi=���� �'�
„llV.2...G_ /G ^�/ , 4 J:.... zl _ ..!W�...s uXd r.,w.L� d ���.✓Fia.PJ� � .J�r .o�v ✓sn,.,✓.m�.:'� a� �*4vG'�� ...6
286 Dra�vfii""gs;,�x�p7rpS�ap�r"ic;�iexs�ecfYVe�s�o�1�'i�te�fp���aa�temiass,s,hat��e�ara,��"e�
� d.,.!l.uv. _...,.fl ,.a4.. F u�.vu� ✓.uN,�_,,,9 ,rd�..✓ vll c.5: ���tU.a�'eY.._o"�.a� �EIS•f.�l'eeYlu t I.�r�'7
287 ��e�i��n�a�gFcoi�mtss�oa�"o �ef��me�cornP��'anCe,u�i�h ,�us�ra�s�on�
288 �. a�� �..a.�
289 e: �nte��ocated uslusfarrc c6stncfs's�raII tre`s�b�ect Yo:fhe reuie�`and ap�rouat a�tTie
_. � � w_,.� _.:_..� .
290 F3etttage�rese�va�on�an�iinsSron:
291 _.,. _..
292 f� �+fe��' , u _: � . -�fes; �ie�a��
��s , �n�� �
293 �ra�r��:'�f�t�te���2��t��te���s������Tri��a�l
294 �+�;= Freestanding poles shall be a monopole design.
295
296 e� Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing
297 structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary £e��
298 , it shall be '
299 xses pe��_� ,�€,�-s�T���� n��n�.�" ��`�����& ,� .� and shall be
.. .. . a_'4�..,.,a��xsi s -a,��.x�..s_, ;n_a.�= +�c at ,2.n. Q�.?d,:°.ta., x �.. _�y_�.,__
300 screened from view by landscaping where appropriate.
301 h. The zonin� lot on which the pole is located shall be within contiguous
3�2 SeCtiOn 8 Property zoned OS-1 and at least
303
one (1) acre in area.
304 That Section 60.522. (1) (B-1 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
305 follows:
306
307 (1) Ail principal uses permitted and uses permitted subject to special conditions and as regulated in
308 the OS-1 District ����'��`.'����,�r�'��*�'�"""� �r�'�*'�t���;�b�„�-
�� �,�
309
310 Section 9
311
312 That Section 60.524. (5) (B-1 Districts) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
313 foliows:
314
315 Sec. b05.24. Principal uses permitted subject to special condifions.
316
:ilx
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
o •0 ' o - - - - - - - - - --- .
7
333
334
335
336
337
338
- - - -- - -- - - -- -- -- :�:..:.:-- -
Section 10
339 That Sections 60.542. (B-3 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by re-numbering
340 existing clauses (16) and (17) as (15) and (16), deleling existing clause (15), and amending clause (1) to read
341 as follows:
342
343 Sec. 60.542. Principal uses permitted.
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
(1) All principal uses permitted and uses pernutted subject to special conditions and as regulated in
OS-1, B-1, and B-2 Districts, except auto service stations and licensed conectional community
residential facilities, health department-liceused community residential faci]ities and emezgency
housing, an� pawn shops when the business is conducted within completely enclosed buildings�
��G��.�,.r_,��„��x .�.�„.m.�� .:aufl�:, ....s �� u.a.a.�.c�.�:�:�. ' _'.��.��.'�`''
- --: --- - - - - -- - - - - - -
- - - -- - - --- - - - - �' -- - - - - -- -- - -
- - - ,- -- -- -- - - - - - -
- - - :: -
Section 11
362 That Section 6Q.544 (20) (B-3 District) of the Saint Paul legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
363 follows:
364
365 Sec. 60.524. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions.
366
367 (20) Cellular telephone eac��iex�iens antennas � located on
368
369
370
371
372
373
314
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
: ��:..r.,:as:.�,:.�: - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
�
3s2 . � � , �1!� - S�iS
383 . ' ,
384 ,'
385 .
386
387 Section 12
388
389 That Section 60.552 (16) (B-4 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
390 follows:
391
392 Sec. 60.552. Principal uses permitted.
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
(16) Cellular telephone antennas -- ti "-- -�`----- °-- located on an existing structure
- - - - - - - -:: - - - -- - - -
Section 13
406 That Section 60.554 (14) (B-4 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
407 foilows:
408
409
410 Sec. 60.554. Principal, uses permitted subject to special conditions.
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
423
429
430
(14) Cellular telephone antennas � located on
- - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - w�en►�e.!�ww.c�R
- - - - - .- - - - - -- - - - -
- - - : �� .:.:.:...:.. . . . . - -
- - -- :: - - - - -- - -- - - -- -
�i,.�a:,::�
- -.--..- � ---�- ::-- : • : -• .:. :. .. :. :... . - - - - - - -
431 Section 14 a�� ��S
432
433 That Section 60.562 (10) (B-5 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby deleted and e�sting
434 clause (11) is renumbered as clause (10), as follows:
435
436 Sec. 60.552. Principal uses permitted.
43�
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
• - - ---- - - -- - - - ---- - -- -- - -- - - - -- - - - -
-- -- -- - --- --- -- - ---- - - - -- --- � • -- - - - - - --- -- - - - -
.
- - - -- :.,:_ -- - - - - -- - - -- .-_ - -- - --- -
::-- - - -- -- -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- -- -
Section 15
448 That Section 60.564 (13) (B-5 District) of the Saint Pul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
449 follows:
450
451 Sec. 60.564. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions.
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
(13) Cellulaz telephone antennas �teE located on
- - : �.:. :,,..._ - - -
�- �- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- - - - ---�.���,...� -- - - - -- -
,�..,,.''R""�:..'�.:.'�^T'
- - - - - - - - - - . _ : .�����...■;.��;R+,f� - - - - -
Secrion 16
475 That Section 60.612 (I-1 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by re-numbering
476 existing clauses (24) and (25) as (25) and (26), adding new clause (24), and amending existing clause (23) to
477 read as follows:
478
479
[(17
480 Sec. 60.612. Principal uses permitted. a� � S�s
481
482 (23) Cellular telephone antennas �oea�e.� 1i;�tf�exYS[�ng�s,���ras�pe�ru#�ed,an�;�e�a��'�%�n�eh�
483 ��s�es�;'�SS�sicf%�xS�°e�frc�CiQ 5�2: , '
484 , .
485
486 . ' a ,' ,
487
488
489 ' ,
490 .
491
492 . . , ' .
493
494 ��� G��_ �`�P��� „�«:.,�a��.yr��,c�; `�";����,;: �..� ��.�,�°��w ����.;�� , �.r���� �
495 ����� �
496 �� �k ,�����7�i;,�����f��v�� na,,:. _�
497 � �:�Ka=�'.'r,�na� � �� �;'�. a�,��»� � " "
� � �� ��. , � a ., �u ,�R:,.. ,,.��.�. ��„ �-:,�r. � -���-� �r-���
498 ���� �,� ��������'��`����������,.����a,�«� F�
�,': r 4!� a.�cu . v..,.n'`.�. 'Tt ,�.�:�' a nT - T ,
499
5 ,� ,."" �`", = . �° : � � ., t�,�a� a �
•vwm U� . �. . ,,,C'ya' .. _ rn . " ,. b " v . r _'3«.". . ' . arY'L � '' �...M44c5:"`f
m,. i'
5�1 �` �
.� _ - �
502
, • .w.... . _ ,. .
. : R ,.
,. _.
� � - ;:. - _
504 �-� M . - fl�., ,_, .. � ,� .. . ;� .,
505 ',��' Freestanding poles shall be a monopole design.
506
507 �� �� � �
aa�'.*a v' �.:t§� �.,.Y.:. sA wF� ,^
50$ o �? u�.�;:,R� �
- �. ' �.�
� , .: ; ti
509 _- ,� � . �- , ,.n . u
..� � '. w � �.: �, .�. � .. . �'..� � . �-�. „. � .... �� _- �, :a��-� ,. �.�
510 �`��".���������;�
511
512 Section 17
513
514 That Section 60.632. (I-3 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by adding new
515 clause (3) and re-numbering existing clause (3) as clause (4) to read as follows:
516
517 Sec. 60.632. Principal uses permitted.
518
519 �� ��. �, r���,���� � a���� �� �,�,r� �,�;�,� � �
�kk:r :uz:.v. P,� �— ,� c,�v^4?+ •:c. 'z .. ,�tu ,F"",� �E �.,�: ° -s�a -�.
520 ��� �
�
521
522 Section 18
523
524 That Section 60.752. (10) ( RCR-1 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
525 follows:
526
527 Sec. 60.752. Principal uses permitted.
528
11
q1 • SGS
529 (10) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing ������ � structure at least sixry (60) feet
530 hi�, ������f ,��a?�o��s��;��������,�'������.�������;���0������°��,-��
531 �sneeo,�ae�t,�a u��`i"a�i���oiefa��e�t�sk�ly�6��fee� ������,. � ; ��
,,,,�.
532 f�'"e�ie �bf%a�a�a'�vE�fi7xfs��ndmen� o�'dn a�u�izstiiti�'iona� use�st�uc�ur�; as regulated in the
533 R �°tI�ru R 4��f�t��, Secf�an 6f3 �FI� (16��"" ` ' "_� � � _ �_ __ �;, � �.,
534 �
535 Section 19
536
537 That Section 60.753. (7) (RCR-1 Dishict) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
538 follows:
539
540 Sec. 60.753. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions.
541
542 (7) Cellulaz telephone antennas, as regulated in the ��7�#t;,R�F��{i"�tt?.��������is�r� 4�3- � �
543 ���rn�r � �__...:,.. -- -_ cn nc� =y..v�
�
544
545 5ection 20
546
547 That Section 62.108. Site Plan Review (all districts) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by
548 adding new clause (a) (14) as follows:
549
550 (a) Plan to be submitted. A site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the planning commission
551 before a permit is issued for grading or the erection or enlargement of gross floor area for any development
552 except one- and two-family dwellings, but including the following:
553
554 (1) Any development of one- and two-family residences which together exceed two (2) acres
555 (87,120 square feet) in area.
556
557 (2) In the "T" Tree Preservation District, any development of one- and two-family residences over
558 one (1) acre (43,560 square feet) in area.
559
560 (3) Al] residentially related uses in one-family districts, such as, but not limited to, churches,
561 schools and public facilities.
562
563 (4) Any industrial use in an I-1, I-2, I-3 or RCI-1 District abutting a residential district.
564
565 (5) Outdoor storage in industrial distzicts.
566
567 (6) Any use which abuts to a majar thoroughfaze.
568
569 (7) Any development on a siope of twelve (12) percent or greater.
570
571 (8) Any development in the River Corridor Critical Area or in the Floodplain District except one-
572 and two-family dwellings which do not affect slopes of twelve (12) percent ot greater.
573
574 (9) All off-street parking faciIities except as noted in section 62.103(b).
575
576 (10) Any other use or development for which the submission of a site plan is required by any
577 provision of this code.
12
578 (11) Earth-sheltered structures. �I'� � s' /_
579 ���
580 (12) Detached, freestanding facilities conshucted on parking facilities, including, but not restricted
581 to, kiosks, fotomats, banks and similar uses.
582
583 (13) Any filling, excavation or tree removal that disturbs an azea greater than ten thousand (10,000)
584 square feet except the construction, installation or maintenance of pubiic roads and public and
585 private utiliries.
586
587 {��#j �a,�lar2el��neat�ter�3�a�eq�e�euc�c�et��b`���
588 _. , . ... � _ .�... �_ �.
589 Section 21
590
591 That new Section 62.120. is hereby added to Chapter 62 to read ass follows:
592
593
594 � �'�,����T��e ,�,�� - �����:'k_�_c������
595
.. ,�u ,� . ... .
596 �� �; . � .. `
597 � u�,�,� ,,.� e..�.�;� ,�� 'aM.� ..�_ .��:�. ��. �r, _. .�:: �; , _a; . . �
.:�-��'�'��������;-'��
598
599 Section 22
600
601 This ordinance sha11 take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its passage, approval and
602 publication.
That Section 60.574(2) is amended to read as follows:
(7) All usess permitted subject to special conditions in the B-2 Community Business
District except the following: bowling alley, billiard hall, indoor archery range,
indoor tennis courts, racquet ball and hand ball courts, dance hall, electronic
game room, indoor skating rink, or similar forms of indoor commercial recreation;
automobile sales or service centers; and auto service stations. Uses permitted
under this subsection shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The special conditions imposed for each use in the B-2 Community Business
District,except that cellular telephone antennas located on a freestanding pole
section 60.573.
of :
By:
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
BY: _�� ..._ a . �,�..-,-_--
Approved by Mayor: Date � `��I�il
By:
«��
JU� L:- 51997
13
Form Approved by City Attorney
By: i �7�/�L�(!/7 (N!/ y�`����
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By: �
� ..+..,. - ,»
41-SGS �����
DEWWi/AENTqFFICE/COUNCIL DATEINITI q TED GREEN SHE
PED PLANNING 04/17/97
CONTACT PERSON & PHONE OEPAFiTMENT DIFiECTOR CITV COUNCIL INITIAL/DATE
Roger Ryan 66574 � �
���N �CITYATTORNEV � OCINCLERK
MUST BE ON CAUNCIL AGENDA BV (DATE) NUMBER FOR O BUDGET �IRECTOR � PIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR.
flOUTING
OflDER � MAYOFi (OR ASSISTAN'n � � L. _
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt cellular telephone amendments_
RfjCOMMENDA7lONS: Approve (A) ar Reject (R) pEtiSONAL SENVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS:
J1 PLANNINCa CAMMISSIQN _ CIVIL SEflVICE COMMISSION 1. Has this personHirm ever worketl under a coMrect for this dapartment?
CIB COMMITTEE YES NO
�� - 2. Has this personHirm ever been a city employee?
VES NO
_ DisiaiCi Couai _ 3. Does this personttirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curren[ city emplqee?
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? YES NO
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attaeh to green sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPGIRNNITV (Wha, Whet, When, Where. Why):
Concern that antennas were allowed to be too high in residential districts and OS-1
and B-1 Districts.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
Lower antennas on neighborhood business buildings, colocation of antennas promoted
on existing buildings and poles, and fewer variances needed for poles in industrial
districts.
DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: �' �
Some higher poles in residential and business ditricts. ��� ��� ��
��, :a;� �;?�a"'Y �'E�fl
��„ _ .� _ . �_� _. � .�
�.:� ,'.' �;1 u;;:�7
AP� 29 199T APR 22 199�
�va�s a��c€ �I'��' � � �� �����(
ne�
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: •-^°^"'° _ "�' `""� .•- -- - " .
Higher antennas on business buildings, lack of promotion of colocation.
TOTAL AMOUN7 OF TRANSAC7ION $ COS7/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) VES NO
FUNDIfdG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFORFSATION' (EXPLAIN)
R n��-�r...�.�-�u
`��-SGS
AMENDMENTS TO CELLULAR TELEPHONE ZONII3G AMENDMENTS C�p+r:s �
C.F. 97-565
1. Change clause f., lines 140, 141, 142; clause f., lines 292, 293, 294; and clause c., lines 503,
504, 505 from Monopoles a�e'�liepre�rred�f`ype�of po'Ies�Offier i�pes��poles, such asTattice
location:=to
2. For the R-1 thru R-4 disricts, add new clause h. at line 148 as follows: �e zoning.lo�i�
which the pQle�s'7 e�on��) �' e�n�ea;
3. For the OS-1 district, add new clause h. at line 301 as follows: �'h ��";orimg lof on wxu���e
4. Change section (5), lines 311 and 318, to: Cellulaz telephone antennas � located on ��,'�%,�e°"e
stauding��e��as 0 ` shxct�cf'fa°�t�Q�,�T���;` _ " . �g• �
, •
5. Change section (20), lines 367 and 368, to: Cellulaz telephone c�a;�r��s antennas �
located on a=+�`ree�s"�atidE�`g p"'aI�`as Tegula�e"��"°;�ttr. : °J ��7t�c���" ts�_� 6Q.514; (6) a�°'�t�� an
6. Change section (14), lines 412 and 413, to: Cellular telephone ear��tiens antennas net
located on a�ee:stari°din�iiol�:a"s ie�ila�d�n��S'�Di"s�"nc��Se��'60.ST.4_ fbl. ��i�': acc
�. Change section (13), lines 453 and 454, to: Cellular telephone antennas � located on
8. Add new amendment to the ordinance. In the B-2C district, amend Section 60.574 (2) to read
as follows:
���All uses permitted subject to special condirions in the B-2 Community Business District except
the following: bowling alley, billiazd hall, indoor archery range, indoor tennis courts, racquet ball
and hand ba11 courts, dance hall, electronic game room, indoor skating rink, or similaz forms of
indoor commercial recreation; automobile sales or service centers; and auto service stations. Uses
permitted under this subsection shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The special conditions imposed for each use in the B-2 Community
Business District„exc��tliat4reellular;tele,phone an�ennas located
�;reesfanding pole�1ia11 b�:s�,�e,�c�'fo�e� addi��aL�coridition tha�fhe
zoiun'�ot on wlucti Yh�iia o�c "hal1�E`��u�fIun cunhgu° -�r�°p ."` .
�,� ,
5�
zoned�8 2C and af leas� orie (1} acre�Yn area.
b. The conditions specified in section 60.573
2
1 1Me�/•d( Vy� em,��
W : �-k�.
�t � - s
AMENDMENTS TO CELLULAR TELEPHOI3E ZOI3ING AMENDMENTS
C.F.97-565
1. Change clause f., lines 140, 141,142; clause f., lines 292, 293, 294; and clause
504, 505 from;i+�4onc>,piiles�re$fe-�aiefe�es�,#����les°���e����'�e��w
e . � c � �
2. For the R-1 thru R-4 disricts, add new clause h. at line 148 as follows:
3. For the OS-1 district, add new clause h. at line 301 as follows:
4. Change section (5), lines 317 and 318, to: Cellulaz
5. Change section (20), lines 367 and 368, to:
located on ��"ee�t�t����;.��na���ted°�
6. Change section (14), lines 412 and 413, to:
located on ��'x��tan���`�=��,�C�¢`��;�
7. Change section (13), lines 453 and
8. Add new amendment to
as follows:
503,
r� located on
��
- �.a at o -
-. . -- - - -
� e r - eee .i 4a e _ -
to: Cellular telephone antennas tiet located on ry ...� 5 �
In the B-2C district, amend Secrion 60.574 (2) to read
All uses permitted subjec to special conditions in the B-2 Community Business District except
the following: bowling ley, billiazd hall, indoor azchery range, indoor tennis courts, racquet ball
and hand ball courts, ce hall, electronic game room, indoor skating rink, or similaz forms of
indoor commercial creation; automobile sales or service centers; and auto service stations. Uses
permitted under t1�,'ls subsection shall be subject to the following conditions;
��`�/
The special conditions unposed for each use in the B-2 Community
Business Distric�=��`t�'a��;�a �� �Ci'a�= , ' ,: �o�at�d�i�i
DEPAR'CMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENI'
Pamela Wheelock, Director
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
zs wesr Four:h sneer
SainiP¢ul, MIJ55702
Apri122,1997
Council President David Thune and
Members of the City council
3rd Floor City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Deaz President Thune and Members of the City Council:
�� _ ^�
Telephone: 672-266-6655
Facsimile: 612-228-3261
In October 1996 the City Council initiated a zoning study of cellular telephone antennas,
requesting that the Plauuiixg commission study possible amendments to the comprehensive plan
and zoning code concerning antennas. At the same time, the council adopted an interim
ordinance prohibited the establishment of antennas on free standing poles in residential, OS-1,
and B-1 districts and reducing from 40 feet to 15 feet the height that antennas placed on e�sting
shuctures may exceed the height of the shucture in OS-i and B-1 districts. The interim ordinance
was extended in March and is in effect until June 17
The Planning Commission's Zoning Committee held public hearings on proposed zoning
amendments on February 20 and Much 20, 1997. The Planning Commission considered Zoning
Committee revisions to the amendments on March 28 and April l l and recommended their
adoption. The Comxnission's resolution is attached.
Here is how ceilular telephone antennas would be regulated if the amendments are adopted.
Residential Zoning Districts
Cellular telephone antennas would be permitted uses on residential shuctures at least 60
feet lugh, on utility poles at least 60 feet high, and on institutional use structures, such as
churches and water towers. Antennas could not eactend more than 15 feet above the height
of the shuctures.
Antennas would be special condi6on uses on residential structures less than 60 feet lugh
a�- scs
and on free standing poles on institutional property. Applicants would have to show that
there is no opportunity to colocate the antennas on ea�isting buildings or poles withiu 1/2
mile of proposed sites. The poles would have to be one times their height plus 10 feet
from the neazest residential structure. The poles wuld be 75 feet high if built to hold one
antenna and could be 25 feet higher if built to colocate two antennas.
Neighborhood Business Districts (OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C, RCR-1 Districts)
Antennas would be pemutted uses on existing structures. They could not ea�tend more
than 15 feet above the height of the structures.
Antennas on free standing poles would be special condition uses and regulated in Lhe
same manner as they are in residential districts.
Downtown Business Districts (B-4 and B-5 Districts)
Antennas would be permitted uses on existing structures. They could not extend more
than 40 feet above the height of the structures.
Antennas on free standing poles would be special condition uses and regulated in the
same manner as they are in residential districts,
Industrial Zoning Districts
Antennas would be pennitted uses on existing structures. They could not extend more
than 40 feet above the height of the structures.
Antennas on free standing poles would be pernutted uses. The poles could be up to 150
feet high. They would haue to be setback one times their height from the nearest
residential shucture.
I am pleased to transmit these amendments to you for your review and approval.
Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
Mayor
l��L�73'.i
2
city of saint paul g�-- � i� �'
planning commission resolution -
file number 97-19
�tE] April 11, 1997
CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNAS ZONING AMENDMENT
MARCH 1997
WHEREAS, the City Council initiated a study of cellular telephone antennas,
requesting that the Planning Commission study possible amendments to zoning
regulations concerning them; and
WEIEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing
and considered testimony on proposed zoning amendments concerning cellular
telephone antennas at their February 20 and March 20, 1997, meetings and made
a recommendation to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Zoning Committee's
recommendations at its March 28 and April 11, 1997, meeting;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined:
1. That the number of real estate descriptions affected by the amendments
renders the obtaining of written consent impractical;
2. That a survey of an area in excess of 40 acres has been made;
3. Tfiat a determination has been made that the proposed amendments to the
Zoning Code are related to the"overall needs of the community, to
existing land use, and to plans for future land use; and
4. That pursuant to State..Statutes proper notice of the hearing was given
in the Pioneer Press on January 29, February 5 and 12, 1997.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends
approrzl of the zoning code amendments in the "Cellular telephone Zoning
Amendments" study and as revised by the Zoning Committee on March 20th
pertaining to cellular telephone amendments and directs tfie Planning
Administrator to forward the study and this resolution to the Mayor and City
Council £or their review and action.
moved by Field
seconded by \
in favor Unan�us
against
� --> o f
' °`i��
CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNA AMENDMENTS
Adopted by Planning Commission April 11,199'7
RESIDENTTAL ZONING DISTRICTS
1. PERMITTED USE
A. On residential structures at least 60 feet high
B. On utility poles at least 60 feet high existing at time of adoption of amendments
C. On institutional use structure
D. Allow 15 feet above structure
2. SPECIAL CONDITION USE
A. On residential structures less than 60 feet high
- allow 15 feet above structare
B. On free standing pole on institutional property, provided:
- demonstrate can not colocate antenna within 1/2 mile
- 75 feet maximum height; higher height allowed if interference
- 25 additional feet if pole designed to carry 2 antennas
- setback 1 times height of antenna + 10 feet from nearest residential structure
- not allowed in required front or rear yazd
�
i
OS-1. B-1. B-2, B-3. B-2C. RCC-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINE5S ZONING DISTRICTS
`l. PERMITTED USE
A. On existing-structure
- allow I S feet above structure
b. On free standing pole
- same regularions as &ee standing pole in residenrial districts
B-4 & B-5 DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONiNG DISTRICTS
1. PERMITTED USE
A. On existing structure
-allow 40 feet above structure
2. SPECIAL CONDITION USE
A. On free standing pole
- same regulations as free standing pole in residential districts
INDUSTRIAL ZOPiING DISTRICTS
PERMITTED USE
A. On existing structures
- allow 40 feet above structure
B. On free standing pole
-150 feet maximum height
- setback back 1 tunes the height of antenna
- not allowed in front or reaz yazd
`�
�: �`it��
ALL DISTRICTS
1. Antennas in historic districts or on historic buildings subject to review of Heritage
Presezvation Commission
2. Equipment buildings regulated as an accessory building
3. Monopoles preferred type of free standing pole
4. Non-used antennas must be removed within 1 yeaz of non-use
5. Antennas with equipment buildings need site plan review
6. Definition of institutional use
3
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CI� �"r' S�INT Pf��.. Division of P(m,ning
Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 West Founh Srreet Telephorze: 61&26�6565
Saint Paul, MN55102 Facsimile: 612-2283314
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 21,1997
To: Planning Commission
From: Roger Ryan
Re: Cellular Telephone
At its Mazch 20th meeting, the Zoning Committee recommended approval of the cellular antenna
amendments as proposed in the enclosed March 13 and Mazch 20 staff memos, with the
foIlowing revisions:
1.In residenflal and business districts, the maximum height of a free standing pole with one
antenna shall be 75 feet with greater height allowed if can be shown that neazby structures cause
interference with the functioning of the antenna. Poles may exceed the above height by 25 feet if
there are two antennas colocated on the pole at the tune of application of the special condidon
use permit. (Because of anti trust concerns, the City Attorney will reseazch whether the city can
require two antennas at time of application.)
2. In all zoning districts, the required setback from the neazest residential structure for free
standing poles shall be equal to one times the height of the pole plus 10 feet.
3. Antennas shall be permitted only on utility monopoles and lattice poles existing at the time of
adoption of this set of zoning amendments.
4. Antennas no longer used for cellulaz telephone service shall be removed within one yeaz of
non-use.
These revisions will be put into zoning code language and handed out at the Mazch 28 Planning
Commission meeting.
DEPARI'MENT OF PLANNTNG
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
r : _ ; u � I
CITY OF 5AINT PAUL
Norm Co[eman, Mayar
NIEMORANDUM
Date: March 20,1997
To: Zoning Committee
From: Roger Ryan �
Re: Cellular Antenna Amendments
Divisiors ofP[anning
25 West Fourth Street
SaiM Paul, MN SSIO2
Telephone: 612-266-6565
Facsimite: 612-228-3314
In order to clarify which uses are institutional uses and what is public property, staff recommends
that a definition of institutional uses be added to the code. Section (X), principal uses permitted
in all residential zoning districts, page 4, and section (XX), principal uses permitted subject to
special conditions in all residential districts, page 6 of the Mazch 13, 1997, memorandum should
also be changed to incorporate the new definition as shown below.
1. Principal uses permitted in all residential zoning districts
(X) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing
sixty (60) feet high���on azt:e�sfmg.,utihty-in�iizipol.
on an e�st�n u�st€futional: �se �ructure
,-� � ,r� tt ��..� , � ,�. ,.
subj ec� xo �fie�oll o�ng'condifrcshs:
� ������ � � m ,� �.� .
structure atleast
• 2. Principal uses permitted subject to speciai conditions in atl residential districts
���
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
C 11 i �P .7f�llV i rf�VL Divisiort ofPlanning
Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 West Fourth Sbeet Telephone: 612-266-6565
Saint Paul, MN55702 Facsimile: 612-2283314
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 13,1997
To: Zoning Committee
From: Roger Ryan �
Re: Cellular Antenna Amendments
RECOMMENDED CHANGES
Here aze The recommended changes to the proposed Cellular Antenna Zoning Amendments of
January 1997. The recommender is shown in pazenthesis.
1. Maximum height of free standing�oles.
• Allow 75 foot height for poles with 1 antenna, 100 foot height for poles with 2 antennas,
and 125 foot height for poles with 3 antennas for a11 districts. (APT)
• Allow 85 foot height for all poles in residential and business districts. (Airtouch)
• Allow 75 foot height for poles with 1 antenna and 100 foot height for poles with 2
antennas. (ATT')
• AIIow 90 foot height for poles with 1 antenna and 110 foot height for poles with 2
antennas. (US West) ,
Staff recommendarion.
In residential and business zoning districts, the existing regulations allow $ee standing antennas
to be a maximum of 75 feet high. APT, ATT and US West are recommending allowing greater
height to encourage co-location of antennas on free standing poles. However, the e�cisting
regulations now encourage co-location by allowing antennas as permitted uses on existing
t�
�_ -=;�5 i
structures in residential and business zoning districts and by allowing I50 feet high free standing
antennas as permitted uses in industrial districts.
There aze trade-offs in allowing higher free standing poles for co-iocation. The higher, more
massive poles can be more obtrusive in residential districts and in business districts near
residential areas. However, allowing higher poles may mean that instead of two 75 foot poles
there will be one 100 foot pole.
Staff recommends that the masimum height of free standing poles remain at 75 feet. Locations
where higher poles seem appropriate can be considered in the special condition use process and
allowed if appropriate by modifying the height limit.
2: Require setback from nearest residential structure of 1 t�mes the height of the �ntenna (APT,
Airtouch, ATT, US West)
Staff recommendarion.
In existing residential and business districts, the existing regulations require that free standing
poles be setback 75 feet from the nearest residential structure. Service providers recommend that
the setback be one times the height of the pole to permit efficient use of land and flexibility of
location..
Staff recommends that the setback be increased to 1 1/2 the height of the pole to make them less
obtrusive to surrounding residential areas.
3. A11ow antennas as permitted use on a utilit�¢ht or similaz pole and on electric transmission
towers. (Sprint)
Staff recommendation.
Staff recommends that antennas attached to utility monopoles and lattice poles over 60 feet high
be a permitted use in residential zoning districts if the antennas extend no more than 15 feet
above the pole.
4. Allow antennas attached to structures to exceed t 5 feet bv variance procedure (US West)
Staff recommendation.
Height variances for antennas attached to structures can be granted by the Board of Zoning
Appeals. No change to the code needs to be made to accomplish this.
5. In OS-1 and B-2C districts allow antennas onlv on structures 60 feet or higher as a s ep cial
condition use. (M-G CC)
Staff recommendation.
Staff believes that regulation of antennas in these districts shouid be regulated in the same
��a. -
manner as antennas in the other neighborhood business districts.
6. Allow onl� monoploes. (M-GCC)
Staff recommendation.
Staff recommends that monopoles be cited as the preferred type of free standing poles to ba used
for antennas. Other types of poles, such as lattice poles, should be permitted if the applicant can
show that these type of poles are more appropriate to the location.
7. Make all antennas s�ecial condition uses. (District 2)
Staff recommendation.
The proposed amendments show preferred antenna locations by allowing them as permitted uses
and by not reqniring thaY applicanYs demonstrate that colocation sites aze not available. Prefened
locations are on residential buildings over 60 feet high; on institutional, public, and business
buildings; and in industrial districts.
The amendments also show secondary antenna locations by allowing them as special condition
uses and requiring that applicants demonstrate that no feasible colocation sites exists within 1/2
mila. Secondary locations aze on residential buildings less than 60 feet high in residential
districts; on free standing poIes on institutionaI properiy in residential districts; and on free
standing poles in business zoning districts.
8. Required all old. non-funetional antennas and poles to be removed. (M-GCC and District 2
Staff recommendation.
Determuung when an antenna is non-functional would be difFicult for city staff to detemune.
Requiring annual permits would be a burdensome to achieve this.
9. Prohibit antennas on buildin�s less than 60 feet high that aze near residential areas.
Staff recommendation.
Antennas on buildings are only allowed to be 15 feet above the height of the building.
10. Control number of antennas in anv one area.
Staff recommendation. .
There are large industzial, business, or open space azeas where more than one antennas may be
appropriate.
1 L Ma[ce effort to restrict antennas to where they will be Iess obtrusive, i.e,. transportation
corridors and industriai azeas.
f l.i � .. � , h �
o _ ) liJ
Staff recommendafion.
Allowing 150 foot high free standing poles as permitted uses in industrial districts will encourage
their location in industrial azeas.
12. In OS-1 B-1 B-2 B-2C B-3 AND RCC-1 districts reduce the seazch area for colocation
sites from 1/2 to 1/4 mile. (APT) -- --
Staff recommendation.
Cell sizes will vary for different types of providers and capacity of cell sites. One half mile
should provide for most cases.
1.3. For antennas on to� of a building, screen the antenna or incorporate it into an azchitectural
element ofthe siructure. (M-G CC)
Full screening of the antenna would negate the communication function of the antenna; partial
screening or incorporation into an architectural element could create a more obhusive
construction on a building.
REVISED AMENDMENTS
Here are the revised amendments incorporating staff revisions. Staff recommendations from
February 20 concerning treating equipment buildings as accssory buildings and prohibiting free
standing poles only from required front and side yazds has also been incorporated into the text.
1. Principal use permitted in all residential zoning districts
(X) Cellulaz telephone antennas located on an existing residen'_t.ial=structure at least
sixty (60) feet high, ori aii;gezsting utility monopole ah,:leasi si�ty (60)',�e;et;l�ig�
-- :::- - -- - -- - - - --- --
�:a: The antennas shall not extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the
structural height of the structure to which they are attached.
b. Anteriiias lacated in histdiic districts or on liistdnc buildings shall bg
sub�eet fo ffie'review and:appro"val of the Hisfoiic T'reservafion
__ _._.__.. __...
Coinznissloii.
ec. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an-existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary � , , it sha11 be
pernutfed an8 regulatec� as aa
-:
accessozy-biTilding, Sec=S2.106., and shall be screened from view by
landscaping where appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses on residential, institutional, and public structures
at least 60 feet high and would now be pemutted uses on institutional and public buildings Iess
than 60 feet high.
2. Principal uses permitted su6ject to special conditions in all residential districts
(� Cellular telephone antennas � located on an existing �esidenfial structure -`�
less tlian sixty (60) feet high, subject to the follocving conditions:
a: The-applicant demonstrates ttfat the
�P�
proposed antennas due to;one or more of the followingyreasons:
I: The pianned egnipment wonld excee3 ffie stnicturaT ca�iacity of
<.. _�
the e�stiiig pole or sh=uctnie.
2: Tha plaiined equipment woa2d cause"interfereuce �yitlroQtez
e�stmg or�planne� equipment on the.pole or structura:
3: The planned equipment cannot be accommodated at a lieig�t
iiecessazy=fo:function reasonably.
4: The owner of eacisting po7e strucfure or biiildu�g �sun�lling
to co locafe an aritenna.
�_ .
,_
�C5
<� . �.. � , ,
f :� .,
- - - - -- -- ---.- - -- --
b. The antennas shall not extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the
siructurai height of the'structure to which they are attached.
c. Antennas located in historic districts or onhistoric=building§_shall be
subject to the review and approvai of the,Historic'Preseivation
Commission.
�d. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary ' , , it shall be
permitfed and regulate,"'cl �s;ari
accessory building, Sea'62:106, and shall be screened from view by
landscaping where appropriate.
(�) Ceilulaz telephorie anterinas located on a free'sfanding pole on anstrtuttonal o�
�,.. __,.
publicly ownedpropertg, sub�ectto,thefollowmg condihons:
�
accommodated
.a_.....n. _u:�ki....._... _.
owned stiructure;"or abusme"s_s buiidirig wrtTiix
pzoposed antennas due to bne ot more o�'the f
2:, T'he "planned equipment would exceed fhe st�uctural capacrty�of
_.._�.�_�.
tlie"exisfing pole or;sfructiare.
2:=�'I'he plarined equipment would cause?inter�erence wrth qfhei
existin"g"o`r "planned "equipmenf;on the po,le or strticture:'
3r;The planne3 ggu`ipment cannof be accommo3afed at a heighf
_ _ _ _ ,.::�... ._ _ ,_..._, _�,:�
necessary to reasonabfy.
4. The own8r of the ex'isting pble, sfructure or buildmg Ys ua�Y7liiig
fo co-locate ari antenriai
b: The antennas shali
located?iri:a reqiui8
0
the height of the antenria from the nearest, residential strucfure.
c. The; aii�ennas shall be designed where=pos§ible to blendsnf"o the
surroviiding environment through the:use of color and camouflaging
arcYutectural treahrient. ; Drawings oz photo�apluc perspectives s,howt"rig
the pole:arid antennas shall-be provided to the plannigg-com�sussiori to�
deternune compliance with provi"sion_
d. Antenna's located in lusfori"c districts shall be subject to;fhe review and
approyal offhe Histone Preservation Commissiori.
e. Moriopoles are type of poles:,Other fypes ofpoles, suehas
lattice.poles may be pernutted if the applicant can demonstrate ttiaf itLLis
more appropriate for the location.
f. �'ransmitting, receiving and switching equipmenf shall be housed witivn
an e�sting stracture whenever possib7e. ;If a new equipiiient biulding is
necessary; it shall be.permitted and regulated as an accessory bmlding;
Sec 62:106; and screened from viewby landscaping i�liere appropna�e;
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be a special condition use if placed on residential structures less than
60 feet tall;and if placed on free standing poles on institutional and public property. Antennas
on free standing poles on vacant residential land would no longer be permitted. In most cases,
antennas on free standing poles will have to be farther away from existing residential shuctures -
1 1/2 tunes the height of the pole rather than 75 feet.
3. Principal uses permitted in OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and RCC-1 districts
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas � located on an existing
structure, sixbject to the following conditions; '
. . . . _ � ... ,. ....____`__r.ti__,._....,�
_ ' ' _ _ _ ..__ __ _ ___ _ __ _ ' _
a. The aiitennas shail iiot extend more than fifteen (15) feet aboye the
strucfival Iieight of the,§tructure to wluch �hey are attached.
b. AntBnnas 19cated m liistoric districts or on,lustonc buiTdmgs sliati:be
�-,
c _`G5 • _ � J
siibject to the rediew and approval of the f3istoric Preservation
Commission.
c. Antennas on lattice towers may be laterally supported by the tower;
-- d. Ttansmittirig, "receiving aud switching equipment shall be house8 witliin
an existing structure �vhenever possible: If a new equipment buiIdiiig'is
necessary, it shall be permitted atid regulated as an acce§sory building,
Sec. 62:106, and scieened from view 6y landscaping wheie approp'riafe:
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses if placed on a building. The height that they may
exceed the structural height of the building would be reduced from 40 feet to 15 feet.
4. Principal use permitted subject to special conditions in OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and
RCC-1 districts
(x) Cellular telephone antennas �eE located on a fre�:standing pole �g
.__��, subject to the following conditions: N
"-- - - - -- -- - - - - - -
-- - - - - -- :: - - -
. - - - --- - - - -- - -
'
1:;Thepl'uuiecl equipment would exceed the sfrrictural,capa�t�:of
tiie'extstirig�pole or;°�racttii�e:
Z�The pianried eqpipment would cause in�erference witti.o�h_`er
_..�q �v._ � � . . u, � ,:���.��
e�cistmgor:planned equipment on fhe pole orstiucttice�
3: The plaiined equipment cannof be accommodafed at ahe�g'tif
iiecessary to function reasona6ly:
--- — 4:;"I'he owii8r of the existing pq1e, sfructure bi biuldmg �s ttp�viIiina
: ._.. _:_,.: ._.-�. .._ .. .....: ..__.:_ . _. � _..a
fo co locate:an antenna.
b. The antennas shall not exceed seventy=five; �
Ioeated in:a frequized iont or side yard; and
the heigliYof the ariteniia`from the neare"st re
a The aritennas shall 6e designed where posstbleA€o blend_info tFie
surroiinding environmerit through the _use of color and cainouflagcrig
azclutectiiial treatinent, Drawings or gho"tograpluc perspec�ives sho�uiug
the pole and antennas sliall be provided to the;pTamm�g conumssi6��o
determine compliance wifli this provision: � u � _
d. Monopoles aze:the preferred type of poles. Othei types o£poles, such as
lattice poles, maybe pemutted if the'applicant can demon`sirate tliaf3f`is
more app'ropnate for thelocatrori: -
e. Anfennas Iocafed in Fus�oric districfs_s-ha1( be. sab�ecf fo`re�ew arid
approval bfthe Hrstonc Preseivation' Commissiqn:
e:f. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary " , , it shall be
pernutted:andragulate� as an
accessoiy>buildnig; Sec: ;62.106, and shall be screened from view by
landscaping where appropziate.
DISCUSSION
Antennas on free standing poles would continue to be special condition uses. In most cases, they
will have to be farther away from existing residential structures - 1 1/2 times the height of the
pole rather than 75 feet.
5. Principal uses permitted in B-4 and B-5 districts
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas •-'--__ .ti .,._..__.... __,. located on an existing
structure as pernuttedand regulatecl in fhe B-3 Busmes's Distnct;'pnncipai uses
pernutte�, section 60 542,.excepf that antennas may eatend up to_forty4(i)�ef
aboverthe structucal heigYif,of the'structure to_wluch tfiey are atfachad:�ravi�c�
L']
U.
; . -:;GS
----- -- ----- - - .• -- -- - --
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses if placed on buildings. They could also continue
to exceed by 40 feet the height of the building to which they aze attached.
6. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions in B-4 and B-5 districts
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas t� located on a free-standing poleas anii
_ -'_ ii _ _ __ _ _ _
" ' ' " ' _ i: " ' _ " " "" " "'
DISCUSSION
Antennas on free standing poles would continue to be special conditions uses. In most cases,
they will have to be farther away from existing residential structures - 1 1/2 times the heiQht of
the pole rather than 75 feet.
7. Principal uses permitted in I-1, I-2, I-3, and RCI-1 districts
10
`-� -
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas locafed on an exisfingstmcture as pernu�ted anii
. .... :
regulated in the B=S:Business District, principal nses percnitfed, section 60:562:
� ,
"-- -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - •
- - - - : - - - - - -- -- - - -- - -
�..��..�e!�.;.'rs.w�o.n.� ;ws - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
..
(X) Cellulaz telephone'antennas located on a free standing po1e, subject to;the
follo�ving condi6ons:
a. The antennas shall not exceed one hundced and fifry (150) feef id-hgigIit;
_._ .._ �-_
Shall riot bg I,ocated m arequired front�or side and shaii be set baelc sl
_. _ � �..:
1/2 ttmes the height of the autenna froin the nearest residenhal sttucfu{e:
b. Antenrias;Iocafed in htsforic°districts shall:be subjecf to review and
, _._
approval;offhe HistoncPrBservation.Gommission.
d. Monopo2es are"theprefeqed type of poles .Other types of po2es; sucF� as
lathce poles, may b8 perniitted if the applicant can demonstrate thaf tf "is
more appiopriafe'for fhe loca&on. �
c. Transnutting; receivutg azid switching eqnipmen� shall be housed iui'�1uh
an existing�structuze whenever possible_ Zf a new equipmenf bm2ding
necessary°, rt lie peririitted and regeciafed as an accessory buiFding;
Sec 62�T06, and 5creened from view liy -landscaping where appropna�e�_
DISCUSSION
Antennas on buildings and on free standing poles would continue to be pem uses. Free
standing poles would have to be set back 1 1/2 times the height of the pole from the neazest
residential structure rather than one times the height of the pole from the lot lines as is required
now.
8. Sec. 62.108. Site plan review (all districts}.
11
S
- .. .�
_ ,�
(a) Plan to be submitted. A site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the planning
commission before a permit is issued for grading or the erection or enlargement of gross floor
azea for any development except one- and two-family dwellings, but including the following:
(1} Any development of one- and two-family residences which together exceed two
(2) acres (87,120 squaze feet) in area.
(2) In the "T" Tree Preservation District, any development of one- and two-family
residences over one (1} acre (43,560 squaze feet) in area.
(3} All residentially related uses in one-family districts, such as, but not limited to,
churches, schools and public facilities.
(4) Any industrial use in an I-1, I-2, I-3 or RCI-1 District abutting a residential
district.
(5) Outdoor storage in industrial districts.
(6) Any use which abuts to a major thoroughfare.
(7) Any development on a slope of twelve (12) percent or greater.
(8) Any development in the River Corridor Critical Area or in the Floodplain District
except one- and two-family dwellings which do not affect slopes of twelve (12)
percent or greater.
(9) All off=street parking facilities except as noted in section 62.103(b).
(10) Any other use or development for which the submission of a site plan is required
by any provision of this code.
(11) Earth-sheltered structures.
(12) Detached, freestanding facilities constructed on pazking facilities, including, but
not restricted to, kiosks, fotomats, banks and similaz uses.
(13) Any filling, excavation or tree removal that disturbs an azea greater than ten
thousand (10,000) squaze feet except the construction, installation or maintenance
of public roads and public and private utilities.
(1.4} Cellular telephone antennas thaf require new eguipmentbculdin
_ .u. v��_
DISCUSSION
12
�-.__
Antennas placed on buildings with the equipment housed within the building would noY have to
undergo site plan review. Antennas on free standing poles and antennas with equipment
buildings would be required to undergo site plan review.
13
DEPARTDIENT OF PLAN�,TYG
& ECO\OilIIC DHVELOP\[Eh'1'
SA1NT
PAVL
�
AAAA
C'ITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Co[eman, bfayor
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 20, 1997
To: Zoning Committce
From: Roger Ryan �
4.�-�-
Re: Location of towers and buildings
Division of Plmrning
25 Wes! Fourth S[ree!
Saint Paut, hf �' S.i102
Telephane: 6I2-266-6565
Facsimil e: 6I2-228d 314
` —_...��.� '1
.. �
ATT has suggested that equipment buildings 1nd free standing poles be permitted in side yards
where appropriate.
Eqt�ment buildings
Equipment buildings are proposed to be allowed only in rear yards. This is also the existing
regulation.
Staff recommends that equipment buildings be treated the same way as garages. Equipment
buildings could not locate in any re uired yard except a rear yard and they would be required to
be 3 feet from any interior lot line. This wotdd allow equipment buildinas to locate on any
portion of the lot that the main buildings are allowed to locate on and in the required rear yard.
Equipment buildings would not be allowed in the required front yards of residence, OS-1 and
B-I districts; the required side yard of the B-2C district; the 10 foot side yard required when a B-
2 or B-3 lot adjoins a side yard of a lot in a residence district, or the front and side yards required
when an I district adjoins a residence district.
Freestanding�oles
Freestanding poles are proposed to be prohibited from front and side yards. In residential and
business districts, they are now only required to be 75 feet from the nearest residential structure.
In the industrial districts, they are now required to be one times the height of the pole from the
neazest lot line.
Staff recommends that freestanding poles be prohibited from re nired front and side yards.
They would follow the same restrictions for location as equipment buildings as above.
They would also be required to be 1 1/2 times the height of the pole from the nearest residential
structure.
2
r •�
- � °�
YMcSP. VAWN
zoemrt, �ww
GFFPIDX FPIEDBL
Lu�45G Fl$IGC�PY
mwavo� oaiscai
GFhEN FlAIER
.iaw o. Fuwuux
vwsnci wwve'
CYAiIE$5 AKCELL
CIQIS�Cp1¢qJ.C1EfCcN
111dNX. F15frR
TVJWK P. SiCITMN!
MICNPII C .HCpXrV
NMW E qFX
JCNS bWFR4'NSW
1roMns�.rtmw
JNAES P. qAM�
TOLOI FREE4AN
Cz'FND L SEQ
.KMN 6 LWCCUIFi
MttE MMN�'
.NJlW A CATiER'
BEAFICEA RJThNflIER
PPLL B. RLM�T}
PLW L.IVIp�M�
%AMEEttM %CATIENENWJi
NI[MPC^I.B IFBpACN
GRKiMY E KIX2STPD
Gq4YA VPN CLEyE
Ry11ELL BWAES
TIMOIHYA AkM�M1$
TMOIHY 6 YFPNE
p3NiM MICERSCN
pQ`M4l FJ84CK
MIGNEL W. $f,1yET
RONN & ItREpS
TEfiRENCE E BISXOP
lISpA GRAY
G0.¢YA ftENNENE
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY cC LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
'I500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMfNGTON.MWNES05A 55431-1194
TELEPHONE (612) 635-3800
FAX (612) 8963333
awisrc�n, wjw�s,wv. 4
MFICELJ. p6ACGCx
&4LCEJ 0.V' GIAS
wiwawc cw�. st.
Kw� R Mu
�m� cm,e
LKRYp ApRiIN
.IRNE E BGpAER
YkNJ.SlEFFF.WI�C£N
uwi¢w.vass
qYIIPG NDEI
u�cw.av.snm�
VN50.1KE
MCREW F. PFRRW
pHIiM MEYEQ
GftISiCN£R 0..KMN'SCN
flFNEEL YCCSW
�TWI52T AKtA3U5
MMLY R fR�T
D:UCi/SM.R0.MlFR
$T(A$iA WJAINSG
IIpM/S G. PL£XA iCER
MMFLT. FALtEL
9WRNAA WPH.GflEN
Iy.ItINAt NELSFN
C. ERIKXPµE$
LvM.E WGELLE MOOFE
L 6GEMROBBINS
MAISTNSNESTGARp '
JCIIES FPE�q1IX50N
Cf CGk�SEI
.NfXf. NJ.Y
D. A4HI1EiHtI.NGREN
N1nV E MLW� V
N£NDEILR.NCERSQV
.lOSFFHbiS
' O150MA11iiEDINKISCONSM
Mazch,6, 1997
Mr. Roger Ryan
Planning & Economic Development
City of St. Paul
25 VJest Fourth Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Comments to Cellulaz Telephone Antenna Zoning Amendments
Deaz Roger:
Our firm represents American Portable Telecom (APT) in connection with its efforts to site
telecommunications facilities throughout the metropolitan azea, including in St. Paul, Minnesota. This
letter is written in response to a request by the City of St. Paul Zoning Committee seeking input on the
City's draft Cellulaz Telephone Antenna Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Our comments relating to the
Amendments are set forth below.
The:setback requirement for freestanding poles should be reduced from 1-1/2 times the height of the
pole to a distance equal to the height of the pole. This change would encourage more efficient use of
scazce land areas that aze otherwise suitable far a telecommunications pole.
2. The height restriction of 75 feet to the top of an antenna located on a freestanding pole on institutional
or publicly-owned property, within a residential district, should be increased in increments of 25 feet
to encourage co-location on such freestanding pole. Therefore, if an applicant committed to design a
pole for up to two co-locators, the masimum height of the pole would be increased to 125 feet.
3. Same comments regazding the maximum height of a telecommunication pole located within the OS-1,
B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C and RCC-1 Districts. In addition, the burden of demonstrating the absence of
any other site options relating to the development of a freestanding pole should be reduced from 1(2
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Roger Ryan
March 6, 1997
Page 2
mile radius to 1/4 mile radius of the proposed freestanding pole and antennas. The Yower siting
process is driven by precise search pazameters. A shaft of 1/2 mile may be unacceptable.
4. Same comments with regazd to the maximum height of the freestanding pole and antenna relating to
B-4 and B-5 Districts.
5. Same comments regarding the maximum height of a freestanding pole in an Industrial District or
RCI-1 District.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the City's Proposed Cellulaz Telephone Antenna
Zoning Amendments. APT will be in attendance at the meeting scheduled for Match 20, 1997.
Sincerely,
(��
Peter J. Coyle, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
PJC/gev
0282530.01
0a/09/97 17:52 FA% HESSIAti MCRASY f�002/004
LAW OFFICES
HESSIAN, MCKASY & SODERBERG
Paoceaeioxwt Assocuscou
�Sinneapolis • SaintPaul • Washington.D.C.
4700 IDS Center
80 South fiightlx Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2228
(612)330-3000 Facsimile371-0653
John J. Choi
330-3025
VIA FACSIM�E
March 7, 1497
Mr. Roger Ryan.
Division of Piattning
be�amneni of Planning and Eeonomic Development
City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Pau1, 1l�i�T 551022
Re: .Forntal Catnrnents to Saint Pau1 Cetlutar Antenna Zaning Amenrbnents
near Mr. Ryan:
-�����
As requested by the Saint Pau1. Planning Cvmmission, the following are t�irtwch
CelluJ.ar's formal comments co Saint Paul's Cellular Antenna Zoning Amezxdments.
A. H�xGHT RESTRIC'Y'IO1V'S
'VVe belicve fhat the 75-foot height limit on monopoles on e'very zoning district except
industrial is unreasonably restrictive given the fact that Saint Paul has many mahue trees that
interfere with wireless transzn�.ission because of their height. As you may know, cellular signals
aze imgacted by tree branches azad J.ea'ves. As such, we wou�d xequest that the Planning
Commission cnnsider extending the� 75-foot height limit on monopoles on every zoning district
except industrial to 85 feet. This slightly taller 85 Feet height limit wi11 enable us to ensure
quality service for our customers and the citizens of Saint Paul withont the need to resort to the
varia�ace process.
B. SETSACS
A setback of 1'h times the height af the antenna from the nearest reszdenrial struciure
r+voutd dramatically reduce the aznourn of flexib�ity we have i�n the location af facilities. A.s you
_� -:
ExtendeC Pa9e
1VIr. Roger Ryam
March 7, 1997
Page 2
know, being in the right Iocation is crucial for our abiIity to provide adequate coverage to Saint
Paul residents. We would pxopose a setback ec�uat to the pole heig�tt from any residential unit.
As you lmow, the monopolas used by ffie wireless communicatioas industxy do not collapse even
in the most extreme wind and icing canditions. VJe have enciosefl a copy of an opinion from
a zegistered professional eng`u�eer, whicb; more fu31p discusses this fact. Setbacks are generalty
employed to ensure aesthetic bu£fer zones and we sincerely believe t2�at a set back equal ta the
pole height is sufficient to meet tbis pwrpose ia Saint Paul.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the opportunity to cor,nment on the orc3inance. Please call Jay T,ittlejohn
or me at 330-3000 if you have any questions. Tbanlc you.
Sincerely,
7ohn J. Choi
77C:pmc
cc: Kent Sticha
izsia�i os�ozoo.oio5oo
03/b7/9i
��
�
17:5J FAX
�1�00
HESSIA:V .MCI{ASY
�� ���
� oaaiooa
= s��
1200 N. OAK RD.
P.O. BOX 128
September 19, 1996
Mr. Jaymes D. Littlejohn
Hessian, McKa5y & Soderbetg
4700 IbS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
Minncapoli�, Minnesata . 55402
Uear ►vir. ��ttte3ann:
PLYMOUTH, INOIANA 46563-012g
{219)936•4221
FAX (219) 936-679fi
Thank you for your inquiry conceming tower design coBes and practices as they relate
to your tower designs in Minneso#a.
PiROD has been design,ng and bullding guyed, setf-supporting towers and monopoles
since ihe eariy 1950'S. During this time, we have said thousands of structufes ranging
in height from as tittie as 5a` high to in excess of 9400'. These Struciures were
individualiy engineered to accommodatetne laading requirements imparted by the design
windspeed, ice considerations, antenr�a foading, and otherfactars dictated by the natianai
cc�de �eyuirerr�ents exisfing at the time the tower was bullt.
The present national tower and monopQfe code, AN511EIAtTIA-222='E", represents the
latee# raflnement af specific minimum requirements for engineers and manufacturers to
fotlow to help assure ttt2t the structure and its foundations are designed to meet the most
realistic coneitions for iocal weather whi;e assuring U�at tl�e sfruciu�e is clesignec9 lu
stringent factors.of safety.
ln the case of the monopole under cansideeation, the owner has electe.d to axc�aed the
stipulated Code t'equirements for windspeed and has also requested that 1/2" ice be
inGuded in the analysis. Ice is considered on alf tower mernbsrs, antennas, and lines
and results in a substantially heavier tower design than one considered withaut ice_
The "E" version of the wde incorparates an escalating wind factor based on tower height.
""Meeting the code" implies that the design quoted has ail of the code requirements for
safety factors intact af the windspecd spe�cd. Thu�, the ultimato �urvival speed would
be considerabiy higher. Again, adding ice to the design toading can aiso add a further
safety factor to the flnal tower strength.
While failure is extremely rare in any kind of tower, it is especial{y so for monopoles and
seif-supporting towars. Whi{e failure is extreme{y rare in any kfnd of tower, 'st i� espe4satly
so for monopo�es and self-supporting towers. In our opinion, a collapse occurring with
our design �s not iarQSeeabte wlthout being subJected Lo a direct hIt trom wlnds
Oa/07/97 li:5A FAS HESSI9:� MCK9SY �GIOU4/004•
associated with a tornado or the severest of hurric2nes.
We are aware of very few instances of monopole fai�ure. The most common mode of
failure wouid be in the middle region of the monopoEe, with the upper portion of the
mnnopnlP rPmaininr� aonner:fed anr.t "bnwin�j over" against the 6ase of the pote. The facf
that the wind is normally greater on the upper poction o# the structure contributes to the
likelihood of this type of failure, Thus, it a failura conditiun is r�adied, it-shc�uld tae
reached in the upper middle region of tne monopole first.
Needles5 to say, the engirieering codes which govern tower and monepol� desipns are
eXtremely conservative. Monopo{es are designed for extreme wind conditions, and even
under these extreme conditions, stringent factors of safcty are required.
As Director af Eng�neenng antl a registered t'.t. in 41 states, I oversee au engineenng
and application of our towers. I am a graduate engineer from Natre Dame University and
have been wiih the company since 79B4, i am assi5teti by two registered professional
engineers, Mr. Myron Noble, who has been the owneraf PiROD, Inc., since 1973 and Mr.
William F2ettig, who has @een with the company since 199Q. Four other qualified
engineers are aiso on our stat�.
All of PiROD we4ders are cert�ed to the high standards of AWS D1.1 or are in the
process of becoming certified. Mathematicai and physicat tests are perforrned routineiy
on stfucture SeCtions anQ designs as required. Our total design, eogineer and build
process ha5 been quality audited by vur cusfomers including pubtic uU"Iities, fefephone
companies and govemment agencies.
We trust the ahnva and the attanhPd will he he4pful to yau. If you sh�uld need anything
else, please let us know at your canvenience.
chg
Erichsen
of Engineering
n #22'I
# kereby certify that thFs plan, spec�-
ficatior�, or report was prepared by me OY
unde� my d!r4ct supervision and that 1 am
a duly R��istc'ed Frc�essional Engineer upder
iha (�ws of .h ata o# N3innesota.
..�..-,.-�---
Date Re�tstratton NQ�
' Z����
� ��eoo �nc p,0. BQX 128 • PLYMOUTH, INDIANA 4656&0126 • {2t9) 936-422t
Oa/97/97 17:51 FA3
�oovooa
uw o�+tcr�
HESSTAN, MCKASY & SObERBERG - - - : r
z v,oaz9srox..LAmocs.'ao. _�. � �
Ivfinneapvlis • Saint Paul • W ashingron, D.C. --� - -
47Q0 IDS Cerrtcz
8� South Eighth Streec
'_vIinneapalis, Minnesota 55402-2228
(612) 330-3000 Facsimiie 3?1-06$3
TELECOPYER. TRANSMISSION RECORD
5em To:
�'elecopier:
HESSI,iti MCIi.�15Y
By:
Diure�
7,'elephone:
Y7ate:
dohn Choi
(612) 330-3025
March 7, ],997
lcoger icyan
228-3314
Re: Commeuts to
Cellular Antenna
Ame�dments
Origi.ual will be mailed.
TTee informetiun epyA<xined in fHu telecapier amrasmissiOro is aonfedcntraZ conw+unica¢on and is lnte�tdtd ferr du wa
of :he individrraZ or entity named abme. If the reader of this »�essage is not the 'vuended ncipient, or the
vmp7nyse Or ngeht rerponrible ta delii�sr it70 the in�ended racipiant, you �a kareby Moi�ed thp! wry drsnibution
or copying af N:{s wrmrwnicasian is strictly prohibited. If you have received this,facStmile by �stake, pleese
17Wnediatr.ly nnizfy ua fiy [r.t>phnne, nnO ren�rn a11 the doctmfextr aecrlvyd to us u ths ubove addreu.
No. or rwaa5, TNCLUDINCi TFIIS S�ISST: $
Dt]ctn�ivrs '��tpT7sMrrraD:
CONL�Ni:
129I3y1 053020Q01�00
DO B�
& BUTLER
PROFESSIOA'4L d550Cf>iIOV
dttorneys at Law
March 7, 1997
3�W Fifih Strref To�.vers
li0 �[+uNi FfftF, Street
Minneapolr>, YLnvsota 55?G2.4^i3
Telephonc (612) 3-k0-i3v
F.4C (bL) 3-tU-�.�Sb
41'ntei � dimct d�ai numher
VIA FAX: 228-3314
Mr. Roger Ryan
Division ofPlanning
2bU0 Ytnneso[a l\od3 I:ade Center ]?Ol Sau Yo.k Arenue, N 11.
i0 @�>t Se�eneh S:;eet
$aint Paul, Yhvne�.tz 3=101-k999
Telephone (6L') 29i-9�3i
FAX (6l2) 24G9313
Swt: '.iJV'
4tasn:romn, D C. uOQ�
Tcle�Sone ('_02) 39r2S>L
f.4X CO21 3o3-3L3[
340-5588
Department of Planning and Economic Development
City of Saint Paul
City Hall Annex
25 West 4�` Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Celiulaz Telephone Antenna Zoning Amendments
Dear Roger:
b"70 One Taboe Ceo�r
L'GO �«n.eenth Ster:
Uevice:, Colo:a�� Y�^_J_ ��--
TaiepFone (?03� 57'_�.'_,
F4%rg03; 5,2-5'^3
Rep:�mlbnneap�dn —
This letter is in response to your February 25, I997 invitation to submit proposed revisions to the
cellular telephone antenna zoning amendments.
As I menrioned at the February 20, I997 Zoning Committee meeting, we agree with your suggestion
to treat equipment buildings and freestanding poles as accessory structures for the purposes of rear
and side yazd setbacks. This seems a reasonable approach to providing increased fleacibility in the
placement of these structures, while preserving the intent of the zoning ordinance.
The only other revision to the ordinance amendments which we suggest the City consider is the issue
.'e:3Yea l�t f o� A� 1 « h ;,: r :te e;; o.;,o
to �he heig., o_ fre„s a:...:nb p� es. As :ve r.:ea::oaed wt t e Ze ..ng .,ar_�.r.n e m e.r. .
suggest the City consider whether it makes sense to allow additional height in order to have more
than one provider on a pole. Most other cities have adopted this approach. This approach could be
implemented by adding the following sentence in the sections of the ordinance amendments which
deal with height: .
"Freestanding poles specificaily designed to accommodate the applicant's antennas
and comparable antennas for an additional multiple antenna user shall not exceed 100
feet in height."
We also remain concerned about increasing the setback requirement from 75 feet to 1'/� times the
height of the antenna.
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
& BUTLER
PRCPESSf�S4L ASSOQ4it�A
Mr. Roger Ryan
Planning Division
March 7, 1997
Page 2
We will attend the March 20, 1997 Zoning Committee meeting to answer any questions.
ely,
Peter K. Beck
PKBleka
cc: Marie Grimm (via fax)
Ron Mielke (via fax)
�
BeckP 511446.1
�; �
� �_
�y/�T Ty�T]+'(*1/ S:AUF�Ith:tr•�rtiin.es
l._i V t r �lt t 1 :w ti.;,.n r��Ni, s����
hUnncapo6•.. ".tmtx:ata F3i0:a215
y%. ��r � Yf7� irkTh�me (61.) 516-55i;
U 1 f•r.1'C Enx in�zi a�o-a�,u
t'Rt7f'L55ICA4AL a�
Attom.ry5atLaw iV[ir�r�din�td.a�nuIDt*:r
Febniary 18, Z 997
V.fA FAX: 2z8-3314
1AOC >{inncsaro tturhl &aile Crntn
kt Ea;t 41�rn1h sfm:
Sa�nt Paul� �Lnnru�ta SilUl-1�N
TNryForv� Ini2� :31-433J
FAX (bS:l :"17-93}:>
saassss
Mr. Rogex Ryan
Divisian of Planning
bepartmem of Planniag and �canomic Development
City of Saint �aui
City Hall Annex
25 West 4�° 5treet
St. Paul, MN 55142
�te� Cellular Telephone Arnenna Zoning Amendments
Uear Rager:
¢�ty ai MiMUt}wRK 0lf4er
This letter contains the comments of AT&T Wireless Sennces ("AT&T") on the proposed cellular
telephane emenna wning amendmefcits dated January, 1997. AT&T appreciates the agportunaty to
commez�t an the propased amendments, and thanks both the Piattning Division and the Zoning
Committee far woddng with the wiretess wmntunications industry on th$se amendments. We have
the follawing three comments on the proposed amendments:
1, The proposed amendments requir� that equipment 6uildings and manopoles be located in the
rear yards of the principal use in alE instances. We suggest that the City eonsider allowing
both equipmetst buiidings and poles in side yards whare appropriate. In many instances the
(arge commea�ciai, industrial snd institutianal uses which we wili bc iooking for witl have very
lazge side yard setbacks and(or wi11 be located adjacent to similar uses whiah would not be
negativety impacted by an appropriately lacated and designed equipment build'mg or
mon,apole, 1�ltawing the equipmcnt building or monopote to be tocated in a side yard, where
apgrnpriate, woutd pxovide the wireless carriers with greater flexibility to place their faca'lities
in the best location for both the property owner and the City.
2. The 75-foot height limit �n monopnles in all but industrial zoning distriots wi(( severely limit
the oppoRUnity to itave mare t!'�n one wireless provider an a single pole. Undet the gresent
technotagy 75 Eeet is the tawest that tAs current wireless providers can locate their antenaas,
absent unique circumstances. Mazry cities in an effost ta encourage mutriple use af the
manopoles, have allowed atlditios�l height £or monogoles that as'e designed to aocommodate
1�11 New York Avnur, t+N
su�k uoo
Wa�hiny,tan. l].C. 91005
Ttkphax (�1
FA% 12U11;N;F11:it
?3U (k�o IIIM[ l�ll0.l
}={IO `ah.w. t.`enth 51n'ct
lkv+vrr. G�lrsadc NU1U2-�21
2�dapixxx (�t719'2�2lX1
rax �:ws7 S'.em)
�a�Z00d TZS'ON GT�£ 8�Z 6 E H2iQ Z£�ZT L6i8I20
D4HERTY
�iCTMBL�
& BUTLER
rrsi��i�a�ovni n�t,utt.+.t�uti
-- _ _ �,
Mf. Rager ltyan
Planning Division
February 18,1997
Page Z
two users. Since the wireless providers typically nged 20-25 feet of yertical sepatatian
between their arrtennas, cities have LypicaUy a4lowed an additiana120 or 25 feet ahove the
atherwise ma.�c;mum 6elght for mona�x+lec decigned to accomntodate two users.
1'hiS iS ptimarilY a poliey issue for thn dty. Wc will live within the 75-faot height limit if that
is whai the aty pre#'ers. On the otker hand, if the city were to allow gdditional height in order
tp ettcow'age muStipie use of ihe facil'sties, we would consider 8tat when desigtting aur system.
Increasing the existing 75-foat sethack to 1'/� times the height ofthe antensia is a significant
change wtdch would dramarically reduce ihe amount o£fle�cibility wc have in thc locntion af
£acilities. This chan�e wauld also make it mare difficult to tocate multiple use facilities,
` Once again, we appreciato the opportunity to comment an the ordieance a�d wilt attend the Zaning
Comtni.ttee, Piatu�ing Commission and City Council meetings at which the ordinance is discussed ta
a,nswer any qusstions,
Siacerely,
����
Peter K. Beck
PK$/eka
oc; Max Thampson
Ran Mielke (via f�c}
Marie Ga�imm (via fax)
aw�sos6is.j
., ,
�09i£08d tZi'CN 4'L££ 8ZZ 6 F 8aQ ££�ZL L6�8Li2s
=� Sprint
Mazch 7, 1997
Mr. Roger Ryan
PED, Planning Division
25 WeSY 4` STIeeT
Sain[ Paul, Minn. 55102
Sprini PCS'
blinueaQolis Telephone 6L 6SI 3hlh�
;900 l.one Oak Parl,uay Fae� 612 686 2-q0
Suaz 140
Eag:in. �Lnneurta iii21
Dear Mr. Ryan:
This letter is being written pursuant to the February 20 Zoning Committee meeting and
your memorandum dated February 25 relating to cellular antennas. As I stated at the
meeting it is our belief that antennas mounted above hi�h power transmission line lattice
towers on poles running through these towers is a desirable solution, in all zoning
uisu to �he probiem oi where io locaie communicaiion antennas. iVe also oeiieve
that mounting antennas directly to such Iattice towers as well as to power poles in
general, liaht poles and other pole structures is much preferable from an aestheuc and
economic perspective to constructing new free standing towers constructed exclusively
for mounting communication antennas to.
For the above reasons we propose the following amendments to the proposed
amendments to the City of St. Paul Zoning Ordinance relating to communication antennas
and towers:
I. Under puagraph (X} of Section i. Principal uses permitted in ali residential zoning
districts of the proposed ameadments as set forth in the "Cellular Telephone Antenna
Zoning Study" we propose that the followin; underlined language be inserted:
CeAulaz telephone antennas located on an existing residential structure at least sixry
(60) feet high or on an existing institutional or publicly owned structure or on a
utilitv, lieht or similaz pole or on a pole above and laterally su�ported bv a high
voltaee electric transmission line lattice tower, subject to the foliowing conditions: ..
2. Under paragraph (x) of Section 3. Principal uses pernutted in OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-
2C, and RCC-1 of the above described amendments we propose that the foIIowing
underlined language be inserted: Cellular telephone antennas located on an e�sting
structure, on a utility, li�ht or similar pole or on a pole above and laterall ��supported
by a hi ng voltage electric transmission line lattice tower, subject to the foIlowing
conditions: ...
It is our interpretation that "whenever possible" in subparagraph c. of paragraph (X) of
Section 1, subparagraph d. of pazagraph (X) of Section 2, subparagraph e. of paragraph
(xx} of Section 3, subpazagraph e. of pazagraph (X) of Section 4, subpazagraph c. of
pazagraph (X) of Section 7, requires housing for the transmitting, receiving and switching
equipment, either in a new or existing structure, only when possible and that the applicant
would make the determination as to when it is possible_ If such housing is mandatory we
' �• } T
Page 2- March 7letter to Mr. Roger Ryan '� �
would request that these sections be changed to require housine onlv when it is found that
landscapinp cannot be installed to adequatelv screen such ectuipment.
Thank you for the opportunity to suggest changes _t_o your ordinance. If you have any
questions please call me at 686-2656.
Sincerely,
��� ��
David Hagen
Property Specialist
U S WEST Communications
426 North F2irview Aoom t07
SL Paul, MN 55104
Wireless
������
3/7/97
Roger Ryan
PED, Ptanning Division
25 West 4t" Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Re: Response to proposed amendments
Mr. Ryan
The recommendations listed below are in response to the proposed
ardinance for PCS and Cellular antennas zoning. I understand the visual
issues connected with communication towers in residential neighborhoods.
Industrial areas altYzough easier to site a communication Yower in still have
visual issues. It may be unfortunate that this service can not be delivered
completely out of site and underground. On the other hand this may present
still another set of issues as the new technology would be buried in these
areas.
The goal of U S West Communications is to be able to build a PCS network
that will serve the needs of the community. U S West Communications is a
company that is serving both residential and business customers today on a
wire line basis and with advancements in technologies the company wants
to add wireless services. As you know the new PCS technology has
increased security, improved voice quality and privacy of communication
over conventional cellular service. The additional features that will be built
with this new technology will allow customers the same service that e�cists
with wire line service and still allow customers the ability to be mobile.
Saint Paul has some unique characteristics that makes providing PCS
service difficult. The first is the mature tree structure in the city, with some
areas of the city having 80 foot trees. This along with concentrated areas of
residential housing makes siting of communication towers difficult.
v r
_' ) f f �
The first area that we would look to for a site would be existing structures to
support our four foot antennas. These sites would be existing buildings,
light standards or other towers. The proposed 15 foot roof top without a
variance process to allow a ZS foot attachment may lead to a monopole
placement. When a suitable existing site could not be found we would look
to building a facility for the PCS antennas. This facility would be a
monopole structure due to its strength along with it being a more visually
acceptable structure.
In Saint Paul some areas could use a 75 foot structure, however most areas
would require a 90 foot structure to reach over the trees. If a site had two
similar carriers, as in collocation, an additional 20 feet would be required.
Set backs are of concern both in residential and industrial areas. Tn
industrial areas set back requirements should not exist while residential
areas a set back of one times the height of the structure to a single family
dwelling unit could be set. This set back would include homes and attached
garages, however exclude detached structures such as garages and sheds.
In any ordinance there needs to be a variance process to accommodate
special conditions, such as changes in height and size of antennas. I know
this seems problematic however witl� a defined process of approval the
correct application can be provided.
I have attached two articles from the trade magazine Radio Communication
Report (RCR). The first is an article about the City of Cincinnati and GTE,
which stressed the importance of a clear ordinance that allowed for design
of an effective service. I am reminded of the importance of good service
when my existing cellular telephone does not work on University Avenue in
the Midway or in some areas of Highland Park. As I stated in the zoning
meeting good two way service is very helpful to public safety. The second
article also from RCR places a responsibility of education on the providers.
This is a task that we are trying to accomplish. Lastly I included some
options from a Minnesota company that we wiil be using to combine tower
requirements with lighting structures.
In summary the ordinance is not overly prohibitive nor restrictive as
compared to other cities, however in some areas of Saint Paul U S West
would have difficulty providing good service. I assume that is true for the
other carriers. Today the cellular coverage is not ubiquitous in all of
Saint Paul and therefore I would like zoning changes to allow the cellular
and PCS providers the ability to develop a robust network. Listed below are
the key requests:
• Monopole structures needs to be one times the height away from single
family residential dwellings and allow a 90 foot structure to reach over
the trees. If a site had two similar carriers, as in collocation, an additional
20 feet would be required.
• Roof top locations could be limited to a height limit of 15 feet over the •
building with the ability to apply for a variance if no other site was
available.
• In industrial areas the canier should have the ability to use side lots for
structure placement.
��
Anthony Segale
Regional Network Operations Manager
Macalester-Groveland
Coin�aiunity Council
320 Souih Griggs Street
Saint Pau1, Minnesota 55105-2800
Telephone:(612) 698-7973
Fax: (612) 698-9465
February 24, 1997
Gladys Morton, Chair
Zoning Committee
St. Pau1 Planning Commission
110 City Hall An
JY. i"a�l.li� yl�� JjSVL
Dear Ms. Morton,
� -� -, _;'�
The Macalester-Gxoveland Community Council on February 20 adopted the following
position with regard to the zoning for cellular antennas.
* In residential, OS-i or B-2C zones, antennas should be permitted only if
they are located on top of buildings at least 60 feet high, and a special
conditional use permit should be required.
* If an antenna is not located on top of a building ar existing structure, it
must be mounted on a monopole.
* If an antenna is located on top of a building or structure, the anteana
should be screened or incorporated into an architectural element of the
building.
* Owners of antennas should be required to apply for permits for their
antennas annually. To obtain a permit for an antenna, the owner must
ccrtify that thc antenr.a is .unctional and is L eing used. Owners of
antennas that are not covered by valid permits should be required to
remove such antennas.
Saint Paul is a city with many commercial streets adjacent to residential streets. Our
organization is hopeful that the city's zoning ordinance will protect these residential
streets from this obtrusive use.
Thank you for your consideration of our position on this matter.
Sincerely,
�od���-•--��- �---
Bill Connors
President
I o'-�
2.D reNtledoaoer
62J20i149' 11:47 E12731�194
r.isr n.�ro couricr� --- -- pas� A�
DIS'I'RICY' 2 C4Iv��,�iV�' ��1I�TCII, _
2169 Stillwater Avenue, Suite ZOl
Februsry i9 , 1917 Sa[nt Paul, MN 55179
Phone:(6I2)73L6842
Mr. RogerRyan Fax:(6IA rlLVt9a
City of St. Paul - PED
I l OQ City Hall Annex ,_
5t. Paul, MI3 55102
I)eer Mr. Ryan,
T am writing to you on behalfof the District 2 Cammunity Council regarding the proposed zoning for
ce(tulau' teley(iune antonnas. At its Ttbruary 19, 1997 mecting, the Distriat 2 Community Council
adopted the fottowiag recommendatiaes�
Thai the interim regulations be extended I8 months and during that time the fb]lowing
information be gathered.
• The demand for antennas and expected number of antennas ta 6e located wiihia tha
city,
• What regulations �ther cities around the country and suburban community in the
Twin Cities area have adopted and what poticies they have in ptace (e.g., the
requirement of pasting a bond to guarantee the removai of equipment whea it is no
longer used.);
• IIOw the dctnand for ptucement of antennas could he met by utilizing industriAl
perks, transportation corridors and other }ands ihat will not impact residentiai areas;
and
• Tha redundaney of equipment by muitipie caniers, specificallp how many cellular
service providers wil! be involved aad how many antannas wtll this lead to?
This resolution arose out of concerns about the number and loCation of antennas that would be atlowed
under this proposal. "['he foliowing points were raised in our discussiun vf the a�ncndmcnts; if the
interim reAUlations are not extended, w�e woutd like to see them addressec! in the final proposal:
1. A 5pecial Cond'ation Use Permit should be required for alI antennas.
2. They should nor be allowed on buildinga lecc than b0 feet high that are near residential
�
5.
sreas.
SwuC way should be includcd to guarautee thc removnt of old equipment as new
technology replaces ii (e.g., a ae�nset provision, posiing of a bond t� guarantee removat}.
There should bC a way to control the number of antennas in any one area because certain
locations in the city could attract a high number of them.
Every effoR should be made to restrict anteanas to locatians where they will be less
obtrusivC (c.g., iadustriul zones and transportation corridors).
'lhank you for your attention to our concerns. P(ease inciude thczn iu ehc tescimony of the public
hearing on February 2q 1997.
Sincerely,
C 1 t \�� �_� /�
�---- �i - �
Tim Dornfeid
Executive D'uector
EQUALOPPORTUNtIYEMPI,OYER/C:V.YIHA�lUK � y
_
�
��� � _ , _. �
CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNA ZO1vING AMENDMENTS
JANUARY 1997
DIVISION OF PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONONIIC DEVELOPMENT
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
.� >p. r 'ry
� _, . � . J
CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNA ZONING STUDY
Introduction
In October 1996 the City Council asked the Plamiing commission to study height and setback
zoning regulations for cellulaz telephone antennas. At the same time, they adopted interim zoning
regulations conceming antennas pending completion of the study. The interim regulations
prohibit freestanding ceilulaz telephone poles oz towers in residential, OS-1, and B-1 districts and
reduces from 40 feet to 15 feet the height that antennas that aze placed on existing structures may
exceed the height of the structures to which they aze attached in OS-1 and B-1 districts. The
interim regulations aze in effect until Mazch 25 and may be extended an additional 18 months.
Based on testimony at the public hearing on the interim regulations, the reason for the study is
concem for the aesthetic, obtrusive effects of tall, visible antennas on surrounding residential
uses.
A table showing the zoning regulations for location, height and setbacks of antennas before the
interim regulations was adopted and the interim regulations aze attached. Also attached is a fact
sheet about the 1996 telecommunications act and Macalester-Groveland Community Council's
recommendations on antenna regulation.
Reeulations of Other Cities
Many metropolitan cities have recently adopted antenna regulations, are in the process of
adopting antenna regulation, or are thinking about star[ing studies of antenna regulations. Here
aze some recent antenna regulations of nearby cities.
l. Minneapolis
� Permitted use: In all districts, antennas mounted (1) on the facade of a building or (2) on towers
on the roof of a residential structure more than �0 feet high or on the roof of a nonresidential
structure, provided the tower is no more than 15 feet above the height of the structure.
Conditional use. In residential districts on institutional land and in business districts, (1)
freestanding antenna towers if no higher than 75 feet (a 50% height bonus may be given if the
; tower will accommodate two antennas) and no closer to the nearest residential structure than two
times the tower height and (2) roof mounted towers if they are more than 15 feet above the height
of the structure. In industrial districts, regulations aze the same as in business districts, except
towers can be 100 feet high, again with a 50% height bonus.
2. Bloomington
Permitted use. Antennas placed on existing towers and on existing roofs and walls of buildings
if the antenna projeets less than 15 above the buiiding height.
Conditional use. In residential districts, freestanding towers on government, institutional, and
uriliYy property provided the tower height does not exceed 1 foot for each 4 feet the tower is
setback from residential properry, up to a maximum height of 150 feet. In business and industrial
districts, the tower height must not exceed 1 foot for each 2 feet the tower is setback from
residential property, up to a maacimum height of 150 feet.
3. Roseville
Pemutted use. City owned and controlled antenna and tower sites in business and industrial
districts and antennas attached to, but not above, the wall of a building.
Conditional use. In business and industrial districts, free-standing and roof mounted towers that
meet setback requirements of the district.
4. White Beaz lake
Pernutted use. City owned water tower.
Conditional use. In business warehouse and industrial districts, provided the tower is setback
from any lot line equal to the height of the antenna plus 5 feet.
5. Woodbury
Permitted use. In a11 districts, on existing structures provided the height of the tower does not
exceed 20 fee above the height of the structure to which it is attached.
Conditional use. In a11 districts (vacant residential sites must be at least 5 acres), freestanding
towers not to exceed 175 feet in height, provided the tower is located at least the height of the
tower plus 25 feet from the neazest residential unit.
Proposed antenna atnendments
The proposed amendments show preferred antenna locations by allowing them as permitted uses
and by not requiring that applicants demonstrate that colocation sites are not available. Prefened
locations are on residential buildings over 60 feet high; on insUtutional, pubfic, and business
buildings; and in industrial districts.
The amendmenYs also show secondary antenna locations by allowing them as special condition
uses and requiring that applicants demonstrate that no feasible colocation sites e�cists within 1/2
mile. Secondary locations aze on residential buildings less than 60 feet high in residenrial
districts; on free standing potes on instihztional property in residenfia2 districts; and on free
standing poles in business zoning districts.
Free standing antennas are not allowed as neighbors to residential uses in residential districts;
they aze not allowed on vacant residential sites.
2
� � � � � �
The amendments will make antennas less obtrusive to surrounding residential neighborhoods. In
the business districts (OS-1, B-i, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and RCC-1) that aze often intermingled within
reidential neighborhoods, the height that antennas placed on buildings can extend above the
building wiil be reduced from 40 feet to 15 feet. In residential and business districts, aniennas on
free standing poles will have have to be 1 1/2 tnne the height of the pole from the neazest
residential strucure rather than 75 feet as is required now. Where possible the antenna will also
have to be designed to blend into the surrounding environxnent.
Here are the proposed amendments.
1. Principai use permitted in all residential zoning districts
(X) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing resideritialistructure at least
sixty"(60) feet high or on°an azisting mstitutional;or pubhclp.o.wne� stracfure an�
, �:a: The antennas shall not extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the
- structural height of the structure to which they are attached.
b.
e:c: Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary ' , , it shall be
situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from
view by landscaping where appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses on residential, institutional, and public strucriires
at least 60 feet high and would now be permitted uses on institutional and public buildings less
than 60 feet high.
2. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions in all residential districts
(X) Cellular teleghone axtennas aeE located on an existing residential struchu�e -`�
less than sixty (60) feet high, subject to the following conditions:
a� The applic�nt demonstrates;fhat the propo"sed antennas cariuotbe
owned "st�uctuEe, oi:a business buiY�ing within 1/2 mile radLUS o
propose`d_antennas idue to oiie or more of tYie followmg reasons:
2. �'he p_lanned equipment would canse intgrferenee-w1fTi q�heT
existing or�lannei3 equipment on the pole or stntctuLe:
3.: The pIanned equipmenYcarinof ba accommodated at
necessary to funchon reasopalily.
4. The owiiet of the existmg pole; structure or buildmg }s Finwitlii%
fo:co.locate`an aufenna:
�- - - -- • -- - - -
- - - - - - -- - :: - - -
�
c:
�di Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary ` • •�" "_°�:": ' • � ' --�"'°'`, it sha11 be
situated in the reaz yazd of the principal use and shall be screened from
view by landscaping where appropriate.
0
The anfennas sIiatl not eatend more__than �een (15):feet aUovelfie
structural hetght of the stracture fo wlucTi they are attached�
_ �
-- _ _: �
�a=x) _Cellular telephone antennas located on a freestanding pole on institufionaL or
publicly ownedproperly, subject to the following coridifions:
a. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed-antennas cannot be
accominodated on an e�sting freestanding pole, an existing" residerit�al
structure at least sixty (60) feet high, an existing institutional_orpnblicly
owned strucftire, or a businessbuilding w�thin 1/2 mile radi�Ys.ofthe
proposed antennas due to one or more "of the following reasons:
L The planned equipment would exceed the struchual _capacity of
the e�sfirig pole or structure.
2. :Th'e planned equipment would�cause ihterfeience w�th°other
�.. ,. ,.
eXisting'or planned eqiiipment on thepole or striicture_
3. Tkie pianned equipment cannot be accommodated at alieigHt
��.._.�,.._ � �
riecessaryto function reasonably":
4: The :owner bf the e�sting pole, �striicture orbuildmg is uiiunlliirg
to�.00 looate�an antenna. � �
u b. : T'he antennas shail not exceed;seventy-five (7S}_feef m`heigh��, s'hall noYbe
located �ii a fronf`ocside yaaazd, azid `shaIl be set bacic 1 llZ ftt�es 4 flie„heig�if
� ��..M .. .. � an
of the anfenna £ropi ttie nearest residential,
c: The,antennas shall-be desi "ned where ssible fio blend tinfa �h�
�., � ..j ��,�,. ._�� .�_.�..�,� _.,. .g _ :Po..� ,flu... E . ....�;,���:,,;�
t- su�ound,ing environinent throtigh'�he`itse o�oqlor and cainoutIa�ing
��.��r, „��,. _
arclufeotiital treafinent. Aiawings or photogcaphiaperspeci�,es�hoWUig
the pale:auc3 antenrias. shall,be picjvided to the plamung cotnnusstari�o
deternune comphance.with thts,provisiori>,
d. Antennas!loca4ed}rilustoric distiicts shallbersuliject
.. _l.� v m'.��....:v.. .. F G..�
appzoval of theHistoric Preservafioii Commission:
e; Transmithng,''receiving and switching ec�uipmenf shall behousediwftliit�
�w� � � _.,.. � . r.. -�,,.�.
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be a special condition use if placed on residential structures less than
60 feet tall and if placed on free standing poles on institutional and public property. Antennas
on free standing poles on vacant residential land would no longer be permitted. In most cases,
antennas on.free standing poles wili have to be farther away from existing residentiai shuctures -
1 1/2 times the height of the pole rather than 75 feet.
3. Principal uses permitted in OS-1, B-i, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and RCC-1 districts
(x) __ Ceilulaz telephone antennas --'---- `'-_ --`----- --_ located on an existing
structure, subjeet"ta the folkowing condihons:
- : - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -
u�;su�
a. `fhe anfennas shaflynot ea�tend mote than fifteen:(IS) fee�;aboXetlie
strucfuraI height of fhe sfructure fo which they: are attachgd; ��
�
�r on histonc builduTgs�ha
c: T`ransmift4ng, receivmg and scvrtchvig equipmentshall:behoU" sed�fluri
an e�stirig struc�ure wheneverpossible Tf a new eqmpniei�f,`bm�fc�n�is
_ -
necessazy n�shall be st�uated m the rear yard o€tlie prtncipa2-use:arid
_� ..s
screene� froza V1ev�z�by landscaptng where:appropnafe:
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses if pIaced on a building. The height that they may
exceed the structural height of the building would be reduced from 40 feet to 15 feet.
4. Princxpal use permitted subject to special conditions in OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and
RCC-1 districts
(x) Cellular telephone antennas net located on a free-'sfanding pole �
sfi�uettire, subject to the following conditions:
- • - - --- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - -- - --- - --- - --
--- - - - - •- -- - --• - - - --- -- - -- -- -- -- -- - ---- -
•w
_ °, �,
��_._
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - -- ��.s�
a. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed antennas cannot be
accommodated on an eXisting freestanding pole, an exisfing reside,ntiaI
structure at least sixty (60) feet lugfi,=an existing in"stitutional or publicly
owned shvcture; or a business buildirig within 1/2 mile radius of the
proposed antennas'due to`one or moie of the following reasons'.
i. The planned equipment would exceed the sfructural capacity of
the existingpole or structure.
2. The planiied eguipmenY wonld cause interference wtfh:,other
� � .L..v..
ezistuig or�plarined eqiupment onthe pole or strac�iir"e�
3. The planned eqnipment caniiofi:be accommodafed ata�heighi
,. :.. , . ., . _�,:�_ _ _
necessary to funetion reaso�ia`bly;
4. The o�viier of the e�ushng �igle,: sfracture 6r-b�.uldmg�suui ivn'lling
to co-locate an a"qfenna` w
b. The, aiitennas shall'not exceed seven�y>,fiye (75) feet ui heighf�hall not be
=^ 't � 4'.v .6 9 � I..�ci
loca�ezi in a front ox side yard, anT shall be set back"1 1/2'fimes�2ie heigfi�
� _ ,�, r � .w�. « �,
of the=antenna from nearesf resi�antFal_structure:
`_. t..�, �.
c: The;antennas sha11?be designed where;possibFe to blend;into fli�
sucTOianding enviconment through�e=,i�se of,color and camoufl2
the pole and antennas sha11 be prbvidecttq'fhe piamm�g cQmm���s�ton �o
deterniine compliance wiJ1i tlus prawz5iori;
d: Antennas_located in hisforic district5",shall:tie, sub�ecf to`ieview<aiid
_,.
appr_oval of theHistoric:=Preservation.Gominission:
e:e. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary ' , , it shall be
situated in the rear yard of the principal uses and shall be screened from
view by landscaping where appropriate.
7
DISCUSSION
Antennas on free standing poles would continue to be special condition uses. In most cases, they
will have to be farther away from existing residential structures - 1 1!2 times the height of the
pole rather than 75 feet.
5. Principat uses permitted in B-4 and B-5 districts _
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas --'--__ .u_ ._.___... ___ Iocated on an existing
structure as pemutted:arid re�ulaf"ed inthe:$=3;$usiness Distric't: onriciiial
abo ve the sfcucfural height of the sfructui
-.-- - - -- - - - - - - - -- -
DISCi3SSION
Antennas would continue to be pemutted uses if placed on buildings. They could also continue
to exceed by 40 feet the height of the building to which tkey are attached.
6. Principal uses permitted subject to speciat cottditions in B-4 and B-5 disfricts
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas nat located on
Y__ _"" ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
����d.iwiii��i��iewaa:i��v�ir�:.i�:wre��abi�dr"a:i:�.��iiii�:�i�wiirv���:asi�i�.w.:f� -
� _ -� - � �
-- - - -- --- - -- - - -.:-
DISCUSSION
Antennas on free standing poles would continue to be special conditions uses. In most cases,
they will have to be farther away from existing residential structures - 1 1/2 times the height of
the pole rather than 75 feet.
7. Principal uses permitted in I-1, I-2, I-3, and RCI-1 districts
(x) Cellulaz telephane antennas located on an exi§trng sfructure as pernutfed and
regulated ir[t�e B S�usil�ess District, pr�ncipal uses permifted; section�03562:
- ,..a..R��,:�,,.�.....:.•.•..:: s� ..a..,.:.:.r
-- --' -- -" ' ' - -- -' - --- - - - -- •
-- - -' - -- '-' - -- -- - - - --- - - -.' - - -
n��w�ef - -- - - -' --- - --- -
..
�1R�l�l�/���I�At�[�}fJ���l� �
��
a., The�iteunas;sha�l��of e�'ceeii oneliiYiidc�ed
.. . � �:�,� �..-.��: �. :���.— ..� s .�,�,_,�..s
shallauotFb�'Iocafeil'c��`ront oi��,yazii, ;
a: I�ntennas' Toeafed �n �usfonc dis�cfsE"shaIl be suT�ject fo;review arid
_�.��,� �. �__. ..� �,,,:. t. y�,, , _� n.._ u�
app�ovalaof�e.Iiis`�one��xeservafion Comxnissiofi;
c:
DISCUSSION
Antennas on buildings and on free standing poles would continue to be permitted uses. Free
standing poles would have to be set back 1 1/2 times the height of the pole from the neazest
residential structure rather than one tunes the height of the pole from the lot lines as is required
now.
8. Sec, 62.108. Site plan review (all districts).
(a) Plan to be submitted. A site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the plaiming
commission before a pernut is issued for grading or the erection or enlargement of gross floor
area for any deveiopment except one- and two-fanuIy dweIlings, but including the foIlowing:
(I ) Any development of one- and two-family residences which together exceed two
(2) acres (87,120 squaze feet) in azea.
(2) In the "T" Tree Preservafion District, any development of one- and two-family
residences over one (t) acre (43,560 squaze feet) in area.
(3) All residentially related uses in one-family districts, such as, but not limited to,
churches, schools and public facilities.
(4) Any industrial use in an I-1, I-2, I-3 or RCI-1 District abutting a residential
district.
(5) Outdoor storage in industrial districts.
(6) Any use which abuts to a major thoroughfare.
(7) Any development on a slope of twelve {12) percent or greater.
(8) Any development in the River Corridar Critical Area or in the Floodplain District
except one- and two-family dwellings which do not affect slopes of twelve (12)
percent or greater.
(9) All off-street pazking facilities except as noted in section 62103(b).
(10) Any other use or development for which the submission of a site plan is required
by any provision of this code.
(11) Earth-sheltered structures.
(12) Detached, freestanding facilities constructed on pazking facilities, including, but
f[li
� � �
not restricted to, kiosks, fotomats, banks and similaz uses.
(13) Any fiiling, excavation or tree removal that disturbs an area greater than ten
thousand (10,000) square feet except the construction, installation or maintenance
of pubiic roads and public and private utilities.
(14} Cellulai telephone antennas that requue new1e`qwpmenf bwlding:
DISCUSSION
Antennas piaced on buildings with the equipment housed within the building would not have to
undergo site plan review. Antennas on free standing poles and antennas with equipment
buildings would be required to undergo site plan review.
11
L�
located w�ithin any residential, OS-1 or B-1 zoning district may not exceed fifteen (1�) feet above t'r:e -
structural height of the strueture to �vhich they are attached.
ORDINANCE
OF SAiNT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presen[ed
Referred To
P ., � .— r r �
CouncilFiPc��" '—�!�
Ord'inancc �
Grecn Slicet # , � :�
Committee Date -
�
�(�S"�tTUT��.. — ���J�yc,
�
An interim ordinance restrictin� the height of
cetlular telephone antennas in certain zones
G�•ithin the City of Saint Paul pendin� the compie�ion
of studies of possible amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations.
TH� COUNCIL Or TH� CITl' Or SATNT PAUL DO�S ORDAIN:
Scction 1
S The Saint Paul Ciq� Council hereby directs the Department of Plaiuling and Economic Developmei�t to
9 undertake a study of the City's Compreheiisive Plan and Zocung P�e�ulations relating to hei�ht and setback
] 0 restrictions to cellular telephone antennas. The Planning Commission is to study this issue and subiiiit a
I 1 repor[ to the Cotmcil to�ether with any recommeudations that the City's present Comprehensive Pla�i ar.:3
12 Zoning Re�ulations be amended.
13 Section 2
' 14 Pendin� the completion of the study and for the purposes of prohibitin� the establishment of ae«� cellul^r
> 1� telephone antennas, no permits shall be issued or approved b}� thc Cit}�, its officers, emptoyees, a,encs e
: 16 commissions for the construction of ne��-, freestandin, ceilular telephone poles o: towers within a::�,
" 17 residential OS-1 or B-1 zoning district. New celluiar telephone antennas placed on existin� structu��s
> is
19
20
` 21
r' ��
y ��
; 34
��.
26
27
Section 3
For a period of time not to exceed one hundred and t«renty (120) days from the effective date of tl;:s
ordinance and for the purposes of prohibitin; any development that might be inconsistent with the pendi..�_
study� and any amendments to d�e City's Comprehensive Plan or Zonin� Re�ulations, the prohibitions sh�'.i
continue in full foree wltil a comprehensive policy for tlie City can be adopted. In the event the studies a::�
reconunendations of'the Plazuiing Commission and the deliberations of the City Council require additior :l
time these prohibitions ma}� be extended, b}� separate resolution of the City Council, for additional perio��
of time not to exceed an additional eighteen (I8) months.
GC,-i1C,�'
Section 4
2
3
This ordinance shall takc effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval.a,id
publication.
DI ICI fcucn
OCT 261996
Yeas Na s Absent
Elakey
Bosaom �/
Guerin �
Harris �
Meoard v i
Remnan ,/
Thune �/
�1 U O
Adopted by Council: Date _�) �� _ 9�� �o
Requested by Departmenc of:
�
F App�� City ARorney
y: � � /U-Z-SG
Certified by Council Secretary
By: I \ � � k
Approved by Mayor: Date _ _�(7 j/� rl �i
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
�
� �, ,... n
d. : � � -. t
��a� ��a
o < o ¢
z ��.,�e=a ��E-a
<zH ¢zH
U E-� t_� [:7 U F[:.1 f=1 U
G L"' Z Q.'7 [:.1 Z G� .'�
�/S LL`���4 Cw�. �v; �
��.L`�' � r H�=i �
Ga
�
5
z
0
Q
O
V
a
G
U
U
`�
'n
ra
�
Ca
U
r
r
�
c
�
C7 F
2�
2
F -
O�
�°z r `
�FZ :�
`" XUF �"'
h
� � < �
z
0
'<`
U
O
a
�
�
z4 z�
z z
oQO oQo
a zv c, Zv
� O � ' � O �
�� �H
C:7
a°z $°�
��� ���
x�= ��a
��� ���
�
z z��w
c �:.��c?
c: � F ., �—'
U t. Y. �.t� c~ ` •
° o � a �
w
� ¢ o`^�
0 0
�F"Z 4FE�-.
x�F a��
�xG F"��
�
z
0
�
U
O
� u� o °7 � a� �
� F¢a
Er����.��'��� Uq��qz<raFz
`-y F �vOF F �U" �°Of=7�3��f:7wZ
� � �n � ...
o ° � 4 ' q v� � wz�:ao�
� � 3 ��z H
0
vu
v � � v <�'c�-�
x�U�. z��
�:.��ac:: oX
C V.7 �
O�<c' ��
a
<F
FV
�4
<q�
�
�
zF
U
.'7 �
p �
aQ
¢
o za
zz����
a�,]c��",o
z�`'
�U�pp::
� � w
, � c;
a ��'s
a�� �
C]F�
zQ=
LEC,SU.1556 S�11FhI CB COhu1cRCIRL-ST PAU N�.109 P.2i13
��""`� FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMtSS10N
�� ��
'� � WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION5 BUREAU
° s 2028 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554
j �MM45S� + . •
FACT S H �E ET #�'�
APR}L 23, 1996
NATIONAL WIRELESS FACiLITIES S17lNG POLiC1ES
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains important provisions conceming the
placement of towers and other facilities for use in providing personal wircicss scrviccs. Most
state and local commu.nities have worked cIoscly with cclluIar und other wiretess service
providers on such placement gians, but this new law es[abIishes new responsibilitics for
communities and for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Zhe rapid expansion
in thc.�vircless industry makes these issues even more important.
, This Fact Sheet �1 is intended to explain the new provisions and to help state and .
local govemmenis �s ihey dcal with the complex issues of facilicies siting in their local
communities. At the end of this Fact Sheei �1, you will find names of contacts for
additional information about this area and other issues before the FCC.
Section 7Q4 of ihe Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act} governs federal,
state and local government oversight of siting of "personal wireless service" facilities. The
1996 Act establishes a comprehensive framework for the exercise of jurisdiction by state and
local zoning authorities over the construction, modification and p[acement of facilides such as
towers fo: cellular, personal communications service (PCS), and specialized mobile mdio
(SMR) transmitters:
r The new law preservcs'locai zoning authority, but clazifies when the excrcise of local
zoning authority may be preempted by thc FCC.
■ Section 704 prohibits an�' action that would discr'�ninate between different providers of
personal wircIess services, such as ceilular, wide-area 5MR and broadband PCS. It
also prohibits any action that w•ould ban altogether the construction, modi£cation or
placement of these kinds of facifities in a particular azea
s The law also specifes proccdures which must be followed for acting on a request to
place these kinds of facilitics, nnd provides for teview in the courts or th� FCC of any
decision by a zonine authorie}• that is inconsistcnt with Section 704.
�L�c.i�.isye s�izFr� ca COhU9ERCIAL-ST PRU
n0.109 P.3i13 ^
. � r:
. '% .
� � � f � �
_ , ... - � (_� �
• Finally, Section 704 requires the federal govemment to take steps to hclp liccnsees ui _-' —-
spectrum-based services, such az PCS and cellular, get access to preferred sites for
their faciiities. FederaI agencies and departments wilI work directly with licensccs to
make federal property available for this purpose, and the FCC is directed to work with
the statcs to find ways for states to accommodate licensees who wish to erect towers
on state praperty, or use statc easements and rights-of-way.
The aetachments to this fact shcet seek to provide information concerning tower siting
for personal wireless communications services. They includc a summazy of the provisions of
�Section 704 of the 1996 Act, the actual tesrt of Section 704, and a tecluucal information
suminary that describes the celluIaz, vride-azca SMR and broadband PCS technologies that
underlie the majority of requests for new tower sites.
Questions about this topic, and about federal regulation of wirelcss telecommunicztions
services in general, may be addressed to Karen Brinkmann, Associate Cfuef of the Wireless .
Telecommunications Bureau, 202-4]8-0783, (e-mail: kbrinkmaQfcc.gov). Questions about
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 genezally may be addressed to Sheryl Wilkcrson in tho
FCC's Office of Legis]ative and Intergovernmental Affairs, 202-418-1902 (e-maii:
swilkers@fcc.gov). Qucstions nbout tower siting, licensing issues or technical matters may be
addressed to Steve MarkendorCf: Chief of the Broadband Bianch in the Wireless
Tclecommunications Burcau. 302-418-0620, (e-mail: smazkend@fcc.gov).
This Fact 5hcet kl is a�•nilabie pn our fax-on-demand system by referencing
Document Number 6507. Thr trlcphone number for fax-on-demand is 202-418-2830. "This
Fact Sheet #1 may also tx t��und on the Intemef at http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/wirehome.hunl. ,.
2
� LEC, 1t7. 1y5b 5� 12F'hl CB COhii ��CIRL-ST P;tU N0.109 P.4i13
SUMIYIATiY OF SECTION 704 OF TELECOMMUivICATIOI�S ACT OF 1996
The following is a summary of key provisions. The text of Section 704 is reproduced in its
entirety as an attachment to this summary.
�oca1 Zonina Authoritv Preserved
Section 704(a) of the 1996 Act amends Scction 332(c) of the Communications Act
("Mobile Services") by adding a new pazagraph (�. It preserves thc authority of state
and locaI govemments over decisions regarding the placement, construciion, and
modiftcation of person2I wireless service facilities, except as provided in the new
paragraph (7).
2. Exceotions •
a. States and Localities Mav Not Take Discriminatorv or Prohibitina Actions
Section 704(a) of the I996 Act sta[es tha[ the regvlation of ilie placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any
State or local government or insmtmentality ihereof shall not unreasonably
discriminzte among providers of functionally equivalent services and sfiai! not
prohiliit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i).
cview: Any person that is adversely affected by a state or local govcmment's
action or failure to act that is inconsistent with Section 332(c)(7) may seek
expediied review in the courts. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).
b, Procedures for Rulinu on Requests to Placc Constn�ct or Modifv Personal
Wircicss Service Facilities
Scction 704(a) also requires a State or loca2 government to act upon ¢ raquest
for suthori�ation to place, construct, or modify persona! tvireless service
facilities within a reasonable time. Any decision to deny a rcquest must be
made in writing and bc supported by substantial evidenee contained in a writtcn
record. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7){B)(ii) (iii).
L�L.lu.lb'�o S�1�FPi CB COiii•iEF,VIAL-ST FAU NO.lE9 P.S/13
. �
� � � r ' � �
1
. - _ . . ✓
� i
c, Re2ulations Based On Environmcntel Effccts of RF Emissions •Preemvted
Section 704(a) of the 1996 Act expressly preempts state and iocal governmeat
regulation of the placement, eonsaucdon, and modification of personal wireless
service facilities on ihe basis of the environmental effeets of radio &equency
emissions io the exteni that such faciliiies comply with ihc FCC's regulaiions
_ conccming such emissions. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). _ _
Review: Parties may seek relief from the fiCC if tfiey are adversely affected by
a state or local govemment's final action or failure to act that is inconsistent
wirh this provision. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(�(B)(v). -
3.
Federal Guidelines Concemin¢ RF Emissions
Section 704(b) requires the FCC to prescribe and makc effcctive new rules regazding
the environmcntaI effects of radio frequency emissians, which aze under consideration
in LT Docket 93-62, �vithin 180 days of enactrncnt of thc 1996 Aet.
NOZ'E: The pendency of this proceeding before 1he FCC does rrot kffect the rules
which currently are in e,ffect governing Yhe environmental effecfs of radio freguency
- emissions Section 704(b) givestpreemptive effect to these exisling rales. See related
attachments to the Fact Sheet. �
4. - Use of Federal or State Govemment Provcrtv
a. Federal ProoertV
:. Section 704(c) of the 1996 Act requires the President (or his designee) to
�; prescribe procedures by which the federal govemmcnt may make available on a
fair, reasonable and nondiscruninaiory basis, property, righu-of-way and
easements under their control, for the placement of ncw spcctrum-based
` tdccommunications services.
, '..
LEC.1�.1550 5=13Pt9 GB CU�y;EFCIFL-ST PAU
b. State Prppertv
N0.1�9 P.6�'13
Wi.th respcct to facilities siting on state proper[y, Section 704(c) of the 1996
Act requires the FCC to provide tcchnirzl support to States to encourage them
to m�e property, rights-of-way and easements undcr thcir jurisdiction available
for the placement of new spcctrum-based telecommunications services.
NOTE: Infarmation concerning technical support for tower sitfng which the
FCC is making available to sta�e and local governments is attached to the Fact
Sheet.
5. Definitions
"Personal wireless services" include commercial mobile services, unliccnsed wireless
services, and common earrier wircless cxchange aecess services. 47 U.S.C.
§ 332(c)(7)(C)(i).
"Commercial mobile services" are defined in Sec$on 332 of the Communications Act
and the FCC's rules, and include cellulaz telephone services regulated undcr Part 22 of
the FCC's rules, SNIR services regtilated under Part 90 of the FCC's ruleg, and PCS
regulated under Part 24 of the FCC's rules. 47 C.F.R § 20.9.
"�c l�ccnsed wireless services" are defined as the offering of telecommunications
services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses; dircct-
to-homc sate[lite services are excIuded from this definition. 47 U.S.C:
§ 332(c)(7)(C)(iii).
LEC.10.1550 5:13PhI CB COih�Er.'CIFL-ST PAU �0.109 P.7i13
COMPLE"TE TEX'T OF SEC'TION 704 OF TELECOiYLI�iUllTlCATIONS ACT OF I996
SEC. 704. FACII.IT'IES SITI�TG; RA])TO FJ2EQUE1`ICY EMISSION STANllARDS. r-� ^
(a) NA.'TIOl\TAL WII2ELESS TELECOMMUIVICATTOl�IS STLII\TG POLTCY— --
SEC. 332(c) j47 U.S.C. 332(c)] MOB7LE SERVICES--Regulatory Treatment of
Mobile Services Is amended by addina af fhe end the following new paragraph:
(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONlNG AUTHORITY.—
(A) GENERAL AUTFIORITI'.— Except as providcd in tnis paragraph,
nothing in tIus Act shail limit or affect the authority of a State or local govemment or
instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding thc placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities.
(B) LTMITATIONS— �
(i) The regulation of the placement, cons�uction, and modification of
personal wireless scrvice facilities by nny State or local government or
instrumentality thereof—
(I) shail not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent scrvices; and
- (II) sh¢li not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless serviccs. .
(ii) A State or ]ocal government or insmcmentaliry thereof shall act on
any request for authorization to placc, construct, or modify personal wireless
service facilicies within a reasonable period of time after the rcqucst is duZy
filed with such govcmment or instrumentality, taking into account the nature
and scope of such request.
(iii) Any decision by a State or local govemment or instrumentality
thereof to deny a request to place, constn:ct, or modify personal wireless
° service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidenc�
contained in a written record.
(iv) No State or locat government or instrumentality thcreof may
regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless
service facilities oa the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions to the extcnt that such facilities compiy with the Commission's
regulations conceming such emissions.
(v) An�� person adversely affected by any final action or failare to act
by a State or local go��emment or any instrumcntality thereof that is
.inconsistrnt w�ith this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or
_' failure to act, cammence an action in any court of'competent jurisdiction. The
court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person
adverseiy affected b}• an act or failure to act by a State or local govemment or
any instn�mentalit�• thercof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the
Commission for rclicf.
°' - � � �
�
- LEL. lu. i590 S 14Pi�1 CB CGPPIEF.CIAL-5T PAU
�r '. ', .
N0.109 P.8i13
(C) AEfiJNZTIO2�IS — For purposes of this pazagraph— •
(i} the term "personal wireless services" rneans coinmerciai mnbile
services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carricr wireless exchange
access scrvices;
(ii) the tenn "personal v.�irelcss scrvicc facilities" means facilities for
thc provision of personal wireless services; and
(iii) the-term "unlicensed wireless service" means the offering of
telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not requirc
individual licenscs, but docs not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite
services (as defined in section 303(v)).
* � .� * *
SEC. �04 FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION
STAl'IDARDS.
* * * r *
(b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS: ZVithin 180 days after the enactrncnt of
this Act, the Commission shali complcte action in $T Docket 93-62 to preseribe and make
effective rules regazding the environmental effecu of tadio frequency emissions.
(e) AVAiI.ABILITY OF PROPERTY.—Within 180 days of the enactment of'this
Act, the Presidcnt or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal departments •
and agencies may make u�•ailablc on a fair, reuoaablc, and nondiscriminatory basis, property,
riglits-of-way, and easemcnts undcr their con�ol for the placement of new telecommunications
services that are dependent. in «holc or in part, upon the utilization of Federat spectru.m
rights for the transmission or rrccption of such services. These procedures may estabfish a
presumption that requests fc�r the use of properiy, rights-of-way, and easements by duly
authorized providers shnuld tx granted absenc unavoidable direct eonflict with the department
or agency's mission, or thc eurrcnt or planned use of the property, rights-of-way, and
ezsements in question. Rc��c+nahlc fees may be chazged to providcrs of such
telecommunications sen•iccs for use of property, rights-of-way, and easements. The
Commission shall provide trchnical support to States to encourage them to make property,
rights-of-way, and easemcnts under their jurisdiction available for such purposcs.
t ,.
LEC.19.1596 5=15PP1 CB COh�IEkCIAL-ST FAU
N0.309
TECHNTCAL IIV'FORMf1.'ITOi�' CONCERIv"ING CELLULAR, SPECIALIZED
ivIOBILE RADTO Al`ID PEE2SONAL COMMUNTCATTOlYS SE12'S'ICES
Cellular Tnformation_
P.9i13 .�l.
r`"..�� `�
, �:�
The FCC esiablished rules and procedures for licensing cellular systems in the Unitcd Statcs
end iu Possessions and Territories. Thcse rulcs dcsignated 306 Metropolitan Statistical Areas
and 428 Rural Service Areas for a total o: 734 cellulaz mazkets and spcctrum cvas allocated to
license 2 systems in each mazkc[. Cellulaz is allocated spectrum in the 824-849 and 569-894
MHz ranges. Cellular licensees are generally required to licensc only the tower locations that
malce up their outer service contour. Licensees desiring to add or modify any tower locations
that sre within an already approved and licensed service uea do not have to submit an
appiication for thac locaiion to be added to their cellular license, although they may need FCC
approval if the zntenna would constitute a major envuonmental action (See question 2, below)
or would cxcccd the criteria specified in Part 17 of the FCC's Rules ("Construction, Mazking
and Lighting of Antenna Shuctures"). Part 17 includes criteria for determining when
construction or placement o€ a tower woutd require pnor not�calion to the Federal Aviation
Adminirnation (FAA). (See question 3, below.)
A cellular system operates by dividing a lazge geogiaphical service area into cells and
assigning the same frequencies to multiple, non-adjacent cells. This is known in the industry
as frequency rcusc. As n subscr'sber tcavels across the service area the ca11 is transferred ,
(handed-of� from one cell to another without noticeable interruption. Al1 the cells in a
cellulas system nre connected to a Mobile Telephone Switching O�cc (MTSO) by landline or
microwave links. The MTSO controls the,switching between the Public Switched Teiephone
Network (PSTN) and the ce11 sife for all wireline-to-mobile and mobile-to-wireline calls.
Snecialized Mobile Radio (SMRI Tnformation
Speciatized Mobile Radio (SMR) service liccnsees provide land mobile eommunications on a
commercial (i.e:, for profit) or private basis. A�aditional SMR systcm consists of one or
more base station uansmitters, one or more antcnnas and end user radio equipment which
ofren consis's of a mobile radio unit either provided by the end uscr or obtained from the
SMR operator. The base station receivcs either telephone transmissions fram end users or low
powcr signals from end user mobile radios. '
SMR systems operate in two distinct frequency rangcs: 806-821/851-866 MHz (800 MHz)
and 896-901l935-940 MHz (900 MHz). 800 MHz SMR services have been licensed by the
FCC on a site.by-site basis, so that the SMR provider must approach the PCC and receive a
license foreach and every tower/base siie. In the future the FCC will license this band on a
wide-uea-mazket approach. 900 MHz SMR was originally licensed in 46 Designated Filin�
Areas (DFAs) comprised of only the top 50 markets in the country. The Commission is in
the process of auctioning the remainder of the United States and iu Possessions and
Territories in the Rand McNally defined 51 Major Tzading Areas.
=4'�
- i.ct,. iu. tb_o o- 15�i I C� CJPGiEF.:.IF:L-ST PriU N0.109 p.10�13
i .
YCS Tnformation
Broadband PCS systems are very similaz to the cellulaz systcros but operatc in a higher
frequency band, in the 1850-1990 MIIz range. One other difference is that the FCC uscd
differcnt mazket 2reas for licensing purposes. The FCC uscd the Rand McNatly definitions
for 51 Ma,{or Trading Aicas (MTAs) and 493 Basic Trading Areas (STAs). PCS was
atlocated specizvm for six Broadband PCS systems and 26 Narrowband systems. The six
Broadband PCS systcros wiil be licensed as foilows: two Broadband PCS Iicenscs will be
issued for each of the 51 MT'As and four for each of the 493 BTAs. The 2b Narrowband
systems will be licensed as follows: eleven Narrowband PCS licenscs will be issued for
nationwide systems, six for each of five regional areas, seven for each of ihe 51 MTAs and
two for each of the �'.93 BTAs.
PCS licensees rse issued a blanket license for their entirc mazket area snd are not required to
submit applications to licensc individua! cell sites unless conscruction of tfie facitity would be
a major environmental action or would require FAA notification. Major environmental
aetions aze defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that is discussed in
question 2, beIow. Therefore, the FCC has no technical information on fite eonceming PCS
base stations.
Frequetttiv asl.ed questions concernin� tower siten� for nersonal wireless services.
1. Do Iocal zoning aufhorities have any authority to deny a request for toFVer siting?
Answer: Yes. The Telecommnnications Act of 1996 specifically leaves in pIace the
authority that local zoning authorities have over the pIacement of personal wirctess faciLities.
Ic does prohibit the denial of facilities siting bascd on RF emissions if fhe licensee has
complied with thc FCC's regula[ions conceming RF emissions. It aIso rcquires that denials
be based on a reasoned approach, and prohibits discrunination and outright bans on
co�struction, p(acement and modification of personal wireless facilitics.
2. Whaf requirements do personal wireless communications licensees have to determine
whether a 5ite is in a flood plain? A historicul site? �
Ans�ver: All antenna stntctures must also comply With the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA). as well as other mandatory federal environmental statutes. The FCC's
rules that implement the federal environmental statutory provisions are contained in sections
1.1301-1.1319. The FCC's environmental rulcs place ttce responsibility on each applicant to
investigate all the potential environtnental effecu, and disclose any significant effects on the
onvironment in an Enviranmeatal Assessment (EA), as outlined in section 1.131I, prior to
cnnstructing a tower. The applicant is required to consult section 2.1307 of the FCG rules to
determine if iu proposed antenna structwe will falI under any of the listed categories that may
significantly affect the environment. If it does, thc applicant must provide an EA prior to
proceeding with ihe towcr conscruction and. under section 1.1312, must await FCC approval
F]
Lc�.lU. 15'�0 5� lEFi 1 CB CGhC1ERCIAL-ST FHU N0.169 P.11ii3
before commencing any such construction cvcn if FCC approval is not otherwise required for
such construc[ion. Thc FCC places all proposals that may sigiuficantly impact thc cnvironment
on pub(ic notice for a period of 30 days, sccking any public commenu on the proposed
structures. The categories set forth in secuon 1.1307 include:
Wildemess Area
Wildlife Preserve
Endangered Species
Historical Sitc .
Indian Religious Site
Fiood Plain
Wetlands .
High Intensity White Lights in Residential Neighborhoods
Excessive 12adiofrequency Radiation Exposure
'
r � " (, �
3. Are there any BCC regulations thut govem where tovicers can or cannot be placed?
Answer: The FCC mandates that personal wireless companies build out their systcros so that
adequate service is provided to the public. In addition, a11 antenna structures used for
communications must be appzoved by the FCC in accordance wich Part I7 of the FCC Rules.
The. FCC must detemune if there is a reasonablc possibiliry that the structure may constitute a
menace to air navigation. The tower height and its proximity to an airport or flight path will
be considered when making this dctermination. If such a determination is made the FCC wi11
soecify appropriate painting and lighting requirements. Thus, the FCC does not mandate
where towers must be placed, but it may prohibit the placement of a tower in a particulaz
lo:cation wichout adequate Iighiing and mazking.
4. Aoes the FCC mainYain any records on tower sites thraughout the United States?
How does the public get this information (if any)? ''
nswer: The FCC maintains a general tower database on the following structures: (1) any
towers over 200 feet, (2) any towers over 20 feec on an existing structure (such as a buitding,
water tower, etc.) and (3) towers that are close to airports that may cause potential hazards to
air navigation. Thc FCC's licensing databases contain some base site information for
Cellulaz and SMR systems. The general towcr datab2se and the Cellutaz and SMR. data that
may be on file with the FCC is availabla in thrce .places:
(1) Cellulaz licensing information is evailable in the Public Reference Room of the
Wireless Telecommunications Burcau's Commercial Wireless Division. The Public
Refercnce Room 1s located on the fifth floor of 2025 M Street, NW, Washington, DC
20554, telephone (202)418-1350. On-line database seazches of ce]lulaz licensing
information aIong with queries of the FCC's general towcr database can also be
accompiished at the Public Reference Room.
10
. i��.i�..��o ��1rr,�i� Cd Wrnlar,'i.iNL—ST FAU ti0.169 P.12i13
. F ..
(2) People who would likc to obtain gcncral tower information through an on-line
public access database should calI or write Interactive Sysiems, Inc., 16D] North Kent
St., Suite 1103, Arlington, VA 22209, ielephone 703-812-8270.
(3) The FCC does not dupIicate these records, but has contracted with IntemationaI
Transcription Service, Inc. to' provide ihis service, Requcsts for copies of information
should be addressed to International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS, Znc.), 210D M
St., N�V, Suite 140, Washino on, DC 20037, telephone 202-857-3800.
5. Why do Cellular and PCS providers require so many tower sites7
Ansrver: Low powered transmittors are an inherent chazacteristic of Cellulaz Radio and
Broadbaad PCS. As these systetns mature and more subscribers 2rc addcd, chc effective
radiated power of the cell site transmitters is reduced so frequencies can be reused at closer
intervals thereby increasing subscriber capacity. There aze ovcr 30 mitlion mobile/portabie
cellular units and more than 22 ihousand celt sites operating within the United States and its
Possessions and Territories. PCS is just beginning to be offered around the country. Due to
thc fact that Bro¢dband PCS is located in a higher frequency range, PCS operators will
require more tower sites as they build tfieir systems to provide coverage in their service azeas
as campared to existing CeltuIar carriecs. Therefore, due to the nahue of frequeacy reuse and
the consumer demand for services, Cellular and PCS providers must buiId numerous base
sites. '
6. Can Celtular, SM12 and PCS providers share fower structures?
Answer: Yes, it is technologically possiblc for ihese entitics to share tower struccures.
Howcvcr, there are Iimiu to how many base station transmitters a single tow•er can hold and
different tower structures have differcnt timits. Moreover, these providers are competitors in
a more and more competitive mazketplace and may not be willing to shazc towcr space with
ezcH other. Local zoning authoritics may wish to retain a consulting engineer ta evaluate the
proposals submitted by wireless communications licensees. The consuIting engineer may be
able to detcrmine if therc is some flexibility as to the geographic location of the tower.
7. Is tlie Federal government hclpiag ta find ways fo accommodate mulYiple Iicensees of
personal wireless services?
Answer Yes: The FCC has designatcd Steve Mazkendorff, Chief, Broadhand Branch,
Commerciai Wireless.Division, Wireiess Tetecommunications Bweau, FCC to assist local
zoning authorities and municipatities and respond to questions conceming tower siting issues.
His telephone number is 202-418-0620. Also, President Clinton issued an Executive •
Memorzndeun on August 10, I995 diiecting the Administrator of General Services {GSA), in
coordination with other Govemment deparcments and agencies, to develop procedures to
facilitate appropriatc access to Federal property for the siting of mobite services antennas.
GSA recently released "Govemment-�'ide Procedures for Placing Commercial Antennas," 61
II
a._...y.�:i»c J.larri �.c Wrn Y'rIU f�J.lE9 � P.13i13
. .1 � -
^ r r o
_ ..,, ..� s� �
1
Fed. Rcg. I4,100 (March 29, 1996). For fuRhcr information contact Jamcs Hcrbcrt, Officc of - --
Property Acquisition and Realty Serviccs, Public Building Service, General Services
Administration, 18th & F 3treeis, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-0376.
8. Have any studies been completed on poteniia] hazards of locating a totvcrJbase site
close to residenfial communitiu? '
nsw • In conncction with its responsibiIities under NEPA, the FCC considers the potential
effects of radiofrequency (RF) emissions from FCC-rcgulatcd transnitters oa human health
and safety, Since the FCC is not ihe expert agency in this azea, it uses standazds and .
guidelines developed by those'with flie appropriate expertisc._ For examole, in the absence of
a uniform federal standacd on RF exposure, the FCC has relied since 1985 on the RF
exposure guidelines issued in 1982 by the American National Standazds Tnstitute (ANSI
C95.1-1982). In 1991, the Institute of BlectricaI and $lectronic Enginecrs (IEEE) issued
guidelines designcd to replace the RF ANSI exposure guidelines. 13ese guidelines
(ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992) were adopted by ANSI. The Telccommunications Act of 1996
mandatos that the FCC complete its proceeding in ET Docket 93-62, in which it is
considering updating the RF exposure guidelincs, no latcr than early Augu� 1996. Copies of
this proceeding cun he obtained from the Intemational Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS),
telephone 202-857-3800. Prescnlly, RF emission requirements ere contained in Section
1.1307(b) of the FCC's rules . A7 C.F.R §1.1307(b), for all services. PCS has service
specific RF emission provisions in Section 24.52 of the FCC's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 24.52. •
-Additionai information conceming RF emission hazards can be obtained through a variety of
sources:
(i) Tnformation conccming I2F hazards can be obtained on the World Wide Web at
http://www.fcc.go� RF safety questio�s are answered and further RF -
documents and inturmation arc contained under the Cellular Telephony Section.
(2) OET Bulictins SG and 65 conceming effects and potential RF hazards can be
requested throu�h the R�diofrequency Safety Program at 202-4I8-2464. Additionally,
any specific questions concerning RF hazards can be answered by contacting the FCC
at this phone numbcr.
The FCC maintains a Communications and Crisis Management Center which is staffed 24
hours a day, seven days a week. In the event bf an emergency, such as a radiofrequency
hazazd threatening public safety or health, you may cal] 202-632-6975. The watch officer
who answers at that number can contact our comp(iance personnel in your area and dispatch
them within a matter of hours.
12
Macalester-Groveland
Cominunity Council
320 South Griggs Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105-2800
Telephone: (612) 698-7973
FaY: (612) 698-9465
December 3, 1996
Roger Ryan
Department of PED
City of Saint Paul
1100 City Hall Annex
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Roger, ,
Our organization at its November 21 meeting passed the following recommendations
regarding the zoning for celluiar antennas.
* Cellular antennas should only be allowed in Residential, OS-1 or B-2 zones on
buildings at least 60 feet high.
* Cellular antenna towers and poles should be permitted by Special Condition Use
Permit in Residential, OS-1 or B-2C zones where buildings are 60 feet high.
* Cellular antenna towers and poles in business zones shou2d be set back from
residential structures by 150 feet.
* The city should encourage anteana installation on e�usting public and institutional
buildings over 60 feet high.
�- A�tennas not meun±Pd on buildings should be i*is±alled en monopoles rathe* tha.^.
free standing towers.
* Antennas should not be more than 15 feet higher than the buildings they are
mounted on.
* Antenna sites should be planned and bni�t for co-location. (use by multiple
companies)
* Antennas should be camouflaged, screened and/or contained within an
architectural element.
* Antenna sites should provide oae pazking space.
* Antenna towers or poles should be spaced 320 feet apart.
� recyCledpaPn
� � � � � �
_ . _" , ' � �
Roger Ryan Page Two
December 3, 1996
* Speciai Condition Use Permits should be required for antennas on sites that are
not industrially zoned.
* There should be a sunset provision to insure the elimination of antenna towers
and poles when no longer needed (because of new technology).
* The city should receive revenue from rent or taxes associated with cellular
antenna sites.
� The ci �� sheuId protect open par:.�aad frer.l a..tenna towe:s and poles.
We look forward to reviewing the Planning Commission's recommendations on this
matter and hope our recommendations will be anong them.
Sincerely,
� (�
f.L.Zi ��lJ LIJ���
Kathie Tarnowski
Community Organizer
■
✓
���-,°,�
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON SANUARY 2, 1997
PRESENT: Mmes. Morton and Wencl; Messrs. Chavez and Kramer of the Zonin� Committee; Mr.
Warner, Assistan[ City Attomey; Mme. Sanders and
Mr. Ryan of the Plannina Division.
ABSENT: Faricy, excused
Field, excused
Gurney, excused
Vaueht, excused
Time: 420 - 535 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, Chairperson.
Antenna Amendments Discuscion
Roger Ryan, Planning Division staff, reviewed that an interim ordinance was adopted in October, 1996
which prohibited any free-standing antennas in residential, OS-1 and B-1 districts, and reduced from 40
feet to I S feet the height that antennas. that are placed on existing buIldings may exceed the height of the
building to which they are attached in OS-1 and B-1 districu.
,,.The interim ordinance is applicable for 120 days and can be extended if necessary. The staff report
,.�-included a table which briefly listed the main regulations on antennas, a copy of the interim ordinance, the
Macalester-Groveland Community Council's recommendation on antenna regulations, and a fact sheet
from the Federai Communications Commission. Mr. Ryan stated that the interim ordinance was enacted
, in response to concerns regarding the existing regulation relative to the aestheuc impact of antennas near
residenual properties. 5afety was not addressed as an issue.
A summary of regulations of other cities was also included with the staff report. Mr. Ryan reviewed the
preliminary staff recommendations, those of which were distributed to various providers, one interested
. person, and the district councils, for their informaaon. He said that a preliminary staff recommendation '
that free-standing antennas be allowed as special condition uses in OS-1 thru RCC-1 districu was
r inadvertendy lefr out of the staff report.
Commissioner Chavez referenced staff recommendation no. 3. "Industrial districts. Permined use. Free-
standing antennas up to ISO feet high, provided the antennas are setback Z I/2 times the height of the tower
from the nearest residenrial srructure, " and asked staff to elaborate on this.
Mr. Ryan responded that a yard between the antenna and the nearest lot line equal to the height of the
antenna would no longer be required. He said the effect of that would be that it would be easier to put
free-standing antennas on indusuial property.
Peter Beck, A.T. & T. Wireiess Services, accompanied by Marie Grimm, Local Government Affairs
Manager, provided an informational presentation on the eellular technology. Mr. Beck has been with
AT&T Wireless Services, originally known as Cellular One, for approximately 10 years. A.T. & T. and
US West were the two orieinal providers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide
cellular telephone service to the twin cities metropoli[an area. In the past few years the Federal _
Communicacions Commission (FCC) has issued additional licenses for what is widely known as Persona!
Communication Services (PCS), which is a variation on cellular and in many respects operates the same
way and would also fall under the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Beck reviewed how the cellular technology works. The technoloey is a system titat relies on very Iow
power, essentially f.m. radio signals emanatine from an antenna site to hand-held or portabte phones.
Each provider has been licensed for a certain number of frequencies hy the FCC and with those
frequencies must cover their entire licensed area. Since each frequency can only handle one conversation
at a time, each cell-site, or set of antennas, has a limited number of conversations which it can hold.
These frequencies are reused throushout the system. When there were few users a system was
commenced with 8 or 9 cell-sites on very tall structures, or 300 foot antenna towers. Each cell-site
covered a very laree area because there weren't mzny users in that area and there was enough room on
each of those cell-sites for all of the users. But as more people took advantage of this technology each
cell-site would fili up to capacity, and a!1 the frequencies �vould be used and customers coulddt get on.
What would then be done was to break that cell inro two, three or sometimes four smaller celIs and
typically get by with a lower antenna height because the sienal is intended to cover a smaller area. Mr.
Beck said the uick is not only to cover a smaller area but to not cover too big an area, because those
frequencies are being used elsewhere.
This was done in Saint Paul in 1993 when there was a cell on a hiah stmcture downtown which needed to
be broken into two cells, one north on 35E and one east on 94. As a result of that need, the City got into
this issue and A.T. & T. at that time known as Cellulaz One, worked closely with the City in the adopuon
>,. of the existing wireless ordinance, the fust of its kind in the metropolitan azea. This ordinance, Mr. Beck
said is used as a model to present to other cities that are adopting ordinances at this time. Mr. Beck said it
is a very good ordinance and that with any living document needs occasional updating.
Mr. Beck said that A.T. & T. Wireless was wncerned whether there was a need for a moratorium whiie
the ordinance was looked at again as Saint Paul had a moratorium three yeazs ago, but that the scope of the
moratorium was narrowed to the point where A.T. & T. was able to find industrial sites for the four cells
they needed immediately. Mr. Beck pointed out that by the time it is known there is a need to break a cell
down, it is already needed and things need to happen very fast, with timing being very important and that
ofrentimes a need is identified by customer complaints that they cannot get on to the system.
Mr. Beck said that both initizlly and again at this Ume, that A.T. & T. Wireless has suggested that if there
is a place where the City wants these facilities to go, that antennas be made permitted uses there, and that
providers will do everyihing they can to locate there, because that is where ihey would have the abiliry to
get in and out of the fastest. Aowever, he noted that as these systems conrinue to mature and the usage
goes up there wili be more and more celi-sites. A.T, & T. has 90+ celI-sites (across the metropoIitan
area and into Wisconsin), a 10% increase since the system was turned on 10-12 years ago. He said that as
the system matures and there are more cell-sites ihat the location for each cell-site becomes more and more
difficult and there is less flexibility in terms of where the antenna faciliry can be placed in order to serve
the azea that it needs to serve.
l;
�' - - . �� �
Mr. Beck reiterated that there are a number of cities that are working on ordinances and said that effort
has been triggered by the issuance of the PCS licenses. The FCC issued 3 PCS licenses so far and are
auctionina off 2 more, with all of these providers telline the cities that they will need antenna sites. Tfiis
has caused a desire to look at antenna sites more comprehensively.
The companies licensed far Saint Paut include:
OriQinal nroviders currentiv on-the-air:
1) A.T. 8z T. Wireless
2) Air Touch (previous(y U.S.West)
New licensee thar are buildina networke and lookin�o ewitch on in 1997:
1) Aerial Communications (a.k.a. as APT Communications)
2) Sprint Spectrum
3) Nextel
There are also two more licenses being auctioned and much debate exisrs as to whether the two additional
licenses will actually provide the whole range of services, or whether those licenses might be used for
other things. These two wiil be a spectrum which can be used for a cellular system, as well as for other
things, i.e. a data transmission system to augment existing frequencies for one of the existing license °
holders. There will not necessarily need to be two whole new systems fo� the two additional licenses.
, Mr. Ryan asked whether the addiuonal two licenses wIll need antenna sites.
Mr. Beck responded tha[ if one of the other five providers were to acquire one of the licenses to get extra
frequencies for their system that they would not. However, under mos[ scenarios they would.
Commissioner Wencl asked whether it would be possible for the three companies currently building their
;tnetworks to put their antennas in.the same locations as the two existing companies, and whethei there will
be clusters of antennas grouped together.
Mr. Beck responded that that becomes a policy decision for the City to make. The technology is there and
there have been instances of co-location, that is having more than one provider on a site. He noted that
many of the sites are not free-standing structures but are on buildings. For a co-location to happen
approximately 20 feet of verticai separation is needed and quite a bit more horizontal separation (which is
the bigger issue).- It is more difficult to mount antennas on the same rooftop, however it is feasible and has
been done. Mr. Beck continued that on a water tower or a building it wouid be desirable to get as many in
place on such an inconspicuous location as possible. As with poles, he said you begin to reach a point of
�: diminishin? returns in terms of co-location. When there are more than two provideis on the same pole it
° becomes a busy pole and a big pole too. Poles are designed specifically for this use and are only designed
to the size required. All providers are buIlding the poles to take two users, two sets of antennas. The
poles can be built to do three or four but get bigger and thicker for each user, as opposed to what is
cunently on 35E or I-94 where there is a singie pole with one set of antennas at the top. Mr. Beck
explained that the buik and height of the pole is needed to support the additional antenna panels which are
bolted onto the poles, and weight and windload has to be designed inco the pole to accommodate the
number. He reported that other cities have been lookin� at requiring 3 or 4 per pole, but afrer further
discussion go back to one or two because of the bulk of the pole and the extra height, with a second user
the pole gets to 95 to IOQ feet, with a third user 120-125 feet, and so on.
Mr. Beck said the compromise the industry is comfortable with and which most of the communities are
settlinR on is to design the pole for two users, so that if another provider comes along with a need in close
proximity to the existin� facility that they could get on it.
Mr. Beck reviewed that what he sees as the best feature of the ordinance is that a hierarchy is set, with the
tirst priority to identify locations in higher zonine districu on existing structures. If it"s not possible for a
provider to use an existin� structure evidence should be provided. If it can't be done in a business district
then evidence must be shown, and if an antenna must go into a residential azea, it mns[ be shown why it is
necessary. This gets the providers located where the Ciry wants them. Mr. Beck pointed out that as the
systems develop there will be less and less tlexibility and facilities will need to go into residential areas, but
what they are hoping is that they will be able to keep them on institutional sites, i.e. colleges, schools,
cemeteries, public works facilities.
Commissioner Wencl said it appears that flexibility would decrease with more providers being added, and
asked whether each provider woulddt basically need the same set-up.
Mr. Beck pointed out that the one difference would be between cellular providers and PCS providers. He
pointed out that the cellular providers are on a frequency in an 800 megahertz band and that the PCS
providers are at 1.3 gigahertz which does not travel as faz as the celiular providers. PCS uses a lower
power, however it does not uavel as far and in turn will need more facilities up front but PCS will no[
have the capacity issue to the extent that the cellular providers do. Ae noted that once PCS geu a network
in, which will likely be close to the number of cells that A.T. & T. Wireless has, that they should not
continue to erow that system at the rate of 15-20 cell si[es per year, buc rather a litfle bit here and there.
Mr. Beck stcggested that by the end of 1997-1948 the City should pretry much know what cell-sites they
have for the lifetime of this technology, which may only be 10 years.
Preserving the permitted use in the indusuial zones, Mr. Beck reviewed, is a very good strategy for
getting them located there, but he said it needs to be recognized that it won't be possible to do that in all
instances and that the providers will need the opportuniry, under appropriate controls, to go into resideniial
areas.
Mr. Beck reviewed the 150 feet in industriai zones. He said the intent of that Ianwage is that antennas
would be able to go in just about anywhere in an industrial zone. He noted that the languaee states that
you have to stay the height of the pole from any property line, unless it can be shown that in all instances
the faciliry would not fail outside of that property line. Mr. Beck addressed safety, reporting that the
mono-pole technology and its design is exuemely safe and said there has not been a faIlure nationwide of
one of the mono-pole svuctures. He pointed ovt tfiat they have been through hurricanes and that they are
over-desisned. Mr. Beck reviewed that the uniform buIlding requirement is an 80 mile per hour wind and
they desi�ned the mono-pole to a 90 mile per hour wind with one half inch of ice, which is about a 40-50 %
increase in the s[ructurai strength of the pole. Mr. Beck claimed that the poles wIlt not faII down.
Because of this design it was thought they could go back to a corner of an indusuial area where property
linas come together, which is oftentimes a very good locauon as it is out of the parking area and removed
from all acdviry. However he noted that was not found to be the case and variances have been required.
Mr. Ryan responded that there is no way to show that to be so.
Mr. Beck responded that language needs to be improved.
,� : - . `� 5
Mr. Ryan reviewed that the language of the antenna amendment is to provide for a spacer, and that the one
and one half times is used as standard for buildings in industrial zones.
Mr. Beck responded that in fully-developed communities like Saint Paul that it is difficult to locate a site
that is one and one half times its hei�ht from residential, however that the standard is somethins they can
live with. He reviewed that if a mono-pole ever were to fail that it would crimp, but would never fall
over.
Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Beck to comment on the preliminary staff recommendations.
Mr. Beck said he saw no major problems with any of the preliminary recommendations, and that all of the
concepts are such that they have worked with in the past. He expressed concern that the committee not get
hung up on safety issues for a technolo�y which he believes is a non-issue, however a�reed that the
aesthetic concerns need to be addressed. He said it needs to be recognized that people wilI be able to see
the antennas and that they would not function if they were not in the line of sight to every comer of the
city. He reviewed that they have an obligation under their license to provide service to every corner of the
ciry, that it s impottant, particularly for Fire Departments, Police Deparcments, Ambulance Services, and
other public service and safety agencies that use ic as back up for their two-way.
Commissioner Kramer asked staff to review how park land is zoned.
Mr. Ryan responded that Saint Paul does not have a zonine desianation for park land, but that most park
land is zoned residential; however some park land is located in business districts. A free-standing tower
could be placed on park land under aspecial condition use.
Mr. Beck reviewed that park land is important as they tend to be fairly well-distributed throughout the
community, which provides an excellent opportunity to get a si�nal where it is needed without going on
actual residential property. Poles can be made to replicate lighting standards and can be located in such
places as ball fields. An example of this is a pole located in right field of the Saints Stadium. However,
Mr. Beck reported that some communiues do say no to parks.
Commissioner Kramer said he has heard it suggested by someone in the community that a cellular tower
should be mstalled on the west side of Lake Phalen where there are no lighu around the path, and that
lights be included as part of that agreement.
Mr. Beck responded that such solutions have been done in other communities. He reviewed that cagitat
requiremenu of the business are incredible, and cell-sites are almost a miilion dollars each. Land is
leased, not purchased, and rent is paid for use of pubiic facilities, i.e. water towers. Mr. Beck reviewed
that the poles look like the light standards you would see on a freeway intercha[�ge, and tha[ two-user poles
are 5-6 feet in diameter, about 75-100 feet tall, a fluted-steel structure with antennas on top. Poles are
typicatly painted to match a blue-gray sky. If poles are in a location adjacent to MnDOT poles, which are
dark brown, they will be painted dark brown, or any color which the local government wants.
Commissioner Kramer asked if there are power to these poles.
Mr. Beck said that all cell-sites have power and phone which are typically undereround. Each faciliry has
a 12 x 28 foot equipment shelter on-site, or sometimes equipment is stored in an existing building which
contains backup power, batteries, and is connected to NSP and US West land lines. The cell-site is just
transmitting and receiving from the phones, and then goes by land line into the U.S. West exchanaes.
Mr. Beck reported that he met with District 14 and noted that the recommendations received from them
are ones in which they worked with them on and that District ]4's recommendations are pretry consistent
with what staff is recommendin�. However, he noted that mandatory spacina couid be counterproductive
in terms of not enabling companies to put the poles in a good spot because they would be too close
together.
Commissioner Wencl asked Mr. Beck why one parkina space would be a necessary inclusion.
Mr. Beck responded that a tech visi[s these si[es monthly and parking space is needed for the service
person to eet as close to the antenna as possible as they are transporuna equipmenc.
Commissioner Wencl cautioned against includine such languaee in the regulations, with Commissioner
Kramer noting that for any cell-sites that the City would require a special condition use permit and such a
decision could be made at that time.
Marie. Grimm, Local Govemment Affairs Manager, pointed out that accessibility to the site is the main
concern. There may be cases where parkin� spaces need not be provided for, as parking is available on
the street.
Commissioner Kramer asked whether separate guidelines would be established for special condition use
permits for cellular towers, with Mr. Ryan sTatin� that there wIll be and it was noted that the guidelines
mi�ht be the place to include language that parkina is adequate.
Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney, asked about co-location beine a preferred concept in the preliminary
staff recommendations, and asked whether the nature of the business is such where competitors get along
with each other. He drew a scenazio where a provider might request putting up an antenna in a special
condition use area and even though their competitor has space for a co-location that they prefer not to co-
locate because they can't get along with them. They azgue that they have a federal mandate to provide the
service and claims that the Ciry doesn't have the authority to tell them that they can't locate elsewhere, and
they hold to the fact that they need a separate location. Warner reviewed that there is a concern in the
community about profiferation of poIes. If a co-location requirement is included, Mr. Wartter asked
whether Mr.Beck see that as a way for companies to piQey-back with each other, or if they can't get
along, to collude with one another so as to get their own or more antennas.
Mr. Beck responded that the companies are amenable to co-locating for two reasons: i) It is a politically
smart thins to do. They understand why people don't want a lo[ of poles; and 2) They save the capital cost
to that pole, which is a big issue. However, he noted that these are big companies that aze very concerned
about the anti-trust implications of working together on cell-sites. They compete on basically three issues:
1) price; 2) the quality of the seroice they deliver; and 3) the area thac they cover. Cell-site locarion is
direcUy related to two of the three azeas that they compete in. All the companies have received specific
duection from ttteir corporate legal departmenu that they cannot get together and compare systems and
aeree on cell-sites with other providers. But on a case-by-case basis they can as the ordinance calls for
that if there is another cell-site belonging to another faciliry in the azea where you need a cell you should
use it, unless you can show evidence why you can't. Mr. Beck said that some ordinances of other cities
have gotten very aggressive with that which he suggested goes beyond the police power of the ciues. He
said it wIll be awhile before that issue geu litigated, but that there needs to be a balance between how
� �. ~ �� � �
. - J
much the city can get involved in this business. Mr. Beck concluded that for the most part the companies
will want to cooperate because they don't have time to ar�ue about it. What they have tried to do is tell
cities they won't sue them if they only go so far, such as requiring the two users on a pole.
Mr. Beck noted that many ci[ies' ordinances require that if there is an existin� buildine that is where the
antenna has to go, or provide evidence why it isn't possible. He felt that this languaae was appropriate but
su�eested that there needs to be an out provided for instances where a building owner doe not want them
on their buildine, as the providers cannot be foreclosed from serving that area of the city because the
existino structure isn't available.
Mr. Ryan noted that antennas on existing structures are bringing in $12-15,000 per year.
Commissioner Chavez asked what pan of the recommendations will relate to safery and contacts, etc. He
found the Federal Communication Commission's fact sheet disturbing as it states that in case of immediate
safety or health hazard to dial a number and within hours someone will get back to you, and said thai this
could be a problem. He aiso reviewed the question of how far a pole can be located from residential and
said tha[ radio towers have gone down with people beine hurt as a result. He's concerned that if a mono-
pole fell over, despi[e the fact that Mr. Beck has said it will not, that i[ could be a hazard, and suggested
that something rela[ed to safety in residential locations should be included.
`:Mr. Beck responded that I50% of the heieht would cover the worst case scenario. He said when they can
provide all the data that is needed about what the experience has been, and what the margin of safety is
built into them, they will. He said that some computer modeling was done for them on where it would fail
and it was up to the 105-110 plus mile an hour wind situations before it even got to crimping, at which
point there wouldn't be anything left on the ground to fall on.
Mr. Ryan said that risht now you could put a commercial building 30 feet high and approximately 8 feet
,away from a residential building and that nobody worries about the safety on that and that the towers aze
-.;equally strong, in fact that the poles are even stronger than the buildings, so it appears that the towers are
equal to the buildings that they allow. Moreover there is the one and one half times the distance from the
nearest residential property, so safety has been given its due.
Mr. Beck said that they have told every community that they would fence the entire faciliry if it is the
community's des'ue, but they typically do not. They pull the pegs on the pole so that they can't be ciimbed
without special equipment.
No action was required as this matter was for discussion only.
. Drafted by:
( Sar.�t,w-
Donna Sanders
Submitted by: Approved by:
� ���'l°-� �����1� c�
Rog yan Giadys Monon
Chairman
c/
�� ���
_ - �-,
, � __ -� �
MINUTES OF THE ZONING CO[�IMITTEE
CZTY COUNCIL CH7IMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON FEBRUARY 20, 1997
PRESENT: Mmes. Faricy and Wencl; Messrs. Chavez, Fie1d, Kramer and Vaught of
the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warr.er, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes.
Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Planning Division.
ENT: Gurney
Morton, excused
Time: 5:05 - 6:15 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Barbara Wencl, Vice Chairperson.
�ELLULAR ANTENNA AMENDMENT4
, Roger Ryan, Planning Division staff, reviewed that interim zoning regulations
were adopted in October, 1996. The Zonir,g Committee held a public in£ormation
meeting on this matter on January 2, 1997. Staff rias since refined and
redrafted the proposed regulations. Mr. Ryan reviewed the staff report.
Three items w2re distributed at the meeting: 1)a 2/19/97 letter £rom the
District 2 Community Council including recommendations on the proposed
amendments; 2) a 2/18/97 letter from Peter Beck, representative for AT&T, who
provided three comments on the proposed amendments; and 3) a 2f20J97 memo to
` the committee from Mr. Ryan responding to AT&T's comments regarding the
loca'tion of towzrs and buildings. Mr. Ryan reviewed this memo with the
" committee which constituted change in the recommended amendments in the staff
�report.
Commissioner vaught asked for clarification as to the language used by Mr.
Beek in his letter, under point no. l. ...Allowing the equigment building or
monopole to be located in a side yard, where appropriate,..."
Peter Beck, representing AT&T Wireless Services, responded that what he had in
mind was what Mr. Ryan ended up recommending, saying that oftentimes the
equipment buildings can be put up against an existing building and made to
look like part of the building. The recommendation triat it be allowed if it
falls within the envelope of the building Mr. Beck believed to be a good
' solution to point no. 1 identified in his letter. Points no. 2 and 3 he said
are policy issues that he raised for the committee to consider. A 75-foot
height limit he reviewed would basically mean only one user per pole, absent
unique circumstances, and he sugg=sted that the policy issue is wriether Saint
Paul would like to see fewer poles if provision was made for another 20-25
feet of vertical separation, with a 95-100 foot pole able to accommodate
typically 2 users, which may reduce the number of poles, which most cities are
allowing for in their regulations. Point no. 3, the increase in the setback,
he pointed out that as the technology matures it is going to be difficult as
the usage increases and the need for cell sites increases to find locations.
Mr. Beck suggested that increasing the setback wi11 make it more difficult to
accomplish that.
Mr. Beck summarized that Saint Paul has a good ordinance, the revisions are
good and bring the ordinance up-to-date and that with the additional
recommendation by staff he believes it to be a state-of-th2-art ordinance. fte
recommended that the policy issue of more poles or higher poles and whether or
not some r22ief on the s2tback would be appropriate should b2 addressed.
Commissioner Field addressed having two users on one pole of lOG feet, and�
whether broadzr coverage or more capacity would be achieved by the provider at
100 Eeet then would be the case by thz provider at 75 feet.
Mr. Bzck responded that no additional capacity would bz gained. Each site has
a limited numb2r of frequencies assign2d and would be the same regardless of
th2 h2ight. In terms of coverage, each site is designed and engineered
spzcific to that location. He said that most part of the metro area would not
- bz able to livz with a 75 foot height limit as the technology has to be up
over the tre2 tops. In a more suburban area where they have to cov2r a 2arger
area he said they would definitely need more height than 75 feet. AT&T
decided not to oppose a 75 foot height limit in Saint Paul because theiz cells
are getting smaller in Saint Paul, and as there are more cells the ce11s are
smaller. The radio waves have to cover a smaller area so that they can be
lower. As there is provision in the industrial zonzs that they can go Lo 150
feet, in most cases they have been able to find industrial sites. Mr. Beck
responded that thz provider at th2 top would get more coverage at 100 feet,
but they wouldn't always need more covzrage in an urbanized area like
Saint Paul.
Commissioner Field asked if the restriction on the number of users is actually
the number of devices that are on the antenna, irregardless of height.
Mr. Beck responded that each user has an antenna array, and in AT&T's case,
typically three antennas times three, with three antennas pointing each of
three different directions, which need to be 20-25 vertical feet from another
provider's antenna array to avoid interference, and even more so of horizontal
separation. With a 100 foot pole one provider would be at 100 feet, with the
other at 75-80 fezt, thereby double use would be made of the pole. Some
cities have considered requiring 3 or more but at that point the pole gets
quite a bit bulkier and more expensive and the likelihood that 3 providers
would need a cell-site in that precise location diminishes. Mr. Beck said
that AT&T believes that you meet a point of diminishing return after two
users.
Commissioner Field asked then whether the number of antenna is more a function
of the number of users in an urbanized area, and whether there won't be fewer
po2es resu2ting from po2es being 100 fezt.
Mr. Beck responded that the number o£ cell-sites is related to users and that
each site can only handle a certain number of users at any one time. Cell
sites are designed £or peak periods and when a cell-site reaches capacity, as
happened downtown, that it must be broken into smaller ce11s to increase
capacity, but in the meantime they have to be sure that those new cells
provide the same coverage.
E
r; -- _ -. `, �
Commissioner Chavez asked Mr. Beck to elaborate regarding the sideyard.
Mr. Beck responded that he had suggested allowing some flexibility to locate
in sideyards when it's appropriate. Staff dealt with this in a more concrete
way to allow for a provider to go into the developable envelope of the
property, except not in the front yard. A sideyard would be allowed if the
antenna were up against the building. He noted that oftenrimes in industrial
parks and school sites that the bast place to put equipment buildings might
not hapoen to be what is designated as the rear yard.
Commissioner Chavez asked whether two providers on a pole is a common practice
across the country.
Mr. Seck respondzd that in the twin cities metropolitan area that it has
become common for cities to require that the poles be designed to accommodate
two,users and to grant the necessary height to do that. He reviewed that AT&T
,and anotri2r provider have bzen in business for approximately 10 years, three
or four providers are just building their systems, and that the industry is
hopeful that as the systems are being built and the existing providers
continu= to develop theirs, that the various systems will overlap and will
land-on existing cell-sites and be able.to co-locate, as it is more efficient
" for the providers because they heve one less pole to finance and as cities
desire to see less poles, will encourage co-location.
Commissionzr Chavez asked whether there would be an advantage for a provider
.to.be higher or lower on a pole.
Mr. Beck responded that each system wi11 have its requirements which will be
., vexy site-specific, pointing out that AT&T has poles ranging in height from
=75-300 feet, depending on the area that site has to cover. Whoever is there
,'first, if Saint Paul requires it, will build a pole that will accommodate 2
'- users and that provider will go on at the height that it needs, and the other
height would be available if another pravider identified a need in that area
and was able to negotiate a deal to lease space on the pole. Most providers
have national co-location agreements which makes this process less cumbersome.
,'�Commissioner Field asked for Mr. Beck's reaction Co language which would allow
poles of up to 100 feet to be permitted only if triey accommodated two users,
- thereby necessitating two applicants when poles are initially requested.
Mr. Beck responded that the possibility that two users would land at the same
" spot at the same time is very small. He reviewed that the providers are
�'�competitors that compete on 1) price; 2) quality; and 3) on coverage; and that
the pole location relates to two of the three. Providers cannot get together
� and select locations under the current anti-trust law. What can happen is �
that if someone has a site up in the air, and if it is a possible location for
the second provider, that the second provider can negotiate to get on it. He
suggested that rather than requiring that there be two users right up-front,
that trie taller pole be required to be built to accommodate two users with the
hope that a second user can make use of it at some point.
3
Anthony Segale, Regional Manager, U.S. West, spoke. Mr. Segale reviewed that
two technologies are available: cellular and PCS. H2 said there are
significant differences in the technologies and that PCS requires additional
sites. U.S. West is a new provider and will be buildinq a system zn Saint
Paul with approximately 1/3 of the sites to be rooftops; a couple of water
towers wi11 be used; and approximately 10°s wi11 be part--of co-location
agreements throughout the city. The PCS service will be an extension of the
land-line service, and about 12 sites will cover the area.
Mr. Segale noted that Saint Paul's trees are probab2y the highest of any trees
in the metropolitan area, with some being measured at 75-80 feet. He
circulated samples of both a cellular phone and a PCS phone, noting that
eventually thz phone sets will look and act just like our phones at home. Mr.
Segale commented that the proposed ordinance is not exe2ssively restrictive
.and he addressed issues of how to how the providers are going to serve the
community and what the technology will be used for. In reviewing the two
technologies. he noted that eavesdropping is done on cellular phones and that
cellular phones are not a secure device. Whereas, PCS units are digital and
secure, and that PCS is a leap in technology, the next g2neration £rom the
cellular phone.
� Regarding public safety. Mr. Segale displayed a model of a communication
tower and pointed out that there is a 20-25 foot case on it that is steel-
reinforc2d concrete that is 25 feet underground. He said the tower is not
going to fall over.
Mr. Sega2e has spoken with the communications directors of the Saint Paul
Police Department who have stated that they cannot use cellular service
because it is not secure, however they wzre very excited about PCS and said
there is a need in the Police Department for a secured two-way transmission.
fiowever, he said concerns were raised over budget restraints. Mr. Segale
suggested that the price of PCS service wi11 come down with the competition of
several providers.
Mr. Segale noted that some of the residential areas in Saint Paul currently
would not have the two-way communication on the PCS unit because there are no
current facilities in place that would give them transmission and said that is
what designing the ordinance is about, to help provide this service to
everybody. He further stated that if the City paramedics are to use the
technology, service needs to be available to all residents.
Disaster recovery. Telephone service as we currently know it still gets
disrupted when there is a major storm. U.S. West has about 75°s of their land
lines buried. Mr..Segale noted the attractiveness of a technology that
withstands the wind and weather and still provides the communication.
Sometimes the issue is that of preventing the eyesore. However, Mr. Segale
said the reality is to bring communication services to the area, whether it's
business or residence.
4
�' _��5
i1
1 - _� „J '�
U.S. 6�7est Ne2ds. Mr. Seqale reviewed that their first option for a site
location would be a roo£top, and that they will also look for a co-locate.
How2ver, he said that there are areas where such locations would not be
available and they would have to erect a oole, and i£ the trees are at 75-80
Pezt that they would need to g2t about 15 £eet above the trees. Mr. Segale
said tY.at U.S. West is looking for provisioas in the ordinance that would
allow communication facilities to be providz3 in residential areas.
Mr. Segale circulated computer generated oho�oaraphs of pot2ntial facilities
in Saint Pau1, briefly discussing various scenarios. H2 said that the PCS
providers differ from cellular in that thzy are not lookina for a particular
building but are looking for equipment space on the outsid=. All PCS
facilities are w2ather protected, vandalism protected, and sit as cabinets and
are significantly smaller than cellular storage facilities.
Mr. Segale reviewed that PCS is different than cellular as it is a secured
service. It provides a servic2 to the community and in order to be effective
it nzeds to be located within one and one-half mile of Chz users, noting that
as th2 technology and the usage increases th2 cells actually do get smaller.
.Commissioner Kramer requested copies of the rendzrings that Mr. Segale
��. displayed for the hearing record, with Mr.�Szgale,agreeing to provide copies
���to staf£.
David Hagen, Sprint PCS, spoke. Mr. Hagen said that Sprint PCS is supportive
to the extent possible in using existing structures to locate their antennas,
which includes towers, poles and buildings. They believe it's desirable to do
this both from the company's and the City's persp2ctive, thereby reducing the
number of single-user tow2rs that are built.
Mr. Hagen said that Sprint PCS is very suoportive of the he.ight bonus
''discussed earlier by Mr. Beck, and helieves.it to be a very good idea. They
'would like to see the ordinance recognize existing non-com�*.unication poles and
tow2rs, i.e, power poles, utility poles, liant poles, etc. as existing
structures upon which antennas may be located. Sprint PCS believes this to be
�a preferable solution to locating antennas, as opposed to building a new free-
standing tower.
Mr. Hagen displayed some photos that are part of a brochure used by Fort Worth
Tower, out of Fort Worth, TX, (copy in file) to advertise a concept they are
marketing called the power-mount installation, which uses a specific latCice-
type of high-voltage Cransmission power structure to actually mount an antenna
array on top of. It essentially results in a pole, though a much smaller pole
than a typical free-standing mono-pole, constructed or erected through the
center of the transmission lattice tower, supported laterally by that tower,
and then with a foundation under it to support it vertically. Mr. Hagen saicl
that this results in one less free-standing pole and a morz intensive use of
an existing blight on the landscape and is a way of reducing trie impact of the
antennas on the landscape.
5
Mr. Hagen concluded that Sprint PCS supports the modi£ications to the
ordinance and £eel that it is generally reasonable.
Mr. Ryan asked how tall the poles are within the existing power towers, that
w2re pictured in the brochure.
Mr. Hagen respondzd that this type of application can be used in tow2rs
ranging between 65-100 £eet or over. He understood there to be a limit as to
how much above the tower the antennas could be, but that he b21i2v2d that any
transmission lattice tower like depicted could be adapted with the pole
through the center.
Mr. Ryan reviewed that in order to use the power towers the provid2r would
have to comz to somz agreement with N.S.P, and..-asked whether N.S.P, has
�indicated a willingness to participate.
Mr. Hagen responded that Sprint PCS has bzzn working with N.S.P. toward
re�aching such an agreement and is optimistic that such an agreement wi11 be
arrived at in the near future to use N.S.P.'s transmission and communication
towers in this fashion.
' Commissioner Gurney asked whether the reczption/coverage would be a3=_quate by
strictly using existing structures.
Mr. Hagzn responded that Sprint PCS would not exclusiv2ly use N.S.P.
transmission tow2rs, but would be used only in certain cases where they would
fit their locational needs.
Commissioner Field reviewed that it would be Sprir.t PCS intention to include
the power pole's configuration within the definition of a pole or a
transmission device within the amendments, with Mr. Hagen validating.this and
� asking that such a power be considered and recognized as an existing
structure. He noted that under the existing ordinance that antennas located
on existing structures receive better treatment than do the construction of a
free-standing mono-pole. Specifically, Sprint PCS feels that in a residential
area that this is a better solution than building a free-standing pole.
Commissioner Field agreed, however, stating that the nature and placement of
the power poles is such that there will be very few that wi11 be within the
proximity to provide coverage in a residential area.
Mr. Hagen agreed in general, and reported that there is one particular area in
the city that Sprint PCS is attempting to cover that is zoned residential and
where they have located some transmission structures that they believe to be
better solutions than a free-standing pole.
Chair Wzncl allowed Mr. Segale to address the committee a second time as this
was a technical public hearing.
Mr. Segale reported that there is a Master Use Agreement with N.S.P. currently
which allows for attachment that does not have to be attachment to the top,
but can be attachment to the side, because of the height. He emphasized the
0
r_ _�.�5
located on ballfields or wherever, because the antenna array can be put on top
and it doesn't look like something standing off by itsel£. Mr. Segale noted
that the City of Saint Paul School District has said that they do not wish to
have any tower facilities at their location.
Commissioner Field asked whether Mr. S2cale believed that the scope of the
existing language �oP the ordinance su£ficiently a3dresses the existing
structures dzscribed above to facilitate the providers using those structures.
Mr. Segale said that he did not, and suggested that more definitive language
be drawn so that residential areas don't gzt le£t out on the basis that a
facility may be an eyesore, with other alternative locations being looked at,
understanding that the locations can't always be building tops.
Peter Coy1e, representing American Portable Telecom, another PCS company which
is a new entrant to the marketplace, s�poke. Mr. Coyle asked that the
committee pres2rve flexibility within the ordinance and try to promote
co-location. As American Portable Telecom has to build a brand new facility
they are looking for new locations in many cases because the service that they
need to provid2 is not going to be just a highway corridor kind of service but
� is intended a:'id designed to be used, gromoted by the FCC, within denser urban
�. areas. That means, Mr. Coyle said, that need to be creative about
where they locate the antennas.
1. American Portable Telecom urges the committez to give incentives to use
fewer poles, but higher poles, as a means of allowing co-location of up
to-two providers.
2. With regard to usable land area, Mr. Coyle said that the extent to
which poles are forced to the back of lots may seem aesthetically
pleasing because it hides the view but the fact is that it may also
imped2 the use of that space by some other productive use that the city
would like to encourage. Therefore he believes that the extent to
which�sideyards are used, or wher2 up against a structure, albeit on
the side, just gives the City better flexibility to manage scarce
� resources, the city's industrial and commercial land.
Mr. Coyle said American Portable Telecom wishes to work with the City. He
applauded the efforts of City staff to give the committee a responsible cut at
�the'ordinance, and said that they will continue to work with the committee to
refine it and make sure that it functions we11 so that the providers are not
all lined up seeking variances from the document once it does get finalized.
Commis5ioner Field asked Mr. Coyle to elaborate on the coming together of two
users to build a pole and the possible anti-trust ramifications.
Mr. Coyle explained that they cannot togzther plot layout of these facilities
on an up-front basis. What they can do is commit to the City up-front that in
exchange for better flexibility in terms of height and other triings, that they
would commit to build a facility up-front, incurring the additional investment
to a11ow for an additional provider to be on their pole, with absolutely no
guarantee that they may get a second carrier on it to share that cost. He
said that what triey can't do is collaborate on the front-end for a co-location
7
as it is prohibited by anti-trust, So h� said that the most that they can do
is try to be creative in the land use coatext to try and provide opportunities
£or them.
Mr. Coyle said that what he sees happening in many o£ the cities that they're
working in is that they are requiring as a condition of approval with a
conditional use permit or otherwise, tha� the applicant commit if they get
approval of an extended pole, that they nrovide space for that additional
colocater, and is generally something th;t is acceptable. However, he said
that means that they need to get to 110-120 feet in order to provide the range
of separation. With Saint Paul having many mature tre2 stands, and as it is
line of sight technology, they have to be above the trees in order to have
something that actually works.
Commissioner Vaught reviewed with staff that the interim regulations are in
effect until March 25. He said he would like to provide for the various
providers th2 opportunity to not only provid2 further information of a
generalized nature, but also to recommend should they wish, speci£ic
amendments that might accomplish or effectuate the issues they have addressed.
Commissioner Vaught moved layover until March 20, 1997, and that the providers
be asked that if they wish the committee to consider anything that they submit
their desires in writing for consideration on March 20, and that such
submissions be submitted to staff no later than the end oE business on Friday,
March 7, two weeks prior to the meeting, to give staff the opportunity to go
through it, and distribute with the committee packets mailed out on March 14.
Commissioner Field seconded the motion.
Mr. Ryan noted that the moratorium will expire on March 25.
Commissioner Vaught acknowledged that. He said he would add iE necessary,
that Mr. Warner draft for consideration by the city council, an extension o£
the moratorium beyond March 25, to a date which would allow consideration by
the committee on March 20, as well as any subsequent action necessary.
He noted that he would not want the committee to rush into action on this
matter without fully considering and maintaining the kind of flexibility triat
he has heard a11 of trie providers� representatives speak of.
Commissioner Field moved a friendly amendment to keep the public hearing open
so as to allow for reaction to any additional language.
Commissioner Vaught further asked that all submissions be shared not only with
the committee, but also to all other interested persons so that they might
come prepared on March 20 to provide testimony regarding the submissions.
Commissioner Kramer asked that staff be sure to notify the interested persons
regarding this issue who may not have submitted letters, in addition to the
providers.
:7
\ ' � s 4' / �J �
Commissioner Vaught noted that anyone who has invinced any interest whatsoever
should be communicated with in the same way as anybody else, with respect to
deadlines, etc.
Marie Grimm, AT&T, spoke against layover. She said she didn't want to see the
committez end up on March 20 with all kinds o£ questions with the providers
not knowing what to provide, and the committee not knowing what to expect.
Ms. Grimm asked that if the committee had some remaining questions that they
stipulate those questions. She said the Saint Paul ordinance is a good one,
with lots of detail and structure. She believed that the providers were
looking at what areas the committee wanted them to delve into further, and
questioned whether the March meeting wouldn't provide anymore. Ms. Grimm
asked tfiat perhaps th2 questions could be focused with a list of questions
given to each provider to respond to. _
Commissioner Vaught said it was his intention to be general in his motion, and
wishes for it to remain general. He said he is ready to hear anything anybody
wants to say, however that he is ready treat March 20 as a final date.
Commissioner Field agreed with Vaught noting that a11 of the providers that
testified said that the ordinance was basically a good ordinance, but they did
not appear to indicate that they endorsed the entire docum2nt. To the extent
�Chat the providers can flush out the issues with more clarity and establish
=�what their positions are, that is what he would be looking for, and that the
public riearing be held open.
The motion carried with a unanimous.voice vote�oE 6 to 0.
Drafted by: Submitted by: Approved by:
��S�_
Donna Sanders
Roge Ryan
����.������
Barbara Wencl
Vice Chairperson
0
�
(' `° �
1" '
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boulevard West
1��d2itl
::�� .
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, March 28, 1997, at
830 am. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners
Absent:
Also Preseqt:
Mmes. Duarte, Fazicy, Maddox, and Messrs. Chavez, Field Jr., Gordon, Gurney,
Kramer, Lee, McDonell, Nordin, Nowlin, and Vauaht.
Mmes. *Geisser *Treichel and *Wencl and Messrs. *Mardell and *Sharpe
*Excused
Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Nancy Frick, and Roger Ryan of
Planning and Economic Development.
° I. Approval of Minutes of March 14,199Z
MOTION: Com`nissioner Gurney moved approval of the minutes ofMarch I4, 1997;
Comrnissioner Chavez seconded the motion, which carried unanimously on a voice vote.
II. Chair's Announcements
- Gladys Morton has resigned from the Planning Commission to join the City Council, which leaves
the Planning Commission with three openings; applications will be taken until Apri123, 1997.
- Gladys' leaving also leaves an opening on the Zoning Committee, which by statue must have nine
members. Stephen Gordon will replace Gladys as the ninth member; and Litton Field will be the
new chair of the Zoning Committee.
Chair McDonell met with Pam Wheelock to discuss PED's restructuring and its affect on the
Planning Commission; and also the concems of the Commission regazding the restructuring. Ken
Ford will remain staff administrator. Reporting responsibility for staff support goes through Tom
Herran, a new member and a team leader. Zoning will continue to be staffed as it is. Pam is
hopeful that the restructuring will involve the Commission with more and different staff people
from the other elements of PED. She is hoping that this will make the Planning Commission's
work more effective and more viable.
- Planning Commission Retreat will probably be held immediately afrer we have inducted three new
members. The Steering Committee will continue to plan it.
- Patrick Seeb, from the Riverfront Development Corporation came to speak to us this morning about
the development framework for Saint Paul on the Mississippi River. The City Council has
requested them to put on a series of community forums; they, in tum, have asked the Planning
Commission to be co-sponsors, along with the City Council, of the community forums.
MOTION: �ommissioner Vaugltt moved that the Planning Commission be involved as a co-
sponsor With the City Counci! and the Saint Paul Riverfront Development Corporation in putting on
a serie"s of community forums on t/:e developrnentframework for Saint Paul on the Mississippi
River. Comneissioner Gordon seconded the motion.
Commissioner Field spoke in favor of the motion and he spoke of the need to get a cross section of
participants.
The motion on the floor carried unanimously o a voice vote.
III. Planning Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Ford commented further on the proposed town meeYings on the Downtown River Corridor
Development Framework.
Commissioner Gordon suggested that a broader participation might be acquired by identifying issues or
perspectives and then set up sign-up lists for each ofthose issues or perspectives and then alternate
speakers from tist to list.
Commissioner Nowlin offered his hope that in revision of the Comprehensive Plan, all of the divergent
plans that are being developed for the City would be brought together under one framework. First and
foremost, get a presentation directly to the Comprehensive Planning/Economic Development
Committee on what the Riverfront Corporation and Mr. Greenberg are proposing, so that it can be
incorporated into the overall Comprehensive Plan for the City.
About the Koch Mobil site, Mr. Ford noted that the City Council adopted a resolution favoring the
housing development for the entire site; the Department of Planning and Economic Development
recommended relocating Plastics, Inc. to a portion of the site. The resolution states that housing would
be a better lona term use for the land and directs staff to negotiate with the Science Museum to allow
Plastics Inc. to remain at its present location until a good site is available.
Commissioner Field informed the Commission that the Koch Mobil site will become a zoning case
because the property will aeed to be rezoned from its cunent staTUS to a residential use. He encouraged
the Commission to follow the issues regazding the case because a position will probably need to be
taken eventually.
Mr. Ford and Cathy Nordin were among others who yesterday attended the Conference on New
Urbanism, where Mr. James Howard Kuntzler, author of Geography of Nowhere, gave a keynote
address.
Mr. Ford reminded commissioners about the April3rd Cities at Work program on Chattanooga.
IV. Zoning Committee
#97-033 Courage Center - Nonconforming use permit to allow a community residential facility for
seven adults with physical and/or cognitive disabilities (1145 Argyle St; zoned R-4).
c- . �. ; r� ,
l • , �i
MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of t1:e requested nonconforming use permit to
allow a comr�eunity residential faci[ity for seven adults wirh pltysical and/or cognitive disabilities at
II45 Argyle Street, which carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Mr. Ryan added that although the Zoning Committee recommended that the fee should be waived on
this application, staff decided that the fee shou(d not be waived.
Commissioner Vaught informed the Commission that legal counse(, Mr. Peter Warner, had advised
him that the Zoning Committee/Planning Commission had the power to waive the fee. He feels that
the issue should be revisited.
Mr. Ford commented that he doesn't feel staff has authority to waive the fee in this case and will check
�vith Mr. Warner on the Commission's authority.
Chair McDonell announced that the issue will be taken up again at the next Zoning Committee
meeting, and that the Committee will repoR back to the Planning Commission if there is legal authority
to waive the fee.
Commissioner Field reminded the Commission that the waiving of fee is a recommendation, and a
higher power can choose to not accept the recommendation.
#97-034 Michael Allen Sullivan - Special condition use permit to allow auto repair (1229 Payne Ave;
zoned B-3).
, Commissioner Field..stated that this matter was lai ���1997, and the Zoning Committee
invoked the 60-day extension.
„ Antenna Amendments - (Roger Ryan)
Mr. Ryan explained that an interim ordinance had been put into place in October and the Planning
Commission was asked to study antennas. The interim ordinance has now been extended an additional
90 days to June 25, 1997.
Mr. Ryan proceded to go through the outline regarding the proposed regulations of cellular telephone
antermas. He stated that the City Attorney has been asked to research the question of how far a city can
go to require colocation because there may be anti-trust issues involved.
Commissioner Lee asked if river corridors are addressed separately and/or how they would be affected
by these requirements.
Mr. Ryan answered that the river corridor districts wouid not treat antennas any differently; they �vould
be regulated by underlying zoning districts.
MOTION: Commissioner Fie[d moved approva[ of the antenna amendments.
Commissioner Gordon questioned the idea of adopting the amendments before counsel's research on
colocation was heard.
Mr. Ryan stated that the options in this case are: 1) to lay this over until the City Attorney completes
his research; or 2) to pass the amendments and then have the research analysis passed on to the City
Council.
Commissioner Vauaht responded that it was the consensus at the Zoning Committee that fewer poles
�vould be better than more, so colocation appears more attractive to the City. The question is whether
the City has any Iiability if it forces colocation. Commissioner Vaught cvould like to see the City
require colocation, but he does not know if the City has the legal right to do so. He indicated that an
altemative might be to, rather than allow a 75-foot pole, to allo�v a 100-foot pole even if it has only one
cell on it, but then not allow another pole within one-half mile of that 100-foot pole, unless the
application for the second pole can prove that there is no colocation site available. Commissioner
Vaught expressed that he would like Mr. Warner to research the question of how far the Zoning
Committee/Planning Commission can legally go in this matter before the issue is moved along. He
stated that he intends to make a motion to continue this matter on the Planning Commission agenda
until tlie April 11 meeting in order to give Mr. Wamer a chance to render his opinion with respect to
how far the Planning Commission can go with respect to colocation, w ith the idea that we would then
pass it on depending on his advice.
Commissioner Kramer suggested that the Planning Commission approve this now as is, and then add a
m inor zoning amendment at a later date, if and when the Cit}� Attorne} provides the opinion that the
Planning Commission can recommend requiring colocation.
Mr. Ryan said that could be done.
Commissioner Field stated that he tends to agree with Commissioner Kramer's suggestion because it
would keep discussion on this issue moving forward.
Commissioner Gordon commented that this colocation issue is really si�nificant and the Commission
needs to be especially clear on it. He asked Mr. Ryan to eYplain, as things stand right now: 1) What
can be done with colocation? 2) Do these amendments, if �ve pass them today, affect what can be done
with respect to colocation? and 3) What would be the future amendment to accomplish what
Commissioner Kramer is talking about?
Mr. Ryan responded to the first question is that for the amendments now you need the two antenna
providers when you make application. To the second question, he responded that right now you can
build a tower 75 feet high only; the amendments would allo�v you to build 25 feet higher if you have
rivo antennas. To the third question, he said that a future amendment would require the language that is
found in the memo in the handout.
Commissioner Vaught stated that he needs to disagree with Mr. Ryan's last statement. He said that he
made the motion at the Zoning Committee and the amendments before the Commission right now are
not consistent with the motion that he made. He reiterated that his motion was not to allow 75 foot
poles or 100 foot poles if there were two locators at the inception of the application. It was to allow
100 foot poles, and then to require that anyone who would �cant to put a pole within one half mile of
that, e�aust all possibilities and prove that there was no colocation available. He also stated that he
does not fault staff with not comprehending his motion because of the chaotic nature of the meeting.
He added that he would not have made the motion that he made at the Zoning Committee meeting just
�
�R��T � _ � =� ��� '
to move the issue along, he made the motion because all the providers seemed to think it was a good
idea, and because he had the anticipation that Mr. Warner would be able to opine on the issue of how
the anti-trust question would be dealt with before the finat passaae. He continued that if he had known
that the intent was to try to move it along without resolving that issue at this level, he would not have
made the motion at the Zoning Committee meeting. He said he feels that this is a critical issue, and
reflects exactly what will happen. He finds no conceivable competitive disadvanta�e or serious
disadvantaae either the companies or the public will be placed at by not passing this along until April
11, and he objects to the fact that the amendments before the Commission today do not reflect the
intent of his motion at the Zoning Committee meeting.
MOTION: Com�nissioner T�aught moved to postpone this matter until the Aprilll, 1997, meetiirg
of the Planning Commission to allow Mr. Warner to opine, and to a11ow the amendments to be
redrafted so that they reflect the motion that was made at the Zoning Committee meeting. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Chavez
Chair McDonell stated that this is a continuation motion, which has preference over the existing
motion.
Commissioner Field asked that the motion maker and motion seconder consider amending the motion
to provide that if we do not have the appropriate opining by the April 11 meeting, that it not be
forestalled forever and that the original motion come to a vote at that time.
Commissioner Vaught stated that he would not accept that amendment.
Mr. Ford drew commissioners attention to one thing in the staff report for consideration. On page two,
it mentions there are trade-offs in allowing higher free standing poles for colocation.
The higher, more massive poles can be more obtrusive in residentiai districts and in business
districts near residential areas.
Mr. Ford continued to say that he started out thinking that taking the strongest position possible to
encourage colocation and reduce the number of poles would be the best option. However, after
carefully looking wherever he has been as to what is going on with antennas and their poles that
support them, he and staff have become less convinced that would be the best route to take. When out
in Orange County, California, he noticed that everyone on the freeway was using their cellular phone,
however, he did not find a lot of tall, obtrusive antenna poles. He found that they were short and small.
To accommodate a taller pole it must also be larger and more obtrusive. He reiterated that he and staff
are not convinced that a taller, larger pole with more antennas is necessazily better visually, near a
residential or other type of neighborhood area, than a larger number of smaller poles because they can
be significantly less obtrusive.
Commissioner Vaught commented that although he appreciates Mr. Ford's comments, he would have
appreciated hearing them at the Zoning Committee meeting. He then asked for the vote.
Tl:e motion on the floor carried on a voice vote.
Commissioner Vaught asked that in the event that the Planning Commission finds that it cannot
directly require colocation, that the actual wording that was intended by the motion at the Zoning
Committee be added to the draft in terms of the alternative.
#97-008 Hamline Universitv - Special condition use permit to allow expansion of the existing
campus boundary to include the property at the following addresses:
1472 Taylor
1478 Englewood
744 Simpson
740 Simpson
745 Pascal
739 Pascal
1463 Minnehaha
1471 Minnehaha
1479 Minnehaha
1485 Minnehaha
1495 Minnehaha
MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested special condition use permit to
a!!ow zrpansion of the existing campus boundary to include the properties listed above.
Commissioner Nordin expressed that she had a conflict in the listed conditions. She noted that under
condition #3 it states that all the driveways aze to be constructed on Pasca( Street. The conflict exists
with condition #4, item #2:
that there be no access to the pazking lot from Simpson Street untif Hamline University has the fee
ownership of the property at 740 Simpson Street
Commissioner Nordin reiterated that item #2 in condition #4 states that they could have access from
Simpson Street while condition #3 states that all the access must be from Pascal.
MOTION TO AMEND: Commissioner Nordin move�l to delete item #2 in condition #4 of the
resolution. The motion to amend was seconded by Commissioner Maddox
Commissioner Field commented that there is a conflict but he expressed that he does not understand
the issue, so he doesn't feel qualified to vote on the �.mendment at this point.
Mc Ryan commented that the access to Simpson Street was restricted only until the property at 740
Simpson Street was made a part of the campus.
Mc Gurney added that the reason this was added is because Hamline does not have fee ownership of
740 Simpson Street at this time, and the concem was that the property not be included in the campus
boundaries; nothing was mentioned about access or parking once that parcel is obtained. Once fee
ownership goes to the University, then it would become part of the campus boundazies. There was no
mention about access to the street.
Mr. Ford continued that Mr. Ryan is correct. Regarding access and egress, the Public Works
Department has examined this repoR and finds access and egress on Simpson Street adequate, as
originally proposed by the University. He noted that the language in condition #3 was not meant to
mean driveways shall be constructed only on Pascal Street, but that
Driveways to parking lots shall be constructed on Pascal Street only when the City Traffic
Engineer deems them necessary.
�.�_��5 �
�; ,
��=- -
In other words, unless driveways are deemed to be necessary, we should not even have them on Pascal
Street.
Tlte motion to amend carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Commissioner Gordon asked what was the reason for including the rivo Minnehaha addresses that «ere
characterized as bookends atthe previous meeting.
Commissioner Vaught replied that the western most parcel (vacant lot) is an integral part of the parking
situation involving the church. The second one is currently being used as an office building for
Hamline University.
Commissioner Gordon further asked, with respect to the two Minnehaha parcels he referred to earlier,
must they be included in the campus boundary in order for them to be used as they are.
Mr. Ryan answered that they do.
TJae amen�led motion on theJloor to approve the requested special condition use permit to allow
erpansion af the eYisting campus boundary to include the property at the above addresses carried
unanimously on a voice vote.
Commissioner Field announced that there will be no Zoning Committee on April 3, 1997. The next
meeting will be held o� Thursday, April 17, 1997.
V. Comprehensive Planning and Economic Development Committee
Commissioner Maddox reported that the committee met last week; a resolution on the Transportation
Plan will be forthcoming next Planning Commission meeting, Friday, April 11, 1997.
VI. Neighborhood Planning and Land Use Committee
Commissioner Kramer announced a meeting on Monday, March 31, to discuss the Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Vaught interjected that he attended the last meeting on metal shredders and found it
very informative and useful. He hopes that other commissioners will take the opportunity to attend one
of the meetings and/or to listen/watch a tape.
VII. Communications Committee
Commissioner Lee reported that the 1996 Planning Commission Annual Report was mailed in the last
packet. The new format is brief and concise; a brochure that's clear and easy to read.
Mr. Ford addressed the mistake in the paragraph on metal shredders on the back of the brochure.
VIIL Task Force Reports
None.
IX. Old Business
None.
!:�
XI.
New Business
Commissioner Chavez reminded commissioners how very important the metal shredder issue is. He
encouraged them to make every effort to attend committee meetings that speci£cally addressed tl�e
metal shredder issue.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Ford
Planning Administrator
\planning\
Approved
(Date)
Carole Faricy
Secretary of the Planning Commission
minutes.frnt
�
St. Anthony Park
� �q� s ��i►�
� � ��
�9�9 � �u��G � ��,
Community Council `
890 Cromwell
St. Paul, Minaesota 55114
(612) 292-7884
�
,�
June 1, 1997
Roberta Megard Roger Ryan
Ward #4 City Council Person PED Planning
Third Floor City Hall il City Hall Annex
15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Cellular Telephone Antenna Zoning Amendments
Dear Ms. Megard and Mr. Ryan:
We recently received a copy of the proposed Zoning Amendments for
cellular telephone antennas that were the subject of a public
hearing last Wednesday. The Community Council, by letter dated
April 17, 1997, stated our concerns about the proposed amendments
as they had been outlined to our Physical Planning Committee by
Mr. Ryan on April 3.
`Phe Communit� o�n '1 con nd ha a g��ia� condit�onal use
p�rmit should be re�ired for any cellular antenna so that
commt?nity in�ut i s obta? ned before any such structure i s buil t.
The frequency of anticipated ante:.na applications if a
conditional use permit is required is not a legitimate basis for
a zoning amendment that facilitates construction without
appropriate review of an application.
Additional concerns about the proposed amendments were
in our April 17 letter, a copy of which is enclosed.
with concern that our April 17 letter was not included
copy of PED's file that was recently sent to us.
appzeciate our position stated in this letter and our
correspondence be included in the official records
proposed zoning amendment.
detailed
We note
with the
We would
April 17
of the
' �oger Ryan
` Page 2
6/1/97
.�
�� ����
Thank you for your attention to this letter. We will appreciate
your response to our concerns and hope that the suggestions made
in this letter and in our April 17 correspondence will be
accepted.
Sincerely,
JES:id
�
ST. ANTHONY PARK ^
CO_ *�7ITY COUNCIL '
l/ r ,
� ` ,�.
f �vi/�L� � ✓ � ,
J`mes E. Snoxel� ,
¢o-Chairman
�
�� ����
�
St. Anthony Park Community Council
690 Cromwell
St. Paul, Minaesota 55114
(612) 292-7884
April 17, 1997
r�
. � -�,%
�i � �._
Roberta Megard Roger Ryan
Ward 4 City Councilperson PED Planning
3rd Floor, City Hall il City Hall Annex
IS W. Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102
St. Paul, Mi3 55102
Re: Cellular Telephone Antenna Zoning Amendments
Dear Bobbi and Roger:
Earlier this month Roger appeared before the Physical Planning
Committee of this Community Council to outline cellular telephone
� antenna zoning amendments that PED is considering. This letter
is meant to convey some of the Committee's concerns about the
proposed amendments.
The outline of the proposed amendments do not properly address a
number of community concerns. First, the proposed amendments do
not provide any limits on the number of poles that may be erected
in a particular area. The amendments simply provide that if the
criteria for placing an anter.na are met, an antenna may be
�
erected. The City should not ignore the aesthetic effect of
having multipie antennas in ar, area, and the zonirg amendments
need to address how many antennas can be erected in a particular
area.
being thought about.
Second, Roger acknowledged that PED has not assessed how many
antennas may be required or needed. Considering the total number
of antennas that may be sought in particular areas is a
fundamental part of the amendment process that apparently is not
Third, the proposed amendments do not regulate how close antennas
� may be to each other. Accordingly, in some areas such as along
Interstate #94, where multiple antennas may be sought by multiple
• " � �oger Ryan �
� Page 2 a�,� \
April 17, 1997
f�
��
service providers resulting in an ugly proliferation of closeiy-
spaced antennas. Zoning amendments need to address how closely
antennas can be located to one another.
Fourth, the amendment process does not appear to be considering
possible health concerns. we assume that there is
electromagnetic .radiation associated with cellular telephone
antennas, and we have no idea whether the potential health
consequences of exposure to such electromagnetic energy have been
assessed by the City. If such considerations have not been
analyzed, they need to be cor.sidered in connection wi�h zoning
amendments restricting antenna locations.
Fifth, we object to the proposed amendments' giving essentially
unlimited right to erect antennas on top of "institutional use
structures" even in residential areas. Institution use, as we
understand that term, includes many non-business buildings,
including, far example, churches, schools, government buildings
such as recreation centers, and the like. Accordingly, there are
� many buildings in residential neighborhoods that could have
antennas erected above them.
These antennas, under the proposed amendments, could rise 15 feet
above the structure, meaning that antennas could tower a
significant distance into the air. Rather than allowing
unlimited construction of antennas, again without any restriction
on the number to be erected in a particular area or how close
they can be to each other, the amendmeats should impose other
rules�to protect neighborhoods against tne visual intrusion and
safety concerns of these antennas.
In general, the proposed amendments appear designed to facilitate
antenna construction rather than to protect the community from
antenna proliferation, safety issues, and visual impact. The
amendments appear to essentiaily remove a community's ability to
object to inappropriately located antenna sites and provide no
restrictions for aesthetic reasons. The amendments should be
reviewed to recognize the community's interest in protecting
against the harmful visual impact of unsightly antennas, the
inappropriate locatior. of antennas in residential areas, and to
provide an opportunity for ccmmunity response to the location
� where antennas are suggested. Communities should also have the
�
��
*ROger Ryan
Page 3 � � �
April 17, 1997
ability to respond to proposed construction of an antenna on top
of an existing structure in a residential area.
Zoning rules are supposed to protect the citizens of a community
by helping balance the competir.g needs of business, services, and
residents. The proposed ame^dments do not, in our judgment,
properly balance ;.'r.ose compet:ng needs. We request that PED
review the proposed amendments and adjust them to take concerns
such as the foregoing into consideration. We also request that
the proposed amendments be circulated to s�11, of the district
councils at least two months Defore they are presented to the
City Council, and that Community Council responses be seriously
considered. we further requesc that the City Council consider
the needs of residential neichborhoods and take the CommuniCy
Councils seriously as they consider adopting the proposed
amendments.
This is a
St. Paul.
appreciate
foregoing
very important matter to this and each neighborhood in
Thank you for your attention to this letter. We would
your response to our concerns and hope that the
suggestions will be accepted.
Sincerely,
S'F. ANTHONY PARK
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
/ , I ,�
r / � � � !
✓ V � {� % � � t, /t� 7 K"/��
Co-Chairperson
S ��'
;�
Y� '� V � �
• n Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: June 10, 1997
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney
RE: Agenda Item 25. Question posed to Planning Staff at the June 4, 1997 City Council
meeting concerning the impac[ of certain amendments to the cellular telephone ordinance.
ISSUE
The following question was posed to planning staff at the June 4, 1997 City Council meeting:
could a parcel of land zoned residential and occupied by an institutional use [for instance, a fire
• or police station] which was less than one acre in size become a location for a free standing
cellular telephone antenna? Answer: Yes.
ANALYSIS
One of the amendments introduced stated that in order to locate a free standing cellular
telephone pole in R-1 - R-4 residential zoning districts, the lot where the free standing pole is
located must be at least one acre in size. This one acre lot size restriction was added as a
condition of the special condition use permit.
The creation of a one acre lot size restriction raises the foliowing question: would a variance
from the one acre lot size restriction granted for the purpose of allowing a free standing pole
on a Iot smaller than one acre constitute a"use" variance? A"use" variance allows the
establishment of a use in a zoning district that does not permit such a use. For example,
granting a variance to allow an apartment building in a single family zoning district. Under
Minnesota law "use" variances are strictly prohibited. See, Minn. Stat. §462.357. Subd.6(2).
Since cellular telephone antennas located on free standing poles are permitted in all zoning
districts, they constitute the same type of zoning use irrespective of the zoning classification of
the land upon which the free standing pole is located. Granting a variance from the lot size
requirement goes to an area d'unension condition and not to a use restriction, because, as noted
above, the poles are permitted in all zoning districts. Therefore, granting a variance from the
• one acre lot size condition would not constitute a use variance prohibited by law.
� d�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
�:,.�..
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
An ordinance amending Chapters 60 and 62 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to zoning,
The Council of the City of Saint Paul does ordain:
Section 1
That Section 60.209. I., definitions, of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by adding a new
definition as follows:
P r 9 -� ea ° s a ° - °a a' ° im m . e - -
Section 2
TLat Section 60.412. (16), (R-1 thru R-4 Districts), of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.412. Principal uses permitted.
(16) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing ,'" �"; ,; .�� structure at least si�cly (60) feet
F:�`�::tE� !
.: - - -- - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - -
a
Council File # � t�
� m e � .� 1 � _ � / [.j I � / Ordinance #
�� t �G {
Green Slieet # J `�
ORDINANCE
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �
r ., ��.�� � _ �
The antennas shall not e�end more than fifteen (15) feet above the structural height of
the structure to which they aze attached.
"8 t.°i 9 8 8&� A 8 i b° q' � °
1
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
b9
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
� isa�,(„��.7'���'O�E,✓�r�;'`.����?��r�i�����.,,��-�e��r%��Z��� �'°.:�„ • I � I �
e:� Transxnitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing
shucture whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary ��
, it shall be �
nse per"t�t�"etl�7r�af"�as�an:accesso�zti��n�: �ec 62�SQb:�'and shall be screened
from view
appropriate.
Section 3
That Section 60.413. (R-1 thru R-4 Districts) of the Saint Paul Legislauve Code is hereby amended by re-
numbering existing clause (18) as (19), adding new clause (18), and amending clause (17) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.413. Principai uses permitted subject to special conditions.
(17) Cellulaz telephone antennas � located on an existing x-: '_t ss�� shucture �least �,�y.�-;� x
sixty (60) feet high, subject to the following conditions:
- , - - - - - -- - - - - --
--- - - - - - - : -- - - - -- - - -- - - -
- -- - - -: -- - -- - - - - - -- - - -
- --- - - • -- -- - - - - - - -- -- - -- - ---
- -- - - - - .0 - - ::- - --
- --- -- - --- - - ..- - - - -- - :: - - - - -- -
-- - - - - :: -- -- - - -- - ----
-- - - -- -- - - - -- - - -. -- - - -
: - -- - - - - -- - - ----- - - -
- - -. � - - - -
° a, -e -e o e- a � - e• o ° s e
' ' e - e - e� - ' o e a e= � e f.
2
�����
r,,;�t�z;��„�
��
�:
q� -Sts
etic Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing
structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary €ert��;
, it shall be '
nse ��d=a����a����ta��e�ss�. 6����`"��*B2�vI��, and shall be screened
,-_..� w z _� .� . � .
from view by landscaping where appropriate.
�*
_ ',
g �__ � , p
.@ 9° @
_ o _ _
,em ° ° •c e �
'& . 0
° m° o a
s
3
a1-Sf�'
� ���� ��� f ����� ���-���� ��������������!�. �".� �� °�
e . �w,e� �.,�r'.oc,va � con.rz �nr ✓it��rf&.m.rl�%� ,y.a�:«• „ri✓�m .+s � Lr�a,�u, aiszs o.s�fe, v° �S�kb�!e�` �
13$ F'�Q�I��,��5 '�,_,_ct,�D7��%dil,i)1iT�
139 -
140 f' �fe� `�s,a�f���e�re�}i,e�"c�'el�as �e�-�as�e��,e"k�s�el3
141 �ay , < , �c�f-ca¢c�emvnstrafst�atzYZS-nmre�appz��aE��fzsL�r�
142 �oe�err Freestanding poles shall be a monopole design.
143 _ _ �._,H
144 g: "Fxa��sii#�g,receiv�ganct.s�fc��iuig�equ�puse�ts��e�ousedwafh3t�an:e�ssf�ug
�f.�
145 st�c�ute�e�se�r�ss�r2e �a3te�e�men���`�dr� ts,�ueeess�ar�„��s1�71 �e
146 �er�1:2��`�cd��ega�af�a��t=acc�sso�'���,;�ec �2 �`d�i, an�# sc�e�ee"�'�o-r�c�e�
, _� � ._ ..� .,=_ .a, �.. �r .
147 �� ��seag�whet� app,ra��e;
148 h. The zoning lot on which the pole is located shall be at least one (1) acre
149 in area. Section 4
150
151 That Section 60.462. (8) (RM-3 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
152 follows:
153
154 Sec. 60.462. Principal uses permitted.
155
156 (8) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing :� �,��� structure at least sixty (60) feet
�� ;. .. n, , - k� a;� �
��.�
, ,
p l g .., -...�o- � ,m: �., , . � . M,i; . a� ... ;.a�� �� � �.. ' :� .0 �az.�`�� °a�} tw_ .� �
1 50 � � - m'
�v, � a xra .a�.� � u. .&' - ' sa'� � . r,_ . a'
159 _,. �' `�' ` _ _ � .x� � � � �kiek
160 M _ .� . :.,�� �,�v : „ �, - �,� �, . �r�
161
162 .
163
164
165
166 .
167
168 �:
169 .
170
171 � ' , ' ' a
172 . ' ,
173 ,�
174 .
175
176 Section 5
177
178 That Secfion 60.463 (RM-3 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by re-numbering
179 existing clause (8) as (9), adding new clause (8), and amending clause (7) to read as follows:
180
181 Sec.60.463. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions.
182
183 (7) Cellular telephone antennas � located on an e�sting �ae��� shucture a�-}east rp ;:,";;� L. ��
184 sixty (60) feet high, � v�.,. �c���e�,�'��,, �;;���
185 � . � v -' ��*� w:"r-�
0
18 p 6 � /
10
10�
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
Y_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ " _ " _
- - - :.�.,,.:._ - - - - - -
-- - -= -- - - - - • - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- ::- -
- - - - - - - - --- --- - --- - - -- -.- - -- - -
;
Section 6
207 That Section 60.512. (S) (OS-1 District) of the Saint Paul Legisla5ve Code is hereby amended to read as
208 follows:
209
210 Sec. 60.512. Principal uses permitted.
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
22$
229
230
231
232
233
234
(8) Celiular telephone antennas --'-°_- "-- _- -°-° located on an existing structure, _���
��. ��� _. �' _
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - :: -
�
i °96. 9 ° B 8. 3° " tt4 6 i &°
e
5
., -
' �1 � � • � � , i ' - ��- - -� - �-� � -.� .
: � •
�
� 1 � I ' i �. i• u •� �• i � � i � ��
.
� • " " "� � " " _" � "� \� . t' 9 IDi " _ _ _ '" " ' � ' �
� 1" � � �i� �1
i�
I Y_____ _ " __________ __ _" _ _ _ _ __"_ _ ____
�. _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ "_
� _ _ _ _ " _ _ " _ " - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
� � _ _ _ _ " _ " _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I� _ _ _ _ " _ _ _ _ _ _ _ " _ _ _ _ _
�
� i� �
•
,a� e- a aa - . {Y4 '@ < -c .e s e• �e aae. -e ae <i
- a • e� - o= a- - •# -
� • b 6. " V S . D B 8 a " e 0 �
�� " 6 t9Y "Y e. 6 9 BO' 4 6'@ i" 0 i 6" . i
�
• " 8. '0 "! }' Y 9 "'6 ' 4 em. i f"' 1°
� BB ° k
��
� - o. - a - a s S' ! e ' i 0
•� s . -a •e e '' c ' aa • m -
.
�: • e. 'm -e m - a� a- e A 0Ra "8 . " c " Y
� B . & @ e 0
' � " t " 0 f D 6 E° ! t f
" f.
� a ' 9` � e o9 ° 6 °°e _ _ _ " 9 °B
,� �° 8 0. B B 0�& .� ° t"° b
• 0° 9a 89 " i S e eS8 S• 80 ' 8 a '"0 8°
.SB " ° °6 s ° ° 86 ° i' "0 t �
\
i� H. � b° 1."4 °S °f B 1 6" . 8 .8! Y" 4. 0°
9' i' � d , G ' 0 � B B i' " " " 8' /
�
284 d� ���a�s ��s��e` � �ex���;,��?!;to¢�������e���° -� ' `� � S�N
�,r����,�<<���N� � � �• ����,e � ��< �� ���-�� � <�9
285 ea�����z�n���2��T. : : zdf/k'la� `an��c����gz�i�;���f'�c�fi=���� �'�
„llV.2...G_ /G ^�/ , 4 J:.... zl _ ..!W�...s uXd r.,w.L� d ���.✓Fia.PJ� � .J�r .o�v ✓sn,.,✓.m�.:'� a� �*4vG'�� ...6
286 Dra�vfii""gs;,�x�p7rpS�ap�r"ic;�iexs�ecfYVe�s�o�1�'i�te�fp���aa�temiass,s,hat��e�ara,��"e�
� d.,.!l.uv. _...,.fl ,.a4.. F u�.vu� ✓.uN,�_,,,9 ,rd�..✓ vll c.5: ���tU.a�'eY.._o"�.a� �EIS•f.�l'eeYlu t I.�r�'7
287 ��e�i��n�a�gFcoi�mtss�oa�"o �ef��me�cornP��'anCe,u�i�h ,�us�ra�s�on�
288 �. a�� �..a.�
289 e: �nte��ocated uslusfarrc c6stncfs's�raII tre`s�b�ect Yo:fhe reuie�`and ap�rouat a�tTie
_. � � w_,.� _.:_..� .
290 F3etttage�rese�va�on�an�iinsSron:
291 _.,. _..
292 f� �+fe��' , u _: � . -�fes; �ie�a��
��s , �n�� �
293 �ra�r��:'�f�t�te���2��t��te���s������Tri��a�l
294 �+�;= Freestanding poles shall be a monopole design.
295
296 e� Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing
297 structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary £e��
298 , it shall be '
299 xses pe��_� ,�€,�-s�T���� n��n�.�" ��`�����& ,� .� and shall be
.. .. . a_'4�..,.,a��xsi s -a,��.x�..s_, ;n_a.�= +�c at ,2.n. Q�.?d,:°.ta., x �.. _�y_�.,__
300 screened from view by landscaping where appropriate.
301 h. The zonin� lot on which the pole is located shall be within contiguous
3�2 SeCtiOn 8 Property zoned OS-1 and at least
303
one (1) acre in area.
304 That Section 60.522. (1) (B-1 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
305 follows:
306
307 (1) Ail principal uses permitted and uses permitted subject to special conditions and as regulated in
308 the OS-1 District ����'��`.'����,�r�'��*�'�"""� �r�'�*'�t���;�b�„�-
�� �,�
309
310 Section 9
311
312 That Section 60.524. (5) (B-1 Districts) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
313 foliows:
314
315 Sec. b05.24. Principal uses permitted subject to special condifions.
316
:ilx
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
o •0 ' o - - - - - - - - - --- .
7
333
334
335
336
337
338
- - - -- - -- - - -- -- -- :�:..:.:-- -
Section 10
339 That Sections 60.542. (B-3 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by re-numbering
340 existing clauses (16) and (17) as (15) and (16), deleling existing clause (15), and amending clause (1) to read
341 as follows:
342
343 Sec. 60.542. Principal uses permitted.
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
(1) All principal uses permitted and uses pernutted subject to special conditions and as regulated in
OS-1, B-1, and B-2 Districts, except auto service stations and licensed conectional community
residential facilities, health department-liceused community residential faci]ities and emezgency
housing, an� pawn shops when the business is conducted within completely enclosed buildings�
��G��.�,.r_,��„��x .�.�„.m.�� .:aufl�:, ....s �� u.a.a.�.c�.�:�:�. ' _'.��.��.'�`''
- --: --- - - - - -- - - - - - -
- - - -- - - --- - - - - �' -- - - - - -- -- - -
- - - ,- -- -- -- - - - - - -
- - - :: -
Section 11
362 That Section 6Q.544 (20) (B-3 District) of the Saint Paul legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
363 follows:
364
365 Sec. 60.524. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions.
366
367 (20) Cellular telephone eac��iex�iens antennas � located on
368
369
370
371
372
373
314
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
: ��:..r.,:as:.�,:.�: - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
�
3s2 . � � , �1!� - S�iS
383 . ' ,
384 ,'
385 .
386
387 Section 12
388
389 That Section 60.552 (16) (B-4 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
390 follows:
391
392 Sec. 60.552. Principal uses permitted.
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
(16) Cellular telephone antennas -- ti "-- -�`----- °-- located on an existing structure
- - - - - - - -:: - - - -- - - -
Section 13
406 That Section 60.554 (14) (B-4 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
407 foilows:
408
409
410 Sec. 60.554. Principal, uses permitted subject to special conditions.
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
423
429
430
(14) Cellular telephone antennas � located on
- - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - w�en►�e.!�ww.c�R
- - - - - .- - - - - -- - - - -
- - - : �� .:.:.:...:.. . . . . - -
- - -- :: - - - - -- - -- - - -- -
�i,.�a:,::�
- -.--..- � ---�- ::-- : • : -• .:. :. .. :. :... . - - - - - - -
431 Section 14 a�� ��S
432
433 That Section 60.562 (10) (B-5 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby deleted and e�sting
434 clause (11) is renumbered as clause (10), as follows:
435
436 Sec. 60.552. Principal uses permitted.
43�
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
• - - ---- - - -- - - - ---- - -- -- - -- - - - -- - - - -
-- -- -- - --- --- -- - ---- - - - -- --- � • -- - - - - - --- -- - - - -
.
- - - -- :.,:_ -- - - - - -- - - -- .-_ - -- - --- -
::-- - - -- -- -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- -- -
Section 15
448 That Section 60.564 (13) (B-5 District) of the Saint Pul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
449 follows:
450
451 Sec. 60.564. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions.
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
(13) Cellulaz telephone antennas �teE located on
- - : �.:. :,,..._ - - -
�- �- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- - - - ---�.���,...� -- - - - -- -
,�..,,.''R""�:..'�.:.'�^T'
- - - - - - - - - - . _ : .�����...■;.��;R+,f� - - - - -
Secrion 16
475 That Section 60.612 (I-1 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by re-numbering
476 existing clauses (24) and (25) as (25) and (26), adding new clause (24), and amending existing clause (23) to
477 read as follows:
478
479
[(17
480 Sec. 60.612. Principal uses permitted. a� � S�s
481
482 (23) Cellular telephone antennas �oea�e.� 1i;�tf�exYS[�ng�s,���ras�pe�ru#�ed,an�;�e�a��'�%�n�eh�
483 ��s�es�;'�SS�sicf%�xS�°e�frc�CiQ 5�2: , '
484 , .
485
486 . ' a ,' ,
487
488
489 ' ,
490 .
491
492 . . , ' .
493
494 ��� G��_ �`�P��� „�«:.,�a��.yr��,c�; `�";����,;: �..� ��.�,�°��w ����.;�� , �.r���� �
495 ����� �
496 �� �k ,�����7�i;,�����f��v�� na,,:. _�
497 � �:�Ka=�'.'r,�na� � �� �;'�. a�,��»� � " "
� � �� ��. , � a ., �u ,�R:,.. ,,.��.�. ��„ �-:,�r. � -���-� �r-���
498 ���� �,� ��������'��`����������,.����a,�«� F�
�,': r 4!� a.�cu . v..,.n'`.�. 'Tt ,�.�:�' a nT - T ,
499
5 ,� ,."" �`", = . �° : � � ., t�,�a� a �
•vwm U� . �. . ,,,C'ya' .. _ rn . " ,. b " v . r _'3«.". . ' . arY'L � '' �...M44c5:"`f
m,. i'
5�1 �` �
.� _ - �
502
, • .w.... . _ ,. .
. : R ,.
,. _.
� � - ;:. - _
504 �-� M . - fl�., ,_, .. � ,� .. . ;� .,
505 ',��' Freestanding poles shall be a monopole design.
506
507 �� �� � �
aa�'.*a v' �.:t§� �.,.Y.:. sA wF� ,^
50$ o �? u�.�;:,R� �
- �. ' �.�
� , .: ; ti
509 _- ,� � . �- , ,.n . u
..� � '. w � �.: �, .�. � .. . �'..� � . �-�. „. � .... �� _- �, :a��-� ,. �.�
510 �`��".���������;�
511
512 Section 17
513
514 That Section 60.632. (I-3 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by adding new
515 clause (3) and re-numbering existing clause (3) as clause (4) to read as follows:
516
517 Sec. 60.632. Principal uses permitted.
518
519 �� ��. �, r���,���� � a���� �� �,�,r� �,�;�,� � �
�kk:r :uz:.v. P,� �— ,� c,�v^4?+ •:c. 'z .. ,�tu ,F"",� �E �.,�: ° -s�a -�.
520 ��� �
�
521
522 Section 18
523
524 That Section 60.752. (10) ( RCR-1 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
525 follows:
526
527 Sec. 60.752. Principal uses permitted.
528
11
q1 • SGS
529 (10) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing ������ � structure at least sixry (60) feet
530 hi�, ������f ,��a?�o��s��;��������,�'������.�������;���0������°��,-��
531 �sneeo,�ae�t,�a u��`i"a�i���oiefa��e�t�sk�ly�6��fee� ������,. � ; ��
,,,,�.
532 f�'"e�ie �bf%a�a�a'�vE�fi7xfs��ndmen� o�'dn a�u�izstiiti�'iona� use�st�uc�ur�; as regulated in the
533 R �°tI�ru R 4��f�t��, Secf�an 6f3 �FI� (16��"" ` ' "_� � � _ �_ __ �;, � �.,
534 �
535 Section 19
536
537 That Section 60.753. (7) (RCR-1 Dishict) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
538 follows:
539
540 Sec. 60.753. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions.
541
542 (7) Cellulaz telephone antennas, as regulated in the ��7�#t;,R�F��{i"�tt?.��������is�r� 4�3- � �
543 ���rn�r � �__...:,.. -- -_ cn nc� =y..v�
�
544
545 5ection 20
546
547 That Section 62.108. Site Plan Review (all districts) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by
548 adding new clause (a) (14) as follows:
549
550 (a) Plan to be submitted. A site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the planning commission
551 before a permit is issued for grading or the erection or enlargement of gross floor area for any development
552 except one- and two-family dwellings, but including the following:
553
554 (1) Any development of one- and two-family residences which together exceed two (2) acres
555 (87,120 square feet) in area.
556
557 (2) In the "T" Tree Preservation District, any development of one- and two-family residences over
558 one (1) acre (43,560 square feet) in area.
559
560 (3) Al] residentially related uses in one-family districts, such as, but not limited to, churches,
561 schools and public facilities.
562
563 (4) Any industrial use in an I-1, I-2, I-3 or RCI-1 District abutting a residential district.
564
565 (5) Outdoor storage in industrial distzicts.
566
567 (6) Any use which abuts to a majar thoroughfaze.
568
569 (7) Any development on a siope of twelve (12) percent or greater.
570
571 (8) Any development in the River Corridor Critical Area or in the Floodplain District except one-
572 and two-family dwellings which do not affect slopes of twelve (12) percent ot greater.
573
574 (9) All off-street parking faciIities except as noted in section 62.103(b).
575
576 (10) Any other use or development for which the submission of a site plan is required by any
577 provision of this code.
12
578 (11) Earth-sheltered structures. �I'� � s' /_
579 ���
580 (12) Detached, freestanding facilities conshucted on parking facilities, including, but not restricted
581 to, kiosks, fotomats, banks and similar uses.
582
583 (13) Any filling, excavation or tree removal that disturbs an azea greater than ten thousand (10,000)
584 square feet except the construction, installation or maintenance of pubiic roads and public and
585 private utiliries.
586
587 {��#j �a,�lar2el��neat�ter�3�a�eq�e�euc�c�et��b`���
588 _. , . ... � _ .�... �_ �.
589 Section 21
590
591 That new Section 62.120. is hereby added to Chapter 62 to read ass follows:
592
593
594 � �'�,����T��e ,�,�� - �����:'k_�_c������
595
.. ,�u ,� . ... .
596 �� �; . � .. `
597 � u�,�,� ,,.� e..�.�;� ,�� 'aM.� ..�_ .��:�. ��. �r, _. .�:: �; , _a; . . �
.:�-��'�'��������;-'��
598
599 Section 22
600
601 This ordinance sha11 take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its passage, approval and
602 publication.
That Section 60.574(2) is amended to read as follows:
(7) All usess permitted subject to special conditions in the B-2 Community Business
District except the following: bowling alley, billiard hall, indoor archery range,
indoor tennis courts, racquet ball and hand ball courts, dance hall, electronic
game room, indoor skating rink, or similar forms of indoor commercial recreation;
automobile sales or service centers; and auto service stations. Uses permitted
under this subsection shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The special conditions imposed for each use in the B-2 Community Business
District,except that cellular telephone antennas located on a freestanding pole
section 60.573.
of :
By:
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
BY: _�� ..._ a . �,�..-,-_--
Approved by Mayor: Date � `��I�il
By:
«��
JU� L:- 51997
13
Form Approved by City Attorney
By: i �7�/�L�(!/7 (N!/ y�`����
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By: �
� ..+..,. - ,»
41-SGS �����
DEWWi/AENTqFFICE/COUNCIL DATEINITI q TED GREEN SHE
PED PLANNING 04/17/97
CONTACT PERSON & PHONE OEPAFiTMENT DIFiECTOR CITV COUNCIL INITIAL/DATE
Roger Ryan 66574 � �
���N �CITYATTORNEV � OCINCLERK
MUST BE ON CAUNCIL AGENDA BV (DATE) NUMBER FOR O BUDGET �IRECTOR � PIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR.
flOUTING
OflDER � MAYOFi (OR ASSISTAN'n � � L. _
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt cellular telephone amendments_
RfjCOMMENDA7lONS: Approve (A) ar Reject (R) pEtiSONAL SENVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS:
J1 PLANNINCa CAMMISSIQN _ CIVIL SEflVICE COMMISSION 1. Has this personHirm ever worketl under a coMrect for this dapartment?
CIB COMMITTEE YES NO
�� - 2. Has this personHirm ever been a city employee?
VES NO
_ DisiaiCi Couai _ 3. Does this personttirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curren[ city emplqee?
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? YES NO
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attaeh to green sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPGIRNNITV (Wha, Whet, When, Where. Why):
Concern that antennas were allowed to be too high in residential districts and OS-1
and B-1 Districts.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
Lower antennas on neighborhood business buildings, colocation of antennas promoted
on existing buildings and poles, and fewer variances needed for poles in industrial
districts.
DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: �' �
Some higher poles in residential and business ditricts. ��� ��� ��
��, :a;� �;?�a"'Y �'E�fl
��„ _ .� _ . �_� _. � .�
�.:� ,'.' �;1 u;;:�7
AP� 29 199T APR 22 199�
�va�s a��c€ �I'��' � � �� �����(
ne�
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: •-^°^"'° _ "�' `""� .•- -- - " .
Higher antennas on business buildings, lack of promotion of colocation.
TOTAL AMOUN7 OF TRANSAC7ION $ COS7/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) VES NO
FUNDIfdG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFORFSATION' (EXPLAIN)
R n��-�r...�.�-�u
`��-SGS
AMENDMENTS TO CELLULAR TELEPHONE ZONII3G AMENDMENTS C�p+r:s �
C.F. 97-565
1. Change clause f., lines 140, 141, 142; clause f., lines 292, 293, 294; and clause c., lines 503,
504, 505 from Monopoles a�e'�liepre�rred�f`ype�of po'Ies�Offier i�pes��poles, such asTattice
location:=to
2. For the R-1 thru R-4 disricts, add new clause h. at line 148 as follows: �e zoning.lo�i�
which the pQle�s'7 e�on��) �' e�n�ea;
3. For the OS-1 district, add new clause h. at line 301 as follows: �'h ��";orimg lof on wxu���e
4. Change section (5), lines 311 and 318, to: Cellulaz telephone antennas � located on ��,'�%,�e°"e
stauding��e��as 0 ` shxct�cf'fa°�t�Q�,�T���;` _ " . �g• �
, •
5. Change section (20), lines 367 and 368, to: Cellulaz telephone c�a;�r��s antennas �
located on a=+�`ree�s"�atidE�`g p"'aI�`as Tegula�e"��"°;�ttr. : °J ��7t�c���" ts�_� 6Q.514; (6) a�°'�t�� an
6. Change section (14), lines 412 and 413, to: Cellular telephone ear��tiens antennas net
located on a�ee:stari°din�iiol�:a"s ie�ila�d�n��S'�Di"s�"nc��Se��'60.ST.4_ fbl. ��i�': acc
�. Change section (13), lines 453 and 454, to: Cellular telephone antennas � located on
8. Add new amendment to the ordinance. In the B-2C district, amend Section 60.574 (2) to read
as follows:
���All uses permitted subject to special condirions in the B-2 Community Business District except
the following: bowling alley, billiazd hall, indoor archery range, indoor tennis courts, racquet ball
and hand ba11 courts, dance hall, electronic game room, indoor skating rink, or similaz forms of
indoor commercial recreation; automobile sales or service centers; and auto service stations. Uses
permitted under this subsection shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The special conditions imposed for each use in the B-2 Community
Business District„exc��tliat4reellular;tele,phone an�ennas located
�;reesfanding pole�1ia11 b�:s�,�e,�c�'fo�e� addi��aL�coridition tha�fhe
zoiun'�ot on wlucti Yh�iia o�c "hal1�E`��u�fIun cunhgu° -�r�°p ."` .
�,� ,
5�
zoned�8 2C and af leas� orie (1} acre�Yn area.
b. The conditions specified in section 60.573
2
1 1Me�/•d( Vy� em,��
W : �-k�.
�t � - s
AMENDMENTS TO CELLULAR TELEPHOI3E ZOI3ING AMENDMENTS
C.F.97-565
1. Change clause f., lines 140, 141,142; clause f., lines 292, 293, 294; and clause
504, 505 from;i+�4onc>,piiles�re$fe-�aiefe�es�,#����les°���e����'�e��w
e . � c � �
2. For the R-1 thru R-4 disricts, add new clause h. at line 148 as follows:
3. For the OS-1 district, add new clause h. at line 301 as follows:
4. Change section (5), lines 317 and 318, to: Cellulaz
5. Change section (20), lines 367 and 368, to:
located on ��"ee�t�t����;.��na���ted°�
6. Change section (14), lines 412 and 413, to:
located on ��'x��tan���`�=��,�C�¢`��;�
7. Change section (13), lines 453 and
8. Add new amendment to
as follows:
503,
r� located on
��
- �.a at o -
-. . -- - - -
� e r - eee .i 4a e _ -
to: Cellular telephone antennas tiet located on ry ...� 5 �
In the B-2C district, amend Secrion 60.574 (2) to read
All uses permitted subjec to special conditions in the B-2 Community Business District except
the following: bowling ley, billiazd hall, indoor azchery range, indoor tennis courts, racquet ball
and hand ball courts, ce hall, electronic game room, indoor skating rink, or similaz forms of
indoor commercial creation; automobile sales or service centers; and auto service stations. Uses
permitted under t1�,'ls subsection shall be subject to the following conditions;
��`�/
The special conditions unposed for each use in the B-2 Community
Business Distric�=��`t�'a��;�a �� �Ci'a�= , ' ,: �o�at�d�i�i
DEPAR'CMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENI'
Pamela Wheelock, Director
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
zs wesr Four:h sneer
SainiP¢ul, MIJ55702
Apri122,1997
Council President David Thune and
Members of the City council
3rd Floor City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Deaz President Thune and Members of the City Council:
�� _ ^�
Telephone: 672-266-6655
Facsimile: 612-228-3261
In October 1996 the City Council initiated a zoning study of cellular telephone antennas,
requesting that the Plauuiixg commission study possible amendments to the comprehensive plan
and zoning code concerning antennas. At the same time, the council adopted an interim
ordinance prohibited the establishment of antennas on free standing poles in residential, OS-1,
and B-1 districts and reducing from 40 feet to 15 feet the height that antennas placed on e�sting
shuctures may exceed the height of the shucture in OS-i and B-1 districts. The interim ordinance
was extended in March and is in effect until June 17
The Planning Commission's Zoning Committee held public hearings on proposed zoning
amendments on February 20 and Much 20, 1997. The Planning Commission considered Zoning
Committee revisions to the amendments on March 28 and April l l and recommended their
adoption. The Comxnission's resolution is attached.
Here is how ceilular telephone antennas would be regulated if the amendments are adopted.
Residential Zoning Districts
Cellular telephone antennas would be permitted uses on residential shuctures at least 60
feet lugh, on utility poles at least 60 feet high, and on institutional use structures, such as
churches and water towers. Antennas could not eactend more than 15 feet above the height
of the shuctures.
Antennas would be special condi6on uses on residential structures less than 60 feet lugh
a�- scs
and on free standing poles on institutional property. Applicants would have to show that
there is no opportunity to colocate the antennas on ea�isting buildings or poles withiu 1/2
mile of proposed sites. The poles would have to be one times their height plus 10 feet
from the neazest residential structure. The poles wuld be 75 feet high if built to hold one
antenna and could be 25 feet higher if built to colocate two antennas.
Neighborhood Business Districts (OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C, RCR-1 Districts)
Antennas would be pemutted uses on existing structures. They could not ea�tend more
than 15 feet above the height of the structures.
Antennas on free standing poles would be special condition uses and regulated in Lhe
same manner as they are in residential districts.
Downtown Business Districts (B-4 and B-5 Districts)
Antennas would be permitted uses on existing structures. They could not extend more
than 40 feet above the height of the structures.
Antennas on free standing poles would be special condition uses and regulated in the
same manner as they are in residential districts,
Industrial Zoning Districts
Antennas would be pennitted uses on existing structures. They could not extend more
than 40 feet above the height of the structures.
Antennas on free standing poles would be pernutted uses. The poles could be up to 150
feet high. They would haue to be setback one times their height from the nearest
residential shucture.
I am pleased to transmit these amendments to you for your review and approval.
Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
Mayor
l��L�73'.i
2
city of saint paul g�-- � i� �'
planning commission resolution -
file number 97-19
�tE] April 11, 1997
CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNAS ZONING AMENDMENT
MARCH 1997
WHEREAS, the City Council initiated a study of cellular telephone antennas,
requesting that the Planning Commission study possible amendments to zoning
regulations concerning them; and
WEIEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing
and considered testimony on proposed zoning amendments concerning cellular
telephone antennas at their February 20 and March 20, 1997, meetings and made
a recommendation to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Zoning Committee's
recommendations at its March 28 and April 11, 1997, meeting;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined:
1. That the number of real estate descriptions affected by the amendments
renders the obtaining of written consent impractical;
2. That a survey of an area in excess of 40 acres has been made;
3. Tfiat a determination has been made that the proposed amendments to the
Zoning Code are related to the"overall needs of the community, to
existing land use, and to plans for future land use; and
4. That pursuant to State..Statutes proper notice of the hearing was given
in the Pioneer Press on January 29, February 5 and 12, 1997.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends
approrzl of the zoning code amendments in the "Cellular telephone Zoning
Amendments" study and as revised by the Zoning Committee on March 20th
pertaining to cellular telephone amendments and directs tfie Planning
Administrator to forward the study and this resolution to the Mayor and City
Council £or their review and action.
moved by Field
seconded by \
in favor Unan�us
against
� --> o f
' °`i��
CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNA AMENDMENTS
Adopted by Planning Commission April 11,199'7
RESIDENTTAL ZONING DISTRICTS
1. PERMITTED USE
A. On residential structures at least 60 feet high
B. On utility poles at least 60 feet high existing at time of adoption of amendments
C. On institutional use structure
D. Allow 15 feet above structure
2. SPECIAL CONDITION USE
A. On residential structures less than 60 feet high
- allow 15 feet above structare
B. On free standing pole on institutional property, provided:
- demonstrate can not colocate antenna within 1/2 mile
- 75 feet maximum height; higher height allowed if interference
- 25 additional feet if pole designed to carry 2 antennas
- setback 1 times height of antenna + 10 feet from nearest residential structure
- not allowed in required front or rear yazd
�
i
OS-1. B-1. B-2, B-3. B-2C. RCC-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINE5S ZONING DISTRICTS
`l. PERMITTED USE
A. On existing-structure
- allow I S feet above structure
b. On free standing pole
- same regularions as &ee standing pole in residenrial districts
B-4 & B-5 DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONiNG DISTRICTS
1. PERMITTED USE
A. On existing structure
-allow 40 feet above structure
2. SPECIAL CONDITION USE
A. On free standing pole
- same regulations as free standing pole in residential districts
INDUSTRIAL ZOPiING DISTRICTS
PERMITTED USE
A. On existing structures
- allow 40 feet above structure
B. On free standing pole
-150 feet maximum height
- setback back 1 tunes the height of antenna
- not allowed in front or reaz yazd
`�
�: �`it��
ALL DISTRICTS
1. Antennas in historic districts or on historic buildings subject to review of Heritage
Presezvation Commission
2. Equipment buildings regulated as an accessory building
3. Monopoles preferred type of free standing pole
4. Non-used antennas must be removed within 1 yeaz of non-use
5. Antennas with equipment buildings need site plan review
6. Definition of institutional use
3
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CI� �"r' S�INT Pf��.. Division of P(m,ning
Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 West Founh Srreet Telephorze: 61&26�6565
Saint Paul, MN55102 Facsimile: 612-2283314
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 21,1997
To: Planning Commission
From: Roger Ryan
Re: Cellular Telephone
At its Mazch 20th meeting, the Zoning Committee recommended approval of the cellular antenna
amendments as proposed in the enclosed March 13 and Mazch 20 staff memos, with the
foIlowing revisions:
1.In residenflal and business districts, the maximum height of a free standing pole with one
antenna shall be 75 feet with greater height allowed if can be shown that neazby structures cause
interference with the functioning of the antenna. Poles may exceed the above height by 25 feet if
there are two antennas colocated on the pole at the tune of application of the special condidon
use permit. (Because of anti trust concerns, the City Attorney will reseazch whether the city can
require two antennas at time of application.)
2. In all zoning districts, the required setback from the neazest residential structure for free
standing poles shall be equal to one times the height of the pole plus 10 feet.
3. Antennas shall be permitted only on utility monopoles and lattice poles existing at the time of
adoption of this set of zoning amendments.
4. Antennas no longer used for cellulaz telephone service shall be removed within one yeaz of
non-use.
These revisions will be put into zoning code language and handed out at the Mazch 28 Planning
Commission meeting.
DEPARI'MENT OF PLANNTNG
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
r : _ ; u � I
CITY OF 5AINT PAUL
Norm Co[eman, Mayar
NIEMORANDUM
Date: March 20,1997
To: Zoning Committee
From: Roger Ryan �
Re: Cellular Antenna Amendments
Divisiors ofP[anning
25 West Fourth Street
SaiM Paul, MN SSIO2
Telephone: 612-266-6565
Facsimite: 612-228-3314
In order to clarify which uses are institutional uses and what is public property, staff recommends
that a definition of institutional uses be added to the code. Section (X), principal uses permitted
in all residential zoning districts, page 4, and section (XX), principal uses permitted subject to
special conditions in all residential districts, page 6 of the Mazch 13, 1997, memorandum should
also be changed to incorporate the new definition as shown below.
1. Principal uses permitted in all residential zoning districts
(X) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing
sixty (60) feet high���on azt:e�sfmg.,utihty-in�iizipol.
on an e�st�n u�st€futional: �se �ructure
,-� � ,r� tt ��..� , � ,�. ,.
subj ec� xo �fie�oll o�ng'condifrcshs:
� ������ � � m ,� �.� .
structure atleast
• 2. Principal uses permitted subject to speciai conditions in atl residential districts
���
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
C 11 i �P .7f�llV i rf�VL Divisiort ofPlanning
Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 West Fourth Sbeet Telephone: 612-266-6565
Saint Paul, MN55702 Facsimile: 612-2283314
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 13,1997
To: Zoning Committee
From: Roger Ryan �
Re: Cellular Antenna Amendments
RECOMMENDED CHANGES
Here aze The recommended changes to the proposed Cellular Antenna Zoning Amendments of
January 1997. The recommender is shown in pazenthesis.
1. Maximum height of free standing�oles.
• Allow 75 foot height for poles with 1 antenna, 100 foot height for poles with 2 antennas,
and 125 foot height for poles with 3 antennas for a11 districts. (APT)
• Allow 85 foot height for all poles in residential and business districts. (Airtouch)
• Allow 75 foot height for poles with 1 antenna and 100 foot height for poles with 2
antennas. (ATT')
• AIIow 90 foot height for poles with 1 antenna and 110 foot height for poles with 2
antennas. (US West) ,
Staff recommendarion.
In residential and business zoning districts, the existing regulations allow $ee standing antennas
to be a maximum of 75 feet high. APT, ATT and US West are recommending allowing greater
height to encourage co-location of antennas on free standing poles. However, the e�cisting
regulations now encourage co-location by allowing antennas as permitted uses on existing
t�
�_ -=;�5 i
structures in residential and business zoning districts and by allowing I50 feet high free standing
antennas as permitted uses in industrial districts.
There aze trade-offs in allowing higher free standing poles for co-iocation. The higher, more
massive poles can be more obtrusive in residential districts and in business districts near
residential areas. However, allowing higher poles may mean that instead of two 75 foot poles
there will be one 100 foot pole.
Staff recommends that the masimum height of free standing poles remain at 75 feet. Locations
where higher poles seem appropriate can be considered in the special condition use process and
allowed if appropriate by modifying the height limit.
2: Require setback from nearest residential structure of 1 t�mes the height of the �ntenna (APT,
Airtouch, ATT, US West)
Staff recommendarion.
In existing residential and business districts, the existing regulations require that free standing
poles be setback 75 feet from the nearest residential structure. Service providers recommend that
the setback be one times the height of the pole to permit efficient use of land and flexibility of
location..
Staff recommends that the setback be increased to 1 1/2 the height of the pole to make them less
obtrusive to surrounding residential areas.
3. A11ow antennas as permitted use on a utilit�¢ht or similaz pole and on electric transmission
towers. (Sprint)
Staff recommendation.
Staff recommends that antennas attached to utility monopoles and lattice poles over 60 feet high
be a permitted use in residential zoning districts if the antennas extend no more than 15 feet
above the pole.
4. Allow antennas attached to structures to exceed t 5 feet bv variance procedure (US West)
Staff recommendation.
Height variances for antennas attached to structures can be granted by the Board of Zoning
Appeals. No change to the code needs to be made to accomplish this.
5. In OS-1 and B-2C districts allow antennas onlv on structures 60 feet or higher as a s ep cial
condition use. (M-G CC)
Staff recommendation.
Staff believes that regulation of antennas in these districts shouid be regulated in the same
��a. -
manner as antennas in the other neighborhood business districts.
6. Allow onl� monoploes. (M-GCC)
Staff recommendation.
Staff recommends that monopoles be cited as the preferred type of free standing poles to ba used
for antennas. Other types of poles, such as lattice poles, should be permitted if the applicant can
show that these type of poles are more appropriate to the location.
7. Make all antennas s�ecial condition uses. (District 2)
Staff recommendation.
The proposed amendments show preferred antenna locations by allowing them as permitted uses
and by not reqniring thaY applicanYs demonstrate that colocation sites aze not available. Prefened
locations are on residential buildings over 60 feet high; on institutional, public, and business
buildings; and in industrial districts.
The amendments also show secondary antenna locations by allowing them as special condition
uses and requiring that applicants demonstrate that no feasible colocation sites exists within 1/2
mila. Secondary locations aze on residential buildings less than 60 feet high in residential
districts; on free standing poIes on institutionaI properiy in residential districts; and on free
standing poles in business zoning districts.
8. Required all old. non-funetional antennas and poles to be removed. (M-GCC and District 2
Staff recommendation.
Determuung when an antenna is non-functional would be difFicult for city staff to detemune.
Requiring annual permits would be a burdensome to achieve this.
9. Prohibit antennas on buildin�s less than 60 feet high that aze near residential areas.
Staff recommendation.
Antennas on buildings are only allowed to be 15 feet above the height of the building.
10. Control number of antennas in anv one area.
Staff recommendation. .
There are large industzial, business, or open space azeas where more than one antennas may be
appropriate.
1 L Ma[ce effort to restrict antennas to where they will be Iess obtrusive, i.e,. transportation
corridors and industriai azeas.
f l.i � .. � , h �
o _ ) liJ
Staff recommendafion.
Allowing 150 foot high free standing poles as permitted uses in industrial districts will encourage
their location in industrial azeas.
12. In OS-1 B-1 B-2 B-2C B-3 AND RCC-1 districts reduce the seazch area for colocation
sites from 1/2 to 1/4 mile. (APT) -- --
Staff recommendation.
Cell sizes will vary for different types of providers and capacity of cell sites. One half mile
should provide for most cases.
1.3. For antennas on to� of a building, screen the antenna or incorporate it into an azchitectural
element ofthe siructure. (M-G CC)
Full screening of the antenna would negate the communication function of the antenna; partial
screening or incorporation into an architectural element could create a more obhusive
construction on a building.
REVISED AMENDMENTS
Here are the revised amendments incorporating staff revisions. Staff recommendations from
February 20 concerning treating equipment buildings as accssory buildings and prohibiting free
standing poles only from required front and side yazds has also been incorporated into the text.
1. Principal use permitted in all residential zoning districts
(X) Cellulaz telephone antennas located on an existing residen'_t.ial=structure at least
sixty (60) feet high, ori aii;gezsting utility monopole ah,:leasi si�ty (60)',�e;et;l�ig�
-- :::- - -- - -- - - - --- --
�:a: The antennas shall not extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the
structural height of the structure to which they are attached.
b. Anteriiias lacated in histdiic districts or on liistdnc buildings shall bg
sub�eet fo ffie'review and:appro"val of the Hisfoiic T'reservafion
__ _._.__.. __...
Coinznissloii.
ec. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an-existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary � , , it sha11 be
pernutfed an8 regulatec� as aa
-:
accessozy-biTilding, Sec=S2.106., and shall be screened from view by
landscaping where appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses on residential, institutional, and public structures
at least 60 feet high and would now be pemutted uses on institutional and public buildings Iess
than 60 feet high.
2. Principal uses permitted su6ject to special conditions in all residential districts
(� Cellular telephone antennas � located on an existing �esidenfial structure -`�
less tlian sixty (60) feet high, subject to the follocving conditions:
a: The-applicant demonstrates ttfat the
�P�
proposed antennas due to;one or more of the followingyreasons:
I: The pianned egnipment wonld excee3 ffie stnicturaT ca�iacity of
<.. _�
the e�stiiig pole or sh=uctnie.
2: Tha plaiined equipment woa2d cause"interfereuce �yitlroQtez
e�stmg or�planne� equipment on the.pole or structura:
3: The planned equipment cannot be accommodated at a lieig�t
iiecessazy=fo:function reasonably.
4: The owner of eacisting po7e strucfure or biiildu�g �sun�lling
to co locafe an aritenna.
�_ .
,_
�C5
<� . �.. � , ,
f :� .,
- - - - -- -- ---.- - -- --
b. The antennas shall not extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the
siructurai height of the'structure to which they are attached.
c. Antennas located in historic districts or onhistoric=building§_shall be
subject to the review and approvai of the,Historic'Preseivation
Commission.
�d. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary ' , , it shall be
permitfed and regulate,"'cl �s;ari
accessory building, Sea'62:106, and shall be screened from view by
landscaping where appropriate.
(�) Ceilulaz telephorie anterinas located on a free'sfanding pole on anstrtuttonal o�
�,.. __,.
publicly ownedpropertg, sub�ectto,thefollowmg condihons:
�
accommodated
.a_.....n. _u:�ki....._... _.
owned stiructure;"or abusme"s_s buiidirig wrtTiix
pzoposed antennas due to bne ot more o�'the f
2:, T'he "planned equipment would exceed fhe st�uctural capacrty�of
_.._�.�_�.
tlie"exisfing pole or;sfructiare.
2:=�'I'he plarined equipment would cause?inter�erence wrth qfhei
existin"g"o`r "planned "equipmenf;on the po,le or strticture:'
3r;The planne3 ggu`ipment cannof be accommo3afed at a heighf
_ _ _ _ ,.::�... ._ _ ,_..._, _�,:�
necessary to reasonabfy.
4. The own8r of the ex'isting pble, sfructure or buildmg Ys ua�Y7liiig
fo co-locate ari antenriai
b: The antennas shali
located?iri:a reqiui8
0
the height of the antenria from the nearest, residential strucfure.
c. The; aii�ennas shall be designed where=pos§ible to blendsnf"o the
surroviiding environment through the:use of color and camouflaging
arcYutectural treahrient. ; Drawings oz photo�apluc perspectives s,howt"rig
the pole:arid antennas shall-be provided to the plannigg-com�sussiori to�
deternune compliance with provi"sion_
d. Antenna's located in lusfori"c districts shall be subject to;fhe review and
approyal offhe Histone Preservation Commissiori.
e. Moriopoles are type of poles:,Other fypes ofpoles, suehas
lattice.poles may be pernutted if the applicant can demonstrate ttiaf itLLis
more appropriate for the location.
f. �'ransmitting, receiving and switching equipmenf shall be housed witivn
an e�sting stracture whenever possib7e. ;If a new equipiiient biulding is
necessary; it shall be.permitted and regulated as an accessory bmlding;
Sec 62:106; and screened from viewby landscaping i�liere appropna�e;
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be a special condition use if placed on residential structures less than
60 feet tall;and if placed on free standing poles on institutional and public property. Antennas
on free standing poles on vacant residential land would no longer be permitted. In most cases,
antennas on free standing poles will have to be farther away from existing residential shuctures -
1 1/2 tunes the height of the pole rather than 75 feet.
3. Principal uses permitted in OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and RCC-1 districts
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas � located on an existing
structure, sixbject to the following conditions; '
. . . . _ � ... ,. ....____`__r.ti__,._....,�
_ ' ' _ _ _ ..__ __ _ ___ _ __ _ ' _
a. The aiitennas shail iiot extend more than fifteen (15) feet aboye the
strucfival Iieight of the,§tructure to wluch �hey are attached.
b. AntBnnas 19cated m liistoric districts or on,lustonc buiTdmgs sliati:be
�-,
c _`G5 • _ � J
siibject to the rediew and approval of the f3istoric Preservation
Commission.
c. Antennas on lattice towers may be laterally supported by the tower;
-- d. Ttansmittirig, "receiving aud switching equipment shall be house8 witliin
an existing structure �vhenever possible: If a new equipment buiIdiiig'is
necessary, it shall be permitted atid regulated as an acce§sory building,
Sec. 62:106, and scieened from view 6y landscaping wheie approp'riafe:
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses if placed on a building. The height that they may
exceed the structural height of the building would be reduced from 40 feet to 15 feet.
4. Principal use permitted subject to special conditions in OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and
RCC-1 districts
(x) Cellular telephone antennas �eE located on a fre�:standing pole �g
.__��, subject to the following conditions: N
"-- - - - -- -- - - - - - -
-- - - - - -- :: - - -
. - - - --- - - - -- - -
'
1:;Thepl'uuiecl equipment would exceed the sfrrictural,capa�t�:of
tiie'extstirig�pole or;°�racttii�e:
Z�The pianried eqpipment would cause in�erference witti.o�h_`er
_..�q �v._ � � . . u, � ,:���.��
e�cistmgor:planned equipment on fhe pole orstiucttice�
3: The plaiined equipment cannof be accommodafed at ahe�g'tif
iiecessary to function reasona6ly:
--- — 4:;"I'he owii8r of the existing pq1e, sfructure bi biuldmg �s ttp�viIiina
: ._.. _:_,.: ._.-�. .._ .. .....: ..__.:_ . _. � _..a
fo co locate:an antenna.
b. The antennas shall not exceed seventy=five; �
Ioeated in:a frequized iont or side yard; and
the heigliYof the ariteniia`from the neare"st re
a The aritennas shall 6e designed where posstbleA€o blend_info tFie
surroiinding environmerit through the _use of color and cainouflagcrig
azclutectiiial treatinent, Drawings or gho"tograpluc perspec�ives sho�uiug
the pole and antennas sliall be provided to the;pTamm�g conumssi6��o
determine compliance wifli this provision: � u � _
d. Monopoles aze:the preferred type of poles. Othei types o£poles, such as
lattice poles, maybe pemutted if the'applicant can demon`sirate tliaf3f`is
more app'ropnate for thelocatrori: -
e. Anfennas Iocafed in Fus�oric districfs_s-ha1( be. sab�ecf fo`re�ew arid
approval bfthe Hrstonc Preseivation' Commissiqn:
e:f. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary " , , it shall be
pernutted:andragulate� as an
accessoiy>buildnig; Sec: ;62.106, and shall be screened from view by
landscaping where appropziate.
DISCUSSION
Antennas on free standing poles would continue to be special condition uses. In most cases, they
will have to be farther away from existing residential structures - 1 1/2 times the height of the
pole rather than 75 feet.
5. Principal uses permitted in B-4 and B-5 districts
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas •-'--__ .ti .,._..__.... __,. located on an existing
structure as pernuttedand regulatecl in fhe B-3 Busmes's Distnct;'pnncipai uses
pernutte�, section 60 542,.excepf that antennas may eatend up to_forty4(i)�ef
aboverthe structucal heigYif,of the'structure to_wluch tfiey are atfachad:�ravi�c�
L']
U.
; . -:;GS
----- -- ----- - - .• -- -- - --
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses if placed on buildings. They could also continue
to exceed by 40 feet the height of the building to which they aze attached.
6. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions in B-4 and B-5 districts
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas t� located on a free-standing poleas anii
_ -'_ ii _ _ __ _ _ _
" ' ' " ' _ i: " ' _ " " "" " "'
DISCUSSION
Antennas on free standing poles would continue to be special conditions uses. In most cases,
they will have to be farther away from existing residential structures - 1 1/2 times the heiQht of
the pole rather than 75 feet.
7. Principal uses permitted in I-1, I-2, I-3, and RCI-1 districts
10
`-� -
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas locafed on an exisfingstmcture as pernu�ted anii
. .... :
regulated in the B=S:Business District, principal nses percnitfed, section 60:562:
� ,
"-- -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - •
- - - - : - - - - - -- -- - - -- - -
�..��..�e!�.;.'rs.w�o.n.� ;ws - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
..
(X) Cellulaz telephone'antennas located on a free standing po1e, subject to;the
follo�ving condi6ons:
a. The antennas shall not exceed one hundced and fifry (150) feef id-hgigIit;
_._ .._ �-_
Shall riot bg I,ocated m arequired front�or side and shaii be set baelc sl
_. _ � �..:
1/2 ttmes the height of the autenna froin the nearest residenhal sttucfu{e:
b. Antenrias;Iocafed in htsforic°districts shall:be subjecf to review and
, _._
approval;offhe HistoncPrBservation.Gommission.
d. Monopo2es are"theprefeqed type of poles .Other types of po2es; sucF� as
lathce poles, may b8 perniitted if the applicant can demonstrate thaf tf "is
more appiopriafe'for fhe loca&on. �
c. Transnutting; receivutg azid switching eqnipmen� shall be housed iui'�1uh
an existing�structuze whenever possible_ Zf a new equipmenf bm2ding
necessary°, rt lie peririitted and regeciafed as an accessory buiFding;
Sec 62�T06, and 5creened from view liy -landscaping where appropna�e�_
DISCUSSION
Antennas on buildings and on free standing poles would continue to be pem uses. Free
standing poles would have to be set back 1 1/2 times the height of the pole from the neazest
residential structure rather than one times the height of the pole from the lot lines as is required
now.
8. Sec. 62.108. Site plan review (all districts}.
11
S
- .. .�
_ ,�
(a) Plan to be submitted. A site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the planning
commission before a permit is issued for grading or the erection or enlargement of gross floor
azea for any development except one- and two-family dwellings, but including the following:
(1} Any development of one- and two-family residences which together exceed two
(2) acres (87,120 squaze feet) in area.
(2) In the "T" Tree Preservation District, any development of one- and two-family
residences over one (1} acre (43,560 squaze feet) in area.
(3} All residentially related uses in one-family districts, such as, but not limited to,
churches, schools and public facilities.
(4) Any industrial use in an I-1, I-2, I-3 or RCI-1 District abutting a residential
district.
(5) Outdoor storage in industrial districts.
(6) Any use which abuts to a major thoroughfare.
(7) Any development on a slope of twelve (12) percent or greater.
(8) Any development in the River Corridor Critical Area or in the Floodplain District
except one- and two-family dwellings which do not affect slopes of twelve (12)
percent or greater.
(9) All off=street parking facilities except as noted in section 62.103(b).
(10) Any other use or development for which the submission of a site plan is required
by any provision of this code.
(11) Earth-sheltered structures.
(12) Detached, freestanding facilities constructed on pazking facilities, including, but
not restricted to, kiosks, fotomats, banks and similaz uses.
(13) Any filling, excavation or tree removal that disturbs an azea greater than ten
thousand (10,000) squaze feet except the construction, installation or maintenance
of public roads and public and private utilities.
(1.4} Cellular telephone antennas thaf require new eguipmentbculdin
_ .u. v��_
DISCUSSION
12
�-.__
Antennas placed on buildings with the equipment housed within the building would noY have to
undergo site plan review. Antennas on free standing poles and antennas with equipment
buildings would be required to undergo site plan review.
13
DEPARTDIENT OF PLAN�,TYG
& ECO\OilIIC DHVELOP\[Eh'1'
SA1NT
PAVL
�
AAAA
C'ITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Co[eman, bfayor
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 20, 1997
To: Zoning Committce
From: Roger Ryan �
4.�-�-
Re: Location of towers and buildings
Division of Plmrning
25 Wes! Fourth S[ree!
Saint Paut, hf �' S.i102
Telephane: 6I2-266-6565
Facsimil e: 6I2-228d 314
` —_...��.� '1
.. �
ATT has suggested that equipment buildings 1nd free standing poles be permitted in side yards
where appropriate.
Eqt�ment buildings
Equipment buildings are proposed to be allowed only in rear yards. This is also the existing
regulation.
Staff recommends that equipment buildings be treated the same way as garages. Equipment
buildings could not locate in any re uired yard except a rear yard and they would be required to
be 3 feet from any interior lot line. This wotdd allow equipment buildinas to locate on any
portion of the lot that the main buildings are allowed to locate on and in the required rear yard.
Equipment buildings would not be allowed in the required front yards of residence, OS-1 and
B-I districts; the required side yard of the B-2C district; the 10 foot side yard required when a B-
2 or B-3 lot adjoins a side yard of a lot in a residence district, or the front and side yards required
when an I district adjoins a residence district.
Freestanding�oles
Freestanding poles are proposed to be prohibited from front and side yards. In residential and
business districts, they are now only required to be 75 feet from the nearest residential structure.
In the industrial districts, they are now required to be one times the height of the pole from the
neazest lot line.
Staff recommends that freestanding poles be prohibited from re nired front and side yards.
They would follow the same restrictions for location as equipment buildings as above.
They would also be required to be 1 1/2 times the height of the pole from the nearest residential
structure.
2
r •�
- � °�
YMcSP. VAWN
zoemrt, �ww
GFFPIDX FPIEDBL
Lu�45G Fl$IGC�PY
mwavo� oaiscai
GFhEN FlAIER
.iaw o. Fuwuux
vwsnci wwve'
CYAiIE$5 AKCELL
CIQIS�Cp1¢qJ.C1EfCcN
111dNX. F15frR
TVJWK P. SiCITMN!
MICNPII C .HCpXrV
NMW E qFX
JCNS bWFR4'NSW
1roMns�.rtmw
JNAES P. qAM�
TOLOI FREE4AN
Cz'FND L SEQ
.KMN 6 LWCCUIFi
MttE MMN�'
.NJlW A CATiER'
BEAFICEA RJThNflIER
PPLL B. RLM�T}
PLW L.IVIp�M�
%AMEEttM %CATIENENWJi
NI[MPC^I.B IFBpACN
GRKiMY E KIX2STPD
Gq4YA VPN CLEyE
Ry11ELL BWAES
TIMOIHYA AkM�M1$
TMOIHY 6 YFPNE
p3NiM MICERSCN
pQ`M4l FJ84CK
MIGNEL W. $f,1yET
RONN & ItREpS
TEfiRENCE E BISXOP
lISpA GRAY
G0.¢YA ftENNENE
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY cC LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
'I500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMfNGTON.MWNES05A 55431-1194
TELEPHONE (612) 635-3800
FAX (612) 8963333
awisrc�n, wjw�s,wv. 4
MFICELJ. p6ACGCx
&4LCEJ 0.V' GIAS
wiwawc cw�. st.
Kw� R Mu
�m� cm,e
LKRYp ApRiIN
.IRNE E BGpAER
YkNJ.SlEFFF.WI�C£N
uwi¢w.vass
qYIIPG NDEI
u�cw.av.snm�
VN50.1KE
MCREW F. PFRRW
pHIiM MEYEQ
GftISiCN£R 0..KMN'SCN
flFNEEL YCCSW
�TWI52T AKtA3U5
MMLY R fR�T
D:UCi/SM.R0.MlFR
$T(A$iA WJAINSG
IIpM/S G. PL£XA iCER
MMFLT. FALtEL
9WRNAA WPH.GflEN
Iy.ItINAt NELSFN
C. ERIKXPµE$
LvM.E WGELLE MOOFE
L 6GEMROBBINS
MAISTNSNESTGARp '
JCIIES FPE�q1IX50N
Cf CGk�SEI
.NfXf. NJ.Y
D. A4HI1EiHtI.NGREN
N1nV E MLW� V
N£NDEILR.NCERSQV
.lOSFFHbiS
' O150MA11iiEDINKISCONSM
Mazch,6, 1997
Mr. Roger Ryan
Planning & Economic Development
City of St. Paul
25 VJest Fourth Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Comments to Cellulaz Telephone Antenna Zoning Amendments
Deaz Roger:
Our firm represents American Portable Telecom (APT) in connection with its efforts to site
telecommunications facilities throughout the metropolitan azea, including in St. Paul, Minnesota. This
letter is written in response to a request by the City of St. Paul Zoning Committee seeking input on the
City's draft Cellulaz Telephone Antenna Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Our comments relating to the
Amendments are set forth below.
The:setback requirement for freestanding poles should be reduced from 1-1/2 times the height of the
pole to a distance equal to the height of the pole. This change would encourage more efficient use of
scazce land areas that aze otherwise suitable far a telecommunications pole.
2. The height restriction of 75 feet to the top of an antenna located on a freestanding pole on institutional
or publicly-owned property, within a residential district, should be increased in increments of 25 feet
to encourage co-location on such freestanding pole. Therefore, if an applicant committed to design a
pole for up to two co-locators, the masimum height of the pole would be increased to 125 feet.
3. Same comments regazding the maximum height of a telecommunication pole located within the OS-1,
B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C and RCC-1 Districts. In addition, the burden of demonstrating the absence of
any other site options relating to the development of a freestanding pole should be reduced from 1(2
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Roger Ryan
March 6, 1997
Page 2
mile radius to 1/4 mile radius of the proposed freestanding pole and antennas. The Yower siting
process is driven by precise search pazameters. A shaft of 1/2 mile may be unacceptable.
4. Same comments with regazd to the maximum height of the freestanding pole and antenna relating to
B-4 and B-5 Districts.
5. Same comments regarding the maximum height of a freestanding pole in an Industrial District or
RCI-1 District.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the City's Proposed Cellulaz Telephone Antenna
Zoning Amendments. APT will be in attendance at the meeting scheduled for Match 20, 1997.
Sincerely,
(��
Peter J. Coyle, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
PJC/gev
0282530.01
0a/09/97 17:52 FA% HESSIAti MCRASY f�002/004
LAW OFFICES
HESSIAN, MCKASY & SODERBERG
Paoceaeioxwt Assocuscou
�Sinneapolis • SaintPaul • Washington.D.C.
4700 IDS Center
80 South fiightlx Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2228
(612)330-3000 Facsimile371-0653
John J. Choi
330-3025
VIA FACSIM�E
March 7, 1497
Mr. Roger Ryan.
Division of Piattning
be�amneni of Planning and Eeonomic Development
City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Pau1, 1l�i�T 551022
Re: .Forntal Catnrnents to Saint Pau1 Cetlutar Antenna Zaning Amenrbnents
near Mr. Ryan:
-�����
As requested by the Saint Pau1. Planning Cvmmission, the following are t�irtwch
CelluJ.ar's formal comments co Saint Paul's Cellular Antenna Zoning Amezxdments.
A. H�xGHT RESTRIC'Y'IO1V'S
'VVe belicve fhat the 75-foot height limit on monopoles on e'very zoning district except
industrial is unreasonably restrictive given the fact that Saint Paul has many mahue trees that
interfere with wireless transzn�.ission because of their height. As you may know, cellular signals
aze imgacted by tree branches azad J.ea'ves. As such, we wou�d xequest that the Planning
Commission cnnsider extending the� 75-foot height limit on monopoles on every zoning district
except industrial to 85 feet. This slightly taller 85 Feet height limit wi11 enable us to ensure
quality service for our customers and the citizens of Saint Paul withont the need to resort to the
varia�ace process.
B. SETSACS
A setback of 1'h times the height af the antenna from the nearest reszdenrial struciure
r+voutd dramatically reduce the aznourn of flexib�ity we have i�n the location af facilities. A.s you
_� -:
ExtendeC Pa9e
1VIr. Roger Ryam
March 7, 1997
Page 2
know, being in the right Iocation is crucial for our abiIity to provide adequate coverage to Saint
Paul residents. We would pxopose a setback ec�uat to the pole heig�tt from any residential unit.
As you lmow, the monopolas used by ffie wireless communicatioas industxy do not collapse even
in the most extreme wind and icing canditions. VJe have enciosefl a copy of an opinion from
a zegistered professional eng`u�eer, whicb; more fu31p discusses this fact. Setbacks are generalty
employed to ensure aesthetic bu£fer zones and we sincerely believe t2�at a set back equal ta the
pole height is sufficient to meet tbis pwrpose ia Saint Paul.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the opportunity to cor,nment on the orc3inance. Please call Jay T,ittlejohn
or me at 330-3000 if you have any questions. Tbanlc you.
Sincerely,
7ohn J. Choi
77C:pmc
cc: Kent Sticha
izsia�i os�ozoo.oio5oo
03/b7/9i
��
�
17:5J FAX
�1�00
HESSIA:V .MCI{ASY
�� ���
� oaaiooa
= s��
1200 N. OAK RD.
P.O. BOX 128
September 19, 1996
Mr. Jaymes D. Littlejohn
Hessian, McKa5y & Soderbetg
4700 IbS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
Minncapoli�, Minnesata . 55402
Uear ►vir. ��ttte3ann:
PLYMOUTH, INOIANA 46563-012g
{219)936•4221
FAX (219) 936-679fi
Thank you for your inquiry conceming tower design coBes and practices as they relate
to your tower designs in Minneso#a.
PiROD has been design,ng and bullding guyed, setf-supporting towers and monopoles
since ihe eariy 1950'S. During this time, we have said thousands of structufes ranging
in height from as tittie as 5a` high to in excess of 9400'. These Struciures were
individualiy engineered to accommodatetne laading requirements imparted by the design
windspeed, ice considerations, antenr�a foading, and otherfactars dictated by the natianai
cc�de �eyuirerr�ents exisfing at the time the tower was bullt.
The present national tower and monopQfe code, AN511EIAtTIA-222='E", represents the
latee# raflnement af specific minimum requirements for engineers and manufacturers to
fotlow to help assure ttt2t the structure and its foundations are designed to meet the most
realistic coneitions for iocal weather whi;e assuring U�at tl�e sfruciu�e is clesignec9 lu
stringent factors.of safety.
ln the case of the monopole under cansideeation, the owner has electe.d to axc�aed the
stipulated Code t'equirements for windspeed and has also requested that 1/2" ice be
inGuded in the analysis. Ice is considered on alf tower mernbsrs, antennas, and lines
and results in a substantially heavier tower design than one considered withaut ice_
The "E" version of the wde incorparates an escalating wind factor based on tower height.
""Meeting the code" implies that the design quoted has ail of the code requirements for
safety factors intact af the windspecd spe�cd. Thu�, the ultimato �urvival speed would
be considerabiy higher. Again, adding ice to the design toading can aiso add a further
safety factor to the flnal tower strength.
While failure is extremely rare in any kind of tower, it is especial{y so for monopoles and
seif-supporting towars. Whi{e failure is extreme{y rare in any kfnd of tower, 'st i� espe4satly
so for monopo�es and self-supporting towers. In our opinion, a collapse occurring with
our design �s not iarQSeeabte wlthout being subJected Lo a direct hIt trom wlnds
Oa/07/97 li:5A FAS HESSI9:� MCK9SY �GIOU4/004•
associated with a tornado or the severest of hurric2nes.
We are aware of very few instances of monopole fai�ure. The most common mode of
failure wouid be in the middle region of the monopoEe, with the upper portion of the
mnnopnlP rPmaininr� aonner:fed anr.t "bnwin�j over" against the 6ase of the pote. The facf
that the wind is normally greater on the upper poction o# the structure contributes to the
likelihood of this type of failure, Thus, it a failura conditiun is r�adied, it-shc�uld tae
reached in the upper middle region of tne monopole first.
Needles5 to say, the engirieering codes which govern tower and monepol� desipns are
eXtremely conservative. Monopo{es are designed for extreme wind conditions, and even
under these extreme conditions, stringent factors of safcty are required.
As Director af Eng�neenng antl a registered t'.t. in 41 states, I oversee au engineenng
and application of our towers. I am a graduate engineer from Natre Dame University and
have been wiih the company since 79B4, i am assi5teti by two registered professional
engineers, Mr. Myron Noble, who has been the owneraf PiROD, Inc., since 1973 and Mr.
William F2ettig, who has @een with the company since 199Q. Four other qualified
engineers are aiso on our stat�.
All of PiROD we4ders are cert�ed to the high standards of AWS D1.1 or are in the
process of becoming certified. Mathematicai and physicat tests are perforrned routineiy
on stfucture SeCtions anQ designs as required. Our total design, eogineer and build
process ha5 been quality audited by vur cusfomers including pubtic uU"Iities, fefephone
companies and govemment agencies.
We trust the ahnva and the attanhPd will he he4pful to yau. If you sh�uld need anything
else, please let us know at your canvenience.
chg
Erichsen
of Engineering
n #22'I
# kereby certify that thFs plan, spec�-
ficatior�, or report was prepared by me OY
unde� my d!r4ct supervision and that 1 am
a duly R��istc'ed Frc�essional Engineer upder
iha (�ws of .h ata o# N3innesota.
..�..-,.-�---
Date Re�tstratton NQ�
' Z����
� ��eoo �nc p,0. BQX 128 • PLYMOUTH, INDIANA 4656&0126 • {2t9) 936-422t
Oa/97/97 17:51 FA3
�oovooa
uw o�+tcr�
HESSTAN, MCKASY & SObERBERG - - - : r
z v,oaz9srox..LAmocs.'ao. _�. � �
Ivfinneapvlis • Saint Paul • W ashingron, D.C. --� - -
47Q0 IDS Cerrtcz
8� South Eighth Streec
'_vIinneapalis, Minnesota 55402-2228
(612) 330-3000 Facsimiie 3?1-06$3
TELECOPYER. TRANSMISSION RECORD
5em To:
�'elecopier:
HESSI,iti MCIi.�15Y
By:
Diure�
7,'elephone:
Y7ate:
dohn Choi
(612) 330-3025
March 7, ],997
lcoger icyan
228-3314
Re: Commeuts to
Cellular Antenna
Ame�dments
Origi.ual will be mailed.
TTee informetiun epyA<xined in fHu telecapier amrasmissiOro is aonfedcntraZ conw+unica¢on and is lnte�tdtd ferr du wa
of :he individrraZ or entity named abme. If the reader of this »�essage is not the 'vuended ncipient, or the
vmp7nyse Or ngeht rerponrible ta delii�sr it70 the in�ended racipiant, you �a kareby Moi�ed thp! wry drsnibution
or copying af N:{s wrmrwnicasian is strictly prohibited. If you have received this,facStmile by �stake, pleese
17Wnediatr.ly nnizfy ua fiy [r.t>phnne, nnO ren�rn a11 the doctmfextr aecrlvyd to us u ths ubove addreu.
No. or rwaa5, TNCLUDINCi TFIIS S�ISST: $
Dt]ctn�ivrs '��tpT7sMrrraD:
CONL�Ni:
129I3y1 053020Q01�00
DO B�
& BUTLER
PROFESSIOA'4L d550Cf>iIOV
dttorneys at Law
March 7, 1997
3�W Fifih Strref To�.vers
li0 �[+uNi FfftF, Street
Minneapolr>, YLnvsota 55?G2.4^i3
Telephonc (612) 3-k0-i3v
F.4C (bL) 3-tU-�.�Sb
41'ntei � dimct d�ai numher
VIA FAX: 228-3314
Mr. Roger Ryan
Division ofPlanning
2bU0 Ytnneso[a l\od3 I:ade Center ]?Ol Sau Yo.k Arenue, N 11.
i0 @�>t Se�eneh S:;eet
$aint Paul, Yhvne�.tz 3=101-k999
Telephone (6L') 29i-9�3i
FAX (6l2) 24G9313
Swt: '.iJV'
4tasn:romn, D C. uOQ�
Tcle�Sone ('_02) 39r2S>L
f.4X CO21 3o3-3L3[
340-5588
Department of Planning and Economic Development
City of Saint Paul
City Hall Annex
25 West 4�` Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Celiulaz Telephone Antenna Zoning Amendments
Dear Roger:
b"70 One Taboe Ceo�r
L'GO �«n.eenth Ster:
Uevice:, Colo:a�� Y�^_J_ ��--
TaiepFone (?03� 57'_�.'_,
F4%rg03; 5,2-5'^3
Rep:�mlbnneap�dn —
This letter is in response to your February 25, I997 invitation to submit proposed revisions to the
cellular telephone antenna zoning amendments.
As I menrioned at the February 20, I997 Zoning Committee meeting, we agree with your suggestion
to treat equipment buildings and freestanding poles as accessory structures for the purposes of rear
and side yazd setbacks. This seems a reasonable approach to providing increased fleacibility in the
placement of these structures, while preserving the intent of the zoning ordinance.
The only other revision to the ordinance amendments which we suggest the City consider is the issue
.'e:3Yea l�t f o� A� 1 « h ;,: r :te e;; o.;,o
to �he heig., o_ fre„s a:...:nb p� es. As :ve r.:ea::oaed wt t e Ze ..ng .,ar_�.r.n e m e.r. .
suggest the City consider whether it makes sense to allow additional height in order to have more
than one provider on a pole. Most other cities have adopted this approach. This approach could be
implemented by adding the following sentence in the sections of the ordinance amendments which
deal with height: .
"Freestanding poles specificaily designed to accommodate the applicant's antennas
and comparable antennas for an additional multiple antenna user shall not exceed 100
feet in height."
We also remain concerned about increasing the setback requirement from 75 feet to 1'/� times the
height of the antenna.
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
& BUTLER
PRCPESSf�S4L ASSOQ4it�A
Mr. Roger Ryan
Planning Division
March 7, 1997
Page 2
We will attend the March 20, 1997 Zoning Committee meeting to answer any questions.
ely,
Peter K. Beck
PKBleka
cc: Marie Grimm (via fax)
Ron Mielke (via fax)
�
BeckP 511446.1
�; �
� �_
�y/�T Ty�T]+'(*1/ S:AUF�Ith:tr•�rtiin.es
l._i V t r �lt t 1 :w ti.;,.n r��Ni, s����
hUnncapo6•.. ".tmtx:ata F3i0:a215
y%. ��r � Yf7� irkTh�me (61.) 516-55i;
U 1 f•r.1'C Enx in�zi a�o-a�,u
t'Rt7f'L55ICA4AL a�
Attom.ry5atLaw iV[ir�r�din�td.a�nuIDt*:r
Febniary 18, Z 997
V.fA FAX: 2z8-3314
1AOC >{inncsaro tturhl &aile Crntn
kt Ea;t 41�rn1h sfm:
Sa�nt Paul� �Lnnru�ta SilUl-1�N
TNryForv� Ini2� :31-433J
FAX (bS:l :"17-93}:>
saassss
Mr. Rogex Ryan
Divisian of Planning
bepartmem of Planniag and �canomic Development
City of Saint �aui
City Hall Annex
25 West 4�° 5treet
St. Paul, MN 55142
�te� Cellular Telephone Arnenna Zoning Amendments
Uear Rager:
¢�ty ai MiMUt}wRK 0lf4er
This letter contains the comments of AT&T Wireless Sennces ("AT&T") on the proposed cellular
telephane emenna wning amendmefcits dated January, 1997. AT&T appreciates the agportunaty to
commez�t an the propased amendments, and thanks both the Piattning Division and the Zoning
Committee far woddng with the wiretess wmntunications industry on th$se amendments. We have
the follawing three comments on the proposed amendments:
1, The proposed amendments requir� that equipment 6uildings and manopoles be located in the
rear yards of the principal use in alE instances. We suggest that the City eonsider allowing
both equipmetst buiidings and poles in side yards whare appropriate. In many instances the
(arge commea�ciai, industrial snd institutianal uses which we wili bc iooking for witl have very
lazge side yard setbacks and(or wi11 be located adjacent to similar uses whiah would not be
negativety impacted by an appropriately lacated and designed equipment build'mg or
mon,apole, 1�ltawing the equipmcnt building or monopote to be tocated in a side yard, where
apgrnpriate, woutd pxovide the wireless carriers with greater flexibility to place their faca'lities
in the best location for both the property owner and the City.
2. The 75-foot height limit �n monopnles in all but industrial zoning distriots wi(( severely limit
the oppoRUnity to itave mare t!'�n one wireless provider an a single pole. Undet the gresent
technotagy 75 Eeet is the tawest that tAs current wireless providers can locate their antenaas,
absent unique circumstances. Mazry cities in an effost ta encourage mutriple use af the
manopoles, have allowed atlditios�l height £or monogoles that as'e designed to aocommodate
1�11 New York Avnur, t+N
su�k uoo
Wa�hiny,tan. l].C. 91005
Ttkphax (�1
FA% 12U11;N;F11:it
?3U (k�o IIIM[ l�ll0.l
}={IO `ah.w. t.`enth 51n'ct
lkv+vrr. G�lrsadc NU1U2-�21
2�dapixxx (�t719'2�2lX1
rax �:ws7 S'.em)
�a�Z00d TZS'ON GT�£ 8�Z 6 E H2iQ Z£�ZT L6i8I20
D4HERTY
�iCTMBL�
& BUTLER
rrsi��i�a�ovni n�t,utt.+.t�uti
-- _ _ �,
Mf. Rager ltyan
Planning Division
February 18,1997
Page Z
two users. Since the wireless providers typically nged 20-25 feet of yertical sepatatian
between their arrtennas, cities have LypicaUy a4lowed an additiana120 or 25 feet ahove the
atherwise ma.�c;mum 6elght for mona�x+lec decigned to accomntodate two users.
1'hiS iS ptimarilY a poliey issue for thn dty. Wc will live within the 75-faot height limit if that
is whai the aty pre#'ers. On the otker hand, if the city were to allow gdditional height in order
tp ettcow'age muStipie use of ihe facil'sties, we would consider 8tat when desigtting aur system.
Increasing the existing 75-foat sethack to 1'/� times the height ofthe antensia is a significant
change wtdch would dramarically reduce ihe amount o£fle�cibility wc have in thc locntion af
£acilities. This chan�e wauld also make it mare difficult to tocate multiple use facilities,
` Once again, we appreciato the opportunity to comment an the ordieance a�d wilt attend the Zaning
Comtni.ttee, Piatu�ing Commission and City Council meetings at which the ordinance is discussed ta
a,nswer any qusstions,
Siacerely,
����
Peter K. Beck
PK$/eka
oc; Max Thampson
Ran Mielke (via f�c}
Marie Ga�imm (via fax)
aw�sos6is.j
., ,
�09i£08d tZi'CN 4'L££ 8ZZ 6 F 8aQ ££�ZL L6�8Li2s
=� Sprint
Mazch 7, 1997
Mr. Roger Ryan
PED, Planning Division
25 WeSY 4` STIeeT
Sain[ Paul, Minn. 55102
Sprini PCS'
blinueaQolis Telephone 6L 6SI 3hlh�
;900 l.one Oak Parl,uay Fae� 612 686 2-q0
Suaz 140
Eag:in. �Lnneurta iii21
Dear Mr. Ryan:
This letter is being written pursuant to the February 20 Zoning Committee meeting and
your memorandum dated February 25 relating to cellular antennas. As I stated at the
meeting it is our belief that antennas mounted above hi�h power transmission line lattice
towers on poles running through these towers is a desirable solution, in all zoning
uisu to �he probiem oi where io locaie communicaiion antennas. iVe also oeiieve
that mounting antennas directly to such Iattice towers as well as to power poles in
general, liaht poles and other pole structures is much preferable from an aestheuc and
economic perspective to constructing new free standing towers constructed exclusively
for mounting communication antennas to.
For the above reasons we propose the following amendments to the proposed
amendments to the City of St. Paul Zoning Ordinance relating to communication antennas
and towers:
I. Under puagraph (X} of Section i. Principal uses permitted in ali residential zoning
districts of the proposed ameadments as set forth in the "Cellular Telephone Antenna
Zoning Study" we propose that the followin; underlined language be inserted:
CeAulaz telephone antennas located on an existing residential structure at least sixry
(60) feet high or on an existing institutional or publicly owned structure or on a
utilitv, lieht or similaz pole or on a pole above and laterally su�ported bv a high
voltaee electric transmission line lattice tower, subject to the foliowing conditions: ..
2. Under paragraph (x) of Section 3. Principal uses pernutted in OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-
2C, and RCC-1 of the above described amendments we propose that the foIIowing
underlined language be inserted: Cellular telephone antennas located on an e�sting
structure, on a utility, li�ht or similar pole or on a pole above and laterall ��supported
by a hi ng voltage electric transmission line lattice tower, subject to the foIlowing
conditions: ...
It is our interpretation that "whenever possible" in subparagraph c. of paragraph (X) of
Section 1, subparagraph d. of pazagraph (X) of Section 2, subparagraph e. of paragraph
(xx} of Section 3, subpazagraph e. of pazagraph (X) of Section 4, subpazagraph c. of
pazagraph (X) of Section 7, requires housing for the transmitting, receiving and switching
equipment, either in a new or existing structure, only when possible and that the applicant
would make the determination as to when it is possible_ If such housing is mandatory we
' �• } T
Page 2- March 7letter to Mr. Roger Ryan '� �
would request that these sections be changed to require housine onlv when it is found that
landscapinp cannot be installed to adequatelv screen such ectuipment.
Thank you for the opportunity to suggest changes _t_o your ordinance. If you have any
questions please call me at 686-2656.
Sincerely,
��� ��
David Hagen
Property Specialist
U S WEST Communications
426 North F2irview Aoom t07
SL Paul, MN 55104
Wireless
������
3/7/97
Roger Ryan
PED, Ptanning Division
25 West 4t" Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Re: Response to proposed amendments
Mr. Ryan
The recommendations listed below are in response to the proposed
ardinance for PCS and Cellular antennas zoning. I understand the visual
issues connected with communication towers in residential neighborhoods.
Industrial areas altYzough easier to site a communication Yower in still have
visual issues. It may be unfortunate that this service can not be delivered
completely out of site and underground. On the other hand this may present
still another set of issues as the new technology would be buried in these
areas.
The goal of U S West Communications is to be able to build a PCS network
that will serve the needs of the community. U S West Communications is a
company that is serving both residential and business customers today on a
wire line basis and with advancements in technologies the company wants
to add wireless services. As you know the new PCS technology has
increased security, improved voice quality and privacy of communication
over conventional cellular service. The additional features that will be built
with this new technology will allow customers the same service that e�cists
with wire line service and still allow customers the ability to be mobile.
Saint Paul has some unique characteristics that makes providing PCS
service difficult. The first is the mature tree structure in the city, with some
areas of the city having 80 foot trees. This along with concentrated areas of
residential housing makes siting of communication towers difficult.
v r
_' ) f f �
The first area that we would look to for a site would be existing structures to
support our four foot antennas. These sites would be existing buildings,
light standards or other towers. The proposed 15 foot roof top without a
variance process to allow a ZS foot attachment may lead to a monopole
placement. When a suitable existing site could not be found we would look
to building a facility for the PCS antennas. This facility would be a
monopole structure due to its strength along with it being a more visually
acceptable structure.
In Saint Paul some areas could use a 75 foot structure, however most areas
would require a 90 foot structure to reach over the trees. If a site had two
similar carriers, as in collocation, an additional 20 feet would be required.
Set backs are of concern both in residential and industrial areas. Tn
industrial areas set back requirements should not exist while residential
areas a set back of one times the height of the structure to a single family
dwelling unit could be set. This set back would include homes and attached
garages, however exclude detached structures such as garages and sheds.
In any ordinance there needs to be a variance process to accommodate
special conditions, such as changes in height and size of antennas. I know
this seems problematic however witl� a defined process of approval the
correct application can be provided.
I have attached two articles from the trade magazine Radio Communication
Report (RCR). The first is an article about the City of Cincinnati and GTE,
which stressed the importance of a clear ordinance that allowed for design
of an effective service. I am reminded of the importance of good service
when my existing cellular telephone does not work on University Avenue in
the Midway or in some areas of Highland Park. As I stated in the zoning
meeting good two way service is very helpful to public safety. The second
article also from RCR places a responsibility of education on the providers.
This is a task that we are trying to accomplish. Lastly I included some
options from a Minnesota company that we wiil be using to combine tower
requirements with lighting structures.
In summary the ordinance is not overly prohibitive nor restrictive as
compared to other cities, however in some areas of Saint Paul U S West
would have difficulty providing good service. I assume that is true for the
other carriers. Today the cellular coverage is not ubiquitous in all of
Saint Paul and therefore I would like zoning changes to allow the cellular
and PCS providers the ability to develop a robust network. Listed below are
the key requests:
• Monopole structures needs to be one times the height away from single
family residential dwellings and allow a 90 foot structure to reach over
the trees. If a site had two similar carriers, as in collocation, an additional
20 feet would be required.
• Roof top locations could be limited to a height limit of 15 feet over the •
building with the ability to apply for a variance if no other site was
available.
• In industrial areas the canier should have the ability to use side lots for
structure placement.
��
Anthony Segale
Regional Network Operations Manager
Macalester-Groveland
Coin�aiunity Council
320 Souih Griggs Street
Saint Pau1, Minnesota 55105-2800
Telephone:(612) 698-7973
Fax: (612) 698-9465
February 24, 1997
Gladys Morton, Chair
Zoning Committee
St. Pau1 Planning Commission
110 City Hall An
JY. i"a�l.li� yl�� JjSVL
Dear Ms. Morton,
� -� -, _;'�
The Macalester-Gxoveland Community Council on February 20 adopted the following
position with regard to the zoning for cellular antennas.
* In residential, OS-i or B-2C zones, antennas should be permitted only if
they are located on top of buildings at least 60 feet high, and a special
conditional use permit should be required.
* If an antenna is not located on top of a building ar existing structure, it
must be mounted on a monopole.
* If an antenna is located on top of a building or structure, the anteana
should be screened or incorporated into an architectural element of the
building.
* Owners of antennas should be required to apply for permits for their
antennas annually. To obtain a permit for an antenna, the owner must
ccrtify that thc antenr.a is .unctional and is L eing used. Owners of
antennas that are not covered by valid permits should be required to
remove such antennas.
Saint Paul is a city with many commercial streets adjacent to residential streets. Our
organization is hopeful that the city's zoning ordinance will protect these residential
streets from this obtrusive use.
Thank you for your consideration of our position on this matter.
Sincerely,
�od���-•--��- �---
Bill Connors
President
I o'-�
2.D reNtledoaoer
62J20i149' 11:47 E12731�194
r.isr n.�ro couricr� --- -- pas� A�
DIS'I'RICY' 2 C4Iv��,�iV�' ��1I�TCII, _
2169 Stillwater Avenue, Suite ZOl
Februsry i9 , 1917 Sa[nt Paul, MN 55179
Phone:(6I2)73L6842
Mr. RogerRyan Fax:(6IA rlLVt9a
City of St. Paul - PED
I l OQ City Hall Annex ,_
5t. Paul, MI3 55102
I)eer Mr. Ryan,
T am writing to you on behalfof the District 2 Cammunity Council regarding the proposed zoning for
ce(tulau' teley(iune antonnas. At its Ttbruary 19, 1997 mecting, the Distriat 2 Community Council
adopted the fottowiag recommendatiaes�
Thai the interim regulations be extended I8 months and during that time the fb]lowing
information be gathered.
• The demand for antennas and expected number of antennas ta 6e located wiihia tha
city,
• What regulations �ther cities around the country and suburban community in the
Twin Cities area have adopted and what poticies they have in ptace (e.g., the
requirement of pasting a bond to guarantee the removai of equipment whea it is no
longer used.);
• IIOw the dctnand for ptucement of antennas could he met by utilizing industriAl
perks, transportation corridors and other }ands ihat will not impact residentiai areas;
and
• Tha redundaney of equipment by muitipie caniers, specificallp how many cellular
service providers wil! be involved aad how many antannas wtll this lead to?
This resolution arose out of concerns about the number and loCation of antennas that would be atlowed
under this proposal. "['he foliowing points were raised in our discussiun vf the a�ncndmcnts; if the
interim reAUlations are not extended, w�e woutd like to see them addressec! in the final proposal:
1. A 5pecial Cond'ation Use Permit should be required for alI antennas.
2. They should nor be allowed on buildinga lecc than b0 feet high that are near residential
�
5.
sreas.
SwuC way should be includcd to guarautee thc removnt of old equipment as new
technology replaces ii (e.g., a ae�nset provision, posiing of a bond t� guarantee removat}.
There should bC a way to control the number of antennas in any one area because certain
locations in the city could attract a high number of them.
Every effoR should be made to restrict anteanas to locatians where they will be less
obtrusivC (c.g., iadustriul zones and transportation corridors).
'lhank you for your attention to our concerns. P(ease inciude thczn iu ehc tescimony of the public
hearing on February 2q 1997.
Sincerely,
C 1 t \�� �_� /�
�---- �i - �
Tim Dornfeid
Executive D'uector
EQUALOPPORTUNtIYEMPI,OYER/C:V.YIHA�lUK � y
_
�
��� � _ , _. �
CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNA ZO1vING AMENDMENTS
JANUARY 1997
DIVISION OF PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONONIIC DEVELOPMENT
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
.� >p. r 'ry
� _, . � . J
CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNA ZONING STUDY
Introduction
In October 1996 the City Council asked the Plamiing commission to study height and setback
zoning regulations for cellulaz telephone antennas. At the same time, they adopted interim zoning
regulations conceming antennas pending completion of the study. The interim regulations
prohibit freestanding ceilulaz telephone poles oz towers in residential, OS-1, and B-1 districts and
reduces from 40 feet to 15 feet the height that antennas that aze placed on existing structures may
exceed the height of the structures to which they aze attached in OS-1 and B-1 districts. The
interim regulations aze in effect until Mazch 25 and may be extended an additional 18 months.
Based on testimony at the public hearing on the interim regulations, the reason for the study is
concem for the aesthetic, obtrusive effects of tall, visible antennas on surrounding residential
uses.
A table showing the zoning regulations for location, height and setbacks of antennas before the
interim regulations was adopted and the interim regulations aze attached. Also attached is a fact
sheet about the 1996 telecommunications act and Macalester-Groveland Community Council's
recommendations on antenna regulation.
Reeulations of Other Cities
Many metropolitan cities have recently adopted antenna regulations, are in the process of
adopting antenna regulation, or are thinking about star[ing studies of antenna regulations. Here
aze some recent antenna regulations of nearby cities.
l. Minneapolis
� Permitted use: In all districts, antennas mounted (1) on the facade of a building or (2) on towers
on the roof of a residential structure more than �0 feet high or on the roof of a nonresidential
structure, provided the tower is no more than 15 feet above the height of the structure.
Conditional use. In residential districts on institutional land and in business districts, (1)
freestanding antenna towers if no higher than 75 feet (a 50% height bonus may be given if the
; tower will accommodate two antennas) and no closer to the nearest residential structure than two
times the tower height and (2) roof mounted towers if they are more than 15 feet above the height
of the structure. In industrial districts, regulations aze the same as in business districts, except
towers can be 100 feet high, again with a 50% height bonus.
2. Bloomington
Permitted use. Antennas placed on existing towers and on existing roofs and walls of buildings
if the antenna projeets less than 15 above the buiiding height.
Conditional use. In residential districts, freestanding towers on government, institutional, and
uriliYy property provided the tower height does not exceed 1 foot for each 4 feet the tower is
setback from residential properry, up to a maximum height of 150 feet. In business and industrial
districts, the tower height must not exceed 1 foot for each 2 feet the tower is setback from
residential property, up to a maacimum height of 150 feet.
3. Roseville
Pemutted use. City owned and controlled antenna and tower sites in business and industrial
districts and antennas attached to, but not above, the wall of a building.
Conditional use. In business and industrial districts, free-standing and roof mounted towers that
meet setback requirements of the district.
4. White Beaz lake
Pernutted use. City owned water tower.
Conditional use. In business warehouse and industrial districts, provided the tower is setback
from any lot line equal to the height of the antenna plus 5 feet.
5. Woodbury
Permitted use. In a11 districts, on existing structures provided the height of the tower does not
exceed 20 fee above the height of the structure to which it is attached.
Conditional use. In a11 districts (vacant residential sites must be at least 5 acres), freestanding
towers not to exceed 175 feet in height, provided the tower is located at least the height of the
tower plus 25 feet from the neazest residential unit.
Proposed antenna atnendments
The proposed amendments show preferred antenna locations by allowing them as permitted uses
and by not requiring that applicants demonstrate that colocation sites are not available. Prefened
locations are on residential buildings over 60 feet high; on insUtutional, pubfic, and business
buildings; and in industrial districts.
The amendmenYs also show secondary antenna locations by allowing them as special condition
uses and requiring that applicants demonstrate that no feasible colocation sites e�cists within 1/2
mile. Secondary locations aze on residential buildings less than 60 feet high in residenrial
districts; on free standing potes on instihztional property in residenfia2 districts; and on free
standing poles in business zoning districts.
Free standing antennas are not allowed as neighbors to residential uses in residential districts;
they aze not allowed on vacant residential sites.
2
� � � � � �
The amendments will make antennas less obtrusive to surrounding residential neighborhoods. In
the business districts (OS-1, B-i, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and RCC-1) that aze often intermingled within
reidential neighborhoods, the height that antennas placed on buildings can extend above the
building wiil be reduced from 40 feet to 15 feet. In residential and business districts, aniennas on
free standing poles will have have to be 1 1/2 tnne the height of the pole from the neazest
residential strucure rather than 75 feet as is required now. Where possible the antenna will also
have to be designed to blend into the surrounding environxnent.
Here are the proposed amendments.
1. Principai use permitted in all residential zoning districts
(X) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing resideritialistructure at least
sixty"(60) feet high or on°an azisting mstitutional;or pubhclp.o.wne� stracfure an�
, �:a: The antennas shall not extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the
- structural height of the structure to which they are attached.
b.
e:c: Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary ' , , it shall be
situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from
view by landscaping where appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses on residential, institutional, and public strucriires
at least 60 feet high and would now be permitted uses on institutional and public buildings less
than 60 feet high.
2. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions in all residential districts
(X) Cellular teleghone axtennas aeE located on an existing residential struchu�e -`�
less than sixty (60) feet high, subject to the following conditions:
a� The applic�nt demonstrates;fhat the propo"sed antennas cariuotbe
owned "st�uctuEe, oi:a business buiY�ing within 1/2 mile radLUS o
propose`d_antennas idue to oiie or more of tYie followmg reasons:
2. �'he p_lanned equipment would canse intgrferenee-w1fTi q�heT
existing or�lannei3 equipment on the pole or stntctuLe:
3.: The pIanned equipmenYcarinof ba accommodated at
necessary to funchon reasopalily.
4. The owiiet of the existmg pole; structure or buildmg }s Finwitlii%
fo:co.locate`an aufenna:
�- - - -- • -- - - -
- - - - - - -- - :: - - -
�
c:
�di Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary ` • •�" "_°�:": ' • � ' --�"'°'`, it sha11 be
situated in the reaz yazd of the principal use and shall be screened from
view by landscaping where appropriate.
0
The anfennas sIiatl not eatend more__than �een (15):feet aUovelfie
structural hetght of the stracture fo wlucTi they are attached�
_ �
-- _ _: �
�a=x) _Cellular telephone antennas located on a freestanding pole on institufionaL or
publicly ownedproperly, subject to the following coridifions:
a. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed-antennas cannot be
accominodated on an e�sting freestanding pole, an existing" residerit�al
structure at least sixty (60) feet high, an existing institutional_orpnblicly
owned strucftire, or a businessbuilding w�thin 1/2 mile radi�Ys.ofthe
proposed antennas due to one or more "of the following reasons:
L The planned equipment would exceed the struchual _capacity of
the e�sfirig pole or structure.
2. :Th'e planned equipment would�cause ihterfeience w�th°other
�.. ,. ,.
eXisting'or planned eqiiipment on thepole or striicture_
3. Tkie pianned equipment cannot be accommodated at alieigHt
��.._.�,.._ � �
riecessaryto function reasonably":
4: The :owner bf the e�sting pole, �striicture orbuildmg is uiiunlliirg
to�.00 looate�an antenna. � �
u b. : T'he antennas shail not exceed;seventy-five (7S}_feef m`heigh��, s'hall noYbe
located �ii a fronf`ocside yaaazd, azid `shaIl be set bacic 1 llZ ftt�es 4 flie„heig�if
� ��..M .. .. � an
of the anfenna £ropi ttie nearest residential,
c: The,antennas shall-be desi "ned where ssible fio blend tinfa �h�
�., � ..j ��,�,. ._�� .�_.�..�,� _.,. .g _ :Po..� ,flu... E . ....�;,���:,,;�
t- su�ound,ing environinent throtigh'�he`itse o�oqlor and cainoutIa�ing
��.��r, „��,. _
arclufeotiital treafinent. Aiawings or photogcaphiaperspeci�,es�hoWUig
the pale:auc3 antenrias. shall,be picjvided to the plamung cotnnusstari�o
deternune comphance.with thts,provisiori>,
d. Antennas!loca4ed}rilustoric distiicts shallbersuliject
.. _l.� v m'.��....:v.. .. F G..�
appzoval of theHistoric Preservafioii Commission:
e; Transmithng,''receiving and switching ec�uipmenf shall behousediwftliit�
�w� � � _.,.. � . r.. -�,,.�.
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be a special condition use if placed on residential structures less than
60 feet tall and if placed on free standing poles on institutional and public property. Antennas
on free standing poles on vacant residential land would no longer be permitted. In most cases,
antennas on.free standing poles wili have to be farther away from existing residentiai shuctures -
1 1/2 times the height of the pole rather than 75 feet.
3. Principal uses permitted in OS-1, B-i, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and RCC-1 districts
(x) __ Ceilulaz telephone antennas --'---- `'-_ --`----- --_ located on an existing
structure, subjeet"ta the folkowing condihons:
- : - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -
u�;su�
a. `fhe anfennas shaflynot ea�tend mote than fifteen:(IS) fee�;aboXetlie
strucfuraI height of fhe sfructure fo which they: are attachgd; ��
�
�r on histonc builduTgs�ha
c: T`ransmift4ng, receivmg and scvrtchvig equipmentshall:behoU" sed�fluri
an e�stirig struc�ure wheneverpossible Tf a new eqmpniei�f,`bm�fc�n�is
_ -
necessazy n�shall be st�uated m the rear yard o€tlie prtncipa2-use:arid
_� ..s
screene� froza V1ev�z�by landscaptng where:appropnafe:
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses if pIaced on a building. The height that they may
exceed the structural height of the building would be reduced from 40 feet to 15 feet.
4. Princxpal use permitted subject to special conditions in OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and
RCC-1 districts
(x) Cellular telephone antennas net located on a free-'sfanding pole �
sfi�uettire, subject to the following conditions:
- • - - --- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - -- - --- - --- - --
--- - - - - •- -- - --• - - - --- -- - -- -- -- -- -- - ---- -
•w
_ °, �,
��_._
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - -- ��.s�
a. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed antennas cannot be
accommodated on an eXisting freestanding pole, an exisfing reside,ntiaI
structure at least sixty (60) feet lugfi,=an existing in"stitutional or publicly
owned shvcture; or a business buildirig within 1/2 mile radius of the
proposed antennas'due to`one or moie of the following reasons'.
i. The planned equipment would exceed the sfructural capacity of
the existingpole or structure.
2. The planiied eguipmenY wonld cause interference wtfh:,other
� � .L..v..
ezistuig or�plarined eqiupment onthe pole or strac�iir"e�
3. The planned eqnipment caniiofi:be accommodafed ata�heighi
,. :.. , . ., . _�,:�_ _ _
necessary to funetion reaso�ia`bly;
4. The o�viier of the e�ushng �igle,: sfracture 6r-b�.uldmg�suui ivn'lling
to co-locate an a"qfenna` w
b. The, aiitennas shall'not exceed seven�y>,fiye (75) feet ui heighf�hall not be
=^ 't � 4'.v .6 9 � I..�ci
loca�ezi in a front ox side yard, anT shall be set back"1 1/2'fimes�2ie heigfi�
� _ ,�, r � .w�. « �,
of the=antenna from nearesf resi�antFal_structure:
`_. t..�, �.
c: The;antennas sha11?be designed where;possibFe to blend;into fli�
sucTOianding enviconment through�e=,i�se of,color and camoufl2
the pole and antennas sha11 be prbvidecttq'fhe piamm�g cQmm���s�ton �o
deterniine compliance wiJ1i tlus prawz5iori;
d: Antennas_located in hisforic district5",shall:tie, sub�ecf to`ieview<aiid
_,.
appr_oval of theHistoric:=Preservation.Gominission:
e:e. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary ' , , it shall be
situated in the rear yard of the principal uses and shall be screened from
view by landscaping where appropriate.
7
DISCUSSION
Antennas on free standing poles would continue to be special condition uses. In most cases, they
will have to be farther away from existing residential structures - 1 1!2 times the height of the
pole rather than 75 feet.
5. Principat uses permitted in B-4 and B-5 districts _
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas --'--__ .u_ ._.___... ___ Iocated on an existing
structure as pemutted:arid re�ulaf"ed inthe:$=3;$usiness Distric't: onriciiial
abo ve the sfcucfural height of the sfructui
-.-- - - -- - - - - - - - -- -
DISCi3SSION
Antennas would continue to be pemutted uses if placed on buildings. They could also continue
to exceed by 40 feet the height of the building to which tkey are attached.
6. Principal uses permitted subject to speciat cottditions in B-4 and B-5 disfricts
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas nat located on
Y__ _"" ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
����d.iwiii��i��iewaa:i��v�ir�:.i�:wre��abi�dr"a:i:�.��iiii�:�i�wiirv���:asi�i�.w.:f� -
� _ -� - � �
-- - - -- --- - -- - - -.:-
DISCUSSION
Antennas on free standing poles would continue to be special conditions uses. In most cases,
they will have to be farther away from existing residential structures - 1 1/2 times the height of
the pole rather than 75 feet.
7. Principal uses permitted in I-1, I-2, I-3, and RCI-1 districts
(x) Cellulaz telephane antennas located on an exi§trng sfructure as pernutfed and
regulated ir[t�e B S�usil�ess District, pr�ncipal uses permifted; section�03562:
- ,..a..R��,:�,,.�.....:.•.•..:: s� ..a..,.:.:.r
-- --' -- -" ' ' - -- -' - --- - - - -- •
-- - -' - -- '-' - -- -- - - - --- - - -.' - - -
n��w�ef - -- - - -' --- - --- -
..
�1R�l�l�/���I�At�[�}fJ���l� �
��
a., The�iteunas;sha�l��of e�'ceeii oneliiYiidc�ed
.. . � �:�,� �..-.��: �. :���.— ..� s .�,�,_,�..s
shallauotFb�'Iocafeil'c��`ront oi��,yazii, ;
a: I�ntennas' Toeafed �n �usfonc dis�cfsE"shaIl be suT�ject fo;review arid
_�.��,� �. �__. ..� �,,,:. t. y�,, , _� n.._ u�
app�ovalaof�e.Iiis`�one��xeservafion Comxnissiofi;
c:
DISCUSSION
Antennas on buildings and on free standing poles would continue to be permitted uses. Free
standing poles would have to be set back 1 1/2 times the height of the pole from the neazest
residential structure rather than one tunes the height of the pole from the lot lines as is required
now.
8. Sec, 62.108. Site plan review (all districts).
(a) Plan to be submitted. A site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the plaiming
commission before a pernut is issued for grading or the erection or enlargement of gross floor
area for any deveiopment except one- and two-fanuIy dweIlings, but including the foIlowing:
(I ) Any development of one- and two-family residences which together exceed two
(2) acres (87,120 squaze feet) in azea.
(2) In the "T" Tree Preservafion District, any development of one- and two-family
residences over one (t) acre (43,560 squaze feet) in area.
(3) All residentially related uses in one-family districts, such as, but not limited to,
churches, schools and public facilities.
(4) Any industrial use in an I-1, I-2, I-3 or RCI-1 District abutting a residential
district.
(5) Outdoor storage in industrial districts.
(6) Any use which abuts to a major thoroughfare.
(7) Any development on a slope of twelve {12) percent or greater.
(8) Any development in the River Corridar Critical Area or in the Floodplain District
except one- and two-family dwellings which do not affect slopes of twelve (12)
percent or greater.
(9) All off-street pazking facilities except as noted in section 62103(b).
(10) Any other use or development for which the submission of a site plan is required
by any provision of this code.
(11) Earth-sheltered structures.
(12) Detached, freestanding facilities constructed on pazking facilities, including, but
f[li
� � �
not restricted to, kiosks, fotomats, banks and similaz uses.
(13) Any fiiling, excavation or tree removal that disturbs an area greater than ten
thousand (10,000) square feet except the construction, installation or maintenance
of pubiic roads and public and private utilities.
(14} Cellulai telephone antennas that requue new1e`qwpmenf bwlding:
DISCUSSION
Antennas piaced on buildings with the equipment housed within the building would not have to
undergo site plan review. Antennas on free standing poles and antennas with equipment
buildings would be required to undergo site plan review.
11
L�
located w�ithin any residential, OS-1 or B-1 zoning district may not exceed fifteen (1�) feet above t'r:e -
structural height of the strueture to �vhich they are attached.
ORDINANCE
OF SAiNT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presen[ed
Referred To
P ., � .— r r �
CouncilFiPc��" '—�!�
Ord'inancc �
Grecn Slicet # , � :�
Committee Date -
�
�(�S"�tTUT��.. — ���J�yc,
�
An interim ordinance restrictin� the height of
cetlular telephone antennas in certain zones
G�•ithin the City of Saint Paul pendin� the compie�ion
of studies of possible amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations.
TH� COUNCIL Or TH� CITl' Or SATNT PAUL DO�S ORDAIN:
Scction 1
S The Saint Paul Ciq� Council hereby directs the Department of Plaiuling and Economic Developmei�t to
9 undertake a study of the City's Compreheiisive Plan and Zocung P�e�ulations relating to hei�ht and setback
] 0 restrictions to cellular telephone antennas. The Planning Commission is to study this issue and subiiiit a
I 1 repor[ to the Cotmcil to�ether with any recommeudations that the City's present Comprehensive Pla�i ar.:3
12 Zoning Re�ulations be amended.
13 Section 2
' 14 Pendin� the completion of the study and for the purposes of prohibitin� the establishment of ae«� cellul^r
> 1� telephone antennas, no permits shall be issued or approved b}� thc Cit}�, its officers, emptoyees, a,encs e
: 16 commissions for the construction of ne��-, freestandin, ceilular telephone poles o: towers within a::�,
" 17 residential OS-1 or B-1 zoning district. New celluiar telephone antennas placed on existin� structu��s
> is
19
20
` 21
r' ��
y ��
; 34
��.
26
27
Section 3
For a period of time not to exceed one hundred and t«renty (120) days from the effective date of tl;:s
ordinance and for the purposes of prohibitin; any development that might be inconsistent with the pendi..�_
study� and any amendments to d�e City's Comprehensive Plan or Zonin� Re�ulations, the prohibitions sh�'.i
continue in full foree wltil a comprehensive policy for tlie City can be adopted. In the event the studies a::�
reconunendations of'the Plazuiing Commission and the deliberations of the City Council require additior :l
time these prohibitions ma}� be extended, b}� separate resolution of the City Council, for additional perio��
of time not to exceed an additional eighteen (I8) months.
GC,-i1C,�'
Section 4
2
3
This ordinance shall takc effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval.a,id
publication.
DI ICI fcucn
OCT 261996
Yeas Na s Absent
Elakey
Bosaom �/
Guerin �
Harris �
Meoard v i
Remnan ,/
Thune �/
�1 U O
Adopted by Council: Date _�) �� _ 9�� �o
Requested by Departmenc of:
�
F App�� City ARorney
y: � � /U-Z-SG
Certified by Council Secretary
By: I \ � � k
Approved by Mayor: Date _ _�(7 j/� rl �i
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
�
� �, ,... n
d. : � � -. t
��a� ��a
o < o ¢
z ��.,�e=a ��E-a
<zH ¢zH
U E-� t_� [:7 U F[:.1 f=1 U
G L"' Z Q.'7 [:.1 Z G� .'�
�/S LL`���4 Cw�. �v; �
��.L`�' � r H�=i �
Ga
�
5
z
0
Q
O
V
a
G
U
U
`�
'n
ra
�
Ca
U
r
r
�
c
�
C7 F
2�
2
F -
O�
�°z r `
�FZ :�
`" XUF �"'
h
� � < �
z
0
'<`
U
O
a
�
�
z4 z�
z z
oQO oQo
a zv c, Zv
� O � ' � O �
�� �H
C:7
a°z $°�
��� ���
x�= ��a
��� ���
�
z z��w
c �:.��c?
c: � F ., �—'
U t. Y. �.t� c~ ` •
° o � a �
w
� ¢ o`^�
0 0
�F"Z 4FE�-.
x�F a��
�xG F"��
�
z
0
�
U
O
� u� o °7 � a� �
� F¢a
Er����.��'��� Uq��qz<raFz
`-y F �vOF F �U" �°Of=7�3��f:7wZ
� � �n � ...
o ° � 4 ' q v� � wz�:ao�
� � 3 ��z H
0
vu
v � � v <�'c�-�
x�U�. z��
�:.��ac:: oX
C V.7 �
O�<c' ��
a
<F
FV
�4
<q�
�
�
zF
U
.'7 �
p �
aQ
¢
o za
zz����
a�,]c��",o
z�`'
�U�pp::
� � w
, � c;
a ��'s
a�� �
C]F�
zQ=
LEC,SU.1556 S�11FhI CB COhu1cRCIRL-ST PAU N�.109 P.2i13
��""`� FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMtSS10N
�� ��
'� � WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION5 BUREAU
° s 2028 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554
j �MM45S� + . •
FACT S H �E ET #�'�
APR}L 23, 1996
NATIONAL WIRELESS FACiLITIES S17lNG POLiC1ES
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains important provisions conceming the
placement of towers and other facilities for use in providing personal wircicss scrviccs. Most
state and local commu.nities have worked cIoscly with cclluIar und other wiretess service
providers on such placement gians, but this new law es[abIishes new responsibilitics for
communities and for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Zhe rapid expansion
in thc.�vircless industry makes these issues even more important.
, This Fact Sheet �1 is intended to explain the new provisions and to help state and .
local govemmenis �s ihey dcal with the complex issues of facilicies siting in their local
communities. At the end of this Fact Sheei �1, you will find names of contacts for
additional information about this area and other issues before the FCC.
Section 7Q4 of ihe Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act} governs federal,
state and local government oversight of siting of "personal wireless service" facilities. The
1996 Act establishes a comprehensive framework for the exercise of jurisdiction by state and
local zoning authorities over the construction, modification and p[acement of facilides such as
towers fo: cellular, personal communications service (PCS), and specialized mobile mdio
(SMR) transmitters:
r The new law preservcs'locai zoning authority, but clazifies when the excrcise of local
zoning authority may be preempted by thc FCC.
■ Section 704 prohibits an�' action that would discr'�ninate between different providers of
personal wircIess services, such as ceilular, wide-area 5MR and broadband PCS. It
also prohibits any action that w•ould ban altogether the construction, modi£cation or
placement of these kinds of facifities in a particular azea
s The law also specifes proccdures which must be followed for acting on a request to
place these kinds of facilitics, nnd provides for teview in the courts or th� FCC of any
decision by a zonine authorie}• that is inconsistcnt with Section 704.
�L�c.i�.isye s�izFr� ca COhU9ERCIAL-ST PRU
n0.109 P.3i13 ^
. � r:
. '% .
� � � f � �
_ , ... - � (_� �
• Finally, Section 704 requires the federal govemment to take steps to hclp liccnsees ui _-' —-
spectrum-based services, such az PCS and cellular, get access to preferred sites for
their faciiities. FederaI agencies and departments wilI work directly with licensccs to
make federal property available for this purpose, and the FCC is directed to work with
the statcs to find ways for states to accommodate licensees who wish to erect towers
on state praperty, or use statc easements and rights-of-way.
The aetachments to this fact shcet seek to provide information concerning tower siting
for personal wireless communications services. They includc a summazy of the provisions of
�Section 704 of the 1996 Act, the actual tesrt of Section 704, and a tecluucal information
suminary that describes the celluIaz, vride-azca SMR and broadband PCS technologies that
underlie the majority of requests for new tower sites.
Questions about this topic, and about federal regulation of wirelcss telecommunicztions
services in general, may be addressed to Karen Brinkmann, Associate Cfuef of the Wireless .
Telecommunications Bureau, 202-4]8-0783, (e-mail: kbrinkmaQfcc.gov). Questions about
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 genezally may be addressed to Sheryl Wilkcrson in tho
FCC's Office of Legis]ative and Intergovernmental Affairs, 202-418-1902 (e-maii:
swilkers@fcc.gov). Qucstions nbout tower siting, licensing issues or technical matters may be
addressed to Steve MarkendorCf: Chief of the Broadband Bianch in the Wireless
Tclecommunications Burcau. 302-418-0620, (e-mail: smazkend@fcc.gov).
This Fact 5hcet kl is a�•nilabie pn our fax-on-demand system by referencing
Document Number 6507. Thr trlcphone number for fax-on-demand is 202-418-2830. "This
Fact Sheet #1 may also tx t��und on the Intemef at http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/wirehome.hunl. ,.
2
� LEC, 1t7. 1y5b 5� 12F'hl CB COhii ��CIRL-ST P;tU N0.109 P.4i13
SUMIYIATiY OF SECTION 704 OF TELECOMMUivICATIOI�S ACT OF 1996
The following is a summary of key provisions. The text of Section 704 is reproduced in its
entirety as an attachment to this summary.
�oca1 Zonina Authoritv Preserved
Section 704(a) of the 1996 Act amends Scction 332(c) of the Communications Act
("Mobile Services") by adding a new pazagraph (�. It preserves thc authority of state
and locaI govemments over decisions regarding the placement, construciion, and
modiftcation of person2I wireless service facilities, except as provided in the new
paragraph (7).
2. Exceotions •
a. States and Localities Mav Not Take Discriminatorv or Prohibitina Actions
Section 704(a) of the I996 Act sta[es tha[ the regvlation of ilie placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any
State or local government or insmtmentality ihereof shall not unreasonably
discriminzte among providers of functionally equivalent services and sfiai! not
prohiliit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i).
cview: Any person that is adversely affected by a state or local govcmment's
action or failure to act that is inconsistent with Section 332(c)(7) may seek
expediied review in the courts. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).
b, Procedures for Rulinu on Requests to Placc Constn�ct or Modifv Personal
Wircicss Service Facilities
Scction 704(a) also requires a State or loca2 government to act upon ¢ raquest
for suthori�ation to place, construct, or modify persona! tvireless service
facilities within a reasonable time. Any decision to deny a rcquest must be
made in writing and bc supported by substantial evidenee contained in a writtcn
record. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7){B)(ii) (iii).
L�L.lu.lb'�o S�1�FPi CB COiii•iEF,VIAL-ST FAU NO.lE9 P.S/13
. �
� � � r ' � �
1
. - _ . . ✓
� i
c, Re2ulations Based On Environmcntel Effccts of RF Emissions •Preemvted
Section 704(a) of the 1996 Act expressly preempts state and iocal governmeat
regulation of the placement, eonsaucdon, and modification of personal wireless
service facilities on ihe basis of the environmental effeets of radio &equency
emissions io the exteni that such faciliiies comply with ihc FCC's regulaiions
_ conccming such emissions. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). _ _
Review: Parties may seek relief from the fiCC if tfiey are adversely affected by
a state or local govemment's final action or failure to act that is inconsistent
wirh this provision. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(�(B)(v). -
3.
Federal Guidelines Concemin¢ RF Emissions
Section 704(b) requires the FCC to prescribe and makc effcctive new rules regazding
the environmcntaI effects of radio frequency emissians, which aze under consideration
in LT Docket 93-62, �vithin 180 days of enactrncnt of thc 1996 Aet.
NOZ'E: The pendency of this proceeding before 1he FCC does rrot kffect the rules
which currently are in e,ffect governing Yhe environmental effecfs of radio freguency
- emissions Section 704(b) givestpreemptive effect to these exisling rales. See related
attachments to the Fact Sheet. �
4. - Use of Federal or State Govemment Provcrtv
a. Federal ProoertV
:. Section 704(c) of the 1996 Act requires the President (or his designee) to
�; prescribe procedures by which the federal govemmcnt may make available on a
fair, reasonable and nondiscruninaiory basis, property, righu-of-way and
easements under their control, for the placement of ncw spcctrum-based
` tdccommunications services.
, '..
LEC.1�.1550 5=13Pt9 GB CU�y;EFCIFL-ST PAU
b. State Prppertv
N0.1�9 P.6�'13
Wi.th respcct to facilities siting on state proper[y, Section 704(c) of the 1996
Act requires the FCC to provide tcchnirzl support to States to encourage them
to m�e property, rights-of-way and easements undcr thcir jurisdiction available
for the placement of new spcctrum-based telecommunications services.
NOTE: Infarmation concerning technical support for tower sitfng which the
FCC is making available to sta�e and local governments is attached to the Fact
Sheet.
5. Definitions
"Personal wireless services" include commercial mobile services, unliccnsed wireless
services, and common earrier wircless cxchange aecess services. 47 U.S.C.
§ 332(c)(7)(C)(i).
"Commercial mobile services" are defined in Sec$on 332 of the Communications Act
and the FCC's rules, and include cellulaz telephone services regulated undcr Part 22 of
the FCC's rules, SNIR services regtilated under Part 90 of the FCC's ruleg, and PCS
regulated under Part 24 of the FCC's rules. 47 C.F.R § 20.9.
"�c l�ccnsed wireless services" are defined as the offering of telecommunications
services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses; dircct-
to-homc sate[lite services are excIuded from this definition. 47 U.S.C:
§ 332(c)(7)(C)(iii).
LEC.10.1550 5:13PhI CB COih�Er.'CIFL-ST PAU �0.109 P.7i13
COMPLE"TE TEX'T OF SEC'TION 704 OF TELECOiYLI�iUllTlCATIONS ACT OF I996
SEC. 704. FACII.IT'IES SITI�TG; RA])TO FJ2EQUE1`ICY EMISSION STANllARDS. r-� ^
(a) NA.'TIOl\TAL WII2ELESS TELECOMMUIVICATTOl�IS STLII\TG POLTCY— --
SEC. 332(c) j47 U.S.C. 332(c)] MOB7LE SERVICES--Regulatory Treatment of
Mobile Services Is amended by addina af fhe end the following new paragraph:
(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONlNG AUTHORITY.—
(A) GENERAL AUTFIORITI'.— Except as providcd in tnis paragraph,
nothing in tIus Act shail limit or affect the authority of a State or local govemment or
instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding thc placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities.
(B) LTMITATIONS— �
(i) The regulation of the placement, cons�uction, and modification of
personal wireless scrvice facilities by nny State or local government or
instrumentality thereof—
(I) shail not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent scrvices; and
- (II) sh¢li not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless serviccs. .
(ii) A State or ]ocal government or insmcmentaliry thereof shall act on
any request for authorization to placc, construct, or modify personal wireless
service facilicies within a reasonable period of time after the rcqucst is duZy
filed with such govcmment or instrumentality, taking into account the nature
and scope of such request.
(iii) Any decision by a State or local govemment or instrumentality
thereof to deny a request to place, constn:ct, or modify personal wireless
° service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidenc�
contained in a written record.
(iv) No State or locat government or instrumentality thcreof may
regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless
service facilities oa the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions to the extcnt that such facilities compiy with the Commission's
regulations conceming such emissions.
(v) An�� person adversely affected by any final action or failare to act
by a State or local go��emment or any instrumcntality thereof that is
.inconsistrnt w�ith this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or
_' failure to act, cammence an action in any court of'competent jurisdiction. The
court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person
adverseiy affected b}• an act or failure to act by a State or local govemment or
any instn�mentalit�• thercof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the
Commission for rclicf.
°' - � � �
�
- LEL. lu. i590 S 14Pi�1 CB CGPPIEF.CIAL-5T PAU
�r '. ', .
N0.109 P.8i13
(C) AEfiJNZTIO2�IS — For purposes of this pazagraph— •
(i} the term "personal wireless services" rneans coinmerciai mnbile
services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carricr wireless exchange
access scrvices;
(ii) the tenn "personal v.�irelcss scrvicc facilities" means facilities for
thc provision of personal wireless services; and
(iii) the-term "unlicensed wireless service" means the offering of
telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not requirc
individual licenscs, but docs not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite
services (as defined in section 303(v)).
* � .� * *
SEC. �04 FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION
STAl'IDARDS.
* * * r *
(b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS: ZVithin 180 days after the enactrncnt of
this Act, the Commission shali complcte action in $T Docket 93-62 to preseribe and make
effective rules regazding the environmental effecu of tadio frequency emissions.
(e) AVAiI.ABILITY OF PROPERTY.—Within 180 days of the enactment of'this
Act, the Presidcnt or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal departments •
and agencies may make u�•ailablc on a fair, reuoaablc, and nondiscriminatory basis, property,
riglits-of-way, and easemcnts undcr their con�ol for the placement of new telecommunications
services that are dependent. in «holc or in part, upon the utilization of Federat spectru.m
rights for the transmission or rrccption of such services. These procedures may estabfish a
presumption that requests fc�r the use of properiy, rights-of-way, and easements by duly
authorized providers shnuld tx granted absenc unavoidable direct eonflict with the department
or agency's mission, or thc eurrcnt or planned use of the property, rights-of-way, and
ezsements in question. Rc��c+nahlc fees may be chazged to providcrs of such
telecommunications sen•iccs for use of property, rights-of-way, and easements. The
Commission shall provide trchnical support to States to encourage them to make property,
rights-of-way, and easemcnts under their jurisdiction available for such purposcs.
t ,.
LEC.19.1596 5=15PP1 CB COh�IEkCIAL-ST FAU
N0.309
TECHNTCAL IIV'FORMf1.'ITOi�' CONCERIv"ING CELLULAR, SPECIALIZED
ivIOBILE RADTO Al`ID PEE2SONAL COMMUNTCATTOlYS SE12'S'ICES
Cellular Tnformation_
P.9i13 .�l.
r`"..�� `�
, �:�
The FCC esiablished rules and procedures for licensing cellular systems in the Unitcd Statcs
end iu Possessions and Territories. Thcse rulcs dcsignated 306 Metropolitan Statistical Areas
and 428 Rural Service Areas for a total o: 734 cellulaz mazkets and spcctrum cvas allocated to
license 2 systems in each mazkc[. Cellulaz is allocated spectrum in the 824-849 and 569-894
MHz ranges. Cellular licensees are generally required to licensc only the tower locations that
malce up their outer service contour. Licensees desiring to add or modify any tower locations
that sre within an already approved and licensed service uea do not have to submit an
appiication for thac locaiion to be added to their cellular license, although they may need FCC
approval if the zntenna would constitute a major envuonmental action (See question 2, below)
or would cxcccd the criteria specified in Part 17 of the FCC's Rules ("Construction, Mazking
and Lighting of Antenna Shuctures"). Part 17 includes criteria for determining when
construction or placement o€ a tower woutd require pnor not�calion to the Federal Aviation
Adminirnation (FAA). (See question 3, below.)
A cellular system operates by dividing a lazge geogiaphical service area into cells and
assigning the same frequencies to multiple, non-adjacent cells. This is known in the industry
as frequency rcusc. As n subscr'sber tcavels across the service area the ca11 is transferred ,
(handed-of� from one cell to another without noticeable interruption. Al1 the cells in a
cellulas system nre connected to a Mobile Telephone Switching O�cc (MTSO) by landline or
microwave links. The MTSO controls the,switching between the Public Switched Teiephone
Network (PSTN) and the ce11 sife for all wireline-to-mobile and mobile-to-wireline calls.
Snecialized Mobile Radio (SMRI Tnformation
Speciatized Mobile Radio (SMR) service liccnsees provide land mobile eommunications on a
commercial (i.e:, for profit) or private basis. A�aditional SMR systcm consists of one or
more base station uansmitters, one or more antcnnas and end user radio equipment which
ofren consis's of a mobile radio unit either provided by the end uscr or obtained from the
SMR operator. The base station receivcs either telephone transmissions fram end users or low
powcr signals from end user mobile radios. '
SMR systems operate in two distinct frequency rangcs: 806-821/851-866 MHz (800 MHz)
and 896-901l935-940 MHz (900 MHz). 800 MHz SMR services have been licensed by the
FCC on a site.by-site basis, so that the SMR provider must approach the PCC and receive a
license foreach and every tower/base siie. In the future the FCC will license this band on a
wide-uea-mazket approach. 900 MHz SMR was originally licensed in 46 Designated Filin�
Areas (DFAs) comprised of only the top 50 markets in the country. The Commission is in
the process of auctioning the remainder of the United States and iu Possessions and
Territories in the Rand McNally defined 51 Major Tzading Areas.
=4'�
- i.ct,. iu. tb_o o- 15�i I C� CJPGiEF.:.IF:L-ST PriU N0.109 p.10�13
i .
YCS Tnformation
Broadband PCS systems are very similaz to the cellulaz systcros but operatc in a higher
frequency band, in the 1850-1990 MIIz range. One other difference is that the FCC uscd
differcnt mazket 2reas for licensing purposes. The FCC uscd the Rand McNatly definitions
for 51 Ma,{or Trading Aicas (MTAs) and 493 Basic Trading Areas (STAs). PCS was
atlocated specizvm for six Broadband PCS systems and 26 Narrowband systems. The six
Broadband PCS systcros wiil be licensed as foilows: two Broadband PCS Iicenscs will be
issued for each of the 51 MT'As and four for each of the 493 BTAs. The 2b Narrowband
systems will be licensed as follows: eleven Narrowband PCS licenscs will be issued for
nationwide systems, six for each of five regional areas, seven for each of ihe 51 MTAs and
two for each of the �'.93 BTAs.
PCS licensees rse issued a blanket license for their entirc mazket area snd are not required to
submit applications to licensc individua! cell sites unless conscruction of tfie facitity would be
a major environmental action or would require FAA notification. Major environmental
aetions aze defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that is discussed in
question 2, beIow. Therefore, the FCC has no technical information on fite eonceming PCS
base stations.
Frequetttiv asl.ed questions concernin� tower siten� for nersonal wireless services.
1. Do Iocal zoning aufhorities have any authority to deny a request for toFVer siting?
Answer: Yes. The Telecommnnications Act of 1996 specifically leaves in pIace the
authority that local zoning authorities have over the pIacement of personal wirctess faciLities.
Ic does prohibit the denial of facilities siting bascd on RF emissions if fhe licensee has
complied with thc FCC's regula[ions conceming RF emissions. It aIso rcquires that denials
be based on a reasoned approach, and prohibits discrunination and outright bans on
co�struction, p(acement and modification of personal wireless facilitics.
2. Whaf requirements do personal wireless communications licensees have to determine
whether a 5ite is in a flood plain? A historicul site? �
Ans�ver: All antenna stntctures must also comply With the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA). as well as other mandatory federal environmental statutes. The FCC's
rules that implement the federal environmental statutory provisions are contained in sections
1.1301-1.1319. The FCC's environmental rulcs place ttce responsibility on each applicant to
investigate all the potential environtnental effecu, and disclose any significant effects on the
onvironment in an Enviranmeatal Assessment (EA), as outlined in section 1.131I, prior to
cnnstructing a tower. The applicant is required to consult section 2.1307 of the FCG rules to
determine if iu proposed antenna structwe will falI under any of the listed categories that may
significantly affect the environment. If it does, thc applicant must provide an EA prior to
proceeding with ihe towcr conscruction and. under section 1.1312, must await FCC approval
F]
Lc�.lU. 15'�0 5� lEFi 1 CB CGhC1ERCIAL-ST FHU N0.169 P.11ii3
before commencing any such construction cvcn if FCC approval is not otherwise required for
such construc[ion. Thc FCC places all proposals that may sigiuficantly impact thc cnvironment
on pub(ic notice for a period of 30 days, sccking any public commenu on the proposed
structures. The categories set forth in secuon 1.1307 include:
Wildemess Area
Wildlife Preserve
Endangered Species
Historical Sitc .
Indian Religious Site
Fiood Plain
Wetlands .
High Intensity White Lights in Residential Neighborhoods
Excessive 12adiofrequency Radiation Exposure
'
r � " (, �
3. Are there any BCC regulations thut govem where tovicers can or cannot be placed?
Answer: The FCC mandates that personal wireless companies build out their systcros so that
adequate service is provided to the public. In addition, a11 antenna structures used for
communications must be appzoved by the FCC in accordance wich Part I7 of the FCC Rules.
The. FCC must detemune if there is a reasonablc possibiliry that the structure may constitute a
menace to air navigation. The tower height and its proximity to an airport or flight path will
be considered when making this dctermination. If such a determination is made the FCC wi11
soecify appropriate painting and lighting requirements. Thus, the FCC does not mandate
where towers must be placed, but it may prohibit the placement of a tower in a particulaz
lo:cation wichout adequate Iighiing and mazking.
4. Aoes the FCC mainYain any records on tower sites thraughout the United States?
How does the public get this information (if any)? ''
nswer: The FCC maintains a general tower database on the following structures: (1) any
towers over 200 feet, (2) any towers over 20 feec on an existing structure (such as a buitding,
water tower, etc.) and (3) towers that are close to airports that may cause potential hazards to
air navigation. Thc FCC's licensing databases contain some base site information for
Cellulaz and SMR systems. The general towcr datab2se and the Cellutaz and SMR. data that
may be on file with the FCC is availabla in thrce .places:
(1) Cellulaz licensing information is evailable in the Public Reference Room of the
Wireless Telecommunications Burcau's Commercial Wireless Division. The Public
Refercnce Room 1s located on the fifth floor of 2025 M Street, NW, Washington, DC
20554, telephone (202)418-1350. On-line database seazches of ce]lulaz licensing
information aIong with queries of the FCC's general towcr database can also be
accompiished at the Public Reference Room.
10
. i��.i�..��o ��1rr,�i� Cd Wrnlar,'i.iNL—ST FAU ti0.169 P.12i13
. F ..
(2) People who would likc to obtain gcncral tower information through an on-line
public access database should calI or write Interactive Sysiems, Inc., 16D] North Kent
St., Suite 1103, Arlington, VA 22209, ielephone 703-812-8270.
(3) The FCC does not dupIicate these records, but has contracted with IntemationaI
Transcription Service, Inc. to' provide ihis service, Requcsts for copies of information
should be addressed to International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS, Znc.), 210D M
St., N�V, Suite 140, Washino on, DC 20037, telephone 202-857-3800.
5. Why do Cellular and PCS providers require so many tower sites7
Ansrver: Low powered transmittors are an inherent chazacteristic of Cellulaz Radio and
Broadbaad PCS. As these systetns mature and more subscribers 2rc addcd, chc effective
radiated power of the cell site transmitters is reduced so frequencies can be reused at closer
intervals thereby increasing subscriber capacity. There aze ovcr 30 mitlion mobile/portabie
cellular units and more than 22 ihousand celt sites operating within the United States and its
Possessions and Territories. PCS is just beginning to be offered around the country. Due to
thc fact that Bro¢dband PCS is located in a higher frequency range, PCS operators will
require more tower sites as they build tfieir systems to provide coverage in their service azeas
as campared to existing CeltuIar carriecs. Therefore, due to the nahue of frequeacy reuse and
the consumer demand for services, Cellular and PCS providers must buiId numerous base
sites. '
6. Can Celtular, SM12 and PCS providers share fower structures?
Answer: Yes, it is technologically possiblc for ihese entitics to share tower struccures.
Howcvcr, there are Iimiu to how many base station transmitters a single tow•er can hold and
different tower structures have differcnt timits. Moreover, these providers are competitors in
a more and more competitive mazketplace and may not be willing to shazc towcr space with
ezcH other. Local zoning authoritics may wish to retain a consulting engineer ta evaluate the
proposals submitted by wireless communications licensees. The consuIting engineer may be
able to detcrmine if therc is some flexibility as to the geographic location of the tower.
7. Is tlie Federal government hclpiag ta find ways fo accommodate mulYiple Iicensees of
personal wireless services?
Answer Yes: The FCC has designatcd Steve Mazkendorff, Chief, Broadhand Branch,
Commerciai Wireless.Division, Wireiess Tetecommunications Bweau, FCC to assist local
zoning authorities and municipatities and respond to questions conceming tower siting issues.
His telephone number is 202-418-0620. Also, President Clinton issued an Executive •
Memorzndeun on August 10, I995 diiecting the Administrator of General Services {GSA), in
coordination with other Govemment deparcments and agencies, to develop procedures to
facilitate appropriatc access to Federal property for the siting of mobite services antennas.
GSA recently released "Govemment-�'ide Procedures for Placing Commercial Antennas," 61
II
a._...y.�:i»c J.larri �.c Wrn Y'rIU f�J.lE9 � P.13i13
. .1 � -
^ r r o
_ ..,, ..� s� �
1
Fed. Rcg. I4,100 (March 29, 1996). For fuRhcr information contact Jamcs Hcrbcrt, Officc of - --
Property Acquisition and Realty Serviccs, Public Building Service, General Services
Administration, 18th & F 3treeis, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-0376.
8. Have any studies been completed on poteniia] hazards of locating a totvcrJbase site
close to residenfial communitiu? '
nsw • In conncction with its responsibiIities under NEPA, the FCC considers the potential
effects of radiofrequency (RF) emissions from FCC-rcgulatcd transnitters oa human health
and safety, Since the FCC is not ihe expert agency in this azea, it uses standazds and .
guidelines developed by those'with flie appropriate expertisc._ For examole, in the absence of
a uniform federal standacd on RF exposure, the FCC has relied since 1985 on the RF
exposure guidelines issued in 1982 by the American National Standazds Tnstitute (ANSI
C95.1-1982). In 1991, the Institute of BlectricaI and $lectronic Enginecrs (IEEE) issued
guidelines designcd to replace the RF ANSI exposure guidelines. 13ese guidelines
(ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992) were adopted by ANSI. The Telccommunications Act of 1996
mandatos that the FCC complete its proceeding in ET Docket 93-62, in which it is
considering updating the RF exposure guidelincs, no latcr than early Augu� 1996. Copies of
this proceeding cun he obtained from the Intemational Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS),
telephone 202-857-3800. Prescnlly, RF emission requirements ere contained in Section
1.1307(b) of the FCC's rules . A7 C.F.R §1.1307(b), for all services. PCS has service
specific RF emission provisions in Section 24.52 of the FCC's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 24.52. •
-Additionai information conceming RF emission hazards can be obtained through a variety of
sources:
(i) Tnformation conccming I2F hazards can be obtained on the World Wide Web at
http://www.fcc.go� RF safety questio�s are answered and further RF -
documents and inturmation arc contained under the Cellular Telephony Section.
(2) OET Bulictins SG and 65 conceming effects and potential RF hazards can be
requested throu�h the R�diofrequency Safety Program at 202-4I8-2464. Additionally,
any specific questions concerning RF hazards can be answered by contacting the FCC
at this phone numbcr.
The FCC maintains a Communications and Crisis Management Center which is staffed 24
hours a day, seven days a week. In the event bf an emergency, such as a radiofrequency
hazazd threatening public safety or health, you may cal] 202-632-6975. The watch officer
who answers at that number can contact our comp(iance personnel in your area and dispatch
them within a matter of hours.
12
Macalester-Groveland
Cominunity Council
320 South Griggs Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105-2800
Telephone: (612) 698-7973
FaY: (612) 698-9465
December 3, 1996
Roger Ryan
Department of PED
City of Saint Paul
1100 City Hall Annex
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Roger, ,
Our organization at its November 21 meeting passed the following recommendations
regarding the zoning for celluiar antennas.
* Cellular antennas should only be allowed in Residential, OS-1 or B-2 zones on
buildings at least 60 feet high.
* Cellular antenna towers and poles should be permitted by Special Condition Use
Permit in Residential, OS-1 or B-2C zones where buildings are 60 feet high.
* Cellular antenna towers and poles in business zones shou2d be set back from
residential structures by 150 feet.
* The city should encourage anteana installation on e�usting public and institutional
buildings over 60 feet high.
�- A�tennas not meun±Pd on buildings should be i*is±alled en monopoles rathe* tha.^.
free standing towers.
* Antennas should not be more than 15 feet higher than the buildings they are
mounted on.
* Antenna sites should be planned and bni�t for co-location. (use by multiple
companies)
* Antennas should be camouflaged, screened and/or contained within an
architectural element.
* Antenna sites should provide oae pazking space.
* Antenna towers or poles should be spaced 320 feet apart.
� recyCledpaPn
� � � � � �
_ . _" , ' � �
Roger Ryan Page Two
December 3, 1996
* Speciai Condition Use Permits should be required for antennas on sites that are
not industrially zoned.
* There should be a sunset provision to insure the elimination of antenna towers
and poles when no longer needed (because of new technology).
* The city should receive revenue from rent or taxes associated with cellular
antenna sites.
� The ci �� sheuId protect open par:.�aad frer.l a..tenna towe:s and poles.
We look forward to reviewing the Planning Commission's recommendations on this
matter and hope our recommendations will be anong them.
Sincerely,
� (�
f.L.Zi ��lJ LIJ���
Kathie Tarnowski
Community Organizer
■
✓
���-,°,�
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON SANUARY 2, 1997
PRESENT: Mmes. Morton and Wencl; Messrs. Chavez and Kramer of the Zonin� Committee; Mr.
Warner, Assistan[ City Attomey; Mme. Sanders and
Mr. Ryan of the Plannina Division.
ABSENT: Faricy, excused
Field, excused
Gurney, excused
Vaueht, excused
Time: 420 - 535 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, Chairperson.
Antenna Amendments Discuscion
Roger Ryan, Planning Division staff, reviewed that an interim ordinance was adopted in October, 1996
which prohibited any free-standing antennas in residential, OS-1 and B-1 districts, and reduced from 40
feet to I S feet the height that antennas. that are placed on existing buIldings may exceed the height of the
building to which they are attached in OS-1 and B-1 districu.
,,.The interim ordinance is applicable for 120 days and can be extended if necessary. The staff report
,.�-included a table which briefly listed the main regulations on antennas, a copy of the interim ordinance, the
Macalester-Groveland Community Council's recommendation on antenna regulations, and a fact sheet
from the Federai Communications Commission. Mr. Ryan stated that the interim ordinance was enacted
, in response to concerns regarding the existing regulation relative to the aestheuc impact of antennas near
residenual properties. 5afety was not addressed as an issue.
A summary of regulations of other cities was also included with the staff report. Mr. Ryan reviewed the
preliminary staff recommendations, those of which were distributed to various providers, one interested
. person, and the district councils, for their informaaon. He said that a preliminary staff recommendation '
that free-standing antennas be allowed as special condition uses in OS-1 thru RCC-1 districu was
r inadvertendy lefr out of the staff report.
Commissioner Chavez referenced staff recommendation no. 3. "Industrial districts. Permined use. Free-
standing antennas up to ISO feet high, provided the antennas are setback Z I/2 times the height of the tower
from the nearest residenrial srructure, " and asked staff to elaborate on this.
Mr. Ryan responded that a yard between the antenna and the nearest lot line equal to the height of the
antenna would no longer be required. He said the effect of that would be that it would be easier to put
free-standing antennas on indusuial property.
Peter Beck, A.T. & T. Wireiess Services, accompanied by Marie Grimm, Local Government Affairs
Manager, provided an informational presentation on the eellular technology. Mr. Beck has been with
AT&T Wireless Services, originally known as Cellular One, for approximately 10 years. A.T. & T. and
US West were the two orieinal providers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide
cellular telephone service to the twin cities metropoli[an area. In the past few years the Federal _
Communicacions Commission (FCC) has issued additional licenses for what is widely known as Persona!
Communication Services (PCS), which is a variation on cellular and in many respects operates the same
way and would also fall under the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Beck reviewed how the cellular technology works. The technoloey is a system titat relies on very Iow
power, essentially f.m. radio signals emanatine from an antenna site to hand-held or portabte phones.
Each provider has been licensed for a certain number of frequencies hy the FCC and with those
frequencies must cover their entire licensed area. Since each frequency can only handle one conversation
at a time, each cell-site, or set of antennas, has a limited number of conversations which it can hold.
These frequencies are reused throushout the system. When there were few users a system was
commenced with 8 or 9 cell-sites on very tall structures, or 300 foot antenna towers. Each cell-site
covered a very laree area because there weren't mzny users in that area and there was enough room on
each of those cell-sites for all of the users. But as more people took advantage of this technology each
cell-site would fili up to capacity, and a!1 the frequencies �vould be used and customers coulddt get on.
What would then be done was to break that cell inro two, three or sometimes four smaller celIs and
typically get by with a lower antenna height because the sienal is intended to cover a smaller area. Mr.
Beck said the uick is not only to cover a smaller area but to not cover too big an area, because those
frequencies are being used elsewhere.
This was done in Saint Paul in 1993 when there was a cell on a hiah stmcture downtown which needed to
be broken into two cells, one north on 35E and one east on 94. As a result of that need, the City got into
this issue and A.T. & T. at that time known as Cellulaz One, worked closely with the City in the adopuon
>,. of the existing wireless ordinance, the fust of its kind in the metropolitan azea. This ordinance, Mr. Beck
said is used as a model to present to other cities that are adopting ordinances at this time. Mr. Beck said it
is a very good ordinance and that with any living document needs occasional updating.
Mr. Beck said that A.T. & T. Wireless was wncerned whether there was a need for a moratorium whiie
the ordinance was looked at again as Saint Paul had a moratorium three yeazs ago, but that the scope of the
moratorium was narrowed to the point where A.T. & T. was able to find industrial sites for the four cells
they needed immediately. Mr. Beck pointed out that by the time it is known there is a need to break a cell
down, it is already needed and things need to happen very fast, with timing being very important and that
ofrentimes a need is identified by customer complaints that they cannot get on to the system.
Mr. Beck said that both initizlly and again at this Ume, that A.T. & T. Wireless has suggested that if there
is a place where the City wants these facilities to go, that antennas be made permitted uses there, and that
providers will do everyihing they can to locate there, because that is where ihey would have the abiliry to
get in and out of the fastest. Aowever, he noted that as these systems conrinue to mature and the usage
goes up there wili be more and more celi-sites. A.T, & T. has 90+ celI-sites (across the metropoIitan
area and into Wisconsin), a 10% increase since the system was turned on 10-12 years ago. He said that as
the system matures and there are more cell-sites ihat the location for each cell-site becomes more and more
difficult and there is less flexibility in terms of where the antenna faciliry can be placed in order to serve
the azea that it needs to serve.
l;
�' - - . �� �
Mr. Beck reiterated that there are a number of cities that are working on ordinances and said that effort
has been triggered by the issuance of the PCS licenses. The FCC issued 3 PCS licenses so far and are
auctionina off 2 more, with all of these providers telline the cities that they will need antenna sites. Tfiis
has caused a desire to look at antenna sites more comprehensively.
The companies licensed far Saint Paut include:
OriQinal nroviders currentiv on-the-air:
1) A.T. 8z T. Wireless
2) Air Touch (previous(y U.S.West)
New licensee thar are buildina networke and lookin�o ewitch on in 1997:
1) Aerial Communications (a.k.a. as APT Communications)
2) Sprint Spectrum
3) Nextel
There are also two more licenses being auctioned and much debate exisrs as to whether the two additional
licenses will actually provide the whole range of services, or whether those licenses might be used for
other things. These two wiil be a spectrum which can be used for a cellular system, as well as for other
things, i.e. a data transmission system to augment existing frequencies for one of the existing license °
holders. There will not necessarily need to be two whole new systems fo� the two additional licenses.
, Mr. Ryan asked whether the addiuonal two licenses wIll need antenna sites.
Mr. Beck responded tha[ if one of the other five providers were to acquire one of the licenses to get extra
frequencies for their system that they would not. However, under mos[ scenarios they would.
Commissioner Wencl asked whether it would be possible for the three companies currently building their
;tnetworks to put their antennas in.the same locations as the two existing companies, and whethei there will
be clusters of antennas grouped together.
Mr. Beck responded that that becomes a policy decision for the City to make. The technology is there and
there have been instances of co-location, that is having more than one provider on a site. He noted that
many of the sites are not free-standing structures but are on buildings. For a co-location to happen
approximately 20 feet of verticai separation is needed and quite a bit more horizontal separation (which is
the bigger issue).- It is more difficult to mount antennas on the same rooftop, however it is feasible and has
been done. Mr. Beck continued that on a water tower or a building it wouid be desirable to get as many in
place on such an inconspicuous location as possible. As with poles, he said you begin to reach a point of
�: diminishin? returns in terms of co-location. When there are more than two provideis on the same pole it
° becomes a busy pole and a big pole too. Poles are designed specifically for this use and are only designed
to the size required. All providers are buIlding the poles to take two users, two sets of antennas. The
poles can be built to do three or four but get bigger and thicker for each user, as opposed to what is
cunently on 35E or I-94 where there is a singie pole with one set of antennas at the top. Mr. Beck
explained that the buik and height of the pole is needed to support the additional antenna panels which are
bolted onto the poles, and weight and windload has to be designed inco the pole to accommodate the
number. He reported that other cities have been lookin� at requiring 3 or 4 per pole, but afrer further
discussion go back to one or two because of the bulk of the pole and the extra height, with a second user
the pole gets to 95 to IOQ feet, with a third user 120-125 feet, and so on.
Mr. Beck said the compromise the industry is comfortable with and which most of the communities are
settlinR on is to design the pole for two users, so that if another provider comes along with a need in close
proximity to the existin� facility that they could get on it.
Mr. Beck reviewed that what he sees as the best feature of the ordinance is that a hierarchy is set, with the
tirst priority to identify locations in higher zonine districu on existing structures. If it"s not possible for a
provider to use an existin� structure evidence should be provided. If it can't be done in a business district
then evidence must be shown, and if an antenna must go into a residential azea, it mns[ be shown why it is
necessary. This gets the providers located where the Ciry wants them. Mr. Beck pointed out that as the
systems develop there will be less and less tlexibility and facilities will need to go into residential areas, but
what they are hoping is that they will be able to keep them on institutional sites, i.e. colleges, schools,
cemeteries, public works facilities.
Commissioner Wencl said it appears that flexibility would decrease with more providers being added, and
asked whether each provider woulddt basically need the same set-up.
Mr. Beck pointed out that the one difference would be between cellular providers and PCS providers. He
pointed out that the cellular providers are on a frequency in an 800 megahertz band and that the PCS
providers are at 1.3 gigahertz which does not travel as faz as the celiular providers. PCS uses a lower
power, however it does not uavel as far and in turn will need more facilities up front but PCS will no[
have the capacity issue to the extent that the cellular providers do. Ae noted that once PCS geu a network
in, which will likely be close to the number of cells that A.T. & T. Wireless has, that they should not
continue to erow that system at the rate of 15-20 cell si[es per year, buc rather a litfle bit here and there.
Mr. Beck stcggested that by the end of 1997-1948 the City should pretry much know what cell-sites they
have for the lifetime of this technology, which may only be 10 years.
Preserving the permitted use in the indusuial zones, Mr. Beck reviewed, is a very good strategy for
getting them located there, but he said it needs to be recognized that it won't be possible to do that in all
instances and that the providers will need the opportuniry, under appropriate controls, to go into resideniial
areas.
Mr. Beck reviewed the 150 feet in industriai zones. He said the intent of that Ianwage is that antennas
would be able to go in just about anywhere in an industrial zone. He noted that the languaee states that
you have to stay the height of the pole from any property line, unless it can be shown that in all instances
the faciliry would not fail outside of that property line. Mr. Beck addressed safety, reporting that the
mono-pole technology and its design is exuemely safe and said there has not been a faIlure nationwide of
one of the mono-pole svuctures. He pointed ovt tfiat they have been through hurricanes and that they are
over-desisned. Mr. Beck reviewed that the uniform buIlding requirement is an 80 mile per hour wind and
they desi�ned the mono-pole to a 90 mile per hour wind with one half inch of ice, which is about a 40-50 %
increase in the s[ructurai strength of the pole. Mr. Beck claimed that the poles wIlt not faII down.
Because of this design it was thought they could go back to a corner of an indusuial area where property
linas come together, which is oftentimes a very good locauon as it is out of the parking area and removed
from all acdviry. However he noted that was not found to be the case and variances have been required.
Mr. Ryan responded that there is no way to show that to be so.
Mr. Beck responded that language needs to be improved.
,� : - . `� 5
Mr. Ryan reviewed that the language of the antenna amendment is to provide for a spacer, and that the one
and one half times is used as standard for buildings in industrial zones.
Mr. Beck responded that in fully-developed communities like Saint Paul that it is difficult to locate a site
that is one and one half times its hei�ht from residential, however that the standard is somethins they can
live with. He reviewed that if a mono-pole ever were to fail that it would crimp, but would never fall
over.
Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Beck to comment on the preliminary staff recommendations.
Mr. Beck said he saw no major problems with any of the preliminary recommendations, and that all of the
concepts are such that they have worked with in the past. He expressed concern that the committee not get
hung up on safety issues for a technolo�y which he believes is a non-issue, however a�reed that the
aesthetic concerns need to be addressed. He said it needs to be recognized that people wilI be able to see
the antennas and that they would not function if they were not in the line of sight to every comer of the
city. He reviewed that they have an obligation under their license to provide service to every corner of the
ciry, that it s impottant, particularly for Fire Departments, Police Deparcments, Ambulance Services, and
other public service and safety agencies that use ic as back up for their two-way.
Commissioner Kramer asked staff to review how park land is zoned.
Mr. Ryan responded that Saint Paul does not have a zonine desianation for park land, but that most park
land is zoned residential; however some park land is located in business districts. A free-standing tower
could be placed on park land under aspecial condition use.
Mr. Beck reviewed that park land is important as they tend to be fairly well-distributed throughout the
community, which provides an excellent opportunity to get a si�nal where it is needed without going on
actual residential property. Poles can be made to replicate lighting standards and can be located in such
places as ball fields. An example of this is a pole located in right field of the Saints Stadium. However,
Mr. Beck reported that some communiues do say no to parks.
Commissioner Kramer said he has heard it suggested by someone in the community that a cellular tower
should be mstalled on the west side of Lake Phalen where there are no lighu around the path, and that
lights be included as part of that agreement.
Mr. Beck responded that such solutions have been done in other communities. He reviewed that cagitat
requiremenu of the business are incredible, and cell-sites are almost a miilion dollars each. Land is
leased, not purchased, and rent is paid for use of pubiic facilities, i.e. water towers. Mr. Beck reviewed
that the poles look like the light standards you would see on a freeway intercha[�ge, and tha[ two-user poles
are 5-6 feet in diameter, about 75-100 feet tall, a fluted-steel structure with antennas on top. Poles are
typicatly painted to match a blue-gray sky. If poles are in a location adjacent to MnDOT poles, which are
dark brown, they will be painted dark brown, or any color which the local government wants.
Commissioner Kramer asked if there are power to these poles.
Mr. Beck said that all cell-sites have power and phone which are typically undereround. Each faciliry has
a 12 x 28 foot equipment shelter on-site, or sometimes equipment is stored in an existing building which
contains backup power, batteries, and is connected to NSP and US West land lines. The cell-site is just
transmitting and receiving from the phones, and then goes by land line into the U.S. West exchanaes.
Mr. Beck reported that he met with District 14 and noted that the recommendations received from them
are ones in which they worked with them on and that District ]4's recommendations are pretry consistent
with what staff is recommendin�. However, he noted that mandatory spacina couid be counterproductive
in terms of not enabling companies to put the poles in a good spot because they would be too close
together.
Commissioner Wencl asked Mr. Beck why one parkina space would be a necessary inclusion.
Mr. Beck responded that a tech visi[s these si[es monthly and parking space is needed for the service
person to eet as close to the antenna as possible as they are transporuna equipmenc.
Commissioner Wencl cautioned against includine such languaee in the regulations, with Commissioner
Kramer noting that for any cell-sites that the City would require a special condition use permit and such a
decision could be made at that time.
Marie. Grimm, Local Govemment Affairs Manager, pointed out that accessibility to the site is the main
concern. There may be cases where parkin� spaces need not be provided for, as parking is available on
the street.
Commissioner Kramer asked whether separate guidelines would be established for special condition use
permits for cellular towers, with Mr. Ryan sTatin� that there wIll be and it was noted that the guidelines
mi�ht be the place to include language that parkina is adequate.
Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney, asked about co-location beine a preferred concept in the preliminary
staff recommendations, and asked whether the nature of the business is such where competitors get along
with each other. He drew a scenazio where a provider might request putting up an antenna in a special
condition use area and even though their competitor has space for a co-location that they prefer not to co-
locate because they can't get along with them. They azgue that they have a federal mandate to provide the
service and claims that the Ciry doesn't have the authority to tell them that they can't locate elsewhere, and
they hold to the fact that they need a separate location. Warner reviewed that there is a concern in the
community about profiferation of poIes. If a co-location requirement is included, Mr. Wartter asked
whether Mr.Beck see that as a way for companies to piQey-back with each other, or if they can't get
along, to collude with one another so as to get their own or more antennas.
Mr. Beck responded that the companies are amenable to co-locating for two reasons: i) It is a politically
smart thins to do. They understand why people don't want a lo[ of poles; and 2) They save the capital cost
to that pole, which is a big issue. However, he noted that these are big companies that aze very concerned
about the anti-trust implications of working together on cell-sites. They compete on basically three issues:
1) price; 2) the quality of the seroice they deliver; and 3) the area thac they cover. Cell-site locarion is
direcUy related to two of the three azeas that they compete in. All the companies have received specific
duection from ttteir corporate legal departmenu that they cannot get together and compare systems and
aeree on cell-sites with other providers. But on a case-by-case basis they can as the ordinance calls for
that if there is another cell-site belonging to another faciliry in the azea where you need a cell you should
use it, unless you can show evidence why you can't. Mr. Beck said that some ordinances of other cities
have gotten very aggressive with that which he suggested goes beyond the police power of the ciues. He
said it wIll be awhile before that issue geu litigated, but that there needs to be a balance between how
� �. ~ �� � �
. - J
much the city can get involved in this business. Mr. Beck concluded that for the most part the companies
will want to cooperate because they don't have time to ar�ue about it. What they have tried to do is tell
cities they won't sue them if they only go so far, such as requiring the two users on a pole.
Mr. Beck noted that many ci[ies' ordinances require that if there is an existin� buildine that is where the
antenna has to go, or provide evidence why it isn't possible. He felt that this languaae was appropriate but
su�eested that there needs to be an out provided for instances where a building owner doe not want them
on their buildine, as the providers cannot be foreclosed from serving that area of the city because the
existino structure isn't available.
Mr. Ryan noted that antennas on existing structures are bringing in $12-15,000 per year.
Commissioner Chavez asked what pan of the recommendations will relate to safery and contacts, etc. He
found the Federal Communication Commission's fact sheet disturbing as it states that in case of immediate
safety or health hazard to dial a number and within hours someone will get back to you, and said thai this
could be a problem. He aiso reviewed the question of how far a pole can be located from residential and
said tha[ radio towers have gone down with people beine hurt as a result. He's concerned that if a mono-
pole fell over, despi[e the fact that Mr. Beck has said it will not, that i[ could be a hazard, and suggested
that something rela[ed to safety in residential locations should be included.
`:Mr. Beck responded that I50% of the heieht would cover the worst case scenario. He said when they can
provide all the data that is needed about what the experience has been, and what the margin of safety is
built into them, they will. He said that some computer modeling was done for them on where it would fail
and it was up to the 105-110 plus mile an hour wind situations before it even got to crimping, at which
point there wouldn't be anything left on the ground to fall on.
Mr. Ryan said that risht now you could put a commercial building 30 feet high and approximately 8 feet
,away from a residential building and that nobody worries about the safety on that and that the towers aze
-.;equally strong, in fact that the poles are even stronger than the buildings, so it appears that the towers are
equal to the buildings that they allow. Moreover there is the one and one half times the distance from the
nearest residential property, so safety has been given its due.
Mr. Beck said that they have told every community that they would fence the entire faciliry if it is the
community's des'ue, but they typically do not. They pull the pegs on the pole so that they can't be ciimbed
without special equipment.
No action was required as this matter was for discussion only.
. Drafted by:
( Sar.�t,w-
Donna Sanders
Submitted by: Approved by:
� ���'l°-� �����1� c�
Rog yan Giadys Monon
Chairman
c/
�� ���
_ - �-,
, � __ -� �
MINUTES OF THE ZONING CO[�IMITTEE
CZTY COUNCIL CH7IMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON FEBRUARY 20, 1997
PRESENT: Mmes. Faricy and Wencl; Messrs. Chavez, Fie1d, Kramer and Vaught of
the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warr.er, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes.
Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Planning Division.
ENT: Gurney
Morton, excused
Time: 5:05 - 6:15 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Barbara Wencl, Vice Chairperson.
�ELLULAR ANTENNA AMENDMENT4
, Roger Ryan, Planning Division staff, reviewed that interim zoning regulations
were adopted in October, 1996. The Zonir,g Committee held a public in£ormation
meeting on this matter on January 2, 1997. Staff rias since refined and
redrafted the proposed regulations. Mr. Ryan reviewed the staff report.
Three items w2re distributed at the meeting: 1)a 2/19/97 letter £rom the
District 2 Community Council including recommendations on the proposed
amendments; 2) a 2/18/97 letter from Peter Beck, representative for AT&T, who
provided three comments on the proposed amendments; and 3) a 2f20J97 memo to
` the committee from Mr. Ryan responding to AT&T's comments regarding the
loca'tion of towzrs and buildings. Mr. Ryan reviewed this memo with the
" committee which constituted change in the recommended amendments in the staff
�report.
Commissioner vaught asked for clarification as to the language used by Mr.
Beek in his letter, under point no. l. ...Allowing the equigment building or
monopole to be located in a side yard, where appropriate,..."
Peter Beck, representing AT&T Wireless Services, responded that what he had in
mind was what Mr. Ryan ended up recommending, saying that oftentimes the
equipment buildings can be put up against an existing building and made to
look like part of the building. The recommendation triat it be allowed if it
falls within the envelope of the building Mr. Beck believed to be a good
' solution to point no. 1 identified in his letter. Points no. 2 and 3 he said
are policy issues that he raised for the committee to consider. A 75-foot
height limit he reviewed would basically mean only one user per pole, absent
unique circumstances, and he sugg=sted that the policy issue is wriether Saint
Paul would like to see fewer poles if provision was made for another 20-25
feet of vertical separation, with a 95-100 foot pole able to accommodate
typically 2 users, which may reduce the number of poles, which most cities are
allowing for in their regulations. Point no. 3, the increase in the setback,
he pointed out that as the technology matures it is going to be difficult as
the usage increases and the need for cell sites increases to find locations.
Mr. Beck suggested that increasing the setback wi11 make it more difficult to
accomplish that.
Mr. Beck summarized that Saint Paul has a good ordinance, the revisions are
good and bring the ordinance up-to-date and that with the additional
recommendation by staff he believes it to be a state-of-th2-art ordinance. fte
recommended that the policy issue of more poles or higher poles and whether or
not some r22ief on the s2tback would be appropriate should b2 addressed.
Commissioner Field addressed having two users on one pole of lOG feet, and�
whether broadzr coverage or more capacity would be achieved by the provider at
100 Eeet then would be the case by thz provider at 75 feet.
Mr. Bzck responded that no additional capacity would bz gained. Each site has
a limited numb2r of frequencies assign2d and would be the same regardless of
th2 h2ight. In terms of coverage, each site is designed and engineered
spzcific to that location. He said that most part of the metro area would not
- bz able to livz with a 75 foot height limit as the technology has to be up
over the tre2 tops. In a more suburban area where they have to cov2r a 2arger
area he said they would definitely need more height than 75 feet. AT&T
decided not to oppose a 75 foot height limit in Saint Paul because theiz cells
are getting smaller in Saint Paul, and as there are more cells the ce11s are
smaller. The radio waves have to cover a smaller area so that they can be
lower. As there is provision in the industrial zonzs that they can go Lo 150
feet, in most cases they have been able to find industrial sites. Mr. Beck
responded that thz provider at th2 top would get more coverage at 100 feet,
but they wouldn't always need more covzrage in an urbanized area like
Saint Paul.
Commissioner Field asked if the restriction on the number of users is actually
the number of devices that are on the antenna, irregardless of height.
Mr. Beck responded that each user has an antenna array, and in AT&T's case,
typically three antennas times three, with three antennas pointing each of
three different directions, which need to be 20-25 vertical feet from another
provider's antenna array to avoid interference, and even more so of horizontal
separation. With a 100 foot pole one provider would be at 100 feet, with the
other at 75-80 fezt, thereby double use would be made of the pole. Some
cities have considered requiring 3 or more but at that point the pole gets
quite a bit bulkier and more expensive and the likelihood that 3 providers
would need a cell-site in that precise location diminishes. Mr. Beck said
that AT&T believes that you meet a point of diminishing return after two
users.
Commissioner Field asked then whether the number of antenna is more a function
of the number of users in an urbanized area, and whether there won't be fewer
po2es resu2ting from po2es being 100 fezt.
Mr. Beck responded that the number o£ cell-sites is related to users and that
each site can only handle a certain number of users at any one time. Cell
sites are designed £or peak periods and when a cell-site reaches capacity, as
happened downtown, that it must be broken into smaller ce11s to increase
capacity, but in the meantime they have to be sure that those new cells
provide the same coverage.
E
r; -- _ -. `, �
Commissioner Chavez asked Mr. Beck to elaborate regarding the sideyard.
Mr. Beck responded that he had suggested allowing some flexibility to locate
in sideyards when it's appropriate. Staff dealt with this in a more concrete
way to allow for a provider to go into the developable envelope of the
property, except not in the front yard. A sideyard would be allowed if the
antenna were up against the building. He noted that oftenrimes in industrial
parks and school sites that the bast place to put equipment buildings might
not hapoen to be what is designated as the rear yard.
Commissioner Chavez asked whether two providers on a pole is a common practice
across the country.
Mr. Seck respondzd that in the twin cities metropolitan area that it has
become common for cities to require that the poles be designed to accommodate
two,users and to grant the necessary height to do that. He reviewed that AT&T
,and anotri2r provider have bzen in business for approximately 10 years, three
or four providers are just building their systems, and that the industry is
hopeful that as the systems are being built and the existing providers
continu= to develop theirs, that the various systems will overlap and will
land-on existing cell-sites and be able.to co-locate, as it is more efficient
" for the providers because they heve one less pole to finance and as cities
desire to see less poles, will encourage co-location.
Commissionzr Chavez asked whether there would be an advantage for a provider
.to.be higher or lower on a pole.
Mr. Beck responded that each system wi11 have its requirements which will be
., vexy site-specific, pointing out that AT&T has poles ranging in height from
=75-300 feet, depending on the area that site has to cover. Whoever is there
,'first, if Saint Paul requires it, will build a pole that will accommodate 2
'- users and that provider will go on at the height that it needs, and the other
height would be available if another pravider identified a need in that area
and was able to negotiate a deal to lease space on the pole. Most providers
have national co-location agreements which makes this process less cumbersome.
,'�Commissioner Field asked for Mr. Beck's reaction Co language which would allow
poles of up to 100 feet to be permitted only if triey accommodated two users,
- thereby necessitating two applicants when poles are initially requested.
Mr. Beck responded that the possibility that two users would land at the same
" spot at the same time is very small. He reviewed that the providers are
�'�competitors that compete on 1) price; 2) quality; and 3) on coverage; and that
the pole location relates to two of the three. Providers cannot get together
� and select locations under the current anti-trust law. What can happen is �
that if someone has a site up in the air, and if it is a possible location for
the second provider, that the second provider can negotiate to get on it. He
suggested that rather than requiring that there be two users right up-front,
that trie taller pole be required to be built to accommodate two users with the
hope that a second user can make use of it at some point.
3
Anthony Segale, Regional Manager, U.S. West, spoke. Mr. Segale reviewed that
two technologies are available: cellular and PCS. H2 said there are
significant differences in the technologies and that PCS requires additional
sites. U.S. West is a new provider and will be buildinq a system zn Saint
Paul with approximately 1/3 of the sites to be rooftops; a couple of water
towers wi11 be used; and approximately 10°s wi11 be part--of co-location
agreements throughout the city. The PCS service will be an extension of the
land-line service, and about 12 sites will cover the area.
Mr. Segale noted that Saint Paul's trees are probab2y the highest of any trees
in the metropolitan area, with some being measured at 75-80 feet. He
circulated samples of both a cellular phone and a PCS phone, noting that
eventually thz phone sets will look and act just like our phones at home. Mr.
Segale commented that the proposed ordinance is not exe2ssively restrictive
.and he addressed issues of how to how the providers are going to serve the
community and what the technology will be used for. In reviewing the two
technologies. he noted that eavesdropping is done on cellular phones and that
cellular phones are not a secure device. Whereas, PCS units are digital and
secure, and that PCS is a leap in technology, the next g2neration £rom the
cellular phone.
� Regarding public safety. Mr. Segale displayed a model of a communication
tower and pointed out that there is a 20-25 foot case on it that is steel-
reinforc2d concrete that is 25 feet underground. He said the tower is not
going to fall over.
Mr. Sega2e has spoken with the communications directors of the Saint Paul
Police Department who have stated that they cannot use cellular service
because it is not secure, however they wzre very excited about PCS and said
there is a need in the Police Department for a secured two-way transmission.
fiowever, he said concerns were raised over budget restraints. Mr. Segale
suggested that the price of PCS service wi11 come down with the competition of
several providers.
Mr. Segale noted that some of the residential areas in Saint Paul currently
would not have the two-way communication on the PCS unit because there are no
current facilities in place that would give them transmission and said that is
what designing the ordinance is about, to help provide this service to
everybody. He further stated that if the City paramedics are to use the
technology, service needs to be available to all residents.
Disaster recovery. Telephone service as we currently know it still gets
disrupted when there is a major storm. U.S. West has about 75°s of their land
lines buried. Mr..Segale noted the attractiveness of a technology that
withstands the wind and weather and still provides the communication.
Sometimes the issue is that of preventing the eyesore. However, Mr. Segale
said the reality is to bring communication services to the area, whether it's
business or residence.
4
�' _��5
i1
1 - _� „J '�
U.S. 6�7est Ne2ds. Mr. Seqale reviewed that their first option for a site
location would be a roo£top, and that they will also look for a co-locate.
How2ver, he said that there are areas where such locations would not be
available and they would have to erect a oole, and i£ the trees are at 75-80
Pezt that they would need to g2t about 15 £eet above the trees. Mr. Segale
said tY.at U.S. West is looking for provisioas in the ordinance that would
allow communication facilities to be providz3 in residential areas.
Mr. Segale circulated computer generated oho�oaraphs of pot2ntial facilities
in Saint Pau1, briefly discussing various scenarios. H2 said that the PCS
providers differ from cellular in that thzy are not lookina for a particular
building but are looking for equipment space on the outsid=. All PCS
facilities are w2ather protected, vandalism protected, and sit as cabinets and
are significantly smaller than cellular storage facilities.
Mr. Segale reviewed that PCS is different than cellular as it is a secured
service. It provides a servic2 to the community and in order to be effective
it nzeds to be located within one and one-half mile of Chz users, noting that
as th2 technology and the usage increases th2 cells actually do get smaller.
.Commissioner Kramer requested copies of the rendzrings that Mr. Segale
��. displayed for the hearing record, with Mr.�Szgale,agreeing to provide copies
���to staf£.
David Hagen, Sprint PCS, spoke. Mr. Hagen said that Sprint PCS is supportive
to the extent possible in using existing structures to locate their antennas,
which includes towers, poles and buildings. They believe it's desirable to do
this both from the company's and the City's persp2ctive, thereby reducing the
number of single-user tow2rs that are built.
Mr. Hagen said that Sprint PCS is very suoportive of the he.ight bonus
''discussed earlier by Mr. Beck, and helieves.it to be a very good idea. They
'would like to see the ordinance recognize existing non-com�*.unication poles and
tow2rs, i.e, power poles, utility poles, liant poles, etc. as existing
structures upon which antennas may be located. Sprint PCS believes this to be
�a preferable solution to locating antennas, as opposed to building a new free-
standing tower.
Mr. Hagen displayed some photos that are part of a brochure used by Fort Worth
Tower, out of Fort Worth, TX, (copy in file) to advertise a concept they are
marketing called the power-mount installation, which uses a specific latCice-
type of high-voltage Cransmission power structure to actually mount an antenna
array on top of. It essentially results in a pole, though a much smaller pole
than a typical free-standing mono-pole, constructed or erected through the
center of the transmission lattice tower, supported laterally by that tower,
and then with a foundation under it to support it vertically. Mr. Hagen saicl
that this results in one less free-standing pole and a morz intensive use of
an existing blight on the landscape and is a way of reducing trie impact of the
antennas on the landscape.
5
Mr. Hagen concluded that Sprint PCS supports the modi£ications to the
ordinance and £eel that it is generally reasonable.
Mr. Ryan asked how tall the poles are within the existing power towers, that
w2re pictured in the brochure.
Mr. Hagen respondzd that this type of application can be used in tow2rs
ranging between 65-100 £eet or over. He understood there to be a limit as to
how much above the tower the antennas could be, but that he b21i2v2d that any
transmission lattice tower like depicted could be adapted with the pole
through the center.
Mr. Ryan reviewed that in order to use the power towers the provid2r would
have to comz to somz agreement with N.S.P, and..-asked whether N.S.P, has
�indicated a willingness to participate.
Mr. Hagen responded that Sprint PCS has bzzn working with N.S.P. toward
re�aching such an agreement and is optimistic that such an agreement wi11 be
arrived at in the near future to use N.S.P.'s transmission and communication
towers in this fashion.
' Commissioner Gurney asked whether the reczption/coverage would be a3=_quate by
strictly using existing structures.
Mr. Hagzn responded that Sprint PCS would not exclusiv2ly use N.S.P.
transmission tow2rs, but would be used only in certain cases where they would
fit their locational needs.
Commissioner Field reviewed that it would be Sprir.t PCS intention to include
the power pole's configuration within the definition of a pole or a
transmission device within the amendments, with Mr. Hagen validating.this and
� asking that such a power be considered and recognized as an existing
structure. He noted that under the existing ordinance that antennas located
on existing structures receive better treatment than do the construction of a
free-standing mono-pole. Specifically, Sprint PCS feels that in a residential
area that this is a better solution than building a free-standing pole.
Commissioner Field agreed, however, stating that the nature and placement of
the power poles is such that there will be very few that wi11 be within the
proximity to provide coverage in a residential area.
Mr. Hagen agreed in general, and reported that there is one particular area in
the city that Sprint PCS is attempting to cover that is zoned residential and
where they have located some transmission structures that they believe to be
better solutions than a free-standing pole.
Chair Wzncl allowed Mr. Segale to address the committee a second time as this
was a technical public hearing.
Mr. Segale reported that there is a Master Use Agreement with N.S.P. currently
which allows for attachment that does not have to be attachment to the top,
but can be attachment to the side, because of the height. He emphasized the
0
r_ _�.�5
located on ballfields or wherever, because the antenna array can be put on top
and it doesn't look like something standing off by itsel£. Mr. Segale noted
that the City of Saint Paul School District has said that they do not wish to
have any tower facilities at their location.
Commissioner Field asked whether Mr. S2cale believed that the scope of the
existing language �oP the ordinance su£ficiently a3dresses the existing
structures dzscribed above to facilitate the providers using those structures.
Mr. Segale said that he did not, and suggested that more definitive language
be drawn so that residential areas don't gzt le£t out on the basis that a
facility may be an eyesore, with other alternative locations being looked at,
understanding that the locations can't always be building tops.
Peter Coy1e, representing American Portable Telecom, another PCS company which
is a new entrant to the marketplace, s�poke. Mr. Coyle asked that the
committee pres2rve flexibility within the ordinance and try to promote
co-location. As American Portable Telecom has to build a brand new facility
they are looking for new locations in many cases because the service that they
need to provid2 is not going to be just a highway corridor kind of service but
� is intended a:'id designed to be used, gromoted by the FCC, within denser urban
�. areas. That means, Mr. Coyle said, that need to be creative about
where they locate the antennas.
1. American Portable Telecom urges the committez to give incentives to use
fewer poles, but higher poles, as a means of allowing co-location of up
to-two providers.
2. With regard to usable land area, Mr. Coyle said that the extent to
which poles are forced to the back of lots may seem aesthetically
pleasing because it hides the view but the fact is that it may also
imped2 the use of that space by some other productive use that the city
would like to encourage. Therefore he believes that the extent to
which�sideyards are used, or wher2 up against a structure, albeit on
the side, just gives the City better flexibility to manage scarce
� resources, the city's industrial and commercial land.
Mr. Coyle said American Portable Telecom wishes to work with the City. He
applauded the efforts of City staff to give the committee a responsible cut at
�the'ordinance, and said that they will continue to work with the committee to
refine it and make sure that it functions we11 so that the providers are not
all lined up seeking variances from the document once it does get finalized.
Commis5ioner Field asked Mr. Coyle to elaborate on the coming together of two
users to build a pole and the possible anti-trust ramifications.
Mr. Coyle explained that they cannot togzther plot layout of these facilities
on an up-front basis. What they can do is commit to the City up-front that in
exchange for better flexibility in terms of height and other triings, that they
would commit to build a facility up-front, incurring the additional investment
to a11ow for an additional provider to be on their pole, with absolutely no
guarantee that they may get a second carrier on it to share that cost. He
said that what triey can't do is collaborate on the front-end for a co-location
7
as it is prohibited by anti-trust, So h� said that the most that they can do
is try to be creative in the land use coatext to try and provide opportunities
£or them.
Mr. Coyle said that what he sees happening in many o£ the cities that they're
working in is that they are requiring as a condition of approval with a
conditional use permit or otherwise, tha� the applicant commit if they get
approval of an extended pole, that they nrovide space for that additional
colocater, and is generally something th;t is acceptable. However, he said
that means that they need to get to 110-120 feet in order to provide the range
of separation. With Saint Paul having many mature tre2 stands, and as it is
line of sight technology, they have to be above the trees in order to have
something that actually works.
Commissioner Vaught reviewed with staff that the interim regulations are in
effect until March 25. He said he would like to provide for the various
providers th2 opportunity to not only provid2 further information of a
generalized nature, but also to recommend should they wish, speci£ic
amendments that might accomplish or effectuate the issues they have addressed.
Commissioner Vaught moved layover until March 20, 1997, and that the providers
be asked that if they wish the committee to consider anything that they submit
their desires in writing for consideration on March 20, and that such
submissions be submitted to staff no later than the end oE business on Friday,
March 7, two weeks prior to the meeting, to give staff the opportunity to go
through it, and distribute with the committee packets mailed out on March 14.
Commissioner Field seconded the motion.
Mr. Ryan noted that the moratorium will expire on March 25.
Commissioner Vaught acknowledged that. He said he would add iE necessary,
that Mr. Warner draft for consideration by the city council, an extension o£
the moratorium beyond March 25, to a date which would allow consideration by
the committee on March 20, as well as any subsequent action necessary.
He noted that he would not want the committee to rush into action on this
matter without fully considering and maintaining the kind of flexibility triat
he has heard a11 of trie providers� representatives speak of.
Commissioner Field moved a friendly amendment to keep the public hearing open
so as to allow for reaction to any additional language.
Commissioner Vaught further asked that all submissions be shared not only with
the committee, but also to all other interested persons so that they might
come prepared on March 20 to provide testimony regarding the submissions.
Commissioner Kramer asked that staff be sure to notify the interested persons
regarding this issue who may not have submitted letters, in addition to the
providers.
:7
\ ' � s 4' / �J �
Commissioner Vaught noted that anyone who has invinced any interest whatsoever
should be communicated with in the same way as anybody else, with respect to
deadlines, etc.
Marie Grimm, AT&T, spoke against layover. She said she didn't want to see the
committez end up on March 20 with all kinds o£ questions with the providers
not knowing what to provide, and the committee not knowing what to expect.
Ms. Grimm asked that if the committee had some remaining questions that they
stipulate those questions. She said the Saint Paul ordinance is a good one,
with lots of detail and structure. She believed that the providers were
looking at what areas the committee wanted them to delve into further, and
questioned whether the March meeting wouldn't provide anymore. Ms. Grimm
asked tfiat perhaps th2 questions could be focused with a list of questions
given to each provider to respond to. _
Commissioner Vaught said it was his intention to be general in his motion, and
wishes for it to remain general. He said he is ready to hear anything anybody
wants to say, however that he is ready treat March 20 as a final date.
Commissioner Field agreed with Vaught noting that a11 of the providers that
testified said that the ordinance was basically a good ordinance, but they did
not appear to indicate that they endorsed the entire docum2nt. To the extent
�Chat the providers can flush out the issues with more clarity and establish
=�what their positions are, that is what he would be looking for, and that the
public riearing be held open.
The motion carried with a unanimous.voice vote�oE 6 to 0.
Drafted by: Submitted by: Approved by:
��S�_
Donna Sanders
Roge Ryan
����.������
Barbara Wencl
Vice Chairperson
0
�
(' `° �
1" '
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boulevard West
1��d2itl
::�� .
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, March 28, 1997, at
830 am. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners
Absent:
Also Preseqt:
Mmes. Duarte, Fazicy, Maddox, and Messrs. Chavez, Field Jr., Gordon, Gurney,
Kramer, Lee, McDonell, Nordin, Nowlin, and Vauaht.
Mmes. *Geisser *Treichel and *Wencl and Messrs. *Mardell and *Sharpe
*Excused
Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Nancy Frick, and Roger Ryan of
Planning and Economic Development.
° I. Approval of Minutes of March 14,199Z
MOTION: Com`nissioner Gurney moved approval of the minutes ofMarch I4, 1997;
Comrnissioner Chavez seconded the motion, which carried unanimously on a voice vote.
II. Chair's Announcements
- Gladys Morton has resigned from the Planning Commission to join the City Council, which leaves
the Planning Commission with three openings; applications will be taken until Apri123, 1997.
- Gladys' leaving also leaves an opening on the Zoning Committee, which by statue must have nine
members. Stephen Gordon will replace Gladys as the ninth member; and Litton Field will be the
new chair of the Zoning Committee.
Chair McDonell met with Pam Wheelock to discuss PED's restructuring and its affect on the
Planning Commission; and also the concems of the Commission regazding the restructuring. Ken
Ford will remain staff administrator. Reporting responsibility for staff support goes through Tom
Herran, a new member and a team leader. Zoning will continue to be staffed as it is. Pam is
hopeful that the restructuring will involve the Commission with more and different staff people
from the other elements of PED. She is hoping that this will make the Planning Commission's
work more effective and more viable.
- Planning Commission Retreat will probably be held immediately afrer we have inducted three new
members. The Steering Committee will continue to plan it.
- Patrick Seeb, from the Riverfront Development Corporation came to speak to us this morning about
the development framework for Saint Paul on the Mississippi River. The City Council has
requested them to put on a series of community forums; they, in tum, have asked the Planning
Commission to be co-sponsors, along with the City Council, of the community forums.
MOTION: �ommissioner Vaugltt moved that the Planning Commission be involved as a co-
sponsor With the City Counci! and the Saint Paul Riverfront Development Corporation in putting on
a serie"s of community forums on t/:e developrnentframework for Saint Paul on the Mississippi
River. Comneissioner Gordon seconded the motion.
Commissioner Field spoke in favor of the motion and he spoke of the need to get a cross section of
participants.
The motion on the floor carried unanimously o a voice vote.
III. Planning Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Ford commented further on the proposed town meeYings on the Downtown River Corridor
Development Framework.
Commissioner Gordon suggested that a broader participation might be acquired by identifying issues or
perspectives and then set up sign-up lists for each ofthose issues or perspectives and then alternate
speakers from tist to list.
Commissioner Nowlin offered his hope that in revision of the Comprehensive Plan, all of the divergent
plans that are being developed for the City would be brought together under one framework. First and
foremost, get a presentation directly to the Comprehensive Planning/Economic Development
Committee on what the Riverfront Corporation and Mr. Greenberg are proposing, so that it can be
incorporated into the overall Comprehensive Plan for the City.
About the Koch Mobil site, Mr. Ford noted that the City Council adopted a resolution favoring the
housing development for the entire site; the Department of Planning and Economic Development
recommended relocating Plastics, Inc. to a portion of the site. The resolution states that housing would
be a better lona term use for the land and directs staff to negotiate with the Science Museum to allow
Plastics Inc. to remain at its present location until a good site is available.
Commissioner Field informed the Commission that the Koch Mobil site will become a zoning case
because the property will aeed to be rezoned from its cunent staTUS to a residential use. He encouraged
the Commission to follow the issues regazding the case because a position will probably need to be
taken eventually.
Mr. Ford and Cathy Nordin were among others who yesterday attended the Conference on New
Urbanism, where Mr. James Howard Kuntzler, author of Geography of Nowhere, gave a keynote
address.
Mr. Ford reminded commissioners about the April3rd Cities at Work program on Chattanooga.
IV. Zoning Committee
#97-033 Courage Center - Nonconforming use permit to allow a community residential facility for
seven adults with physical and/or cognitive disabilities (1145 Argyle St; zoned R-4).
c- . �. ; r� ,
l • , �i
MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of t1:e requested nonconforming use permit to
allow a comr�eunity residential faci[ity for seven adults wirh pltysical and/or cognitive disabilities at
II45 Argyle Street, which carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Mr. Ryan added that although the Zoning Committee recommended that the fee should be waived on
this application, staff decided that the fee shou(d not be waived.
Commissioner Vaught informed the Commission that legal counse(, Mr. Peter Warner, had advised
him that the Zoning Committee/Planning Commission had the power to waive the fee. He feels that
the issue should be revisited.
Mr. Ford commented that he doesn't feel staff has authority to waive the fee in this case and will check
�vith Mr. Warner on the Commission's authority.
Chair McDonell announced that the issue will be taken up again at the next Zoning Committee
meeting, and that the Committee will repoR back to the Planning Commission if there is legal authority
to waive the fee.
Commissioner Field reminded the Commission that the waiving of fee is a recommendation, and a
higher power can choose to not accept the recommendation.
#97-034 Michael Allen Sullivan - Special condition use permit to allow auto repair (1229 Payne Ave;
zoned B-3).
, Commissioner Field..stated that this matter was lai ���1997, and the Zoning Committee
invoked the 60-day extension.
„ Antenna Amendments - (Roger Ryan)
Mr. Ryan explained that an interim ordinance had been put into place in October and the Planning
Commission was asked to study antennas. The interim ordinance has now been extended an additional
90 days to June 25, 1997.
Mr. Ryan proceded to go through the outline regarding the proposed regulations of cellular telephone
antermas. He stated that the City Attorney has been asked to research the question of how far a city can
go to require colocation because there may be anti-trust issues involved.
Commissioner Lee asked if river corridors are addressed separately and/or how they would be affected
by these requirements.
Mr. Ryan answered that the river corridor districts wouid not treat antennas any differently; they �vould
be regulated by underlying zoning districts.
MOTION: Commissioner Fie[d moved approva[ of the antenna amendments.
Commissioner Gordon questioned the idea of adopting the amendments before counsel's research on
colocation was heard.
Mr. Ryan stated that the options in this case are: 1) to lay this over until the City Attorney completes
his research; or 2) to pass the amendments and then have the research analysis passed on to the City
Council.
Commissioner Vauaht responded that it was the consensus at the Zoning Committee that fewer poles
�vould be better than more, so colocation appears more attractive to the City. The question is whether
the City has any Iiability if it forces colocation. Commissioner Vaught cvould like to see the City
require colocation, but he does not know if the City has the legal right to do so. He indicated that an
altemative might be to, rather than allow a 75-foot pole, to allo�v a 100-foot pole even if it has only one
cell on it, but then not allow another pole within one-half mile of that 100-foot pole, unless the
application for the second pole can prove that there is no colocation site available. Commissioner
Vaught expressed that he would like Mr. Warner to research the question of how far the Zoning
Committee/Planning Commission can legally go in this matter before the issue is moved along. He
stated that he intends to make a motion to continue this matter on the Planning Commission agenda
until tlie April 11 meeting in order to give Mr. Wamer a chance to render his opinion with respect to
how far the Planning Commission can go with respect to colocation, w ith the idea that we would then
pass it on depending on his advice.
Commissioner Kramer suggested that the Planning Commission approve this now as is, and then add a
m inor zoning amendment at a later date, if and when the Cit}� Attorne} provides the opinion that the
Planning Commission can recommend requiring colocation.
Mr. Ryan said that could be done.
Commissioner Field stated that he tends to agree with Commissioner Kramer's suggestion because it
would keep discussion on this issue moving forward.
Commissioner Gordon commented that this colocation issue is really si�nificant and the Commission
needs to be especially clear on it. He asked Mr. Ryan to eYplain, as things stand right now: 1) What
can be done with colocation? 2) Do these amendments, if �ve pass them today, affect what can be done
with respect to colocation? and 3) What would be the future amendment to accomplish what
Commissioner Kramer is talking about?
Mr. Ryan responded to the first question is that for the amendments now you need the two antenna
providers when you make application. To the second question, he responded that right now you can
build a tower 75 feet high only; the amendments would allo�v you to build 25 feet higher if you have
rivo antennas. To the third question, he said that a future amendment would require the language that is
found in the memo in the handout.
Commissioner Vaught stated that he needs to disagree with Mr. Ryan's last statement. He said that he
made the motion at the Zoning Committee and the amendments before the Commission right now are
not consistent with the motion that he made. He reiterated that his motion was not to allow 75 foot
poles or 100 foot poles if there were two locators at the inception of the application. It was to allow
100 foot poles, and then to require that anyone who would �cant to put a pole within one half mile of
that, e�aust all possibilities and prove that there was no colocation available. He also stated that he
does not fault staff with not comprehending his motion because of the chaotic nature of the meeting.
He added that he would not have made the motion that he made at the Zoning Committee meeting just
�
�R��T � _ � =� ��� '
to move the issue along, he made the motion because all the providers seemed to think it was a good
idea, and because he had the anticipation that Mr. Warner would be able to opine on the issue of how
the anti-trust question would be dealt with before the finat passaae. He continued that if he had known
that the intent was to try to move it along without resolving that issue at this level, he would not have
made the motion at the Zoning Committee meeting. He said he feels that this is a critical issue, and
reflects exactly what will happen. He finds no conceivable competitive disadvanta�e or serious
disadvantaae either the companies or the public will be placed at by not passing this along until April
11, and he objects to the fact that the amendments before the Commission today do not reflect the
intent of his motion at the Zoning Committee meeting.
MOTION: Com�nissioner T�aught moved to postpone this matter until the Aprilll, 1997, meetiirg
of the Planning Commission to allow Mr. Warner to opine, and to a11ow the amendments to be
redrafted so that they reflect the motion that was made at the Zoning Committee meeting. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Chavez
Chair McDonell stated that this is a continuation motion, which has preference over the existing
motion.
Commissioner Field asked that the motion maker and motion seconder consider amending the motion
to provide that if we do not have the appropriate opining by the April 11 meeting, that it not be
forestalled forever and that the original motion come to a vote at that time.
Commissioner Vaught stated that he would not accept that amendment.
Mr. Ford drew commissioners attention to one thing in the staff report for consideration. On page two,
it mentions there are trade-offs in allowing higher free standing poles for colocation.
The higher, more massive poles can be more obtrusive in residentiai districts and in business
districts near residential areas.
Mr. Ford continued to say that he started out thinking that taking the strongest position possible to
encourage colocation and reduce the number of poles would be the best option. However, after
carefully looking wherever he has been as to what is going on with antennas and their poles that
support them, he and staff have become less convinced that would be the best route to take. When out
in Orange County, California, he noticed that everyone on the freeway was using their cellular phone,
however, he did not find a lot of tall, obtrusive antenna poles. He found that they were short and small.
To accommodate a taller pole it must also be larger and more obtrusive. He reiterated that he and staff
are not convinced that a taller, larger pole with more antennas is necessazily better visually, near a
residential or other type of neighborhood area, than a larger number of smaller poles because they can
be significantly less obtrusive.
Commissioner Vaught commented that although he appreciates Mr. Ford's comments, he would have
appreciated hearing them at the Zoning Committee meeting. He then asked for the vote.
Tl:e motion on the floor carried on a voice vote.
Commissioner Vaught asked that in the event that the Planning Commission finds that it cannot
directly require colocation, that the actual wording that was intended by the motion at the Zoning
Committee be added to the draft in terms of the alternative.
#97-008 Hamline Universitv - Special condition use permit to allow expansion of the existing
campus boundary to include the property at the following addresses:
1472 Taylor
1478 Englewood
744 Simpson
740 Simpson
745 Pascal
739 Pascal
1463 Minnehaha
1471 Minnehaha
1479 Minnehaha
1485 Minnehaha
1495 Minnehaha
MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested special condition use permit to
a!!ow zrpansion of the existing campus boundary to include the properties listed above.
Commissioner Nordin expressed that she had a conflict in the listed conditions. She noted that under
condition #3 it states that all the driveways aze to be constructed on Pasca( Street. The conflict exists
with condition #4, item #2:
that there be no access to the pazking lot from Simpson Street untif Hamline University has the fee
ownership of the property at 740 Simpson Street
Commissioner Nordin reiterated that item #2 in condition #4 states that they could have access from
Simpson Street while condition #3 states that all the access must be from Pascal.
MOTION TO AMEND: Commissioner Nordin move�l to delete item #2 in condition #4 of the
resolution. The motion to amend was seconded by Commissioner Maddox
Commissioner Field commented that there is a conflict but he expressed that he does not understand
the issue, so he doesn't feel qualified to vote on the �.mendment at this point.
Mc Ryan commented that the access to Simpson Street was restricted only until the property at 740
Simpson Street was made a part of the campus.
Mc Gurney added that the reason this was added is because Hamline does not have fee ownership of
740 Simpson Street at this time, and the concem was that the property not be included in the campus
boundaries; nothing was mentioned about access or parking once that parcel is obtained. Once fee
ownership goes to the University, then it would become part of the campus boundazies. There was no
mention about access to the street.
Mr. Ford continued that Mr. Ryan is correct. Regarding access and egress, the Public Works
Department has examined this repoR and finds access and egress on Simpson Street adequate, as
originally proposed by the University. He noted that the language in condition #3 was not meant to
mean driveways shall be constructed only on Pascal Street, but that
Driveways to parking lots shall be constructed on Pascal Street only when the City Traffic
Engineer deems them necessary.
�.�_��5 �
�; ,
��=- -
In other words, unless driveways are deemed to be necessary, we should not even have them on Pascal
Street.
Tlte motion to amend carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Commissioner Gordon asked what was the reason for including the rivo Minnehaha addresses that «ere
characterized as bookends atthe previous meeting.
Commissioner Vaught replied that the western most parcel (vacant lot) is an integral part of the parking
situation involving the church. The second one is currently being used as an office building for
Hamline University.
Commissioner Gordon further asked, with respect to the two Minnehaha parcels he referred to earlier,
must they be included in the campus boundary in order for them to be used as they are.
Mr. Ryan answered that they do.
TJae amen�led motion on theJloor to approve the requested special condition use permit to allow
erpansion af the eYisting campus boundary to include the property at the above addresses carried
unanimously on a voice vote.
Commissioner Field announced that there will be no Zoning Committee on April 3, 1997. The next
meeting will be held o� Thursday, April 17, 1997.
V. Comprehensive Planning and Economic Development Committee
Commissioner Maddox reported that the committee met last week; a resolution on the Transportation
Plan will be forthcoming next Planning Commission meeting, Friday, April 11, 1997.
VI. Neighborhood Planning and Land Use Committee
Commissioner Kramer announced a meeting on Monday, March 31, to discuss the Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Vaught interjected that he attended the last meeting on metal shredders and found it
very informative and useful. He hopes that other commissioners will take the opportunity to attend one
of the meetings and/or to listen/watch a tape.
VII. Communications Committee
Commissioner Lee reported that the 1996 Planning Commission Annual Report was mailed in the last
packet. The new format is brief and concise; a brochure that's clear and easy to read.
Mr. Ford addressed the mistake in the paragraph on metal shredders on the back of the brochure.
VIIL Task Force Reports
None.
IX. Old Business
None.
!:�
XI.
New Business
Commissioner Chavez reminded commissioners how very important the metal shredder issue is. He
encouraged them to make every effort to attend committee meetings that speci£cally addressed tl�e
metal shredder issue.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Ford
Planning Administrator
\planning\
Approved
(Date)
Carole Faricy
Secretary of the Planning Commission
minutes.frnt
�
St. Anthony Park
� �q� s ��i►�
� � ��
�9�9 � �u��G � ��,
Community Council `
890 Cromwell
St. Paul, Minaesota 55114
(612) 292-7884
�
,�
June 1, 1997
Roberta Megard Roger Ryan
Ward #4 City Council Person PED Planning
Third Floor City Hall il City Hall Annex
15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Cellular Telephone Antenna Zoning Amendments
Dear Ms. Megard and Mr. Ryan:
We recently received a copy of the proposed Zoning Amendments for
cellular telephone antennas that were the subject of a public
hearing last Wednesday. The Community Council, by letter dated
April 17, 1997, stated our concerns about the proposed amendments
as they had been outlined to our Physical Planning Committee by
Mr. Ryan on April 3.
`Phe Communit� o�n '1 con nd ha a g��ia� condit�onal use
p�rmit should be re�ired for any cellular antenna so that
commt?nity in�ut i s obta? ned before any such structure i s buil t.
The frequency of anticipated ante:.na applications if a
conditional use permit is required is not a legitimate basis for
a zoning amendment that facilitates construction without
appropriate review of an application.
Additional concerns about the proposed amendments were
in our April 17 letter, a copy of which is enclosed.
with concern that our April 17 letter was not included
copy of PED's file that was recently sent to us.
appzeciate our position stated in this letter and our
correspondence be included in the official records
proposed zoning amendment.
detailed
We note
with the
We would
April 17
of the
' �oger Ryan
` Page 2
6/1/97
.�
�� ����
Thank you for your attention to this letter. We will appreciate
your response to our concerns and hope that the suggestions made
in this letter and in our April 17 correspondence will be
accepted.
Sincerely,
JES:id
�
ST. ANTHONY PARK ^
CO_ *�7ITY COUNCIL '
l/ r ,
� ` ,�.
f �vi/�L� � ✓ � ,
J`mes E. Snoxel� ,
¢o-Chairman
�
�� ����
�
St. Anthony Park Community Council
690 Cromwell
St. Paul, Minaesota 55114
(612) 292-7884
April 17, 1997
r�
. � -�,%
�i � �._
Roberta Megard Roger Ryan
Ward 4 City Councilperson PED Planning
3rd Floor, City Hall il City Hall Annex
IS W. Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102
St. Paul, Mi3 55102
Re: Cellular Telephone Antenna Zoning Amendments
Dear Bobbi and Roger:
Earlier this month Roger appeared before the Physical Planning
Committee of this Community Council to outline cellular telephone
� antenna zoning amendments that PED is considering. This letter
is meant to convey some of the Committee's concerns about the
proposed amendments.
The outline of the proposed amendments do not properly address a
number of community concerns. First, the proposed amendments do
not provide any limits on the number of poles that may be erected
in a particular area. The amendments simply provide that if the
criteria for placing an anter.na are met, an antenna may be
�
erected. The City should not ignore the aesthetic effect of
having multipie antennas in ar, area, and the zonirg amendments
need to address how many antennas can be erected in a particular
area.
being thought about.
Second, Roger acknowledged that PED has not assessed how many
antennas may be required or needed. Considering the total number
of antennas that may be sought in particular areas is a
fundamental part of the amendment process that apparently is not
Third, the proposed amendments do not regulate how close antennas
� may be to each other. Accordingly, in some areas such as along
Interstate #94, where multiple antennas may be sought by multiple
• " � �oger Ryan �
� Page 2 a�,� \
April 17, 1997
f�
��
service providers resulting in an ugly proliferation of closeiy-
spaced antennas. Zoning amendments need to address how closely
antennas can be located to one another.
Fourth, the amendment process does not appear to be considering
possible health concerns. we assume that there is
electromagnetic .radiation associated with cellular telephone
antennas, and we have no idea whether the potential health
consequences of exposure to such electromagnetic energy have been
assessed by the City. If such considerations have not been
analyzed, they need to be cor.sidered in connection wi�h zoning
amendments restricting antenna locations.
Fifth, we object to the proposed amendments' giving essentially
unlimited right to erect antennas on top of "institutional use
structures" even in residential areas. Institution use, as we
understand that term, includes many non-business buildings,
including, far example, churches, schools, government buildings
such as recreation centers, and the like. Accordingly, there are
� many buildings in residential neighborhoods that could have
antennas erected above them.
These antennas, under the proposed amendments, could rise 15 feet
above the structure, meaning that antennas could tower a
significant distance into the air. Rather than allowing
unlimited construction of antennas, again without any restriction
on the number to be erected in a particular area or how close
they can be to each other, the amendmeats should impose other
rules�to protect neighborhoods against tne visual intrusion and
safety concerns of these antennas.
In general, the proposed amendments appear designed to facilitate
antenna construction rather than to protect the community from
antenna proliferation, safety issues, and visual impact. The
amendments appear to essentiaily remove a community's ability to
object to inappropriately located antenna sites and provide no
restrictions for aesthetic reasons. The amendments should be
reviewed to recognize the community's interest in protecting
against the harmful visual impact of unsightly antennas, the
inappropriate locatior. of antennas in residential areas, and to
provide an opportunity for ccmmunity response to the location
� where antennas are suggested. Communities should also have the
�
��
*ROger Ryan
Page 3 � � �
April 17, 1997
ability to respond to proposed construction of an antenna on top
of an existing structure in a residential area.
Zoning rules are supposed to protect the citizens of a community
by helping balance the competir.g needs of business, services, and
residents. The proposed ame^dments do not, in our judgment,
properly balance ;.'r.ose compet:ng needs. We request that PED
review the proposed amendments and adjust them to take concerns
such as the foregoing into consideration. We also request that
the proposed amendments be circulated to s�11, of the district
councils at least two months Defore they are presented to the
City Council, and that Community Council responses be seriously
considered. we further requesc that the City Council consider
the needs of residential neichborhoods and take the CommuniCy
Councils seriously as they consider adopting the proposed
amendments.
This is a
St. Paul.
appreciate
foregoing
very important matter to this and each neighborhood in
Thank you for your attention to this letter. We would
your response to our concerns and hope that the
suggestions will be accepted.
Sincerely,
S'F. ANTHONY PARK
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
/ , I ,�
r / � � � !
✓ V � {� % � � t, /t� 7 K"/��
Co-Chairperson
S ��'
;�
Y� '� V � �
• n Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: June 10, 1997
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney
RE: Agenda Item 25. Question posed to Planning Staff at the June 4, 1997 City Council
meeting concerning the impac[ of certain amendments to the cellular telephone ordinance.
ISSUE
The following question was posed to planning staff at the June 4, 1997 City Council meeting:
could a parcel of land zoned residential and occupied by an institutional use [for instance, a fire
• or police station] which was less than one acre in size become a location for a free standing
cellular telephone antenna? Answer: Yes.
ANALYSIS
One of the amendments introduced stated that in order to locate a free standing cellular
telephone pole in R-1 - R-4 residential zoning districts, the lot where the free standing pole is
located must be at least one acre in size. This one acre lot size restriction was added as a
condition of the special condition use permit.
The creation of a one acre lot size restriction raises the foliowing question: would a variance
from the one acre lot size restriction granted for the purpose of allowing a free standing pole
on a Iot smaller than one acre constitute a"use" variance? A"use" variance allows the
establishment of a use in a zoning district that does not permit such a use. For example,
granting a variance to allow an apartment building in a single family zoning district. Under
Minnesota law "use" variances are strictly prohibited. See, Minn. Stat. §462.357. Subd.6(2).
Since cellular telephone antennas located on free standing poles are permitted in all zoning
districts, they constitute the same type of zoning use irrespective of the zoning classification of
the land upon which the free standing pole is located. Granting a variance from the lot size
requirement goes to an area d'unension condition and not to a use restriction, because, as noted
above, the poles are permitted in all zoning districts. Therefore, granting a variance from the
• one acre lot size condition would not constitute a use variance prohibited by law.
� d�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
�:,.�..
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
An ordinance amending Chapters 60 and 62 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to zoning,
The Council of the City of Saint Paul does ordain:
Section 1
That Section 60.209. I., definitions, of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by adding a new
definition as follows:
P r 9 -� ea ° s a ° - °a a' ° im m . e - -
Section 2
TLat Section 60.412. (16), (R-1 thru R-4 Districts), of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.412. Principal uses permitted.
(16) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing ,'" �"; ,; .�� structure at least si�cly (60) feet
F:�`�::tE� !
.: - - -- - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - -
a
Council File # � t�
� m e � .� 1 � _ � / [.j I � / Ordinance #
�� t �G {
Green Slieet # J `�
ORDINANCE
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �
r ., ��.�� � _ �
The antennas shall not e�end more than fifteen (15) feet above the structural height of
the structure to which they aze attached.
"8 t.°i 9 8 8&� A 8 i b° q' � °
1
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
b9
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
� isa�,(„��.7'���'O�E,✓�r�;'`.����?��r�i�����.,,��-�e��r%��Z��� �'°.:�„ • I � I �
e:� Transxnitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing
shucture whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary ��
, it shall be �
nse per"t�t�"etl�7r�af"�as�an:accesso�zti��n�: �ec 62�SQb:�'and shall be screened
from view
appropriate.
Section 3
That Section 60.413. (R-1 thru R-4 Districts) of the Saint Paul Legislauve Code is hereby amended by re-
numbering existing clause (18) as (19), adding new clause (18), and amending clause (17) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.413. Principai uses permitted subject to special conditions.
(17) Cellulaz telephone antennas � located on an existing x-: '_t ss�� shucture �least �,�y.�-;� x
sixty (60) feet high, subject to the following conditions:
- , - - - - - -- - - - - --
--- - - - - - - : -- - - - -- - - -- - - -
- -- - - -: -- - -- - - - - - -- - - -
- --- - - • -- -- - - - - - - -- -- - -- - ---
- -- - - - - .0 - - ::- - --
- --- -- - --- - - ..- - - - -- - :: - - - - -- -
-- - - - - :: -- -- - - -- - ----
-- - - -- -- - - - -- - - -. -- - - -
: - -- - - - - -- - - ----- - - -
- - -. � - - - -
° a, -e -e o e- a � - e• o ° s e
' ' e - e - e� - ' o e a e= � e f.
2
�����
r,,;�t�z;��„�
��
�:
q� -Sts
etic Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing
structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary €ert��;
, it shall be '
nse ��d=a����a����ta��e�ss�. 6����`"��*B2�vI��, and shall be screened
,-_..� w z _� .� . � .
from view by landscaping where appropriate.
�*
_ ',
g �__ � , p
.@ 9° @
_ o _ _
,em ° ° •c e �
'& . 0
° m° o a
s
3
a1-Sf�'
� ���� ��� f ����� ���-���� ��������������!�. �".� �� °�
e . �w,e� �.,�r'.oc,va � con.rz �nr ✓it��rf&.m.rl�%� ,y.a�:«• „ri✓�m .+s � Lr�a,�u, aiszs o.s�fe, v° �S�kb�!e�` �
13$ F'�Q�I��,��5 '�,_,_ct,�D7��%dil,i)1iT�
139 -
140 f' �fe� `�s,a�f���e�re�}i,e�"c�'el�as �e�-�as�e��,e"k�s�el3
141 �ay , < , �c�f-ca¢c�emvnstrafst�atzYZS-nmre�appz��aE��fzsL�r�
142 �oe�err Freestanding poles shall be a monopole design.
143 _ _ �._,H
144 g: "Fxa��sii#�g,receiv�ganct.s�fc��iuig�equ�puse�ts��e�ousedwafh3t�an:e�ssf�ug
�f.�
145 st�c�ute�e�se�r�ss�r2e �a3te�e�men���`�dr� ts,�ueeess�ar�„��s1�71 �e
146 �er�1:2��`�cd��ega�af�a��t=acc�sso�'���,;�ec �2 �`d�i, an�# sc�e�ee"�'�o-r�c�e�
, _� � ._ ..� .,=_ .a, �.. �r .
147 �� ��seag�whet� app,ra��e;
148 h. The zoning lot on which the pole is located shall be at least one (1) acre
149 in area. Section 4
150
151 That Section 60.462. (8) (RM-3 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
152 follows:
153
154 Sec. 60.462. Principal uses permitted.
155
156 (8) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing :� �,��� structure at least sixty (60) feet
�� ;. .. n, , - k� a;� �
��.�
, ,
p l g .., -...�o- � ,m: �., , . � . M,i; . a� ... ;.a�� �� � �.. ' :� .0 �az.�`�� °a�} tw_ .� �
1 50 � � - m'
�v, � a xra .a�.� � u. .&' - ' sa'� � . r,_ . a'
159 _,. �' `�' ` _ _ � .x� � � � �kiek
160 M _ .� . :.,�� �,�v : „ �, - �,� �, . �r�
161
162 .
163
164
165
166 .
167
168 �:
169 .
170
171 � ' , ' ' a
172 . ' ,
173 ,�
174 .
175
176 Section 5
177
178 That Secfion 60.463 (RM-3 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by re-numbering
179 existing clause (8) as (9), adding new clause (8), and amending clause (7) to read as follows:
180
181 Sec.60.463. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions.
182
183 (7) Cellular telephone antennas � located on an e�sting �ae��� shucture a�-}east rp ;:,";;� L. ��
184 sixty (60) feet high, � v�.,. �c���e�,�'��,, �;;���
185 � . � v -' ��*� w:"r-�
0
18 p 6 � /
10
10�
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
Y_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ " _ " _
- - - :.�.,,.:._ - - - - - -
-- - -= -- - - - - • - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- ::- -
- - - - - - - - --- --- - --- - - -- -.- - -- - -
;
Section 6
207 That Section 60.512. (S) (OS-1 District) of the Saint Paul Legisla5ve Code is hereby amended to read as
208 follows:
209
210 Sec. 60.512. Principal uses permitted.
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
22$
229
230
231
232
233
234
(8) Celiular telephone antennas --'-°_- "-- _- -°-° located on an existing structure, _���
��. ��� _. �' _
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - :: -
�
i °96. 9 ° B 8. 3° " tt4 6 i &°
e
5
., -
' �1 � � • � � , i ' - ��- - -� - �-� � -.� .
: � •
�
� 1 � I ' i �. i• u •� �• i � � i � ��
.
� • " " "� � " " _" � "� \� . t' 9 IDi " _ _ _ '" " ' � ' �
� 1" � � �i� �1
i�
I Y_____ _ " __________ __ _" _ _ _ _ __"_ _ ____
�. _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ "_
� _ _ _ _ " _ _ " _ " - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
� � _ _ _ _ " _ " _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I� _ _ _ _ " _ _ _ _ _ _ _ " _ _ _ _ _
�
� i� �
•
,a� e- a aa - . {Y4 '@ < -c .e s e• �e aae. -e ae <i
- a • e� - o= a- - •# -
� • b 6. " V S . D B 8 a " e 0 �
�� " 6 t9Y "Y e. 6 9 BO' 4 6'@ i" 0 i 6" . i
�
• " 8. '0 "! }' Y 9 "'6 ' 4 em. i f"' 1°
� BB ° k
��
� - o. - a - a s S' ! e ' i 0
•� s . -a •e e '' c ' aa • m -
.
�: • e. 'm -e m - a� a- e A 0Ra "8 . " c " Y
� B . & @ e 0
' � " t " 0 f D 6 E° ! t f
" f.
� a ' 9` � e o9 ° 6 °°e _ _ _ " 9 °B
,� �° 8 0. B B 0�& .� ° t"° b
• 0° 9a 89 " i S e eS8 S• 80 ' 8 a '"0 8°
.SB " ° °6 s ° ° 86 ° i' "0 t �
\
i� H. � b° 1."4 °S °f B 1 6" . 8 .8! Y" 4. 0°
9' i' � d , G ' 0 � B B i' " " " 8' /
�
284 d� ���a�s ��s��e` � �ex���;,��?!;to¢�������e���° -� ' `� � S�N
�,r����,�<<���N� � � �• ����,e � ��< �� ���-�� � <�9
285 ea�����z�n���2��T. : : zdf/k'la� `an��c����gz�i�;���f'�c�fi=���� �'�
„llV.2...G_ /G ^�/ , 4 J:.... zl _ ..!W�...s uXd r.,w.L� d ���.✓Fia.PJ� � .J�r .o�v ✓sn,.,✓.m�.:'� a� �*4vG'�� ...6
286 Dra�vfii""gs;,�x�p7rpS�ap�r"ic;�iexs�ecfYVe�s�o�1�'i�te�fp���aa�temiass,s,hat��e�ara,��"e�
� d.,.!l.uv. _...,.fl ,.a4.. F u�.vu� ✓.uN,�_,,,9 ,rd�..✓ vll c.5: ���tU.a�'eY.._o"�.a� �EIS•f.�l'eeYlu t I.�r�'7
287 ��e�i��n�a�gFcoi�mtss�oa�"o �ef��me�cornP��'anCe,u�i�h ,�us�ra�s�on�
288 �. a�� �..a.�
289 e: �nte��ocated uslusfarrc c6stncfs's�raII tre`s�b�ect Yo:fhe reuie�`and ap�rouat a�tTie
_. � � w_,.� _.:_..� .
290 F3etttage�rese�va�on�an�iinsSron:
291 _.,. _..
292 f� �+fe��' , u _: � . -�fes; �ie�a��
��s , �n�� �
293 �ra�r��:'�f�t�te���2��t��te���s������Tri��a�l
294 �+�;= Freestanding poles shall be a monopole design.
295
296 e� Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing
297 structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary £e��
298 , it shall be '
299 xses pe��_� ,�€,�-s�T���� n��n�.�" ��`�����& ,� .� and shall be
.. .. . a_'4�..,.,a��xsi s -a,��.x�..s_, ;n_a.�= +�c at ,2.n. Q�.?d,:°.ta., x �.. _�y_�.,__
300 screened from view by landscaping where appropriate.
301 h. The zonin� lot on which the pole is located shall be within contiguous
3�2 SeCtiOn 8 Property zoned OS-1 and at least
303
one (1) acre in area.
304 That Section 60.522. (1) (B-1 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
305 follows:
306
307 (1) Ail principal uses permitted and uses permitted subject to special conditions and as regulated in
308 the OS-1 District ����'��`.'����,�r�'��*�'�"""� �r�'�*'�t���;�b�„�-
�� �,�
309
310 Section 9
311
312 That Section 60.524. (5) (B-1 Districts) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
313 foliows:
314
315 Sec. b05.24. Principal uses permitted subject to special condifions.
316
:ilx
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
o •0 ' o - - - - - - - - - --- .
7
333
334
335
336
337
338
- - - -- - -- - - -- -- -- :�:..:.:-- -
Section 10
339 That Sections 60.542. (B-3 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by re-numbering
340 existing clauses (16) and (17) as (15) and (16), deleling existing clause (15), and amending clause (1) to read
341 as follows:
342
343 Sec. 60.542. Principal uses permitted.
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
(1) All principal uses permitted and uses pernutted subject to special conditions and as regulated in
OS-1, B-1, and B-2 Districts, except auto service stations and licensed conectional community
residential facilities, health department-liceused community residential faci]ities and emezgency
housing, an� pawn shops when the business is conducted within completely enclosed buildings�
��G��.�,.r_,��„��x .�.�„.m.�� .:aufl�:, ....s �� u.a.a.�.c�.�:�:�. ' _'.��.��.'�`''
- --: --- - - - - -- - - - - - -
- - - -- - - --- - - - - �' -- - - - - -- -- - -
- - - ,- -- -- -- - - - - - -
- - - :: -
Section 11
362 That Section 6Q.544 (20) (B-3 District) of the Saint Paul legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
363 follows:
364
365 Sec. 60.524. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions.
366
367 (20) Cellular telephone eac��iex�iens antennas � located on
368
369
370
371
372
373
314
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
: ��:..r.,:as:.�,:.�: - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
�
3s2 . � � , �1!� - S�iS
383 . ' ,
384 ,'
385 .
386
387 Section 12
388
389 That Section 60.552 (16) (B-4 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
390 follows:
391
392 Sec. 60.552. Principal uses permitted.
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
(16) Cellular telephone antennas -- ti "-- -�`----- °-- located on an existing structure
- - - - - - - -:: - - - -- - - -
Section 13
406 That Section 60.554 (14) (B-4 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
407 foilows:
408
409
410 Sec. 60.554. Principal, uses permitted subject to special conditions.
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
423
429
430
(14) Cellular telephone antennas � located on
- - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - w�en►�e.!�ww.c�R
- - - - - .- - - - - -- - - - -
- - - : �� .:.:.:...:.. . . . . - -
- - -- :: - - - - -- - -- - - -- -
�i,.�a:,::�
- -.--..- � ---�- ::-- : • : -• .:. :. .. :. :... . - - - - - - -
431 Section 14 a�� ��S
432
433 That Section 60.562 (10) (B-5 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby deleted and e�sting
434 clause (11) is renumbered as clause (10), as follows:
435
436 Sec. 60.552. Principal uses permitted.
43�
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
• - - ---- - - -- - - - ---- - -- -- - -- - - - -- - - - -
-- -- -- - --- --- -- - ---- - - - -- --- � • -- - - - - - --- -- - - - -
.
- - - -- :.,:_ -- - - - - -- - - -- .-_ - -- - --- -
::-- - - -- -- -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- -- -
Section 15
448 That Section 60.564 (13) (B-5 District) of the Saint Pul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
449 follows:
450
451 Sec. 60.564. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions.
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
(13) Cellulaz telephone antennas �teE located on
- - : �.:. :,,..._ - - -
�- �- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- - - - ---�.���,...� -- - - - -- -
,�..,,.''R""�:..'�.:.'�^T'
- - - - - - - - - - . _ : .�����...■;.��;R+,f� - - - - -
Secrion 16
475 That Section 60.612 (I-1 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by re-numbering
476 existing clauses (24) and (25) as (25) and (26), adding new clause (24), and amending existing clause (23) to
477 read as follows:
478
479
[(17
480 Sec. 60.612. Principal uses permitted. a� � S�s
481
482 (23) Cellular telephone antennas �oea�e.� 1i;�tf�exYS[�ng�s,���ras�pe�ru#�ed,an�;�e�a��'�%�n�eh�
483 ��s�es�;'�SS�sicf%�xS�°e�frc�CiQ 5�2: , '
484 , .
485
486 . ' a ,' ,
487
488
489 ' ,
490 .
491
492 . . , ' .
493
494 ��� G��_ �`�P��� „�«:.,�a��.yr��,c�; `�";����,;: �..� ��.�,�°��w ����.;�� , �.r���� �
495 ����� �
496 �� �k ,�����7�i;,�����f��v�� na,,:. _�
497 � �:�Ka=�'.'r,�na� � �� �;'�. a�,��»� � " "
� � �� ��. , � a ., �u ,�R:,.. ,,.��.�. ��„ �-:,�r. � -���-� �r-���
498 ���� �,� ��������'��`����������,.����a,�«� F�
�,': r 4!� a.�cu . v..,.n'`.�. 'Tt ,�.�:�' a nT - T ,
499
5 ,� ,."" �`", = . �° : � � ., t�,�a� a �
•vwm U� . �. . ,,,C'ya' .. _ rn . " ,. b " v . r _'3«.". . ' . arY'L � '' �...M44c5:"`f
m,. i'
5�1 �` �
.� _ - �
502
, • .w.... . _ ,. .
. : R ,.
,. _.
� � - ;:. - _
504 �-� M . - fl�., ,_, .. � ,� .. . ;� .,
505 ',��' Freestanding poles shall be a monopole design.
506
507 �� �� � �
aa�'.*a v' �.:t§� �.,.Y.:. sA wF� ,^
50$ o �? u�.�;:,R� �
- �. ' �.�
� , .: ; ti
509 _- ,� � . �- , ,.n . u
..� � '. w � �.: �, .�. � .. . �'..� � . �-�. „. � .... �� _- �, :a��-� ,. �.�
510 �`��".���������;�
511
512 Section 17
513
514 That Section 60.632. (I-3 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by adding new
515 clause (3) and re-numbering existing clause (3) as clause (4) to read as follows:
516
517 Sec. 60.632. Principal uses permitted.
518
519 �� ��. �, r���,���� � a���� �� �,�,r� �,�;�,� � �
�kk:r :uz:.v. P,� �— ,� c,�v^4?+ •:c. 'z .. ,�tu ,F"",� �E �.,�: ° -s�a -�.
520 ��� �
�
521
522 Section 18
523
524 That Section 60.752. (10) ( RCR-1 District) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
525 follows:
526
527 Sec. 60.752. Principal uses permitted.
528
11
q1 • SGS
529 (10) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing ������ � structure at least sixry (60) feet
530 hi�, ������f ,��a?�o��s��;��������,�'������.�������;���0������°��,-��
531 �sneeo,�ae�t,�a u��`i"a�i���oiefa��e�t�sk�ly�6��fee� ������,. � ; ��
,,,,�.
532 f�'"e�ie �bf%a�a�a'�vE�fi7xfs��ndmen� o�'dn a�u�izstiiti�'iona� use�st�uc�ur�; as regulated in the
533 R �°tI�ru R 4��f�t��, Secf�an 6f3 �FI� (16��"" ` ' "_� � � _ �_ __ �;, � �.,
534 �
535 Section 19
536
537 That Section 60.753. (7) (RCR-1 Dishict) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as
538 follows:
539
540 Sec. 60.753. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions.
541
542 (7) Cellulaz telephone antennas, as regulated in the ��7�#t;,R�F��{i"�tt?.��������is�r� 4�3- � �
543 ���rn�r � �__...:,.. -- -_ cn nc� =y..v�
�
544
545 5ection 20
546
547 That Section 62.108. Site Plan Review (all districts) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended by
548 adding new clause (a) (14) as follows:
549
550 (a) Plan to be submitted. A site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the planning commission
551 before a permit is issued for grading or the erection or enlargement of gross floor area for any development
552 except one- and two-family dwellings, but including the following:
553
554 (1) Any development of one- and two-family residences which together exceed two (2) acres
555 (87,120 square feet) in area.
556
557 (2) In the "T" Tree Preservation District, any development of one- and two-family residences over
558 one (1) acre (43,560 square feet) in area.
559
560 (3) Al] residentially related uses in one-family districts, such as, but not limited to, churches,
561 schools and public facilities.
562
563 (4) Any industrial use in an I-1, I-2, I-3 or RCI-1 District abutting a residential district.
564
565 (5) Outdoor storage in industrial distzicts.
566
567 (6) Any use which abuts to a majar thoroughfaze.
568
569 (7) Any development on a siope of twelve (12) percent or greater.
570
571 (8) Any development in the River Corridor Critical Area or in the Floodplain District except one-
572 and two-family dwellings which do not affect slopes of twelve (12) percent ot greater.
573
574 (9) All off-street parking faciIities except as noted in section 62.103(b).
575
576 (10) Any other use or development for which the submission of a site plan is required by any
577 provision of this code.
12
578 (11) Earth-sheltered structures. �I'� � s' /_
579 ���
580 (12) Detached, freestanding facilities conshucted on parking facilities, including, but not restricted
581 to, kiosks, fotomats, banks and similar uses.
582
583 (13) Any filling, excavation or tree removal that disturbs an azea greater than ten thousand (10,000)
584 square feet except the construction, installation or maintenance of pubiic roads and public and
585 private utiliries.
586
587 {��#j �a,�lar2el��neat�ter�3�a�eq�e�euc�c�et��b`���
588 _. , . ... � _ .�... �_ �.
589 Section 21
590
591 That new Section 62.120. is hereby added to Chapter 62 to read ass follows:
592
593
594 � �'�,����T��e ,�,�� - �����:'k_�_c������
595
.. ,�u ,� . ... .
596 �� �; . � .. `
597 � u�,�,� ,,.� e..�.�;� ,�� 'aM.� ..�_ .��:�. ��. �r, _. .�:: �; , _a; . . �
.:�-��'�'��������;-'��
598
599 Section 22
600
601 This ordinance sha11 take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its passage, approval and
602 publication.
That Section 60.574(2) is amended to read as follows:
(7) All usess permitted subject to special conditions in the B-2 Community Business
District except the following: bowling alley, billiard hall, indoor archery range,
indoor tennis courts, racquet ball and hand ball courts, dance hall, electronic
game room, indoor skating rink, or similar forms of indoor commercial recreation;
automobile sales or service centers; and auto service stations. Uses permitted
under this subsection shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The special conditions imposed for each use in the B-2 Community Business
District,except that cellular telephone antennas located on a freestanding pole
section 60.573.
of :
By:
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
BY: _�� ..._ a . �,�..-,-_--
Approved by Mayor: Date � `��I�il
By:
«��
JU� L:- 51997
13
Form Approved by City Attorney
By: i �7�/�L�(!/7 (N!/ y�`����
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By: �
� ..+..,. - ,»
41-SGS �����
DEWWi/AENTqFFICE/COUNCIL DATEINITI q TED GREEN SHE
PED PLANNING 04/17/97
CONTACT PERSON & PHONE OEPAFiTMENT DIFiECTOR CITV COUNCIL INITIAL/DATE
Roger Ryan 66574 � �
���N �CITYATTORNEV � OCINCLERK
MUST BE ON CAUNCIL AGENDA BV (DATE) NUMBER FOR O BUDGET �IRECTOR � PIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR.
flOUTING
OflDER � MAYOFi (OR ASSISTAN'n � � L. _
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt cellular telephone amendments_
RfjCOMMENDA7lONS: Approve (A) ar Reject (R) pEtiSONAL SENVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS:
J1 PLANNINCa CAMMISSIQN _ CIVIL SEflVICE COMMISSION 1. Has this personHirm ever worketl under a coMrect for this dapartment?
CIB COMMITTEE YES NO
�� - 2. Has this personHirm ever been a city employee?
VES NO
_ DisiaiCi Couai _ 3. Does this personttirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curren[ city emplqee?
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? YES NO
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attaeh to green sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPGIRNNITV (Wha, Whet, When, Where. Why):
Concern that antennas were allowed to be too high in residential districts and OS-1
and B-1 Districts.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
Lower antennas on neighborhood business buildings, colocation of antennas promoted
on existing buildings and poles, and fewer variances needed for poles in industrial
districts.
DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: �' �
Some higher poles in residential and business ditricts. ��� ��� ��
��, :a;� �;?�a"'Y �'E�fl
��„ _ .� _ . �_� _. � .�
�.:� ,'.' �;1 u;;:�7
AP� 29 199T APR 22 199�
�va�s a��c€ �I'��' � � �� �����(
ne�
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: •-^°^"'° _ "�' `""� .•- -- - " .
Higher antennas on business buildings, lack of promotion of colocation.
TOTAL AMOUN7 OF TRANSAC7ION $ COS7/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) VES NO
FUNDIfdG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFORFSATION' (EXPLAIN)
R n��-�r...�.�-�u
`��-SGS
AMENDMENTS TO CELLULAR TELEPHONE ZONII3G AMENDMENTS C�p+r:s �
C.F. 97-565
1. Change clause f., lines 140, 141, 142; clause f., lines 292, 293, 294; and clause c., lines 503,
504, 505 from Monopoles a�e'�liepre�rred�f`ype�of po'Ies�Offier i�pes��poles, such asTattice
location:=to
2. For the R-1 thru R-4 disricts, add new clause h. at line 148 as follows: �e zoning.lo�i�
which the pQle�s'7 e�on��) �' e�n�ea;
3. For the OS-1 district, add new clause h. at line 301 as follows: �'h ��";orimg lof on wxu���e
4. Change section (5), lines 311 and 318, to: Cellulaz telephone antennas � located on ��,'�%,�e°"e
stauding��e��as 0 ` shxct�cf'fa°�t�Q�,�T���;` _ " . �g• �
, •
5. Change section (20), lines 367 and 368, to: Cellulaz telephone c�a;�r��s antennas �
located on a=+�`ree�s"�atidE�`g p"'aI�`as Tegula�e"��"°;�ttr. : °J ��7t�c���" ts�_� 6Q.514; (6) a�°'�t�� an
6. Change section (14), lines 412 and 413, to: Cellular telephone ear��tiens antennas net
located on a�ee:stari°din�iiol�:a"s ie�ila�d�n��S'�Di"s�"nc��Se��'60.ST.4_ fbl. ��i�': acc
�. Change section (13), lines 453 and 454, to: Cellular telephone antennas � located on
8. Add new amendment to the ordinance. In the B-2C district, amend Section 60.574 (2) to read
as follows:
���All uses permitted subject to special condirions in the B-2 Community Business District except
the following: bowling alley, billiazd hall, indoor archery range, indoor tennis courts, racquet ball
and hand ba11 courts, dance hall, electronic game room, indoor skating rink, or similaz forms of
indoor commercial recreation; automobile sales or service centers; and auto service stations. Uses
permitted under this subsection shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The special conditions imposed for each use in the B-2 Community
Business District„exc��tliat4reellular;tele,phone an�ennas located
�;reesfanding pole�1ia11 b�:s�,�e,�c�'fo�e� addi��aL�coridition tha�fhe
zoiun'�ot on wlucti Yh�iia o�c "hal1�E`��u�fIun cunhgu° -�r�°p ."` .
�,� ,
5�
zoned�8 2C and af leas� orie (1} acre�Yn area.
b. The conditions specified in section 60.573
2
1 1Me�/•d( Vy� em,��
W : �-k�.
�t � - s
AMENDMENTS TO CELLULAR TELEPHOI3E ZOI3ING AMENDMENTS
C.F.97-565
1. Change clause f., lines 140, 141,142; clause f., lines 292, 293, 294; and clause
504, 505 from;i+�4onc>,piiles�re$fe-�aiefe�es�,#����les°���e����'�e��w
e . � c � �
2. For the R-1 thru R-4 disricts, add new clause h. at line 148 as follows:
3. For the OS-1 district, add new clause h. at line 301 as follows:
4. Change section (5), lines 317 and 318, to: Cellulaz
5. Change section (20), lines 367 and 368, to:
located on ��"ee�t�t����;.��na���ted°�
6. Change section (14), lines 412 and 413, to:
located on ��'x��tan���`�=��,�C�¢`��;�
7. Change section (13), lines 453 and
8. Add new amendment to
as follows:
503,
r� located on
��
- �.a at o -
-. . -- - - -
� e r - eee .i 4a e _ -
to: Cellular telephone antennas tiet located on ry ...� 5 �
In the B-2C district, amend Secrion 60.574 (2) to read
All uses permitted subjec to special conditions in the B-2 Community Business District except
the following: bowling ley, billiazd hall, indoor azchery range, indoor tennis courts, racquet ball
and hand ball courts, ce hall, electronic game room, indoor skating rink, or similaz forms of
indoor commercial creation; automobile sales or service centers; and auto service stations. Uses
permitted under t1�,'ls subsection shall be subject to the following conditions;
��`�/
The special conditions unposed for each use in the B-2 Community
Business Distric�=��`t�'a��;�a �� �Ci'a�= , ' ,: �o�at�d�i�i
DEPAR'CMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENI'
Pamela Wheelock, Director
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
zs wesr Four:h sneer
SainiP¢ul, MIJ55702
Apri122,1997
Council President David Thune and
Members of the City council
3rd Floor City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Deaz President Thune and Members of the City Council:
�� _ ^�
Telephone: 672-266-6655
Facsimile: 612-228-3261
In October 1996 the City Council initiated a zoning study of cellular telephone antennas,
requesting that the Plauuiixg commission study possible amendments to the comprehensive plan
and zoning code concerning antennas. At the same time, the council adopted an interim
ordinance prohibited the establishment of antennas on free standing poles in residential, OS-1,
and B-1 districts and reducing from 40 feet to 15 feet the height that antennas placed on e�sting
shuctures may exceed the height of the shucture in OS-i and B-1 districts. The interim ordinance
was extended in March and is in effect until June 17
The Planning Commission's Zoning Committee held public hearings on proposed zoning
amendments on February 20 and Much 20, 1997. The Planning Commission considered Zoning
Committee revisions to the amendments on March 28 and April l l and recommended their
adoption. The Comxnission's resolution is attached.
Here is how ceilular telephone antennas would be regulated if the amendments are adopted.
Residential Zoning Districts
Cellular telephone antennas would be permitted uses on residential shuctures at least 60
feet lugh, on utility poles at least 60 feet high, and on institutional use structures, such as
churches and water towers. Antennas could not eactend more than 15 feet above the height
of the shuctures.
Antennas would be special condi6on uses on residential structures less than 60 feet lugh
a�- scs
and on free standing poles on institutional property. Applicants would have to show that
there is no opportunity to colocate the antennas on ea�isting buildings or poles withiu 1/2
mile of proposed sites. The poles would have to be one times their height plus 10 feet
from the neazest residential structure. The poles wuld be 75 feet high if built to hold one
antenna and could be 25 feet higher if built to colocate two antennas.
Neighborhood Business Districts (OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C, RCR-1 Districts)
Antennas would be pemutted uses on existing structures. They could not ea�tend more
than 15 feet above the height of the structures.
Antennas on free standing poles would be special condition uses and regulated in Lhe
same manner as they are in residential districts.
Downtown Business Districts (B-4 and B-5 Districts)
Antennas would be permitted uses on existing structures. They could not extend more
than 40 feet above the height of the structures.
Antennas on free standing poles would be special condition uses and regulated in the
same manner as they are in residential districts,
Industrial Zoning Districts
Antennas would be pennitted uses on existing structures. They could not extend more
than 40 feet above the height of the structures.
Antennas on free standing poles would be pernutted uses. The poles could be up to 150
feet high. They would haue to be setback one times their height from the nearest
residential shucture.
I am pleased to transmit these amendments to you for your review and approval.
Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
Mayor
l��L�73'.i
2
city of saint paul g�-- � i� �'
planning commission resolution -
file number 97-19
�tE] April 11, 1997
CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNAS ZONING AMENDMENT
MARCH 1997
WHEREAS, the City Council initiated a study of cellular telephone antennas,
requesting that the Planning Commission study possible amendments to zoning
regulations concerning them; and
WEIEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing
and considered testimony on proposed zoning amendments concerning cellular
telephone antennas at their February 20 and March 20, 1997, meetings and made
a recommendation to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Zoning Committee's
recommendations at its March 28 and April 11, 1997, meeting;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined:
1. That the number of real estate descriptions affected by the amendments
renders the obtaining of written consent impractical;
2. That a survey of an area in excess of 40 acres has been made;
3. Tfiat a determination has been made that the proposed amendments to the
Zoning Code are related to the"overall needs of the community, to
existing land use, and to plans for future land use; and
4. That pursuant to State..Statutes proper notice of the hearing was given
in the Pioneer Press on January 29, February 5 and 12, 1997.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends
approrzl of the zoning code amendments in the "Cellular telephone Zoning
Amendments" study and as revised by the Zoning Committee on March 20th
pertaining to cellular telephone amendments and directs tfie Planning
Administrator to forward the study and this resolution to the Mayor and City
Council £or their review and action.
moved by Field
seconded by \
in favor Unan�us
against
� --> o f
' °`i��
CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNA AMENDMENTS
Adopted by Planning Commission April 11,199'7
RESIDENTTAL ZONING DISTRICTS
1. PERMITTED USE
A. On residential structures at least 60 feet high
B. On utility poles at least 60 feet high existing at time of adoption of amendments
C. On institutional use structure
D. Allow 15 feet above structure
2. SPECIAL CONDITION USE
A. On residential structures less than 60 feet high
- allow 15 feet above structare
B. On free standing pole on institutional property, provided:
- demonstrate can not colocate antenna within 1/2 mile
- 75 feet maximum height; higher height allowed if interference
- 25 additional feet if pole designed to carry 2 antennas
- setback 1 times height of antenna + 10 feet from nearest residential structure
- not allowed in required front or rear yazd
�
i
OS-1. B-1. B-2, B-3. B-2C. RCC-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINE5S ZONING DISTRICTS
`l. PERMITTED USE
A. On existing-structure
- allow I S feet above structure
b. On free standing pole
- same regularions as &ee standing pole in residenrial districts
B-4 & B-5 DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONiNG DISTRICTS
1. PERMITTED USE
A. On existing structure
-allow 40 feet above structure
2. SPECIAL CONDITION USE
A. On free standing pole
- same regulations as free standing pole in residential districts
INDUSTRIAL ZOPiING DISTRICTS
PERMITTED USE
A. On existing structures
- allow 40 feet above structure
B. On free standing pole
-150 feet maximum height
- setback back 1 tunes the height of antenna
- not allowed in front or reaz yazd
`�
�: �`it��
ALL DISTRICTS
1. Antennas in historic districts or on historic buildings subject to review of Heritage
Presezvation Commission
2. Equipment buildings regulated as an accessory building
3. Monopoles preferred type of free standing pole
4. Non-used antennas must be removed within 1 yeaz of non-use
5. Antennas with equipment buildings need site plan review
6. Definition of institutional use
3
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CI� �"r' S�INT Pf��.. Division of P(m,ning
Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 West Founh Srreet Telephorze: 61&26�6565
Saint Paul, MN55102 Facsimile: 612-2283314
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 21,1997
To: Planning Commission
From: Roger Ryan
Re: Cellular Telephone
At its Mazch 20th meeting, the Zoning Committee recommended approval of the cellular antenna
amendments as proposed in the enclosed March 13 and Mazch 20 staff memos, with the
foIlowing revisions:
1.In residenflal and business districts, the maximum height of a free standing pole with one
antenna shall be 75 feet with greater height allowed if can be shown that neazby structures cause
interference with the functioning of the antenna. Poles may exceed the above height by 25 feet if
there are two antennas colocated on the pole at the tune of application of the special condidon
use permit. (Because of anti trust concerns, the City Attorney will reseazch whether the city can
require two antennas at time of application.)
2. In all zoning districts, the required setback from the neazest residential structure for free
standing poles shall be equal to one times the height of the pole plus 10 feet.
3. Antennas shall be permitted only on utility monopoles and lattice poles existing at the time of
adoption of this set of zoning amendments.
4. Antennas no longer used for cellulaz telephone service shall be removed within one yeaz of
non-use.
These revisions will be put into zoning code language and handed out at the Mazch 28 Planning
Commission meeting.
DEPARI'MENT OF PLANNTNG
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
r : _ ; u � I
CITY OF 5AINT PAUL
Norm Co[eman, Mayar
NIEMORANDUM
Date: March 20,1997
To: Zoning Committee
From: Roger Ryan �
Re: Cellular Antenna Amendments
Divisiors ofP[anning
25 West Fourth Street
SaiM Paul, MN SSIO2
Telephone: 612-266-6565
Facsimite: 612-228-3314
In order to clarify which uses are institutional uses and what is public property, staff recommends
that a definition of institutional uses be added to the code. Section (X), principal uses permitted
in all residential zoning districts, page 4, and section (XX), principal uses permitted subject to
special conditions in all residential districts, page 6 of the Mazch 13, 1997, memorandum should
also be changed to incorporate the new definition as shown below.
1. Principal uses permitted in all residential zoning districts
(X) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing
sixty (60) feet high���on azt:e�sfmg.,utihty-in�iizipol.
on an e�st�n u�st€futional: �se �ructure
,-� � ,r� tt ��..� , � ,�. ,.
subj ec� xo �fie�oll o�ng'condifrcshs:
� ������ � � m ,� �.� .
structure atleast
• 2. Principal uses permitted subject to speciai conditions in atl residential districts
���
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
C 11 i �P .7f�llV i rf�VL Divisiort ofPlanning
Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 West Fourth Sbeet Telephone: 612-266-6565
Saint Paul, MN55702 Facsimile: 612-2283314
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 13,1997
To: Zoning Committee
From: Roger Ryan �
Re: Cellular Antenna Amendments
RECOMMENDED CHANGES
Here aze The recommended changes to the proposed Cellular Antenna Zoning Amendments of
January 1997. The recommender is shown in pazenthesis.
1. Maximum height of free standing�oles.
• Allow 75 foot height for poles with 1 antenna, 100 foot height for poles with 2 antennas,
and 125 foot height for poles with 3 antennas for a11 districts. (APT)
• Allow 85 foot height for all poles in residential and business districts. (Airtouch)
• Allow 75 foot height for poles with 1 antenna and 100 foot height for poles with 2
antennas. (ATT')
• AIIow 90 foot height for poles with 1 antenna and 110 foot height for poles with 2
antennas. (US West) ,
Staff recommendarion.
In residential and business zoning districts, the existing regulations allow $ee standing antennas
to be a maximum of 75 feet high. APT, ATT and US West are recommending allowing greater
height to encourage co-location of antennas on free standing poles. However, the e�cisting
regulations now encourage co-location by allowing antennas as permitted uses on existing
t�
�_ -=;�5 i
structures in residential and business zoning districts and by allowing I50 feet high free standing
antennas as permitted uses in industrial districts.
There aze trade-offs in allowing higher free standing poles for co-iocation. The higher, more
massive poles can be more obtrusive in residential districts and in business districts near
residential areas. However, allowing higher poles may mean that instead of two 75 foot poles
there will be one 100 foot pole.
Staff recommends that the masimum height of free standing poles remain at 75 feet. Locations
where higher poles seem appropriate can be considered in the special condition use process and
allowed if appropriate by modifying the height limit.
2: Require setback from nearest residential structure of 1 t�mes the height of the �ntenna (APT,
Airtouch, ATT, US West)
Staff recommendarion.
In existing residential and business districts, the existing regulations require that free standing
poles be setback 75 feet from the nearest residential structure. Service providers recommend that
the setback be one times the height of the pole to permit efficient use of land and flexibility of
location..
Staff recommends that the setback be increased to 1 1/2 the height of the pole to make them less
obtrusive to surrounding residential areas.
3. A11ow antennas as permitted use on a utilit�¢ht or similaz pole and on electric transmission
towers. (Sprint)
Staff recommendation.
Staff recommends that antennas attached to utility monopoles and lattice poles over 60 feet high
be a permitted use in residential zoning districts if the antennas extend no more than 15 feet
above the pole.
4. Allow antennas attached to structures to exceed t 5 feet bv variance procedure (US West)
Staff recommendation.
Height variances for antennas attached to structures can be granted by the Board of Zoning
Appeals. No change to the code needs to be made to accomplish this.
5. In OS-1 and B-2C districts allow antennas onlv on structures 60 feet or higher as a s ep cial
condition use. (M-G CC)
Staff recommendation.
Staff believes that regulation of antennas in these districts shouid be regulated in the same
��a. -
manner as antennas in the other neighborhood business districts.
6. Allow onl� monoploes. (M-GCC)
Staff recommendation.
Staff recommends that monopoles be cited as the preferred type of free standing poles to ba used
for antennas. Other types of poles, such as lattice poles, should be permitted if the applicant can
show that these type of poles are more appropriate to the location.
7. Make all antennas s�ecial condition uses. (District 2)
Staff recommendation.
The proposed amendments show preferred antenna locations by allowing them as permitted uses
and by not reqniring thaY applicanYs demonstrate that colocation sites aze not available. Prefened
locations are on residential buildings over 60 feet high; on institutional, public, and business
buildings; and in industrial districts.
The amendments also show secondary antenna locations by allowing them as special condition
uses and requiring that applicants demonstrate that no feasible colocation sites exists within 1/2
mila. Secondary locations aze on residential buildings less than 60 feet high in residential
districts; on free standing poIes on institutionaI properiy in residential districts; and on free
standing poles in business zoning districts.
8. Required all old. non-funetional antennas and poles to be removed. (M-GCC and District 2
Staff recommendation.
Determuung when an antenna is non-functional would be difFicult for city staff to detemune.
Requiring annual permits would be a burdensome to achieve this.
9. Prohibit antennas on buildin�s less than 60 feet high that aze near residential areas.
Staff recommendation.
Antennas on buildings are only allowed to be 15 feet above the height of the building.
10. Control number of antennas in anv one area.
Staff recommendation. .
There are large industzial, business, or open space azeas where more than one antennas may be
appropriate.
1 L Ma[ce effort to restrict antennas to where they will be Iess obtrusive, i.e,. transportation
corridors and industriai azeas.
f l.i � .. � , h �
o _ ) liJ
Staff recommendafion.
Allowing 150 foot high free standing poles as permitted uses in industrial districts will encourage
their location in industrial azeas.
12. In OS-1 B-1 B-2 B-2C B-3 AND RCC-1 districts reduce the seazch area for colocation
sites from 1/2 to 1/4 mile. (APT) -- --
Staff recommendation.
Cell sizes will vary for different types of providers and capacity of cell sites. One half mile
should provide for most cases.
1.3. For antennas on to� of a building, screen the antenna or incorporate it into an azchitectural
element ofthe siructure. (M-G CC)
Full screening of the antenna would negate the communication function of the antenna; partial
screening or incorporation into an architectural element could create a more obhusive
construction on a building.
REVISED AMENDMENTS
Here are the revised amendments incorporating staff revisions. Staff recommendations from
February 20 concerning treating equipment buildings as accssory buildings and prohibiting free
standing poles only from required front and side yazds has also been incorporated into the text.
1. Principal use permitted in all residential zoning districts
(X) Cellulaz telephone antennas located on an existing residen'_t.ial=structure at least
sixty (60) feet high, ori aii;gezsting utility monopole ah,:leasi si�ty (60)',�e;et;l�ig�
-- :::- - -- - -- - - - --- --
�:a: The antennas shall not extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the
structural height of the structure to which they are attached.
b. Anteriiias lacated in histdiic districts or on liistdnc buildings shall bg
sub�eet fo ffie'review and:appro"val of the Hisfoiic T'reservafion
__ _._.__.. __...
Coinznissloii.
ec. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an-existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary � , , it sha11 be
pernutfed an8 regulatec� as aa
-:
accessozy-biTilding, Sec=S2.106., and shall be screened from view by
landscaping where appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses on residential, institutional, and public structures
at least 60 feet high and would now be pemutted uses on institutional and public buildings Iess
than 60 feet high.
2. Principal uses permitted su6ject to special conditions in all residential districts
(� Cellular telephone antennas � located on an existing �esidenfial structure -`�
less tlian sixty (60) feet high, subject to the follocving conditions:
a: The-applicant demonstrates ttfat the
�P�
proposed antennas due to;one or more of the followingyreasons:
I: The pianned egnipment wonld excee3 ffie stnicturaT ca�iacity of
<.. _�
the e�stiiig pole or sh=uctnie.
2: Tha plaiined equipment woa2d cause"interfereuce �yitlroQtez
e�stmg or�planne� equipment on the.pole or structura:
3: The planned equipment cannot be accommodated at a lieig�t
iiecessazy=fo:function reasonably.
4: The owner of eacisting po7e strucfure or biiildu�g �sun�lling
to co locafe an aritenna.
�_ .
,_
�C5
<� . �.. � , ,
f :� .,
- - - - -- -- ---.- - -- --
b. The antennas shall not extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the
siructurai height of the'structure to which they are attached.
c. Antennas located in historic districts or onhistoric=building§_shall be
subject to the review and approvai of the,Historic'Preseivation
Commission.
�d. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary ' , , it shall be
permitfed and regulate,"'cl �s;ari
accessory building, Sea'62:106, and shall be screened from view by
landscaping where appropriate.
(�) Ceilulaz telephorie anterinas located on a free'sfanding pole on anstrtuttonal o�
�,.. __,.
publicly ownedpropertg, sub�ectto,thefollowmg condihons:
�
accommodated
.a_.....n. _u:�ki....._... _.
owned stiructure;"or abusme"s_s buiidirig wrtTiix
pzoposed antennas due to bne ot more o�'the f
2:, T'he "planned equipment would exceed fhe st�uctural capacrty�of
_.._�.�_�.
tlie"exisfing pole or;sfructiare.
2:=�'I'he plarined equipment would cause?inter�erence wrth qfhei
existin"g"o`r "planned "equipmenf;on the po,le or strticture:'
3r;The planne3 ggu`ipment cannof be accommo3afed at a heighf
_ _ _ _ ,.::�... ._ _ ,_..._, _�,:�
necessary to reasonabfy.
4. The own8r of the ex'isting pble, sfructure or buildmg Ys ua�Y7liiig
fo co-locate ari antenriai
b: The antennas shali
located?iri:a reqiui8
0
the height of the antenria from the nearest, residential strucfure.
c. The; aii�ennas shall be designed where=pos§ible to blendsnf"o the
surroviiding environment through the:use of color and camouflaging
arcYutectural treahrient. ; Drawings oz photo�apluc perspectives s,howt"rig
the pole:arid antennas shall-be provided to the plannigg-com�sussiori to�
deternune compliance with provi"sion_
d. Antenna's located in lusfori"c districts shall be subject to;fhe review and
approyal offhe Histone Preservation Commissiori.
e. Moriopoles are type of poles:,Other fypes ofpoles, suehas
lattice.poles may be pernutted if the applicant can demonstrate ttiaf itLLis
more appropriate for the location.
f. �'ransmitting, receiving and switching equipmenf shall be housed witivn
an e�sting stracture whenever possib7e. ;If a new equipiiient biulding is
necessary; it shall be.permitted and regulated as an accessory bmlding;
Sec 62:106; and screened from viewby landscaping i�liere appropna�e;
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be a special condition use if placed on residential structures less than
60 feet tall;and if placed on free standing poles on institutional and public property. Antennas
on free standing poles on vacant residential land would no longer be permitted. In most cases,
antennas on free standing poles will have to be farther away from existing residential shuctures -
1 1/2 tunes the height of the pole rather than 75 feet.
3. Principal uses permitted in OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and RCC-1 districts
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas � located on an existing
structure, sixbject to the following conditions; '
. . . . _ � ... ,. ....____`__r.ti__,._....,�
_ ' ' _ _ _ ..__ __ _ ___ _ __ _ ' _
a. The aiitennas shail iiot extend more than fifteen (15) feet aboye the
strucfival Iieight of the,§tructure to wluch �hey are attached.
b. AntBnnas 19cated m liistoric districts or on,lustonc buiTdmgs sliati:be
�-,
c _`G5 • _ � J
siibject to the rediew and approval of the f3istoric Preservation
Commission.
c. Antennas on lattice towers may be laterally supported by the tower;
-- d. Ttansmittirig, "receiving aud switching equipment shall be house8 witliin
an existing structure �vhenever possible: If a new equipment buiIdiiig'is
necessary, it shall be permitted atid regulated as an acce§sory building,
Sec. 62:106, and scieened from view 6y landscaping wheie approp'riafe:
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses if placed on a building. The height that they may
exceed the structural height of the building would be reduced from 40 feet to 15 feet.
4. Principal use permitted subject to special conditions in OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and
RCC-1 districts
(x) Cellular telephone antennas �eE located on a fre�:standing pole �g
.__��, subject to the following conditions: N
"-- - - - -- -- - - - - - -
-- - - - - -- :: - - -
. - - - --- - - - -- - -
'
1:;Thepl'uuiecl equipment would exceed the sfrrictural,capa�t�:of
tiie'extstirig�pole or;°�racttii�e:
Z�The pianried eqpipment would cause in�erference witti.o�h_`er
_..�q �v._ � � . . u, � ,:���.��
e�cistmgor:planned equipment on fhe pole orstiucttice�
3: The plaiined equipment cannof be accommodafed at ahe�g'tif
iiecessary to function reasona6ly:
--- — 4:;"I'he owii8r of the existing pq1e, sfructure bi biuldmg �s ttp�viIiina
: ._.. _:_,.: ._.-�. .._ .. .....: ..__.:_ . _. � _..a
fo co locate:an antenna.
b. The antennas shall not exceed seventy=five; �
Ioeated in:a frequized iont or side yard; and
the heigliYof the ariteniia`from the neare"st re
a The aritennas shall 6e designed where posstbleA€o blend_info tFie
surroiinding environmerit through the _use of color and cainouflagcrig
azclutectiiial treatinent, Drawings or gho"tograpluc perspec�ives sho�uiug
the pole and antennas sliall be provided to the;pTamm�g conumssi6��o
determine compliance wifli this provision: � u � _
d. Monopoles aze:the preferred type of poles. Othei types o£poles, such as
lattice poles, maybe pemutted if the'applicant can demon`sirate tliaf3f`is
more app'ropnate for thelocatrori: -
e. Anfennas Iocafed in Fus�oric districfs_s-ha1( be. sab�ecf fo`re�ew arid
approval bfthe Hrstonc Preseivation' Commissiqn:
e:f. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary " , , it shall be
pernutted:andragulate� as an
accessoiy>buildnig; Sec: ;62.106, and shall be screened from view by
landscaping where appropziate.
DISCUSSION
Antennas on free standing poles would continue to be special condition uses. In most cases, they
will have to be farther away from existing residential structures - 1 1/2 times the height of the
pole rather than 75 feet.
5. Principal uses permitted in B-4 and B-5 districts
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas •-'--__ .ti .,._..__.... __,. located on an existing
structure as pernuttedand regulatecl in fhe B-3 Busmes's Distnct;'pnncipai uses
pernutte�, section 60 542,.excepf that antennas may eatend up to_forty4(i)�ef
aboverthe structucal heigYif,of the'structure to_wluch tfiey are atfachad:�ravi�c�
L']
U.
; . -:;GS
----- -- ----- - - .• -- -- - --
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses if placed on buildings. They could also continue
to exceed by 40 feet the height of the building to which they aze attached.
6. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions in B-4 and B-5 districts
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas t� located on a free-standing poleas anii
_ -'_ ii _ _ __ _ _ _
" ' ' " ' _ i: " ' _ " " "" " "'
DISCUSSION
Antennas on free standing poles would continue to be special conditions uses. In most cases,
they will have to be farther away from existing residential structures - 1 1/2 times the heiQht of
the pole rather than 75 feet.
7. Principal uses permitted in I-1, I-2, I-3, and RCI-1 districts
10
`-� -
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas locafed on an exisfingstmcture as pernu�ted anii
. .... :
regulated in the B=S:Business District, principal nses percnitfed, section 60:562:
� ,
"-- -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - •
- - - - : - - - - - -- -- - - -- - -
�..��..�e!�.;.'rs.w�o.n.� ;ws - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
..
(X) Cellulaz telephone'antennas located on a free standing po1e, subject to;the
follo�ving condi6ons:
a. The antennas shall not exceed one hundced and fifry (150) feef id-hgigIit;
_._ .._ �-_
Shall riot bg I,ocated m arequired front�or side and shaii be set baelc sl
_. _ � �..:
1/2 ttmes the height of the autenna froin the nearest residenhal sttucfu{e:
b. Antenrias;Iocafed in htsforic°districts shall:be subjecf to review and
, _._
approval;offhe HistoncPrBservation.Gommission.
d. Monopo2es are"theprefeqed type of poles .Other types of po2es; sucF� as
lathce poles, may b8 perniitted if the applicant can demonstrate thaf tf "is
more appiopriafe'for fhe loca&on. �
c. Transnutting; receivutg azid switching eqnipmen� shall be housed iui'�1uh
an existing�structuze whenever possible_ Zf a new equipmenf bm2ding
necessary°, rt lie peririitted and regeciafed as an accessory buiFding;
Sec 62�T06, and 5creened from view liy -landscaping where appropna�e�_
DISCUSSION
Antennas on buildings and on free standing poles would continue to be pem uses. Free
standing poles would have to be set back 1 1/2 times the height of the pole from the neazest
residential structure rather than one times the height of the pole from the lot lines as is required
now.
8. Sec. 62.108. Site plan review (all districts}.
11
S
- .. .�
_ ,�
(a) Plan to be submitted. A site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the planning
commission before a permit is issued for grading or the erection or enlargement of gross floor
azea for any development except one- and two-family dwellings, but including the following:
(1} Any development of one- and two-family residences which together exceed two
(2) acres (87,120 squaze feet) in area.
(2) In the "T" Tree Preservation District, any development of one- and two-family
residences over one (1} acre (43,560 squaze feet) in area.
(3} All residentially related uses in one-family districts, such as, but not limited to,
churches, schools and public facilities.
(4) Any industrial use in an I-1, I-2, I-3 or RCI-1 District abutting a residential
district.
(5) Outdoor storage in industrial districts.
(6) Any use which abuts to a major thoroughfare.
(7) Any development on a slope of twelve (12) percent or greater.
(8) Any development in the River Corridor Critical Area or in the Floodplain District
except one- and two-family dwellings which do not affect slopes of twelve (12)
percent or greater.
(9) All off=street parking facilities except as noted in section 62.103(b).
(10) Any other use or development for which the submission of a site plan is required
by any provision of this code.
(11) Earth-sheltered structures.
(12) Detached, freestanding facilities constructed on pazking facilities, including, but
not restricted to, kiosks, fotomats, banks and similaz uses.
(13) Any filling, excavation or tree removal that disturbs an azea greater than ten
thousand (10,000) squaze feet except the construction, installation or maintenance
of public roads and public and private utilities.
(1.4} Cellular telephone antennas thaf require new eguipmentbculdin
_ .u. v��_
DISCUSSION
12
�-.__
Antennas placed on buildings with the equipment housed within the building would noY have to
undergo site plan review. Antennas on free standing poles and antennas with equipment
buildings would be required to undergo site plan review.
13
DEPARTDIENT OF PLAN�,TYG
& ECO\OilIIC DHVELOP\[Eh'1'
SA1NT
PAVL
�
AAAA
C'ITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Co[eman, bfayor
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 20, 1997
To: Zoning Committce
From: Roger Ryan �
4.�-�-
Re: Location of towers and buildings
Division of Plmrning
25 Wes! Fourth S[ree!
Saint Paut, hf �' S.i102
Telephane: 6I2-266-6565
Facsimil e: 6I2-228d 314
` —_...��.� '1
.. �
ATT has suggested that equipment buildings 1nd free standing poles be permitted in side yards
where appropriate.
Eqt�ment buildings
Equipment buildings are proposed to be allowed only in rear yards. This is also the existing
regulation.
Staff recommends that equipment buildings be treated the same way as garages. Equipment
buildings could not locate in any re uired yard except a rear yard and they would be required to
be 3 feet from any interior lot line. This wotdd allow equipment buildinas to locate on any
portion of the lot that the main buildings are allowed to locate on and in the required rear yard.
Equipment buildings would not be allowed in the required front yards of residence, OS-1 and
B-I districts; the required side yard of the B-2C district; the 10 foot side yard required when a B-
2 or B-3 lot adjoins a side yard of a lot in a residence district, or the front and side yards required
when an I district adjoins a residence district.
Freestanding�oles
Freestanding poles are proposed to be prohibited from front and side yards. In residential and
business districts, they are now only required to be 75 feet from the nearest residential structure.
In the industrial districts, they are now required to be one times the height of the pole from the
neazest lot line.
Staff recommends that freestanding poles be prohibited from re nired front and side yards.
They would follow the same restrictions for location as equipment buildings as above.
They would also be required to be 1 1/2 times the height of the pole from the nearest residential
structure.
2
r •�
- � °�
YMcSP. VAWN
zoemrt, �ww
GFFPIDX FPIEDBL
Lu�45G Fl$IGC�PY
mwavo� oaiscai
GFhEN FlAIER
.iaw o. Fuwuux
vwsnci wwve'
CYAiIE$5 AKCELL
CIQIS�Cp1¢qJ.C1EfCcN
111dNX. F15frR
TVJWK P. SiCITMN!
MICNPII C .HCpXrV
NMW E qFX
JCNS bWFR4'NSW
1roMns�.rtmw
JNAES P. qAM�
TOLOI FREE4AN
Cz'FND L SEQ
.KMN 6 LWCCUIFi
MttE MMN�'
.NJlW A CATiER'
BEAFICEA RJThNflIER
PPLL B. RLM�T}
PLW L.IVIp�M�
%AMEEttM %CATIENENWJi
NI[MPC^I.B IFBpACN
GRKiMY E KIX2STPD
Gq4YA VPN CLEyE
Ry11ELL BWAES
TIMOIHYA AkM�M1$
TMOIHY 6 YFPNE
p3NiM MICERSCN
pQ`M4l FJ84CK
MIGNEL W. $f,1yET
RONN & ItREpS
TEfiRENCE E BISXOP
lISpA GRAY
G0.¢YA ftENNENE
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY cC LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
'I500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMfNGTON.MWNES05A 55431-1194
TELEPHONE (612) 635-3800
FAX (612) 8963333
awisrc�n, wjw�s,wv. 4
MFICELJ. p6ACGCx
&4LCEJ 0.V' GIAS
wiwawc cw�. st.
Kw� R Mu
�m� cm,e
LKRYp ApRiIN
.IRNE E BGpAER
YkNJ.SlEFFF.WI�C£N
uwi¢w.vass
qYIIPG NDEI
u�cw.av.snm�
VN50.1KE
MCREW F. PFRRW
pHIiM MEYEQ
GftISiCN£R 0..KMN'SCN
flFNEEL YCCSW
�TWI52T AKtA3U5
MMLY R fR�T
D:UCi/SM.R0.MlFR
$T(A$iA WJAINSG
IIpM/S G. PL£XA iCER
MMFLT. FALtEL
9WRNAA WPH.GflEN
Iy.ItINAt NELSFN
C. ERIKXPµE$
LvM.E WGELLE MOOFE
L 6GEMROBBINS
MAISTNSNESTGARp '
JCIIES FPE�q1IX50N
Cf CGk�SEI
.NfXf. NJ.Y
D. A4HI1EiHtI.NGREN
N1nV E MLW� V
N£NDEILR.NCERSQV
.lOSFFHbiS
' O150MA11iiEDINKISCONSM
Mazch,6, 1997
Mr. Roger Ryan
Planning & Economic Development
City of St. Paul
25 VJest Fourth Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Comments to Cellulaz Telephone Antenna Zoning Amendments
Deaz Roger:
Our firm represents American Portable Telecom (APT) in connection with its efforts to site
telecommunications facilities throughout the metropolitan azea, including in St. Paul, Minnesota. This
letter is written in response to a request by the City of St. Paul Zoning Committee seeking input on the
City's draft Cellulaz Telephone Antenna Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Our comments relating to the
Amendments are set forth below.
The:setback requirement for freestanding poles should be reduced from 1-1/2 times the height of the
pole to a distance equal to the height of the pole. This change would encourage more efficient use of
scazce land areas that aze otherwise suitable far a telecommunications pole.
2. The height restriction of 75 feet to the top of an antenna located on a freestanding pole on institutional
or publicly-owned property, within a residential district, should be increased in increments of 25 feet
to encourage co-location on such freestanding pole. Therefore, if an applicant committed to design a
pole for up to two co-locators, the masimum height of the pole would be increased to 125 feet.
3. Same comments regazding the maximum height of a telecommunication pole located within the OS-1,
B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C and RCC-1 Districts. In addition, the burden of demonstrating the absence of
any other site options relating to the development of a freestanding pole should be reduced from 1(2
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Roger Ryan
March 6, 1997
Page 2
mile radius to 1/4 mile radius of the proposed freestanding pole and antennas. The Yower siting
process is driven by precise search pazameters. A shaft of 1/2 mile may be unacceptable.
4. Same comments with regazd to the maximum height of the freestanding pole and antenna relating to
B-4 and B-5 Districts.
5. Same comments regarding the maximum height of a freestanding pole in an Industrial District or
RCI-1 District.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the City's Proposed Cellulaz Telephone Antenna
Zoning Amendments. APT will be in attendance at the meeting scheduled for Match 20, 1997.
Sincerely,
(��
Peter J. Coyle, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
PJC/gev
0282530.01
0a/09/97 17:52 FA% HESSIAti MCRASY f�002/004
LAW OFFICES
HESSIAN, MCKASY & SODERBERG
Paoceaeioxwt Assocuscou
�Sinneapolis • SaintPaul • Washington.D.C.
4700 IDS Center
80 South fiightlx Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2228
(612)330-3000 Facsimile371-0653
John J. Choi
330-3025
VIA FACSIM�E
March 7, 1497
Mr. Roger Ryan.
Division of Piattning
be�amneni of Planning and Eeonomic Development
City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Pau1, 1l�i�T 551022
Re: .Forntal Catnrnents to Saint Pau1 Cetlutar Antenna Zaning Amenrbnents
near Mr. Ryan:
-�����
As requested by the Saint Pau1. Planning Cvmmission, the following are t�irtwch
CelluJ.ar's formal comments co Saint Paul's Cellular Antenna Zoning Amezxdments.
A. H�xGHT RESTRIC'Y'IO1V'S
'VVe belicve fhat the 75-foot height limit on monopoles on e'very zoning district except
industrial is unreasonably restrictive given the fact that Saint Paul has many mahue trees that
interfere with wireless transzn�.ission because of their height. As you may know, cellular signals
aze imgacted by tree branches azad J.ea'ves. As such, we wou�d xequest that the Planning
Commission cnnsider extending the� 75-foot height limit on monopoles on every zoning district
except industrial to 85 feet. This slightly taller 85 Feet height limit wi11 enable us to ensure
quality service for our customers and the citizens of Saint Paul withont the need to resort to the
varia�ace process.
B. SETSACS
A setback of 1'h times the height af the antenna from the nearest reszdenrial struciure
r+voutd dramatically reduce the aznourn of flexib�ity we have i�n the location af facilities. A.s you
_� -:
ExtendeC Pa9e
1VIr. Roger Ryam
March 7, 1997
Page 2
know, being in the right Iocation is crucial for our abiIity to provide adequate coverage to Saint
Paul residents. We would pxopose a setback ec�uat to the pole heig�tt from any residential unit.
As you lmow, the monopolas used by ffie wireless communicatioas industxy do not collapse even
in the most extreme wind and icing canditions. VJe have enciosefl a copy of an opinion from
a zegistered professional eng`u�eer, whicb; more fu31p discusses this fact. Setbacks are generalty
employed to ensure aesthetic bu£fer zones and we sincerely believe t2�at a set back equal ta the
pole height is sufficient to meet tbis pwrpose ia Saint Paul.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the opportunity to cor,nment on the orc3inance. Please call Jay T,ittlejohn
or me at 330-3000 if you have any questions. Tbanlc you.
Sincerely,
7ohn J. Choi
77C:pmc
cc: Kent Sticha
izsia�i os�ozoo.oio5oo
03/b7/9i
��
�
17:5J FAX
�1�00
HESSIA:V .MCI{ASY
�� ���
� oaaiooa
= s��
1200 N. OAK RD.
P.O. BOX 128
September 19, 1996
Mr. Jaymes D. Littlejohn
Hessian, McKa5y & Soderbetg
4700 IbS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
Minncapoli�, Minnesata . 55402
Uear ►vir. ��ttte3ann:
PLYMOUTH, INOIANA 46563-012g
{219)936•4221
FAX (219) 936-679fi
Thank you for your inquiry conceming tower design coBes and practices as they relate
to your tower designs in Minneso#a.
PiROD has been design,ng and bullding guyed, setf-supporting towers and monopoles
since ihe eariy 1950'S. During this time, we have said thousands of structufes ranging
in height from as tittie as 5a` high to in excess of 9400'. These Struciures were
individualiy engineered to accommodatetne laading requirements imparted by the design
windspeed, ice considerations, antenr�a foading, and otherfactars dictated by the natianai
cc�de �eyuirerr�ents exisfing at the time the tower was bullt.
The present national tower and monopQfe code, AN511EIAtTIA-222='E", represents the
latee# raflnement af specific minimum requirements for engineers and manufacturers to
fotlow to help assure ttt2t the structure and its foundations are designed to meet the most
realistic coneitions for iocal weather whi;e assuring U�at tl�e sfruciu�e is clesignec9 lu
stringent factors.of safety.
ln the case of the monopole under cansideeation, the owner has electe.d to axc�aed the
stipulated Code t'equirements for windspeed and has also requested that 1/2" ice be
inGuded in the analysis. Ice is considered on alf tower mernbsrs, antennas, and lines
and results in a substantially heavier tower design than one considered withaut ice_
The "E" version of the wde incorparates an escalating wind factor based on tower height.
""Meeting the code" implies that the design quoted has ail of the code requirements for
safety factors intact af the windspecd spe�cd. Thu�, the ultimato �urvival speed would
be considerabiy higher. Again, adding ice to the design toading can aiso add a further
safety factor to the flnal tower strength.
While failure is extremely rare in any kind of tower, it is especial{y so for monopoles and
seif-supporting towars. Whi{e failure is extreme{y rare in any kfnd of tower, 'st i� espe4satly
so for monopo�es and self-supporting towers. In our opinion, a collapse occurring with
our design �s not iarQSeeabte wlthout being subJected Lo a direct hIt trom wlnds
Oa/07/97 li:5A FAS HESSI9:� MCK9SY �GIOU4/004•
associated with a tornado or the severest of hurric2nes.
We are aware of very few instances of monopole fai�ure. The most common mode of
failure wouid be in the middle region of the monopoEe, with the upper portion of the
mnnopnlP rPmaininr� aonner:fed anr.t "bnwin�j over" against the 6ase of the pote. The facf
that the wind is normally greater on the upper poction o# the structure contributes to the
likelihood of this type of failure, Thus, it a failura conditiun is r�adied, it-shc�uld tae
reached in the upper middle region of tne monopole first.
Needles5 to say, the engirieering codes which govern tower and monepol� desipns are
eXtremely conservative. Monopo{es are designed for extreme wind conditions, and even
under these extreme conditions, stringent factors of safcty are required.
As Director af Eng�neenng antl a registered t'.t. in 41 states, I oversee au engineenng
and application of our towers. I am a graduate engineer from Natre Dame University and
have been wiih the company since 79B4, i am assi5teti by two registered professional
engineers, Mr. Myron Noble, who has been the owneraf PiROD, Inc., since 1973 and Mr.
William F2ettig, who has @een with the company since 199Q. Four other qualified
engineers are aiso on our stat�.
All of PiROD we4ders are cert�ed to the high standards of AWS D1.1 or are in the
process of becoming certified. Mathematicai and physicat tests are perforrned routineiy
on stfucture SeCtions anQ designs as required. Our total design, eogineer and build
process ha5 been quality audited by vur cusfomers including pubtic uU"Iities, fefephone
companies and govemment agencies.
We trust the ahnva and the attanhPd will he he4pful to yau. If you sh�uld need anything
else, please let us know at your canvenience.
chg
Erichsen
of Engineering
n #22'I
# kereby certify that thFs plan, spec�-
ficatior�, or report was prepared by me OY
unde� my d!r4ct supervision and that 1 am
a duly R��istc'ed Frc�essional Engineer upder
iha (�ws of .h ata o# N3innesota.
..�..-,.-�---
Date Re�tstratton NQ�
' Z����
� ��eoo �nc p,0. BQX 128 • PLYMOUTH, INDIANA 4656&0126 • {2t9) 936-422t
Oa/97/97 17:51 FA3
�oovooa
uw o�+tcr�
HESSTAN, MCKASY & SObERBERG - - - : r
z v,oaz9srox..LAmocs.'ao. _�. � �
Ivfinneapvlis • Saint Paul • W ashingron, D.C. --� - -
47Q0 IDS Cerrtcz
8� South Eighth Streec
'_vIinneapalis, Minnesota 55402-2228
(612) 330-3000 Facsimiie 3?1-06$3
TELECOPYER. TRANSMISSION RECORD
5em To:
�'elecopier:
HESSI,iti MCIi.�15Y
By:
Diure�
7,'elephone:
Y7ate:
dohn Choi
(612) 330-3025
March 7, ],997
lcoger icyan
228-3314
Re: Commeuts to
Cellular Antenna
Ame�dments
Origi.ual will be mailed.
TTee informetiun epyA<xined in fHu telecapier amrasmissiOro is aonfedcntraZ conw+unica¢on and is lnte�tdtd ferr du wa
of :he individrraZ or entity named abme. If the reader of this »�essage is not the 'vuended ncipient, or the
vmp7nyse Or ngeht rerponrible ta delii�sr it70 the in�ended racipiant, you �a kareby Moi�ed thp! wry drsnibution
or copying af N:{s wrmrwnicasian is strictly prohibited. If you have received this,facStmile by �stake, pleese
17Wnediatr.ly nnizfy ua fiy [r.t>phnne, nnO ren�rn a11 the doctmfextr aecrlvyd to us u ths ubove addreu.
No. or rwaa5, TNCLUDINCi TFIIS S�ISST: $
Dt]ctn�ivrs '��tpT7sMrrraD:
CONL�Ni:
129I3y1 053020Q01�00
DO B�
& BUTLER
PROFESSIOA'4L d550Cf>iIOV
dttorneys at Law
March 7, 1997
3�W Fifih Strref To�.vers
li0 �[+uNi FfftF, Street
Minneapolr>, YLnvsota 55?G2.4^i3
Telephonc (612) 3-k0-i3v
F.4C (bL) 3-tU-�.�Sb
41'ntei � dimct d�ai numher
VIA FAX: 228-3314
Mr. Roger Ryan
Division ofPlanning
2bU0 Ytnneso[a l\od3 I:ade Center ]?Ol Sau Yo.k Arenue, N 11.
i0 @�>t Se�eneh S:;eet
$aint Paul, Yhvne�.tz 3=101-k999
Telephone (6L') 29i-9�3i
FAX (6l2) 24G9313
Swt: '.iJV'
4tasn:romn, D C. uOQ�
Tcle�Sone ('_02) 39r2S>L
f.4X CO21 3o3-3L3[
340-5588
Department of Planning and Economic Development
City of Saint Paul
City Hall Annex
25 West 4�` Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Celiulaz Telephone Antenna Zoning Amendments
Dear Roger:
b"70 One Taboe Ceo�r
L'GO �«n.eenth Ster:
Uevice:, Colo:a�� Y�^_J_ ��--
TaiepFone (?03� 57'_�.'_,
F4%r303; 5,2-5'p3
Rep:�mlbnneap�dn —
This letter is in response to your February 25, I997 invitation to submit proposed revisions to the
cellular telephone antenna zoning amendments.
As I menrioned at the February 20, I997 Zoning Committee meeting, we agree with your suggestion
to treat equipment buildings and freestanding poles as accessory structures for the purposes of rear
and side yazd setbacks. This seems a reasonable approach to providing increased fleacibility in the
placement of these structures, while preserving the intent of the zoning ordinance.
The only other revision to the ordinance amendments which we suggest the City consider is the issue
.'e:3Yea l�t f o� A� 1 « h ;,: r :te e;; o.;,o
to �he heig., o_ fre„s a:...:nb p� es. As :ve r.:ea::oaed wt t e Ze ..ng .,ar_�.r.n e m e.r. .
suggest the City consider whether it makes sense to allow additional height in order to have more
than one provider on a pole. Most other cities have adopted this approach. This approach could be
implemented by adding the following sentence in the sections of the ordinance amendments which
deal with height: .
"Freestanding poles specificaily designed to accommodate the applicant's antennas
and comparable antennas for an additional multiple antenna user shall not exceed 100
feet in height."
We also remain concerned about increasing the setback requirement from 75 feet to 1'/� times the
height of the antenna.
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
& BUTLER
PRCPESSf�S4L ASSOQ4it�A
Mr. Roger Ryan
Planning Division
March 7, 1997
Page 2
We will attend the March 20, 1997 Zoning Committee meeting to answer any questions.
ely,
Peter K. Beck
PKBleka
cc: Marie Grimm (via fax)
Ron Mielke (via fax)
�
BeckP 511446.1
�; �
� �_
�y/�T Ty�T]+'(*1/ S:AUF�Ith:tr•�rtiin.es
l._i V t r �lt t 1 :w ti.;,.n r��Ni, s����
hUnncapo6•.. ".tmtx:ata F3i0:a215
y%. ��r � Yf7� irkTh�me (61.) 516-55i;
U 1 f•r.1'C Enx in�zi a�o-a�,u
t'Rt7f'L55ICA4AL a�
Attom.ry5atLaw iV[ir�r�din�td.a�nuIDt*:r
Febniary 18, Z 997
V.fA FAX: 2z8-3314
1AOC >{inncsaro tturhl &aile Crntn
kt Ea;t 41�rn1h sfm:
Sa�nt Paul� �Lnnru�ta SilUl-1�N
TNryForv� Ini2� :31-433J
FAX (bS:l :"17-93}:>
saassss
Mr. Rogex Ryan
Divisian of Planning
bepartmem of Planniag and �canomic Development
City of Saint �aui
City Hall Annex
25 West 4�° 5treet
St. Paul, MN 55142
�te� Cellular Telephone Arnenna Zoning Amendments
Uear Rager:
¢�ty ai MiMUt}wRK 0lf4er
This letter contains the comments of AT&T Wireless Sennces ("AT&T") on the proposed cellular
telephane emenna wning amendmefcits dated January, 1997. AT&T appreciates the agportunaty to
commez�t an the propased amendments, and thanks both the Piattning Division and the Zoning
Committee far woddng with the wiretess wmntunications industry on th$se amendments. We have
the follawing three comments on the proposed amendments:
1, The proposed amendments requir� that equipment 6uildings and manopoles be located in the
rear yards of the principal use in alE instances. We suggest that the City eonsider allowing
both equipmetst buiidings and poles in side yards whare appropriate. In many instances the
(arge commea�ciai, industrial snd institutianal uses which we wili bc iooking for witl have very
lazge side yard setbacks and(or wi11 be located adjacent to similar uses whiah would not be
negativety impacted by an appropriately lacated and designed equipment build'mg or
mon,apole, 1�ltawing the equipmcnt building or monopote to be tocated in a side yard, where
apgrnpriate, woutd pxovide the wireless carriers with greater flexibility to place their faca'lities
in the best location for both the property owner and the City.
2. The 75-foot height limit �n monopnles in all but industrial zoning distriots wi(( severely limit
the oppoRUnity to itave mare t!'�n one wireless provider an a single pole. Undet the gresent
technotagy 75 Eeet is the tawest that tAs current wireless providers can locate their antenaas,
absent unique circumstances. Mazry cities in an effost ta encourage mutriple use af the
manopoles, have allowed atlditios�l height £or monogoles that as'e designed to aocommodate
1�11 New York Avnur, t+N
su�k uoo
Wa�hiny,tan. l].C. 91005
Ttkphax (�1
FA% 12U11;N;F11:it
?3U (k�o IIIM[ l�ll0.l
}={IO `ah.w. t.`enth 51n'ct
lkv+vrr. G�lrsadc NU1U2-�21
2�dapixxx (�t719'2�2lX1
rax �:ws7 S'.em)
�a�Z00d TZS'ON GT�£ 8�Z 6 E H2iQ Z£�ZT L6i8I20
D4HERTY
�iCTMBL�
& BUTLER
rrsi��i�a�ovni n�t,utt.+.t�uti
-- _ _ �,
Mf. Rager ltyan
Planning Division
February 18,1997
Page Z
two users. Since the wireless providers typically nged 20-25 feet of yertical sepatatian
between their arrtennas, cities have LypicaUy a4lowed an additiana120 or 25 feet ahove the
atherwise ma.�c;mum 6elght for mona�x+lec decigned to accomntodate two users.
1'hiS iS ptimarilY a poliey issue for thn dty. Wc will live within the 75-faot height limit if that
is whai the aty pre#'ers. On the otker hand, if the city were to allow gdditional height in order
tp ettcow'age muStipie use of ihe facil'sties, we would consider 8tat when desigtting aur system.
Increasing the existing 75-foat sethack to 1'/� times the height ofthe antensia is a significant
change wtdch would dramarically reduce ihe amount o£fle�cibility wc have in thc locntion af
£acilities. This chan�e wauld also make it mare difficult to tocate multiple use facilities,
` Once again, we appreciato the opportunity to comment an the ordieance a�d wilt attend the Zaning
Comtni.ttee, Piatu�ing Commission and City Council meetings at which the ordinance is discussed ta
a,nswer any qusstions,
Siacerely,
����
Peter K. Beck
PK$/eka
oc; Max Thampson
Ran Mielke (via f�c}
Marie Ga�imm (via fax)
aw�sos6is.j
., ,
�09i£08d tZi'CN 4'L££ 8ZZ 6 F 8aQ ££�ZL L6�8Li2s
=� Sprint
Mazch 7, 1997
Mr. Roger Ryan
PED, Planning Division
25 WeSY 4` STIeeT
Sain[ Paul, Minn. 55102
Sprini PCS'
blinueaQolis Telephone 6L 6SI 3hlh�
;900 l.one Oak Parl,uay Fae� 612 686 2-q0
Suaz 140
Eag:in. �Lnneurta iii21
Dear Mr. Ryan:
This letter is being written pursuant to the February 20 Zoning Committee meeting and
your memorandum dated February 25 relating to cellular antennas. As I stated at the
meeting it is our belief that antennas mounted above hi�h power transmission line lattice
towers on poles running through these towers is a desirable solution, in all zoning
uisu to �he probiem oi where io locaie communicaiion antennas. iVe also oeiieve
that mounting antennas directly to such Iattice towers as well as to power poles in
general, liaht poles and other pole structures is much preferable from an aestheuc and
economic perspective to constructing new free standing towers constructed exclusively
for mounting communication antennas to.
For the above reasons we propose the following amendments to the proposed
amendments to the City of St. Paul Zoning Ordinance relating to communication antennas
and towers:
I. Under puagraph (X} of Section i. Principal uses permitted in ali residential zoning
districts of the proposed ameadments as set forth in the "Cellular Telephone Antenna
Zoning Study" we propose that the followin; underlined language be inserted:
CeAulaz telephone antennas located on an existing residential structure at least sixry
(60) feet high or on an existing institutional or publicly owned structure or on a
utilitv, lieht or similaz pole or on a pole above and laterally su�ported bv a high
voltaee electric transmission line lattice tower, subject to the foliowing conditions: ..
2. Under paragraph (x) of Section 3. Principal uses pernutted in OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-
2C, and RCC-1 of the above described amendments we propose that the foIIowing
underlined language be inserted: Cellular telephone antennas located on an e�sting
structure, on a utility, li�ht or similar pole or on a pole above and laterall ��supported
by a hi ng voltage electric transmission line lattice tower, subject to the foIlowing
conditions: ...
It is our interpretation that "whenever possible" in subparagraph c. of paragraph (X) of
Section 1, subparagraph d. of pazagraph (X) of Section 2, subparagraph e. of paragraph
(xx} of Section 3, subpazagraph e. of pazagraph (X) of Section 4, subpazagraph c. of
pazagraph (X) of Section 7, requires housing for the transmitting, receiving and switching
equipment, either in a new or existing structure, only when possible and that the applicant
would make the determination as to when it is possible_ If such housing is mandatory we
' �• } T
Page 2- March 7letter to Mr. Roger Ryan '� �
would request that these sections be changed to require housine onlv when it is found that
landscapinp cannot be installed to adequatelv screen such ectuipment.
Thank you for the opportunity to suggest changes _t_o your ordinance. If you have any
questions please call me at 686-2656.
Sincerely,
��� ��
David Hagen
Property Specialist
U S WEST Communications
426 North F2irview Aoom t07
SL Paul, MN 55104
Wireless
������
3/7/97
Roger Ryan
PED, Ptanning Division
25 West 4t" Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Re: Response to proposed amendments
Mr. Ryan
The recommendations listed below are in response to the proposed
ardinance for PCS and Cellular antennas zoning. I understand the visual
issues connected with communication towers in residential neighborhoods.
Industrial areas altYzough easier to site a communication Yower in still have
visual issues. It may be unfortunate that this service can not be delivered
completely out of site and underground. On the other hand this may present
still another set of issues as the new technology would be buried in these
areas.
The goal of U S West Communications is to be able to build a PCS network
that will serve the needs of the community. U S West Communications is a
company that is serving both residential and business customers today on a
wire line basis and with advancements in technologies the company wants
to add wireless services. As you know the new PCS technology has
increased security, improved voice quality and privacy of communication
over conventional cellular service. The additional features that will be built
with this new technology will allow customers the same service that e�cists
with wire line service and still allow customers the ability to be mobile.
Saint Paul has some unique characteristics that makes providing PCS
service difficult. The first is the mature tree structure in the city, with some
areas of the city having 80 foot trees. This along with concentrated areas of
residential housing makes siting of communication towers difficult.
v r
_' ) f f �
The first area that we would look to for a site would be existing structures to
support our four foot antennas. These sites would be existing buildings,
light standards or other towers. The proposed 15 foot roof top without a
variance process to allow a ZS foot attachment may lead to a monopole
placement. When a suitable existing site could not be found we would look
to building a facility for the PCS antennas. This facility would be a
monopole structure due to its strength along with it being a more visually
acceptable structure.
In Saint Paul some areas could use a 75 foot structure, however most areas
would require a 90 foot structure to reach over the trees. If a site had two
similar carriers, as in collocation, an additional 20 feet would be required.
Set backs are of concern both in residential and industrial areas. Tn
industrial areas set back requirements should not exist while residential
areas a set back of one times the height of the structure to a single family
dwelling unit could be set. This set back would include homes and attached
garages, however exclude detached structures such as garages and sheds.
In any ordinance there needs to be a variance process to accommodate
special conditions, such as changes in height and size of antennas. I know
this seems problematic however witl� a defined process of approval the
correct application can be provided.
I have attached two articles from the trade magazine Radio Communication
Report (RCR). The first is an article about the City of Cincinnati and GTE,
which stressed the importance of a clear ordinance that allowed for design
of an effective service. I am reminded of the importance of good service
when my existing cellular telephone does not work on University Avenue in
the Midway or in some areas of Highland Park. As I stated in the zoning
meeting good two way service is very helpful to public safety. The second
article also from RCR places a responsibility of education on the providers.
This is a task that we are trying to accomplish. Lastly I included some
options from a Minnesota company that we wiil be using to combine tower
requirements with lighting structures.
In summary the ordinance is not overly prohibitive nor restrictive as
compared to other cities, however in some areas of Saint Paul U S West
would have difficulty providing good service. I assume that is true for the
other carriers. Today the cellular coverage is not ubiquitous in all of
Saint Paul and therefore I would like zoning changes to allow the cellular
and PCS providers the ability to develop a robust network. Listed below are
the key requests:
• Monopole structures needs to be one times the height away from single
family residential dwellings and allow a 90 foot structure to reach over
the trees. If a site had two similar carriers, as in collocation, an additional
20 feet would be required.
• Roof top locations could be limited to a height limit of 15 feet over the •
building with the ability to apply for a variance if no other site was
available.
• In industrial areas the canier should have the ability to use side lots for
structure placement.
��
Anthony Segale
Regional Network Operations Manager
Macalester-Groveland
Coin�aiunity Council
320 Souih Griggs Street
Saint Pau1, Minnesota 55105-2800
Telephone:(612) 698-7973
Fax: (612) 698-9465
February 24, 1997
Gladys Morton, Chair
Zoning Committee
St. Pau1 Planning Commission
110 City Hall An
JY. i"a�l.li� yl�� JjSVL
Dear Ms. Morton,
� -� -, _;'�
The Macalester-Gxoveland Community Council on February 20 adopted the following
position with regard to the zoning for cellular antennas.
* In residential, OS-i or B-2C zones, antennas should be permitted only if
they are located on top of buildings at least 60 feet high, and a special
conditional use permit should be required.
* If an antenna is not located on top of a building ar existing structure, it
must be mounted on a monopole.
* If an antenna is located on top of a building or structure, the anteana
should be screened or incorporated into an architectural element of the
building.
* Owners of antennas should be required to apply for permits for their
antennas annually. To obtain a permit for an antenna, the owner must
ccrtify that thc antenr.a is .unctional and is L eing used. Owners of
antennas that are not covered by valid permits should be required to
remove such antennas.
Saint Paul is a city with many commercial streets adjacent to residential streets. Our
organization is hopeful that the city's zoning ordinance will protect these residential
streets from this obtrusive use.
Thank you for your consideration of our position on this matter.
Sincerely,
�od���-•--��- �---
Bill Connors
President
I o'-�
2.D reNtledoaoer
62J20i149' 11:47 E12731�194
r.isr n.�ro couricr� --- -- pas� A�
DIS'I'RICY' 2 C4Iv��,�iV�' ��1I�TCII, _
2169 Stillwater Avenue, Suite ZOl
Februsry i9 , 1917 Sa[nt Paul, MN 55179
Phone:(6I2)73L6842
Mr. RogerRyan Fax:(6IA rlLVt9a
City of St. Paul - PED
I l OQ City Hall Annex ,_
5t. Paul, MI3 55102
I)eer Mr. Ryan,
T am writing to you on behalfof the District 2 Cammunity Council regarding the proposed zoning for
ce(tulau' teley(iune antonnas. At its Ttbruary 19, 1997 mecting, the Distriat 2 Community Council
adopted the fottowiag recommendatiaes�
Thai the interim regulations be extended I8 months and during that time the fb]lowing
information be gathered.
• The demand for antennas and expected number of antennas ta 6e located wiihia tha
city,
• What regulations �ther cities around the country and suburban community in the
Twin Cities area have adopted and what poticies they have in ptace (e.g., the
requirement of pasting a bond to guarantee the removai of equipment whea it is no
longer used.);
• IIOw the dctnand for ptucement of antennas could he met by utilizing industriAl
perks, transportation corridors and other }ands ihat will not impact residentiai areas;
and
• Tha redundaney of equipment by muitipie caniers, specificallp how many cellular
service providers wil! be involved aad how many antannas wtll this lead to?
This resolution arose out of concerns about the number and loCation of antennas that would be atlowed
under this proposal. "['he foliowing points were raised in our discussiun vf the a�ncndmcnts; if the
interim reAUlations are not extended, w�e woutd like to see them addressec! in the final proposal:
1. A 5pecial Cond'ation Use Permit should be required for alI antennas.
2. They should nor be allowed on buildinga lecc than b0 feet high that are near residential
�
5.
sreas.
SwuC way should be includcd to guarautee thc removnt of old equipment as new
technology replaces ii (e.g., a ae�nset provision, posiing of a bond t� guarantee removat}.
There should bC a way to control the number of antennas in any one area because certain
locations in the city could attract a high number of them.
Every effoR should be made to restrict anteanas to locatians where they will be less
obtrusivC (c.g., iadustriul zones and transportation corridors).
'lhank you for your attention to our concerns. P(ease inciude thczn iu ehc tescimony of the public
hearing on February 2q 1997.
Sincerely,
C 1 t \�� �_� /�
�---- �i - �
Tim Dornfeid
Executive D'uector
EQUALOPPORTUNtIYEMPI,OYER/C:V.YIHA�lUK � y
_
�
��� � _ , _. �
CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNA ZO1vING AMENDMENTS
JANUARY 1997
DIVISION OF PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONONIIC DEVELOPMENT
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
.� >p. r 'ry
� _, . � . J
CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNA ZONING STUDY
Introduction
In October 1996 the City Council asked the Plamiing commission to study height and setback
zoning regulations for cellulaz telephone antennas. At the same time, they adopted interim zoning
regulations conceming antennas pending completion of the study. The interim regulations
prohibit freestanding ceilulaz telephone poles oz towers in residential, OS-1, and B-1 districts and
reduces from 40 feet to 15 feet the height that antennas that aze placed on existing structures may
exceed the height of the structures to which they aze attached in OS-1 and B-1 districts. The
interim regulations aze in effect until Mazch 25 and may be extended an additional 18 months.
Based on testimony at the public hearing on the interim regulations, the reason for the study is
concem for the aesthetic, obtrusive effects of tall, visible antennas on surrounding residential
uses.
A table showing the zoning regulations for location, height and setbacks of antennas before the
interim regulations was adopted and the interim regulations aze attached. Also attached is a fact
sheet about the 1996 telecommunications act and Macalester-Groveland Community Council's
recommendations on antenna regulation.
Reeulations of Other Cities
Many metropolitan cities have recently adopted antenna regulations, are in the process of
adopting antenna regulation, or are thinking about star[ing studies of antenna regulations. Here
aze some recent antenna regulations of nearby cities.
l. Minneapolis
� Permitted use: In all districts, antennas mounted (1) on the facade of a building or (2) on towers
on the roof of a residential structure more than �0 feet high or on the roof of a nonresidential
structure, provided the tower is no more than 15 feet above the height of the structure.
Conditional use. In residential districts on institutional land and in business districts, (1)
freestanding antenna towers if no higher than 75 feet (a 50% height bonus may be given if the
; tower will accommodate two antennas) and no closer to the nearest residential structure than two
times the tower height and (2) roof mounted towers if they are more than 15 feet above the height
of the structure. In industrial districts, regulations aze the same as in business districts, except
towers can be 100 feet high, again with a 50% height bonus.
2. Bloomington
Permitted use. Antennas placed on existing towers and on existing roofs and walls of buildings
if the antenna projeets less than 15 above the buiiding height.
Conditional use. In residential districts, freestanding towers on government, institutional, and
uriliYy property provided the tower height does not exceed 1 foot for each 4 feet the tower is
setback from residential properry, up to a maximum height of 150 feet. In business and industrial
districts, the tower height must not exceed 1 foot for each 2 feet the tower is setback from
residential property, up to a maacimum height of 150 feet.
3. Roseville
Pemutted use. City owned and controlled antenna and tower sites in business and industrial
districts and antennas attached to, but not above, the wall of a building.
Conditional use. In business and industrial districts, free-standing and roof mounted towers that
meet setback requirements of the district.
4. White Beaz lake
Pernutted use. City owned water tower.
Conditional use. In business warehouse and industrial districts, provided the tower is setback
from any lot line equal to the height of the antenna plus 5 feet.
5. Woodbury
Permitted use. In a11 districts, on existing structures provided the height of the tower does not
exceed 20 fee above the height of the structure to which it is attached.
Conditional use. In a11 districts (vacant residential sites must be at least 5 acres), freestanding
towers not to exceed 175 feet in height, provided the tower is located at least the height of the
tower plus 25 feet from the neazest residential unit.
Proposed antenna atnendments
The proposed amendments show preferred antenna locations by allowing them as permitted uses
and by not requiring that applicants demonstrate that colocation sites are not available. Prefened
locations are on residential buildings over 60 feet high; on insUtutional, pubfic, and business
buildings; and in industrial districts.
The amendmenYs also show secondary antenna locations by allowing them as special condition
uses and requiring that applicants demonstrate that no feasible colocation sites e�cists within 1/2
mile. Secondary locations aze on residential buildings less than 60 feet high in residenrial
districts; on free standing potes on instihztional property in residenfia2 districts; and on free
standing poles in business zoning districts.
Free standing antennas are not allowed as neighbors to residential uses in residential districts;
they aze not allowed on vacant residential sites.
2
� � � � � �
The amendments will make antennas less obtrusive to surrounding residential neighborhoods. In
the business districts (OS-1, B-i, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and RCC-1) that aze often intermingled within
reidential neighborhoods, the height that antennas placed on buildings can extend above the
building wiil be reduced from 40 feet to 15 feet. In residential and business districts, aniennas on
free standing poles will have have to be 1 1/2 tnne the height of the pole from the neazest
residential strucure rather than 75 feet as is required now. Where possible the antenna will also
have to be designed to blend into the surrounding environxnent.
Here are the proposed amendments.
1. Principai use permitted in all residential zoning districts
(X) Cellular telephone antennas located on an existing resideritialistructure at least
sixty"(60) feet high or on°an azisting mstitutional;or pubhclp.o.wne� stracfure an�
, �:a: The antennas shall not extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the
- structural height of the structure to which they are attached.
b.
e:c: Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary ' , , it shall be
situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from
view by landscaping where appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses on residential, institutional, and public strucriires
at least 60 feet high and would now be permitted uses on institutional and public buildings less
than 60 feet high.
2. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions in all residential districts
(X) Cellular teleghone axtennas aeE located on an existing residential struchu�e -`�
less than sixty (60) feet high, subject to the following conditions:
a� The applic�nt demonstrates;fhat the propo"sed antennas cariuotbe
owned "st�uctuEe, oi:a business buiY�ing within 1/2 mile radLUS o
propose`d_antennas idue to oiie or more of tYie followmg reasons:
2. �'he p_lanned equipment would canse intgrferenee-w1fTi q�heT
existing or�lannei3 equipment on the pole or stntctuLe:
3.: The pIanned equipmenYcarinof ba accommodated at
necessary to funchon reasopalily.
4. The owiiet of the existmg pole; structure or buildmg }s Finwitlii%
fo:co.locate`an aufenna:
�- - - -- • -- - - -
- - - - - - -- - :: - - -
�
c:
�di Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary ` • •�" "_°�:": ' • � ' --�"'°'`, it sha11 be
situated in the reaz yazd of the principal use and shall be screened from
view by landscaping where appropriate.
0
The anfennas sIiatl not eatend more__than �een (15):feet aUovelfie
structural hetght of the stracture fo wlucTi they are attached�
_ �
-- _ _: �
�a=x) _Cellular telephone antennas located on a freestanding pole on institufionaL or
publicly ownedproperly, subject to the following coridifions:
a. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed-antennas cannot be
accominodated on an e�sting freestanding pole, an existing" residerit�al
structure at least sixty (60) feet high, an existing institutional_orpnblicly
owned strucftire, or a businessbuilding w�thin 1/2 mile radi�Ys.ofthe
proposed antennas due to one or more "of the following reasons:
L The planned equipment would exceed the struchual _capacity of
the e�sfirig pole or structure.
2. :Th'e planned equipment would�cause ihterfeience w�th°other
�.. ,. ,.
eXisting'or planned eqiiipment on thepole or striicture_
3. Tkie pianned equipment cannot be accommodated at alieigHt
��.._.�,.._ � �
riecessaryto function reasonably":
4: The :owner bf the e�sting pole, �striicture orbuildmg is uiiunlliirg
to�.00 looate�an antenna. � �
u b. : T'he antennas shail not exceed;seventy-five (7S}_feef m`heigh��, s'hall noYbe
located �ii a fronf`ocside yaaazd, azid `shaIl be set bacic 1 llZ ftt�es 4 flie„heig�if
� ��..M .. .. � an
of the anfenna £ropi ttie nearest residential,
c: The,antennas shall-be desi "ned where ssible fio blend tinfa �h�
�., � ..j ��,�,. ._�� .�_.�..�,� _.,. .g _ :Po..� ,flu... E . ....�;,���:,,;�
t- su�ound,ing environinent throtigh'�he`itse o�oqlor and cainoutIa�ing
��.��r, „��,. _
arclufeotiital treafinent. Aiawings or photogcaphiaperspeci�,es�hoWUig
the pale:auc3 antenrias. shall,be picjvided to the plamung cotnnusstari�o
deternune comphance.with thts,provisiori>,
d. Antennas!loca4ed}rilustoric distiicts shallbersuliject
.. _l.� v m'.��....:v.. .. F G..�
appzoval of theHistoric Preservafioii Commission:
e; Transmithng,''receiving and switching ec�uipmenf shall behousediwftliit�
�w� � � _.,.. � . r.. -�,,.�.
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be a special condition use if placed on residential structures less than
60 feet tall and if placed on free standing poles on institutional and public property. Antennas
on free standing poles on vacant residential land would no longer be permitted. In most cases,
antennas on.free standing poles wili have to be farther away from existing residentiai shuctures -
1 1/2 times the height of the pole rather than 75 feet.
3. Principal uses permitted in OS-1, B-i, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and RCC-1 districts
(x) __ Ceilulaz telephone antennas --'---- `'-_ --`----- --_ located on an existing
structure, subjeet"ta the folkowing condihons:
- : - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -
u�;su�
a. `fhe anfennas shaflynot ea�tend mote than fifteen:(IS) fee�;aboXetlie
strucfuraI height of fhe sfructure fo which they: are attachgd; ��
�
�r on histonc builduTgs�ha
c: T`ransmift4ng, receivmg and scvrtchvig equipmentshall:behoU" sed�fluri
an e�stirig struc�ure wheneverpossible Tf a new eqmpniei�f,`bm�fc�n�is
_ -
necessazy n�shall be st�uated m the rear yard o€tlie prtncipa2-use:arid
_� ..s
screene� froza V1ev�z�by landscaptng where:appropnafe:
DISCUSSION
Antennas would continue to be permitted uses if pIaced on a building. The height that they may
exceed the structural height of the building would be reduced from 40 feet to 15 feet.
4. Princxpal use permitted subject to special conditions in OS-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-2C, and
RCC-1 districts
(x) Cellular telephone antennas net located on a free-'sfanding pole �
sfi�uettire, subject to the following conditions:
- • - - --- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - -- - --- - --- - --
--- - - - - •- -- - --• - - - --- -- - -- -- -- -- -- - ---- -
•w
_ °, �,
��_._
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - -- ��.s�
a. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed antennas cannot be
accommodated on an eXisting freestanding pole, an exisfing reside,ntiaI
structure at least sixty (60) feet lugfi,=an existing in"stitutional or publicly
owned shvcture; or a business buildirig within 1/2 mile radius of the
proposed antennas'due to`one or moie of the following reasons'.
i. The planned equipment would exceed the sfructural capacity of
the existingpole or structure.
2. The planiied eguipmenY wonld cause interference wtfh:,other
� � .L..v..
ezistuig or�plarined eqiupment onthe pole or strac�iir"e�
3. The planned eqnipment caniiofi:be accommodafed ata�heighi
,. :.. , . ., . _�,:�_ _ _
necessary to funetion reaso�ia`bly;
4. The o�viier of the e�ushng �igle,: sfracture 6r-b�.uldmg�suui ivn'lling
to co-locate an a"qfenna` w
b. The, aiitennas shall'not exceed seven�y>,fiye (75) feet ui heighf�hall not be
=^ 't � 4'.v .6 9 � I..�ci
loca�ezi in a front ox side yard, anT shall be set back"1 1/2'fimes�2ie heigfi�
� _ ,�, r � .w�. « �,
of the=antenna from nearesf resi�antFal_structure:
`_. t..�, �.
c: The;antennas sha11?be designed where;possibFe to blend;into fli�
sucTOianding enviconment through�e=,i�se of,color and camoufl2
the pole and antennas sha11 be prbvidecttq'fhe piamm�g cQmm���s�ton �o
deterniine compliance wiJ1i tlus prawz5iori;
d: Antennas_located in hisforic district5",shall:tie, sub�ecf to`ieview<aiid
_,.
appr_oval of theHistoric:=Preservation.Gominission:
e:e. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within
an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is
necessary ' , , it shall be
situated in the rear yard of the principal uses and shall be screened from
view by landscaping where appropriate.
7
DISCUSSION
Antennas on free standing poles would continue to be special condition uses. In most cases, they
will have to be farther away from existing residential structures - 1 1!2 times the height of the
pole rather than 75 feet.
5. Principat uses permitted in B-4 and B-5 districts _
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas --'--__ .u_ ._.___... ___ Iocated on an existing
structure as pemutted:arid re�ulaf"ed inthe:$=3;$usiness Distric't: onriciiial
abo ve the sfcucfural height of the sfructui
-.-- - - -- - - - - - - - -- -
DISCi3SSION
Antennas would continue to be pemutted uses if placed on buildings. They could also continue
to exceed by 40 feet the height of the building to which tkey are attached.
6. Principal uses permitted subject to speciat cottditions in B-4 and B-5 disfricts
(x) Cellulaz telephone antennas nat located on
Y__ _"" ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
����d.iwiii��i��iewaa:i��v�ir�:.i�:wre��abi�dr"a:i:�.��iiii�:�i�wiirv���:asi�i�.w.:f� -
� _ -� - � �
-- - - -- --- - -- - - -.:-
DISCUSSION
Antennas on free standing poles would continue to be special conditions uses. In most cases,
they will have to be farther away from existing residential structures - 1 1/2 times the height of
the pole rather than 75 feet.
7. Principal uses permitted in I-1, I-2, I-3, and RCI-1 districts
(x) Cellulaz telephane antennas located on an exi§trng sfructure as pernutfed and
regulated ir[t�e B S�usil�ess District, pr�ncipal uses permifted; section�03562:
- ,..a..R��,:�,,.�.....:.•.•..:: s� ..a..,.:.:.r
-- --' -- -" ' ' - -- -' - --- - - - -- •
-- - -' - -- '-' - -- -- - - - --- - - -.' - - -
n��w�ef - -- - - -' --- - --- -
..
�1R�l�l�/���I�At�[�}fJ���l� �
��
a., The�iteunas;sha�l��of e�'ceeii oneliiYiidc�ed
.. . � �:�,� �..-.��: �. :���.— ..� s .�,�,_,�..s
shallauotFb�'Iocafeil'c��`ront oi��,yazii, ;
a: I�ntennas' Toeafed �n �usfonc dis�cfsE"shaIl be suT�ject fo;review arid
_�.��,� �. �__. ..� �,,,:. t. y�,, , _� n.._ u�
app�ovalaof�e.Iiis`�one��xeservafion Comxnissiofi;
c:
DISCUSSION
Antennas on buildings and on free standing poles would continue to be permitted uses. Free
standing poles would have to be set back 1 1/2 times the height of the pole from the neazest
residential structure rather than one tunes the height of the pole from the lot lines as is required
now.
8. Sec, 62.108. Site plan review (all districts).
(a) Plan to be submitted. A site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the plaiming
commission before a pernut is issued for grading or the erection or enlargement of gross floor
area for any deveiopment except one- and two-fanuIy dweIlings, but including the foIlowing:
(I ) Any development of one- and two-family residences which together exceed two
(2) acres (87,120 squaze feet) in azea.
(2) In the "T" Tree Preservafion District, any development of one- and two-family
residences over one (t) acre (43,560 squaze feet) in area.
(3) All residentially related uses in one-family districts, such as, but not limited to,
churches, schools and public facilities.
(4) Any industrial use in an I-1, I-2, I-3 or RCI-1 District abutting a residential
district.
(5) Outdoor storage in industrial districts.
(6) Any use which abuts to a major thoroughfare.
(7) Any development on a slope of twelve {12) percent or greater.
(8) Any development in the River Corridar Critical Area or in the Floodplain District
except one- and two-family dwellings which do not affect slopes of twelve (12)
percent or greater.
(9) All off-street pazking facilities except as noted in section 62103(b).
(10) Any other use or development for which the submission of a site plan is required
by any provision of this code.
(11) Earth-sheltered structures.
(12) Detached, freestanding facilities constructed on pazking facilities, including, but
f[li
� � �
not restricted to, kiosks, fotomats, banks and similaz uses.
(13) Any fiiling, excavation or tree removal that disturbs an area greater than ten
thousand (10,000) square feet except the construction, installation or maintenance
of pubiic roads and public and private utilities.
(14} Cellulai telephone antennas that requue new1e`qwpmenf bwlding:
DISCUSSION
Antennas piaced on buildings with the equipment housed within the building would not have to
undergo site plan review. Antennas on free standing poles and antennas with equipment
buildings would be required to undergo site plan review.
11
L�
located w�ithin any residential, OS-1 or B-1 zoning district may not exceed fifteen (1�) feet above t'r:e -
structural height of the strueture to �vhich they are attached.
ORDINANCE
OF SAiNT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presen[ed
Referred To
P ., � .— r r �
CouncilFiPc��" '—�!�
Ord'inancc �
Grecn Slicet # , � :�
Committee Date -
�
�(�S"�tTUT��.. — ���J�yc,
�
An interim ordinance restrictin� the height of
cetlular telephone antennas in certain zones
G�•ithin the City of Saint Paul pendin� the compie�ion
of studies of possible amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations.
TH� COUNCIL Or TH� CITl' Or SATNT PAUL DO�S ORDAIN:
Scction 1
S The Saint Paul Ciq� Council hereby directs the Department of Plaiuling and Economic Developmei�t to
9 undertake a study of the City's Compreheiisive Plan and Zocung P�e�ulations relating to hei�ht and setback
] 0 restrictions to cellular telephone antennas. The Planning Commission is to study this issue and subiiiit a
I 1 repor[ to the Cotmcil to�ether with any recommeudations that the City's present Comprehensive Pla�i ar.:3
12 Zoning Re�ulations be amended.
13 Section 2
' 14 Pendin� the completion of the study and for the purposes of prohibitin� the establishment of ae«� cellul^r
> 1� telephone antennas, no permits shall be issued or approved b}� thc Cit}�, its officers, emptoyees, a,encs e
: 16 commissions for the construction of ne��-, freestandin, ceilular telephone poles o: towers within a::�,
" 17 residential OS-1 or B-1 zoning district. New celluiar telephone antennas placed on existin� structu��s
> is
19
20
` 21
r' ��
y ��
; 34
��.
26
27
Section 3
For a period of time not to exceed one hundred and t«renty (120) days from the effective date of tl;:s
ordinance and for the purposes of prohibitin; any development that might be inconsistent with the pendi..�_
study� and any amendments to d�e City's Comprehensive Plan or Zonin� Re�ulations, the prohibitions sh�'.i
continue in full foree wltil a comprehensive policy for tlie City can be adopted. In the event the studies a::�
reconunendations of'the Plazuiing Commission and the deliberations of the City Council require additior :l
time these prohibitions ma}� be extended, b}� separate resolution of the City Council, for additional perio��
of time not to exceed an additional eighteen (I8) months.
GC,-i1C,�'
Section 4
2
3
This ordinance shall takc effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval.a,id
publication.
DI ICI fcucn
OCT 261996
Yeas Na s Absent
Elakey
Bosaom �/
Guerin �
Harris �
Meoard v i
Remnan ,/
Thune �/
�1 U O
Adopted by Council: Date _�) �� _ 9�� �o
Requested by Departmenc of:
�
F App�� City ARorney
y: � � /U-Z-SG
Certified by Council Secretary
By: I \ � � k
Approved by Mayor: Date _ _�(7 j/� rl �i
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
�
� �, ,... n
d. : � � -. t
��a� ��a
o < o ¢
z ��.,�e=a ��E-a
<zH ¢zH
U E-� t_� [:7 U F[:.1 f=1 U
G L"' Z Q.'7 [:.1 Z G� .'�
�/S LL`���4 Cw�. �v; �
��.L`�' � r H�=i �
Ga
�
5
z
0
Q
O
V
a
G
U
U
`�
'n
ra
�
Ca
U
r
r
�
c
�
C7 F
2�
2
F -
O�
�°z r `
�FZ :�
`" XUF �"'
h
� � < �
z
0
'<`
U
O
a
�
�
z4 z�
z z
oQO oQo
a zv c, Zv
� O � ' � O �
�� �H
C:7
a°z $°�
��� ���
x�= ��a
��� ���
�
z z��w
c �:.��c?
c: � F ., �—'
U t. Y. �.t� c~ ` •
° o � a �
w
� ¢ o`^�
0 0
�F"Z 4FE�-.
x�F a��
�xG F"��
�
z
0
�
U
O
� u� o °7 � a� �
� F¢a
Er����.��'��� Uq��qz<raFz
`-y F �vOF F �U" �°Of=7�3��f:7wZ
� � �n � ...
o ° � 4 ' q v� � wz�:ao�
� � 3 ��z H
0
vu
v � � v <�'c�-�
x�U�. z��
�:.��ac:: oX
C V.7 �
O�<c' ��
a
<F
FV
�4
<q�
�
�
zF
U
.'7 �
p �
aQ
¢
o za
zz����
a�,]c��",o
z�`'
�U�pp::
� � w
, � c;
a ��'s
a�� �
C]F�
zQ=
LEC,SU.1556 S�11FhI CB COhu1cRCIRL-ST PAU N�.109 P.2i13
��""`� FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMtSS10N
�� ��
'� � WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION5 BUREAU
° s 2028 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554
j �MM45S� + . •
FACT S H �E ET #�'�
APR}L 23, 1996
NATIONAL WIRELESS FACiLITIES S17lNG POLiC1ES
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains important provisions conceming the
placement of towers and other facilities for use in providing personal wircicss scrviccs. Most
state and local commu.nities have worked cIoscly with cclluIar und other wiretess service
providers on such placement gians, but this new law es[abIishes new responsibilitics for
communities and for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Zhe rapid expansion
in thc.�vircless industry makes these issues even more important.
, This Fact Sheet �1 is intended to explain the new provisions and to help state and .
local govemmenis �s ihey dcal with the complex issues of facilicies siting in their local
communities. At the end of this Fact Sheei �1, you will find names of contacts for
additional information about this area and other issues before the FCC.
Section 7Q4 of ihe Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act} governs federal,
state and local government oversight of siting of "personal wireless service" facilities. The
1996 Act establishes a comprehensive framework for the exercise of jurisdiction by state and
local zoning authorities over the construction, modification and p[acement of facilides such as
towers fo: cellular, personal communications service (PCS), and specialized mobile mdio
(SMR) transmitters:
r The new law preservcs'locai zoning authority, but clazifies when the excrcise of local
zoning authority may be preempted by thc FCC.
■ Section 704 prohibits an�' action that would discr'�ninate between different providers of
personal wircIess services, such as ceilular, wide-area 5MR and broadband PCS. It
also prohibits any action that w•ould ban altogether the construction, modi£cation or
placement of these kinds of facifities in a particular azea
s The law also specifes proccdures which must be followed for acting on a request to
place these kinds of facilitics, nnd provides for teview in the courts or th� FCC of any
decision by a zonine authorie}• that is inconsistcnt with Section 704.
�L�c.i�.isye s�izFr� ca COhU9ERCIAL-ST PRU
n0.109 P.3i13 ^
. � r:
. '% .
� � � f � �
_ , ... - � (_� �
• Finally, Section 704 requires the federal govemment to take steps to hclp liccnsees ui _-' —-
spectrum-based services, such az PCS and cellular, get access to preferred sites for
their faciiities. FederaI agencies and departments wilI work directly with licensccs to
make federal property available for this purpose, and the FCC is directed to work with
the statcs to find ways for states to accommodate licensees who wish to erect towers
on state praperty, or use statc easements and rights-of-way.
The aetachments to this fact shcet seek to provide information concerning tower siting
for personal wireless communications services. They includc a summazy of the provisions of
�Section 704 of the 1996 Act, the actual tesrt of Section 704, and a tecluucal information
suminary that describes the celluIaz, vride-azca SMR and broadband PCS technologies that
underlie the majority of requests for new tower sites.
Questions about this topic, and about federal regulation of wirelcss telecommunicztions
services in general, may be addressed to Karen Brinkmann, Associate Cfuef of the Wireless .
Telecommunications Bureau, 202-4]8-0783, (e-mail: kbrinkmaQfcc.gov). Questions about
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 genezally may be addressed to Sheryl Wilkcrson in tho
FCC's Office of Legis]ative and Intergovernmental Affairs, 202-418-1902 (e-maii:
swilkers@fcc.gov). Qucstions nbout tower siting, licensing issues or technical matters may be
addressed to Steve MarkendorCf: Chief of the Broadband Bianch in the Wireless
Tclecommunications Burcau. 302-418-0620, (e-mail: smazkend@fcc.gov).
This Fact 5hcet kl is a�•nilabie pn our fax-on-demand system by referencing
Document Number 6507. Thr trlcphone number for fax-on-demand is 202-418-2830. "This
Fact Sheet #1 may also tx t��und on the Intemef at http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/wirehome.hunl. ,.
2
� LEC, 1t7. 1y5b 5� 12F'hl CB COhii ��CIRL-ST P;tU N0.109 P.4i13
SUMIYIATiY OF SECTION 704 OF TELECOMMUivICATIOI�S ACT OF 1996
The following is a summary of key provisions. The text of Section 704 is reproduced in its
entirety as an attachment to this summary.
�oca1 Zonina Authoritv Preserved
Section 704(a) of the 1996 Act amends Scction 332(c) of the Communications Act
("Mobile Services") by adding a new pazagraph (�. It preserves thc authority of state
and locaI govemments over decisions regarding the placement, construciion, and
modiftcation of person2I wireless service facilities, except as provided in the new
paragraph (7).
2. Exceotions •
a. States and Localities Mav Not Take Discriminatorv or Prohibitina Actions
Section 704(a) of the I996 Act sta[es tha[ the regvlation of ilie placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any
State or local government or insmtmentality ihereof shall not unreasonably
discriminzte among providers of functionally equivalent services and sfiai! not
prohiliit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i).
cview: Any person that is adversely affected by a state or local govcmment's
action or failure to act that is inconsistent with Section 332(c)(7) may seek
expediied review in the courts. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).
b, Procedures for Rulinu on Requests to Placc Constn�ct or Modifv Personal
Wircicss Service Facilities
Scction 704(a) also requires a State or loca2 government to act upon ¢ raquest
for suthori�ation to place, construct, or modify persona! tvireless service
facilities within a reasonable time. Any decision to deny a rcquest must be
made in writing and bc supported by substantial evidenee contained in a writtcn
record. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7){B)(ii) (iii).
L�L.lu.lb'�o S�1�FPi CB COiii•iEF,VIAL-ST FAU NO.lE9 P.S/13
. �
� � � r ' � �
1
. - _ . . ✓
� i
c, Re2ulations Based On Environmcntel Effccts of RF Emissions •Preemvted
Section 704(a) of the 1996 Act expressly preempts state and iocal governmeat
regulation of the placement, eonsaucdon, and modification of personal wireless
service facilities on ihe basis of the environmental effeets of radio &equency
emissions io the exteni that such faciliiies comply with ihc FCC's regulaiions
_ conccming such emissions. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). _ _
Review: Parties may seek relief from the fiCC if tfiey are adversely affected by
a state or local govemment's final action or failure to act that is inconsistent
wirh this provision. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(�(B)(v). -
3.
Federal Guidelines Concemin¢ RF Emissions
Section 704(b) requires the FCC to prescribe and makc effcctive new rules regazding
the environmcntaI effects of radio frequency emissians, which aze under consideration
in LT Docket 93-62, �vithin 180 days of enactrncnt of thc 1996 Aet.
NOZ'E: The pendency of this proceeding before 1he FCC does rrot kffect the rules
which currently are in e,ffect governing Yhe environmental effecfs of radio freguency
- emissions Section 704(b) givestpreemptive effect to these exisling rales. See related
attachments to the Fact Sheet. �
4. - Use of Federal or State Govemment Provcrtv
a. Federal ProoertV
:. Section 704(c) of the 1996 Act requires the President (or his designee) to
�; prescribe procedures by which the federal govemmcnt may make available on a
fair, reasonable and nondiscruninaiory basis, property, righu-of-way and
easements under their control, for the placement of ncw spcctrum-based
` tdccommunications services.
, '..
LEC.1�.1550 5=13Pt9 GB CU�y;EFCIFL-ST PAU
b. State Prppertv
N0.1�9 P.6�'13
Wi.th respcct to facilities siting on state proper[y, Section 704(c) of the 1996
Act requires the FCC to provide tcchnirzl support to States to encourage them
to m�e property, rights-of-way and easements undcr thcir jurisdiction available
for the placement of new spcctrum-based telecommunications services.
NOTE: Infarmation concerning technical support for tower sitfng which the
FCC is making available to sta�e and local governments is attached to the Fact
Sheet.
5. Definitions
"Personal wireless services" include commercial mobile services, unliccnsed wireless
services, and common earrier wircless cxchange aecess services. 47 U.S.C.
§ 332(c)(7)(C)(i).
"Commercial mobile services" are defined in Sec$on 332 of the Communications Act
and the FCC's rules, and include cellulaz telephone services regulated undcr Part 22 of
the FCC's rules, SNIR services regtilated under Part 90 of the FCC's ruleg, and PCS
regulated under Part 24 of the FCC's rules. 47 C.F.R § 20.9.
"�c l�ccnsed wireless services" are defined as the offering of telecommunications
services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses; dircct-
to-homc sate[lite services are excIuded from this definition. 47 U.S.C:
§ 332(c)(7)(C)(iii).
LEC.10.1550 5:13PhI CB COih�Er.'CIFL-ST PAU �0.109 P.7i13
COMPLE"TE TEX'T OF SEC'TION 704 OF TELECOiYLI�iUllTlCATIONS ACT OF I996
SEC. 704. FACII.IT'IES SITI�TG; RA])TO FJ2EQUE1`ICY EMISSION STANllARDS. r-� ^
(a) NA.'TIOl\TAL WII2ELESS TELECOMMUIVICATTOl�IS STLII\TG POLTCY— --
SEC. 332(c) j47 U.S.C. 332(c)] MOB7LE SERVICES--Regulatory Treatment of
Mobile Services Is amended by addina af fhe end the following new paragraph:
(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONlNG AUTHORITY.—
(A) GENERAL AUTFIORITI'.— Except as providcd in tnis paragraph,
nothing in tIus Act shail limit or affect the authority of a State or local govemment or
instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding thc placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities.
(B) LTMITATIONS— �
(i) The regulation of the placement, cons�uction, and modification of
personal wireless scrvice facilities by nny State or local government or
instrumentality thereof—
(I) shail not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent scrvices; and
- (II) sh¢li not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless serviccs. .
(ii) A State or ]ocal government or insmcmentaliry thereof shall act on
any request for authorization to placc, construct, or modify personal wireless
service facilicies within a reasonable period of time after the rcqucst is duZy
filed with such govcmment or instrumentality, taking into account the nature
and scope of such request.
(iii) Any decision by a State or local govemment or instrumentality
thereof to deny a request to place, constn:ct, or modify personal wireless
° service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidenc�
contained in a written record.
(iv) No State or locat government or instrumentality thcreof may
regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless
service facilities oa the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions to the extcnt that such facilities compiy with the Commission's
regulations conceming such emissions.
(v) An�� person adversely affected by any final action or failare to act
by a State or local go��emment or any instrumcntality thereof that is
.inconsistrnt w�ith this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or
_' failure to act, cammence an action in any court of'competent jurisdiction. The
court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person
adverseiy affected b}• an act or failure to act by a State or local govemment or
any instn�mentalit�• thercof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the
Commission for rclicf.
°' - � � �
�
- LEL. lu. i590 S 14Pi�1 CB CGPPIEF.CIAL-5T PAU
�r '. ', .
N0.109 P.8i13
(C) AEfiJNZTIO2�IS — For purposes of this pazagraph— •
(i} the term "personal wireless services" rneans coinmerciai mnbile
services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carricr wireless exchange
access scrvices;
(ii) the tenn "personal v.�irelcss scrvicc facilities" means facilities for
thc provision of personal wireless services; and
(iii) the-term "unlicensed wireless service" means the offering of
telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not requirc
individual licenscs, but docs not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite
services (as defined in section 303(v)).
* � .� * *
SEC. �04 FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION
STAl'IDARDS.
* * * r *
(b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS: ZVithin 180 days after the enactrncnt of
this Act, the Commission shali complcte action in $T Docket 93-62 to preseribe and make
effective rules regazding the environmental effecu of tadio frequency emissions.
(e) AVAiI.ABILITY OF PROPERTY.—Within 180 days of the enactment of'this
Act, the Presidcnt or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal departments •
and agencies may make u�•ailablc on a fair, reuoaablc, and nondiscriminatory basis, property,
riglits-of-way, and easemcnts undcr their con�ol for the placement of new telecommunications
services that are dependent. in «holc or in part, upon the utilization of Federat spectru.m
rights for the transmission or rrccption of such services. These procedures may estabfish a
presumption that requests fc�r the use of properiy, rights-of-way, and easements by duly
authorized providers shnuld tx granted absenc unavoidable direct eonflict with the department
or agency's mission, or thc eurrcnt or planned use of the property, rights-of-way, and
ezsements in question. Rc��c+nahlc fees may be chazged to providcrs of such
telecommunications sen•iccs for use of property, rights-of-way, and easements. The
Commission shall provide trchnical support to States to encourage them to make property,
rights-of-way, and easemcnts under their jurisdiction available for such purposcs.
t ,.
LEC.19.1596 5=15PP1 CB COh�IEkCIAL-ST FAU
N0.309
TECHNTCAL IIV'FORMf1.'ITOi�' CONCERIv"ING CELLULAR, SPECIALIZED
ivIOBILE RADTO Al`ID PEE2SONAL COMMUNTCATTOlYS SE12'S'ICES
Cellular Tnformation_
P.9i13 .�l.
r`"..�� `�
, �:�
The FCC esiablished rules and procedures for licensing cellular systems in the Unitcd Statcs
end iu Possessions and Territories. Thcse rulcs dcsignated 306 Metropolitan Statistical Areas
and 428 Rural Service Areas for a total o: 734 cellulaz mazkets and spcctrum cvas allocated to
license 2 systems in each mazkc[. Cellulaz is allocated spectrum in the 824-849 and 569-894
MHz ranges. Cellular licensees are generally required to licensc only the tower locations that
malce up their outer service contour. Licensees desiring to add or modify any tower locations
that sre within an already approved and licensed service uea do not have to submit an
appiication for thac locaiion to be added to their cellular license, although they may need FCC
approval if the zntenna would constitute a major envuonmental action (See question 2, below)
or would cxcccd the criteria specified in Part 17 of the FCC's Rules ("Construction, Mazking
and Lighting of Antenna Shuctures"). Part 17 includes criteria for determining when
construction or placement o€ a tower woutd require pnor not�calion to the Federal Aviation
Adminirnation (FAA). (See question 3, below.)
A cellular system operates by dividing a lazge geogiaphical service area into cells and
assigning the same frequencies to multiple, non-adjacent cells. This is known in the industry
as frequency rcusc. As n subscr'sber tcavels across the service area the ca11 is transferred ,
(handed-of� from one cell to another without noticeable interruption. Al1 the cells in a
cellulas system nre connected to a Mobile Telephone Switching O�cc (MTSO) by landline or
microwave links. The MTSO controls the,switching between the Public Switched Teiephone
Network (PSTN) and the ce11 sife for all wireline-to-mobile and mobile-to-wireline calls.
Snecialized Mobile Radio (SMRI Tnformation
Speciatized Mobile Radio (SMR) service liccnsees provide land mobile eommunications on a
commercial (i.e:, for profit) or private basis. A�aditional SMR systcm consists of one or
more base station uansmitters, one or more antcnnas and end user radio equipment which
ofren consis's of a mobile radio unit either provided by the end uscr or obtained from the
SMR operator. The base station receivcs either telephone transmissions fram end users or low
powcr signals from end user mobile radios. '
SMR systems operate in two distinct frequency rangcs: 806-821/851-866 MHz (800 MHz)
and 896-901l935-940 MHz (900 MHz). 800 MHz SMR services have been licensed by the
FCC on a site.by-site basis, so that the SMR provider must approach the PCC and receive a
license foreach and every tower/base siie. In the future the FCC will license this band on a
wide-uea-mazket approach. 900 MHz SMR was originally licensed in 46 Designated Filin�
Areas (DFAs) comprised of only the top 50 markets in the country. The Commission is in
the process of auctioning the remainder of the United States and iu Possessions and
Territories in the Rand McNally defined 51 Major Tzading Areas.
=4'�
- i.ct,. iu. tb_o o- 15�i I C� CJPGiEF.:.IF:L-ST PriU N0.109 p.10�13
i .
YCS Tnformation
Broadband PCS systems are very similaz to the cellulaz systcros but operatc in a higher
frequency band, in the 1850-1990 MIIz range. One other difference is that the FCC uscd
differcnt mazket 2reas for licensing purposes. The FCC uscd the Rand McNatly definitions
for 51 Ma,{or Trading Aicas (MTAs) and 493 Basic Trading Areas (STAs). PCS was
atlocated specizvm for six Broadband PCS systems and 26 Narrowband systems. The six
Broadband PCS systcros wiil be licensed as foilows: two Broadband PCS Iicenscs will be
issued for each of the 51 MT'As and four for each of the 493 BTAs. The 2b Narrowband
systems will be licensed as follows: eleven Narrowband PCS licenscs will be issued for
nationwide systems, six for each of five regional areas, seven for each of ihe 51 MTAs and
two for each of the �'.93 BTAs.
PCS licensees rse issued a blanket license for their entirc mazket area snd are not required to
submit applications to licensc individua! cell sites unless conscruction of tfie facitity would be
a major environmental action or would require FAA notification. Major environmental
aetions aze defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that is discussed in
question 2, beIow. Therefore, the FCC has no technical information on fite eonceming PCS
base stations.
Frequetttiv asl.ed questions concernin� tower siten� for nersonal wireless services.
1. Do Iocal zoning aufhorities have any authority to deny a request for toFVer siting?
Answer: Yes. The Telecommnnications Act of 1996 specifically leaves in pIace the
authority that local zoning authorities have over the pIacement of personal wirctess faciLities.
Ic does prohibit the denial of facilities siting bascd on RF emissions if fhe licensee has
complied with thc FCC's regula[ions conceming RF emissions. It aIso rcquires that denials
be based on a reasoned approach, and prohibits discrunination and outright bans on
co�struction, p(acement and modification of personal wireless facilitics.
2. Whaf requirements do personal wireless communications licensees have to determine
whether a 5ite is in a flood plain? A historicul site? �
Ans�ver: All antenna stntctures must also comply With the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA). as well as other mandatory federal environmental statutes. The FCC's
rules that implement the federal environmental statutory provisions are contained in sections
1.1301-1.1319. The FCC's environmental rulcs place ttce responsibility on each applicant to
investigate all the potential environtnental effecu, and disclose any significant effects on the
onvironment in an Enviranmeatal Assessment (EA), as outlined in section 1.131I, prior to
cnnstructing a tower. The applicant is required to consult section 2.1307 of the FCG rules to
determine if iu proposed antenna structwe will falI under any of the listed categories that may
significantly affect the environment. If it does, thc applicant must provide an EA prior to
proceeding with ihe towcr conscruction and. under section 1.1312, must await FCC approval
F]
Lc�.lU. 15'�0 5� lEFi 1 CB CGhC1ERCIAL-ST FHU N0.169 P.11ii3
before commencing any such construction cvcn if FCC approval is not otherwise required for
such construc[ion. Thc FCC places all proposals that may sigiuficantly impact thc cnvironment
on pub(ic notice for a period of 30 days, sccking any public commenu on the proposed
structures. The categories set forth in secuon 1.1307 include:
Wildemess Area
Wildlife Preserve
Endangered Species
Historical Sitc .
Indian Religious Site
Fiood Plain
Wetlands .
High Intensity White Lights in Residential Neighborhoods
Excessive 12adiofrequency Radiation Exposure
'
r � " (, �
3. Are there any BCC regulations thut govem where tovicers can or cannot be placed?
Answer: The FCC mandates that personal wireless companies build out their systcros so that
adequate service is provided to the public. In addition, a11 antenna structures used for
communications must be appzoved by the FCC in accordance wich Part I7 of the FCC Rules.
The. FCC must detemune if there is a reasonablc possibiliry that the structure may constitute a
menace to air navigation. The tower height and its proximity to an airport or flight path will
be considered when making this dctermination. If such a determination is made the FCC wi11
soecify appropriate painting and lighting requirements. Thus, the FCC does not mandate
where towers must be placed, but it may prohibit the placement of a tower in a particulaz
lo:cation wichout adequate Iighiing and mazking.
4. Aoes the FCC mainYain any records on tower sites thraughout the United States?
How does the public get this information (if any)? ''
nswer: The FCC maintains a general tower database on the following structures: (1) any
towers over 200 feet, (2) any towers over 20 feec on an existing structure (such as a buitding,
water tower, etc.) and (3) towers that are close to airports that may cause potential hazards to
air navigation. Thc FCC's licensing databases contain some base site information for
Cellulaz and SMR systems. The general towcr datab2se and the Cellutaz and SMR. data that
may be on file with the FCC is availabla in thrce .places:
(1) Cellulaz licensing information is evailable in the Public Reference Room of the
Wireless Telecommunications Burcau's Commercial Wireless Division. The Public
Refercnce Room 1s located on the fifth floor of 2025 M Street, NW, Washington, DC
20554, telephone (202)418-1350. On-line database seazches of ce]lulaz licensing
information aIong with queries of the FCC's general towcr database can also be
accompiished at the Public Reference Room.
10
. i��.i�..��o ��1rr,�i� Cd Wrnlar,'i.iNL—ST FAU ti0.169 P.12i13
. F ..
(2) People who would likc to obtain gcncral tower information through an on-line
public access database should calI or write Interactive Sysiems, Inc., 16D] North Kent
St., Suite 1103, Arlington, VA 22209, ielephone 703-812-8270.
(3) The FCC does not dupIicate these records, but has contracted with IntemationaI
Transcription Service, Inc. to' provide ihis service, Requcsts for copies of information
should be addressed to International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS, Znc.), 210D M
St., N�V, Suite 140, Washino on, DC 20037, telephone 202-857-3800.
5. Why do Cellular and PCS providers require so many tower sites7
Ansrver: Low powered transmittors are an inherent chazacteristic of Cellulaz Radio and
Broadbaad PCS. As these systetns mature and more subscribers 2rc addcd, chc effective
radiated power of the cell site transmitters is reduced so frequencies can be reused at closer
intervals thereby increasing subscriber capacity. There aze ovcr 30 mitlion mobile/portabie
cellular units and more than 22 ihousand celt sites operating within the United States and its
Possessions and Territories. PCS is just beginning to be offered around the country. Due to
thc fact that Bro¢dband PCS is located in a higher frequency range, PCS operators will
require more tower sites as they build tfieir systems to provide coverage in their service azeas
as campared to existing CeltuIar carriecs. Therefore, due to the nahue of frequeacy reuse and
the consumer demand for services, Cellular and PCS providers must buiId numerous base
sites. '
6. Can Celtular, SM12 and PCS providers share fower structures?
Answer: Yes, it is technologically possiblc for ihese entitics to share tower struccures.
Howcvcr, there are Iimiu to how many base station transmitters a single tow•er can hold and
different tower structures have differcnt timits. Moreover, these providers are competitors in
a more and more competitive mazketplace and may not be willing to shazc towcr space with
ezcH other. Local zoning authoritics may wish to retain a consulting engineer ta evaluate the
proposals submitted by wireless communications licensees. The consuIting engineer may be
able to detcrmine if therc is some flexibility as to the geographic location of the tower.
7. Is tlie Federal government hclpiag ta find ways fo accommodate mulYiple Iicensees of
personal wireless services?
Answer Yes: The FCC has designatcd Steve Mazkendorff, Chief, Broadhand Branch,
Commerciai Wireless.Division, Wireiess Tetecommunications Bweau, FCC to assist local
zoning authorities and municipatities and respond to questions conceming tower siting issues.
His telephone number is 202-418-0620. Also, President Clinton issued an Executive •
Memorzndeun on August 10, I995 diiecting the Administrator of General Services {GSA), in
coordination with other Govemment deparcments and agencies, to develop procedures to
facilitate appropriatc access to Federal property for the siting of mobite services antennas.
GSA recently released "Govemment-�'ide Procedures for Placing Commercial Antennas," 61
II
a._...y.�:i»c J.larri �.c Wrn Y'rIU f�J.lE9 � P.13i13
. .1 � -
^ r r o
_ ..,, ..� s� �
1
Fed. Rcg. I4,100 (March 29, 1996). For fuRhcr information contact Jamcs Hcrbcrt, Officc of - --
Property Acquisition and Realty Serviccs, Public Building Service, General Services
Administration, 18th & F 3treeis, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-0376.
8. Have any studies been completed on poteniia] hazards of locating a totvcrJbase site
close to residenfial communitiu? '
nsw • In conncction with its responsibiIities under NEPA, the FCC considers the potential
effects of radiofrequency (RF) emissions from FCC-rcgulatcd transnitters oa human health
and safety, Since the FCC is not ihe expert agency in this azea, it uses standazds and .
guidelines developed by those'with flie appropriate expertisc._ For examole, in the absence of
a uniform federal standacd on RF exposure, the FCC has relied since 1985 on the RF
exposure guidelines issued in 1982 by the American National Standazds Tnstitute (ANSI
C95.1-1982). In 1991, the Institute of BlectricaI and $lectronic Enginecrs (IEEE) issued
guidelines designcd to replace the RF ANSI exposure guidelines. 13ese guidelines
(ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992) were adopted by ANSI. The Telccommunications Act of 1996
mandatos that the FCC complete its proceeding in ET Docket 93-62, in which it is
considering updating the RF exposure guidelincs, no latcr than early Augu� 1996. Copies of
this proceeding cun he obtained from the Intemational Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS),
telephone 202-857-3800. Prescnlly, RF emission requirements ere contained in Section
1.1307(b) of the FCC's rules . A7 C.F.R §1.1307(b), for all services. PCS has service
specific RF emission provisions in Section 24.52 of the FCC's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 24.52. •
-Additionai information conceming RF emission hazards can be obtained through a variety of
sources:
(i) Tnformation conccming I2F hazards can be obtained on the World Wide Web at
http://www.fcc.go� RF safety questio�s are answered and further RF -
documents and inturmation arc contained under the Cellular Telephony Section.
(2) OET Bulictins SG and 65 conceming effects and potential RF hazards can be
requested throu�h the R�diofrequency Safety Program at 202-4I8-2464. Additionally,
any specific questions concerning RF hazards can be answered by contacting the FCC
at this phone numbcr.
The FCC maintains a Communications and Crisis Management Center which is staffed 24
hours a day, seven days a week. In the event bf an emergency, such as a radiofrequency
hazazd threatening public safety or health, you may cal] 202-632-6975. The watch officer
who answers at that number can contact our comp(iance personnel in your area and dispatch
them within a matter of hours.
12
Macalester-Groveland
Cominunity Council
320 South Griggs Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105-2800
Telephone: (612) 698-7973
FaY: (612) 698-9465
December 3, 1996
Roger Ryan
Department of PED
City of Saint Paul
1100 City Hall Annex
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Roger, ,
Our organization at its November 21 meeting passed the following recommendations
regarding the zoning for celluiar antennas.
* Cellular antennas should only be allowed in Residential, OS-1 or B-2 zones on
buildings at least 60 feet high.
* Cellular antenna towers and poles should be permitted by Special Condition Use
Permit in Residential, OS-1 or B-2C zones where buildings are 60 feet high.
* Cellular antenna towers and poles in business zones shou2d be set back from
residential structures by 150 feet.
* The city should encourage anteana installation on e�usting public and institutional
buildings over 60 feet high.
�- A�tennas not meun±Pd on buildings should be i*is±alled en monopoles rathe* tha.^.
free standing towers.
* Antennas should not be more than 15 feet higher than the buildings they are
mounted on.
* Antenna sites should be planned and bni�t for co-location. (use by multiple
companies)
* Antennas should be camouflaged, screened and/or contained within an
architectural element.
* Antenna sites should provide oae pazking space.
* Antenna towers or poles should be spaced 320 feet apart.
� recyCledpaPn
� � � � � �
_ . _" , ' � �
Roger Ryan Page Two
December 3, 1996
* Speciai Condition Use Permits should be required for antennas on sites that are
not industrially zoned.
* There should be a sunset provision to insure the elimination of antenna towers
and poles when no longer needed (because of new technology).
* The city should receive revenue from rent or taxes associated with cellular
antenna sites.
� The ci �� sheuId protect open par:.�aad frer.l a..tenna towe:s and poles.
We look forward to reviewing the Planning Commission's recommendations on this
matter and hope our recommendations will be anong them.
Sincerely,
� (�
f.L.Zi ��lJ LIJ���
Kathie Tarnowski
Community Organizer
■
✓
���-,°,�
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON SANUARY 2, 1997
PRESENT: Mmes. Morton and Wencl; Messrs. Chavez and Kramer of the Zonin� Committee; Mr.
Warner, Assistan[ City Attomey; Mme. Sanders and
Mr. Ryan of the Plannina Division.
ABSENT: Faricy, excused
Field, excused
Gurney, excused
Vaueht, excused
Time: 420 - 535 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, Chairperson.
Antenna Amendments Discuscion
Roger Ryan, Planning Division staff, reviewed that an interim ordinance was adopted in October, 1996
which prohibited any free-standing antennas in residential, OS-1 and B-1 districts, and reduced from 40
feet to I S feet the height that antennas. that are placed on existing buIldings may exceed the height of the
building to which they are attached in OS-1 and B-1 districu.
,,.The interim ordinance is applicable for 120 days and can be extended if necessary. The staff report
,.�-included a table which briefly listed the main regulations on antennas, a copy of the interim ordinance, the
Macalester-Groveland Community Council's recommendation on antenna regulations, and a fact sheet
from the Federai Communications Commission. Mr. Ryan stated that the interim ordinance was enacted
, in response to concerns regarding the existing regulation relative to the aestheuc impact of antennas near
residenual properties. 5afety was not addressed as an issue.
A summary of regulations of other cities was also included with the staff report. Mr. Ryan reviewed the
preliminary staff recommendations, those of which were distributed to various providers, one interested
. person, and the district councils, for their informaaon. He said that a preliminary staff recommendation '
that free-standing antennas be allowed as special condition uses in OS-1 thru RCC-1 districu was
r inadvertendy lefr out of the staff report.
Commissioner Chavez referenced staff recommendation no. 3. "Industrial districts. Permined use. Free-
standing antennas up to ISO feet high, provided the antennas are setback Z I/2 times the height of the tower
from the nearest residenrial srructure, " and asked staff to elaborate on this.
Mr. Ryan responded that a yard between the antenna and the nearest lot line equal to the height of the
antenna would no longer be required. He said the effect of that would be that it would be easier to put
free-standing antennas on indusuial property.
Peter Beck, A.T. & T. Wireiess Services, accompanied by Marie Grimm, Local Government Affairs
Manager, provided an informational presentation on the eellular technology. Mr. Beck has been with
AT&T Wireless Services, originally known as Cellular One, for approximately 10 years. A.T. & T. and
US West were the two orieinal providers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide
cellular telephone service to the twin cities metropoli[an area. In the past few years the Federal _
Communicacions Commission (FCC) has issued additional licenses for what is widely known as Persona!
Communication Services (PCS), which is a variation on cellular and in many respects operates the same
way and would also fall under the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Beck reviewed how the cellular technology works. The technoloey is a system titat relies on very Iow
power, essentially f.m. radio signals emanatine from an antenna site to hand-held or portabte phones.
Each provider has been licensed for a certain number of frequencies hy the FCC and with those
frequencies must cover their entire licensed area. Since each frequency can only handle one conversation
at a time, each cell-site, or set of antennas, has a limited number of conversations which it can hold.
These frequencies are reused throushout the system. When there were few users a system was
commenced with 8 or 9 cell-sites on very tall structures, or 300 foot antenna towers. Each cell-site
covered a very laree area because there weren't mzny users in that area and there was enough room on
each of those cell-sites for all of the users. But as more people took advantage of this technology each
cell-site would fili up to capacity, and a!1 the frequencies �vould be used and customers coulddt get on.
What would then be done was to break that cell inro two, three or sometimes four smaller celIs and
typically get by with a lower antenna height because the sienal is intended to cover a smaller area. Mr.
Beck said the uick is not only to cover a smaller area but to not cover too big an area, because those
frequencies are being used elsewhere.
This was done in Saint Paul in 1993 when there was a cell on a hiah stmcture downtown which needed to
be broken into two cells, one north on 35E and one east on 94. As a result of that need, the City got into
this issue and A.T. & T. at that time known as Cellulaz One, worked closely with the City in the adopuon
>,. of the existing wireless ordinance, the fust of its kind in the metropolitan azea. This ordinance, Mr. Beck
said is used as a model to present to other cities that are adopting ordinances at this time. Mr. Beck said it
is a very good ordinance and that with any living document needs occasional updating.
Mr. Beck said that A.T. & T. Wireless was wncerned whether there was a need for a moratorium whiie
the ordinance was looked at again as Saint Paul had a moratorium three yeazs ago, but that the scope of the
moratorium was narrowed to the point where A.T. & T. was able to find industrial sites for the four cells
they needed immediately. Mr. Beck pointed out that by the time it is known there is a need to break a cell
down, it is already needed and things need to happen very fast, with timing being very important and that
ofrentimes a need is identified by customer complaints that they cannot get on to the system.
Mr. Beck said that both initizlly and again at this Ume, that A.T. & T. Wireless has suggested that if there
is a place where the City wants these facilities to go, that antennas be made permitted uses there, and that
providers will do everyihing they can to locate there, because that is where ihey would have the abiliry to
get in and out of the fastest. Aowever, he noted that as these systems conrinue to mature and the usage
goes up there wili be more and more celi-sites. A.T, & T. has 90+ celI-sites (across the metropoIitan
area and into Wisconsin), a 10% increase since the system was turned on 10-12 years ago. He said that as
the system matures and there are more cell-sites ihat the location for each cell-site becomes more and more
difficult and there is less flexibility in terms of where the antenna faciliry can be placed in order to serve
the azea that it needs to serve.
l;
�' - - . �� �
Mr. Beck reiterated that there are a number of cities that are working on ordinances and said that effort
has been triggered by the issuance of the PCS licenses. The FCC issued 3 PCS licenses so far and are
auctionina off 2 more, with all of these providers telline the cities that they will need antenna sites. Tfiis
has caused a desire to look at antenna sites more comprehensively.
The companies licensed far Saint Paut include:
OriQinal nroviders currentiv on-the-air:
1) A.T. 8z T. Wireless
2) Air Touch (previous(y U.S.West)
New licensee thar are buildina networke and lookin�o ewitch on in 1997:
1) Aerial Communications (a.k.a. as APT Communications)
2) Sprint Spectrum
3) Nextel
There are also two more licenses being auctioned and much debate exisrs as to whether the two additional
licenses will actually provide the whole range of services, or whether those licenses might be used for
other things. These two wiil be a spectrum which can be used for a cellular system, as well as for other
things, i.e. a data transmission system to augment existing frequencies for one of the existing license °
holders. There will not necessarily need to be two whole new systems fo� the two additional licenses.
, Mr. Ryan asked whether the addiuonal two licenses wIll need antenna sites.
Mr. Beck responded tha[ if one of the other five providers were to acquire one of the licenses to get extra
frequencies for their system that they would not. However, under mos[ scenarios they would.
Commissioner Wencl asked whether it would be possible for the three companies currently building their
;tnetworks to put their antennas in.the same locations as the two existing companies, and whethei there will
be clusters of antennas grouped together.
Mr. Beck responded that that becomes a policy decision for the City to make. The technology is there and
there have been instances of co-location, that is having more than one provider on a site. He noted that
many of the sites are not free-standing structures but are on buildings. For a co-location to happen
approximately 20 feet of verticai separation is needed and quite a bit more horizontal separation (which is
the bigger issue).- It is more difficult to mount antennas on the same rooftop, however it is feasible and has
been done. Mr. Beck continued that on a water tower or a building it wouid be desirable to get as many in
place on such an inconspicuous location as possible. As with poles, he said you begin to reach a point of
�: diminishin? returns in terms of co-location. When there are more than two provideis on the same pole it
° becomes a busy pole and a big pole too. Poles are designed specifically for this use and are only designed
to the size required. All providers are buIlding the poles to take two users, two sets of antennas. The
poles can be built to do three or four but get bigger and thicker for each user, as opposed to what is
cunently on 35E or I-94 where there is a singie pole with one set of antennas at the top. Mr. Beck
explained that the buik and height of the pole is needed to support the additional antenna panels which are
bolted onto the poles, and weight and windload has to be designed inco the pole to accommodate the
number. He reported that other cities have been lookin� at requiring 3 or 4 per pole, but afrer further
discussion go back to one or two because of the bulk of the pole and the extra height, with a second user
the pole gets to 95 to IOQ feet, with a third user 120-125 feet, and so on.
Mr. Beck said the compromise the industry is comfortable with and which most of the communities are
settlinR on is to design the pole for two users, so that if another provider comes along with a need in close
proximity to the existin� facility that they could get on it.
Mr. Beck reviewed that what he sees as the best feature of the ordinance is that a hierarchy is set, with the
tirst priority to identify locations in higher zonine districu on existing structures. If it"s not possible for a
provider to use an existin� structure evidence should be provided. If it can't be done in a business district
then evidence must be shown, and if an antenna must go into a residential azea, it mns[ be shown why it is
necessary. This gets the providers located where the Ciry wants them. Mr. Beck pointed out that as the
systems develop there will be less and less tlexibility and facilities will need to go into residential areas, but
what they are hoping is that they will be able to keep them on institutional sites, i.e. colleges, schools,
cemeteries, public works facilities.
Commissioner Wencl said it appears that flexibility would decrease with more providers being added, and
asked whether each provider woulddt basically need the same set-up.
Mr. Beck pointed out that the one difference would be between cellular providers and PCS providers. He
pointed out that the cellular providers are on a frequency in an 800 megahertz band and that the PCS
providers are at 1.3 gigahertz which does not travel as faz as the celiular providers. PCS uses a lower
power, however it does not uavel as far and in turn will need more facilities up front but PCS will no[
have the capacity issue to the extent that the cellular providers do. Ae noted that once PCS geu a network
in, which will likely be close to the number of cells that A.T. & T. Wireless has, that they should not
continue to erow that system at the rate of 15-20 cell si[es per year, buc rather a litfle bit here and there.
Mr. Beck stcggested that by the end of 1997-1948 the City should pretry much know what cell-sites they
have for the lifetime of this technology, which may only be 10 years.
Preserving the permitted use in the indusuial zones, Mr. Beck reviewed, is a very good strategy for
getting them located there, but he said it needs to be recognized that it won't be possible to do that in all
instances and that the providers will need the opportuniry, under appropriate controls, to go into resideniial
areas.
Mr. Beck reviewed the 150 feet in industriai zones. He said the intent of that Ianwage is that antennas
would be able to go in just about anywhere in an industrial zone. He noted that the languaee states that
you have to stay the height of the pole from any property line, unless it can be shown that in all instances
the faciliry would not fail outside of that property line. Mr. Beck addressed safety, reporting that the
mono-pole technology and its design is exuemely safe and said there has not been a faIlure nationwide of
one of the mono-pole svuctures. He pointed ovt tfiat they have been through hurricanes and that they are
over-desisned. Mr. Beck reviewed that the uniform buIlding requirement is an 80 mile per hour wind and
they desi�ned the mono-pole to a 90 mile per hour wind with one half inch of ice, which is about a 40-50 %
increase in the s[ructurai strength of the pole. Mr. Beck claimed that the poles wIlt not faII down.
Because of this design it was thought they could go back to a corner of an indusuial area where property
linas come together, which is oftentimes a very good locauon as it is out of the parking area and removed
from all acdviry. However he noted that was not found to be the case and variances have been required.
Mr. Ryan responded that there is no way to show that to be so.
Mr. Beck responded that language needs to be improved.
,� : - . `� 5
Mr. Ryan reviewed that the language of the antenna amendment is to provide for a spacer, and that the one
and one half times is used as standard for buildings in industrial zones.
Mr. Beck responded that in fully-developed communities like Saint Paul that it is difficult to locate a site
that is one and one half times its hei�ht from residential, however that the standard is somethins they can
live with. He reviewed that if a mono-pole ever were to fail that it would crimp, but would never fall
over.
Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Beck to comment on the preliminary staff recommendations.
Mr. Beck said he saw no major problems with any of the preliminary recommendations, and that all of the
concepts are such that they have worked with in the past. He expressed concern that the committee not get
hung up on safety issues for a technolo�y which he believes is a non-issue, however a�reed that the
aesthetic concerns need to be addressed. He said it needs to be recognized that people wilI be able to see
the antennas and that they would not function if they were not in the line of sight to every comer of the
city. He reviewed that they have an obligation under their license to provide service to every corner of the
ciry, that it s impottant, particularly for Fire Departments, Police Deparcments, Ambulance Services, and
other public service and safety agencies that use ic as back up for their two-way.
Commissioner Kramer asked staff to review how park land is zoned.
Mr. Ryan responded that Saint Paul does not have a zonine desianation for park land, but that most park
land is zoned residential; however some park land is located in business districts. A free-standing tower
could be placed on park land under aspecial condition use.
Mr. Beck reviewed that park land is important as they tend to be fairly well-distributed throughout the
community, which provides an excellent opportunity to get a si�nal where it is needed without going on
actual residential property. Poles can be made to replicate lighting standards and can be located in such
places as ball fields. An example of this is a pole located in right field of the Saints Stadium. However,
Mr. Beck reported that some communiues do say no to parks.
Commissioner Kramer said he has heard it suggested by someone in the community that a cellular tower
should be mstalled on the west side of Lake Phalen where there are no lighu around the path, and that
lights be included as part of that agreement.
Mr. Beck responded that such solutions have been done in other communities. He reviewed that cagitat
requiremenu of the business are incredible, and cell-sites are almost a miilion dollars each. Land is
leased, not purchased, and rent is paid for use of pubiic facilities, i.e. water towers. Mr. Beck reviewed
that the poles look like the light standards you would see on a freeway intercha[�ge, and tha[ two-user poles
are 5-6 feet in diameter, about 75-100 feet tall, a fluted-steel structure with antennas on top. Poles are
typicatly painted to match a blue-gray sky. If poles are in a location adjacent to MnDOT poles, which are
dark brown, they will be painted dark brown, or any color which the local government wants.
Commissioner Kramer asked if there are power to these poles.
Mr. Beck said that all cell-sites have power and phone which are typically undereround. Each faciliry has
a 12 x 28 foot equipment shelter on-site, or sometimes equipment is stored in an existing building which
contains backup power, batteries, and is connected to NSP and US West land lines. The cell-site is just
transmitting and receiving from the phones, and then goes by land line into the U.S. West exchanaes.
Mr. Beck reported that he met with District 14 and noted that the recommendations received from them
are ones in which they worked with them on and that District ]4's recommendations are pretry consistent
with what staff is recommendin�. However, he noted that mandatory spacina couid be counterproductive
in terms of not enabling companies to put the poles in a good spot because they would be too close
together.
Commissioner Wencl asked Mr. Beck why one parkina space would be a necessary inclusion.
Mr. Beck responded that a tech visi[s these si[es monthly and parking space is needed for the service
person to eet as close to the antenna as possible as they are transporuna equipmenc.
Commissioner Wencl cautioned against includine such languaee in the regulations, with Commissioner
Kramer noting that for any cell-sites that the City would require a special condition use permit and such a
decision could be made at that time.
Marie. Grimm, Local Govemment Affairs Manager, pointed out that accessibility to the site is the main
concern. There may be cases where parkin� spaces need not be provided for, as parking is available on
the street.
Commissioner Kramer asked whether separate guidelines would be established for special condition use
permits for cellular towers, with Mr. Ryan sTatin� that there wIll be and it was noted that the guidelines
mi�ht be the place to include language that parkina is adequate.
Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney, asked about co-location beine a preferred concept in the preliminary
staff recommendations, and asked whether the nature of the business is such where competitors get along
with each other. He drew a scenazio where a provider might request putting up an antenna in a special
condition use area and even though their competitor has space for a co-location that they prefer not to co-
locate because they can't get along with them. They azgue that they have a federal mandate to provide the
service and claims that the Ciry doesn't have the authority to tell them that they can't locate elsewhere, and
they hold to the fact that they need a separate location. Warner reviewed that there is a concern in the
community about profiferation of poIes. If a co-location requirement is included, Mr. Wartter asked
whether Mr.Beck see that as a way for companies to piQey-back with each other, or if they can't get
along, to collude with one another so as to get their own or more antennas.
Mr. Beck responded that the companies are amenable to co-locating for two reasons: i) It is a politically
smart thins to do. They understand why people don't want a lo[ of poles; and 2) They save the capital cost
to that pole, which is a big issue. However, he noted that these are big companies that aze very concerned
about the anti-trust implications of working together on cell-sites. They compete on basically three issues:
1) price; 2) the quality of the seroice they deliver; and 3) the area thac they cover. Cell-site locarion is
direcUy related to two of the three azeas that they compete in. All the companies have received specific
duection from ttteir corporate legal departmenu that they cannot get together and compare systems and
aeree on cell-sites with other providers. But on a case-by-case basis they can as the ordinance calls for
that if there is another cell-site belonging to another faciliry in the azea where you need a cell you should
use it, unless you can show evidence why you can't. Mr. Beck said that some ordinances of other cities
have gotten very aggressive with that which he suggested goes beyond the police power of the ciues. He
said it wIll be awhile before that issue geu litigated, but that there needs to be a balance between how
� �. ~ �� � �
. - J
much the city can get involved in this business. Mr. Beck concluded that for the most part the companies
will want to cooperate because they don't have time to ar�ue about it. What they have tried to do is tell
cities they won't sue them if they only go so far, such as requiring the two users on a pole.
Mr. Beck noted that many ci[ies' ordinances require that if there is an existin� buildine that is where the
antenna has to go, or provide evidence why it isn't possible. He felt that this languaae was appropriate but
su�eested that there needs to be an out provided for instances where a building owner doe not want them
on their buildine, as the providers cannot be foreclosed from serving that area of the city because the
existino structure isn't available.
Mr. Ryan noted that antennas on existing structures are bringing in $12-15,000 per year.
Commissioner Chavez asked what pan of the recommendations will relate to safery and contacts, etc. He
found the Federal Communication Commission's fact sheet disturbing as it states that in case of immediate
safety or health hazard to dial a number and within hours someone will get back to you, and said thai this
could be a problem. He aiso reviewed the question of how far a pole can be located from residential and
said tha[ radio towers have gone down with people beine hurt as a result. He's concerned that if a mono-
pole fell over, despi[e the fact that Mr. Beck has said it will not, that i[ could be a hazard, and suggested
that something rela[ed to safety in residential locations should be included.
`:Mr. Beck responded that I50% of the heieht would cover the worst case scenario. He said when they can
provide all the data that is needed about what the experience has been, and what the margin of safety is
built into them, they will. He said that some computer modeling was done for them on where it would fail
and it was up to the 105-110 plus mile an hour wind situations before it even got to crimping, at which
point there wouldn't be anything left on the ground to fall on.
Mr. Ryan said that risht now you could put a commercial building 30 feet high and approximately 8 feet
,away from a residential building and that nobody worries about the safety on that and that the towers aze
-.;equally strong, in fact that the poles are even stronger than the buildings, so it appears that the towers are
equal to the buildings that they allow. Moreover there is the one and one half times the distance from the
nearest residential property, so safety has been given its due.
Mr. Beck said that they have told every community that they would fence the entire faciliry if it is the
community's des'ue, but they typically do not. They pull the pegs on the pole so that they can't be ciimbed
without special equipment.
No action was required as this matter was for discussion only.
. Drafted by:
( Sar.�t,w-
Donna Sanders
Submitted by: Approved by:
� ���'l°-� �����1� c�
Rog yan Giadys Monon
Chairman
c/
�� ���
_ - �-,
, � __ -� �
MINUTES OF THE ZONING CO[�IMITTEE
CZTY COUNCIL CH7IMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON FEBRUARY 20, 1997
PRESENT: Mmes. Faricy and Wencl; Messrs. Chavez, Fie1d, Kramer and Vaught of
the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warr.er, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes.
Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Planning Division.
ENT: Gurney
Morton, excused
Time: 5:05 - 6:15 p.m.
The meeting was chaired by Barbara Wencl, Vice Chairperson.
�ELLULAR ANTENNA AMENDMENT4
, Roger Ryan, Planning Division staff, reviewed that interim zoning regulations
were adopted in October, 1996. The Zonir,g Committee held a public in£ormation
meeting on this matter on January 2, 1997. Staff rias since refined and
redrafted the proposed regulations. Mr. Ryan reviewed the staff report.
Three items w2re distributed at the meeting: 1)a 2/19/97 letter £rom the
District 2 Community Council including recommendations on the proposed
amendments; 2) a 2/18/97 letter from Peter Beck, representative for AT&T, who
provided three comments on the proposed amendments; and 3) a 2f20J97 memo to
` the committee from Mr. Ryan responding to AT&T's comments regarding the
loca'tion of towzrs and buildings. Mr. Ryan reviewed this memo with the
" committee which constituted change in the recommended amendments in the staff
�report.
Commissioner vaught asked for clarification as to the language used by Mr.
Beek in his letter, under point no. l. ...Allowing the equigment building or
monopole to be located in a side yard, where appropriate,..."
Peter Beck, representing AT&T Wireless Services, responded that what he had in
mind was what Mr. Ryan ended up recommending, saying that oftentimes the
equipment buildings can be put up against an existing building and made to
look like part of the building. The recommendation triat it be allowed if it
falls within the envelope of the building Mr. Beck believed to be a good
' solution to point no. 1 identified in his letter. Points no. 2 and 3 he said
are policy issues that he raised for the committee to consider. A 75-foot
height limit he reviewed would basically mean only one user per pole, absent
unique circumstances, and he sugg=sted that the policy issue is wriether Saint
Paul would like to see fewer poles if provision was made for another 20-25
feet of vertical separation, with a 95-100 foot pole able to accommodate
typically 2 users, which may reduce the number of poles, which most cities are
allowing for in their regulations. Point no. 3, the increase in the setback,
he pointed out that as the technology matures it is going to be difficult as
the usage increases and the need for cell sites increases to find locations.
Mr. Beck suggested that increasing the setback wi11 make it more difficult to
accomplish that.
Mr. Beck summarized that Saint Paul has a good ordinance, the revisions are
good and bring the ordinance up-to-date and that with the additional
recommendation by staff he believes it to be a state-of-th2-art ordinance. fte
recommended that the policy issue of more poles or higher poles and whether or
not some r22ief on the s2tback would be appropriate should b2 addressed.
Commissioner Field addressed having two users on one pole of lOG feet, and�
whether broadzr coverage or more capacity would be achieved by the provider at
100 Eeet then would be the case by thz provider at 75 feet.
Mr. Bzck responded that no additional capacity would bz gained. Each site has
a limited numb2r of frequencies assign2d and would be the same regardless of
th2 h2ight. In terms of coverage, each site is designed and engineered
spzcific to that location. He said that most part of the metro area would not
- bz able to livz with a 75 foot height limit as the technology has to be up
over the tre2 tops. In a more suburban area where they have to cov2r a 2arger
area he said they would definitely need more height than 75 feet. AT&T
decided not to oppose a 75 foot height limit in Saint Paul because theiz cells
are getting smaller in Saint Paul, and as there are more cells the ce11s are
smaller. The radio waves have to cover a smaller area so that they can be
lower. As there is provision in the industrial zonzs that they can go Lo 150
feet, in most cases they have been able to find industrial sites. Mr. Beck
responded that thz provider at th2 top would get more coverage at 100 feet,
but they wouldn't always need more covzrage in an urbanized area like
Saint Paul.
Commissioner Field asked if the restriction on the number of users is actually
the number of devices that are on the antenna, irregardless of height.
Mr. Beck responded that each user has an antenna array, and in AT&T's case,
typically three antennas times three, with three antennas pointing each of
three different directions, which need to be 20-25 vertical feet from another
provider's antenna array to avoid interference, and even more so of horizontal
separation. With a 100 foot pole one provider would be at 100 feet, with the
other at 75-80 fezt, thereby double use would be made of the pole. Some
cities have considered requiring 3 or more but at that point the pole gets
quite a bit bulkier and more expensive and the likelihood that 3 providers
would need a cell-site in that precise location diminishes. Mr. Beck said
that AT&T believes that you meet a point of diminishing return after two
users.
Commissioner Field asked then whether the number of antenna is more a function
of the number of users in an urbanized area, and whether there won't be fewer
po2es resu2ting from po2es being 100 fezt.
Mr. Beck responded that the number o£ cell-sites is related to users and that
each site can only handle a certain number of users at any one time. Cell
sites are designed £or peak periods and when a cell-site reaches capacity, as
happened downtown, that it must be broken into smaller ce11s to increase
capacity, but in the meantime they have to be sure that those new cells
provide the same coverage.
E
r; -- _ -. `, �
Commissioner Chavez asked Mr. Beck to elaborate regarding the sideyard.
Mr. Beck responded that he had suggested allowing some flexibility to locate
in sideyards when it's appropriate. Staff dealt with this in a more concrete
way to allow for a provider to go into the developable envelope of the
property, except not in the front yard. A sideyard would be allowed if the
antenna were up against the building. He noted that oftenrimes in industrial
parks and school sites that the bast place to put equipment buildings might
not hapoen to be what is designated as the rear yard.
Commissioner Chavez asked whether two providers on a pole is a common practice
across the country.
Mr. Seck respondzd that in the twin cities metropolitan area that it has
become common for cities to require that the poles be designed to accommodate
two,users and to grant the necessary height to do that. He reviewed that AT&T
,and anotri2r provider have bzen in business for approximately 10 years, three
or four providers are just building their systems, and that the industry is
hopeful that as the systems are being built and the existing providers
continu= to develop theirs, that the various systems will overlap and will
land-on existing cell-sites and be able.to co-locate, as it is more efficient
" for the providers because they heve one less pole to finance and as cities
desire to see less poles, will encourage co-location.
Commissionzr Chavez asked whether there would be an advantage for a provider
.to.be higher or lower on a pole.
Mr. Beck responded that each system wi11 have its requirements which will be
., vexy site-specific, pointing out that AT&T has poles ranging in height from
=75-300 feet, depending on the area that site has to cover. Whoever is there
,'first, if Saint Paul requires it, will build a pole that will accommodate 2
'- users and that provider will go on at the height that it needs, and the other
height would be available if another pravider identified a need in that area
and was able to negotiate a deal to lease space on the pole. Most providers
have national co-location agreements which makes this process less cumbersome.
,'�Commissioner Field asked for Mr. Beck's reaction Co language which would allow
poles of up to 100 feet to be permitted only if triey accommodated two users,
- thereby necessitating two applicants when poles are initially requested.
Mr. Beck responded that the possibility that two users would land at the same
" spot at the same time is very small. He reviewed that the providers are
�'�competitors that compete on 1) price; 2) quality; and 3) on coverage; and that
the pole location relates to two of the three. Providers cannot get together
� and select locations under the current anti-trust law. What can happen is �
that if someone has a site up in the air, and if it is a possible location for
the second provider, that the second provider can negotiate to get on it. He
suggested that rather than requiring that there be two users right up-front,
that trie taller pole be required to be built to accommodate two users with the
hope that a second user can make use of it at some point.
3
Anthony Segale, Regional Manager, U.S. West, spoke. Mr. Segale reviewed that
two technologies are available: cellular and PCS. H2 said there are
significant differences in the technologies and that PCS requires additional
sites. U.S. West is a new provider and will be buildinq a system zn Saint
Paul with approximately 1/3 of the sites to be rooftops; a couple of water
towers wi11 be used; and approximately 10°s wi11 be part--of co-location
agreements throughout the city. The PCS service will be an extension of the
land-line service, and about 12 sites will cover the area.
Mr. Segale noted that Saint Paul's trees are probab2y the highest of any trees
in the metropolitan area, with some being measured at 75-80 feet. He
circulated samples of both a cellular phone and a PCS phone, noting that
eventually thz phone sets will look and act just like our phones at home. Mr.
Segale commented that the proposed ordinance is not exe2ssively restrictive
.and he addressed issues of how to how the providers are going to serve the
community and what the technology will be used for. In reviewing the two
technologies. he noted that eavesdropping is done on cellular phones and that
cellular phones are not a secure device. Whereas, PCS units are digital and
secure, and that PCS is a leap in technology, the next g2neration £rom the
cellular phone.
� Regarding public safety. Mr. Segale displayed a model of a communication
tower and pointed out that there is a 20-25 foot case on it that is steel-
reinforc2d concrete that is 25 feet underground. He said the tower is not
going to fall over.
Mr. Sega2e has spoken with the communications directors of the Saint Paul
Police Department who have stated that they cannot use cellular service
because it is not secure, however they wzre very excited about PCS and said
there is a need in the Police Department for a secured two-way transmission.
fiowever, he said concerns were raised over budget restraints. Mr. Segale
suggested that the price of PCS service wi11 come down with the competition of
several providers.
Mr. Segale noted that some of the residential areas in Saint Paul currently
would not have the two-way communication on the PCS unit because there are no
current facilities in place that would give them transmission and said that is
what designing the ordinance is about, to help provide this service to
everybody. He further stated that if the City paramedics are to use the
technology, service needs to be available to all residents.
Disaster recovery. Telephone service as we currently know it still gets
disrupted when there is a major storm. U.S. West has about 75°s of their land
lines buried. Mr..Segale noted the attractiveness of a technology that
withstands the wind and weather and still provides the communication.
Sometimes the issue is that of preventing the eyesore. However, Mr. Segale
said the reality is to bring communication services to the area, whether it's
business or residence.
4
�' _��5
i1
1 - _� „J '�
U.S. 6�7est Ne2ds. Mr. Seqale reviewed that their first option for a site
location would be a roo£top, and that they will also look for a co-locate.
How2ver, he said that there are areas where such locations would not be
available and they would have to erect a oole, and i£ the trees are at 75-80
Pezt that they would need to g2t about 15 £eet above the trees. Mr. Segale
said tY.at U.S. West is looking for provisioas in the ordinance that would
allow communication facilities to be providz3 in residential areas.
Mr. Segale circulated computer generated oho�oaraphs of pot2ntial facilities
in Saint Pau1, briefly discussing various scenarios. H2 said that the PCS
providers differ from cellular in that thzy are not lookina for a particular
building but are looking for equipment space on the outsid=. All PCS
facilities are w2ather protected, vandalism protected, and sit as cabinets and
are significantly smaller than cellular storage facilities.
Mr. Segale reviewed that PCS is different than cellular as it is a secured
service. It provides a servic2 to the community and in order to be effective
it nzeds to be located within one and one-half mile of Chz users, noting that
as th2 technology and the usage increases th2 cells actually do get smaller.
.Commissioner Kramer requested copies of the rendzrings that Mr. Segale
��. displayed for the hearing record, with Mr.�Szgale,agreeing to provide copies
���to staf£.
David Hagen, Sprint PCS, spoke. Mr. Hagen said that Sprint PCS is supportive
to the extent possible in using existing structures to locate their antennas,
which includes towers, poles and buildings. They believe it's desirable to do
this both from the company's and the City's persp2ctive, thereby reducing the
number of single-user tow2rs that are built.
Mr. Hagen said that Sprint PCS is very suoportive of the he.ight bonus
''discussed earlier by Mr. Beck, and helieves.it to be a very good idea. They
'would like to see the ordinance recognize existing non-com�*.unication poles and
tow2rs, i.e, power poles, utility poles, liant poles, etc. as existing
structures upon which antennas may be located. Sprint PCS believes this to be
�a preferable solution to locating antennas, as opposed to building a new free-
standing tower.
Mr. Hagen displayed some photos that are part of a brochure used by Fort Worth
Tower, out of Fort Worth, TX, (copy in file) to advertise a concept they are
marketing called the power-mount installation, which uses a specific latCice-
type of high-voltage Cransmission power structure to actually mount an antenna
array on top of. It essentially results in a pole, though a much smaller pole
than a typical free-standing mono-pole, constructed or erected through the
center of the transmission lattice tower, supported laterally by that tower,
and then with a foundation under it to support it vertically. Mr. Hagen saicl
that this results in one less free-standing pole and a morz intensive use of
an existing blight on the landscape and is a way of reducing trie impact of the
antennas on the landscape.
5
Mr. Hagen concluded that Sprint PCS supports the modi£ications to the
ordinance and £eel that it is generally reasonable.
Mr. Ryan asked how tall the poles are within the existing power towers, that
w2re pictured in the brochure.
Mr. Hagen respondzd that this type of application can be used in tow2rs
ranging between 65-100 £eet or over. He understood there to be a limit as to
how much above the tower the antennas could be, but that he b21i2v2d that any
transmission lattice tower like depicted could be adapted with the pole
through the center.
Mr. Ryan reviewed that in order to use the power towers the provid2r would
have to comz to somz agreement with N.S.P, and..-asked whether N.S.P, has
�indicated a willingness to participate.
Mr. Hagen responded that Sprint PCS has bzzn working with N.S.P. toward
re�aching such an agreement and is optimistic that such an agreement wi11 be
arrived at in the near future to use N.S.P.'s transmission and communication
towers in this fashion.
' Commissioner Gurney asked whether the reczption/coverage would be a3=_quate by
strictly using existing structures.
Mr. Hagzn responded that Sprint PCS would not exclusiv2ly use N.S.P.
transmission tow2rs, but would be used only in certain cases where they would
fit their locational needs.
Commissioner Field reviewed that it would be Sprir.t PCS intention to include
the power pole's configuration within the definition of a pole or a
transmission device within the amendments, with Mr. Hagen validating.this and
� asking that such a power be considered and recognized as an existing
structure. He noted that under the existing ordinance that antennas located
on existing structures receive better treatment than do the construction of a
free-standing mono-pole. Specifically, Sprint PCS feels that in a residential
area that this is a better solution than building a free-standing pole.
Commissioner Field agreed, however, stating that the nature and placement of
the power poles is such that there will be very few that wi11 be within the
proximity to provide coverage in a residential area.
Mr. Hagen agreed in general, and reported that there is one particular area in
the city that Sprint PCS is attempting to cover that is zoned residential and
where they have located some transmission structures that they believe to be
better solutions than a free-standing pole.
Chair Wzncl allowed Mr. Segale to address the committee a second time as this
was a technical public hearing.
Mr. Segale reported that there is a Master Use Agreement with N.S.P. currently
which allows for attachment that does not have to be attachment to the top,
but can be attachment to the side, because of the height. He emphasized the
0
r_ _�.�5
located on ballfields or wherever, because the antenna array can be put on top
and it doesn't look like something standing off by itsel£. Mr. Segale noted
that the City of Saint Paul School District has said that they do not wish to
have any tower facilities at their location.
Commissioner Field asked whether Mr. S2cale believed that the scope of the
existing language �oP the ordinance su£ficiently a3dresses the existing
structures dzscribed above to facilitate the providers using those structures.
Mr. Segale said that he did not, and suggested that more definitive language
be drawn so that residential areas don't gzt le£t out on the basis that a
facility may be an eyesore, with other alternative locations being looked at,
understanding that the locations can't always be building tops.
Peter Coy1e, representing American Portable Telecom, another PCS company which
is a new entrant to the marketplace, s�poke. Mr. Coyle asked that the
committee pres2rve flexibility within the ordinance and try to promote
co-location. As American Portable Telecom has to build a brand new facility
they are looking for new locations in many cases because the service that they
need to provid2 is not going to be just a highway corridor kind of service but
� is intended a:'id designed to be used, gromoted by the FCC, within denser urban
�. areas. That means, Mr. Coyle said, that need to be creative about
where they locate the antennas.
1. American Portable Telecom urges the committez to give incentives to use
fewer poles, but higher poles, as a means of allowing co-location of up
to-two providers.
2. With regard to usable land area, Mr. Coyle said that the extent to
which poles are forced to the back of lots may seem aesthetically
pleasing because it hides the view but the fact is that it may also
imped2 the use of that space by some other productive use that the city
would like to encourage. Therefore he believes that the extent to
which�sideyards are used, or wher2 up against a structure, albeit on
the side, just gives the City better flexibility to manage scarce
� resources, the city's industrial and commercial land.
Mr. Coyle said American Portable Telecom wishes to work with the City. He
applauded the efforts of City staff to give the committee a responsible cut at
�the'ordinance, and said that they will continue to work with the committee to
refine it and make sure that it functions we11 so that the providers are not
all lined up seeking variances from the document once it does get finalized.
Commis5ioner Field asked Mr. Coyle to elaborate on the coming together of two
users to build a pole and the possible anti-trust ramifications.
Mr. Coyle explained that they cannot togzther plot layout of these facilities
on an up-front basis. What they can do is commit to the City up-front that in
exchange for better flexibility in terms of height and other triings, that they
would commit to build a facility up-front, incurring the additional investment
to a11ow for an additional provider to be on their pole, with absolutely no
guarantee that they may get a second carrier on it to share that cost. He
said that what triey can't do is collaborate on the front-end for a co-location
7
as it is prohibited by anti-trust, So h� said that the most that they can do
is try to be creative in the land use coatext to try and provide opportunities
£or them.
Mr. Coyle said that what he sees happening in many o£ the cities that they're
working in is that they are requiring as a condition of approval with a
conditional use permit or otherwise, tha� the applicant commit if they get
approval of an extended pole, that they nrovide space for that additional
colocater, and is generally something th;t is acceptable. However, he said
that means that they need to get to 110-120 feet in order to provide the range
of separation. With Saint Paul having many mature tre2 stands, and as it is
line of sight technology, they have to be above the trees in order to have
something that actually works.
Commissioner Vaught reviewed with staff that the interim regulations are in
effect until March 25. He said he would like to provide for the various
providers th2 opportunity to not only provid2 further information of a
generalized nature, but also to recommend should they wish, speci£ic
amendments that might accomplish or effectuate the issues they have addressed.
Commissioner Vaught moved layover until March 20, 1997, and that the providers
be asked that if they wish the committee to consider anything that they submit
their desires in writing for consideration on March 20, and that such
submissions be submitted to staff no later than the end oE business on Friday,
March 7, two weeks prior to the meeting, to give staff the opportunity to go
through it, and distribute with the committee packets mailed out on March 14.
Commissioner Field seconded the motion.
Mr. Ryan noted that the moratorium will expire on March 25.
Commissioner Vaught acknowledged that. He said he would add iE necessary,
that Mr. Warner draft for consideration by the city council, an extension o£
the moratorium beyond March 25, to a date which would allow consideration by
the committee on March 20, as well as any subsequent action necessary.
He noted that he would not want the committee to rush into action on this
matter without fully considering and maintaining the kind of flexibility triat
he has heard a11 of trie providers� representatives speak of.
Commissioner Field moved a friendly amendment to keep the public hearing open
so as to allow for reaction to any additional language.
Commissioner Vaught further asked that all submissions be shared not only with
the committee, but also to all other interested persons so that they might
come prepared on March 20 to provide testimony regarding the submissions.
Commissioner Kramer asked that staff be sure to notify the interested persons
regarding this issue who may not have submitted letters, in addition to the
providers.
:7
\ ' � s 4' / �J �
Commissioner Vaught noted that anyone who has invinced any interest whatsoever
should be communicated with in the same way as anybody else, with respect to
deadlines, etc.
Marie Grimm, AT&T, spoke against layover. She said she didn't want to see the
committez end up on March 20 with all kinds o£ questions with the providers
not knowing what to provide, and the committee not knowing what to expect.
Ms. Grimm asked that if the committee had some remaining questions that they
stipulate those questions. She said the Saint Paul ordinance is a good one,
with lots of detail and structure. She believed that the providers were
looking at what areas the committee wanted them to delve into further, and
questioned whether the March meeting wouldn't provide anymore. Ms. Grimm
asked tfiat perhaps th2 questions could be focused with a list of questions
given to each provider to respond to. _
Commissioner Vaught said it was his intention to be general in his motion, and
wishes for it to remain general. He said he is ready to hear anything anybody
wants to say, however that he is ready treat March 20 as a final date.
Commissioner Field agreed with Vaught noting that a11 of the providers that
testified said that the ordinance was basically a good ordinance, but they did
not appear to indicate that they endorsed the entire docum2nt. To the extent
�Chat the providers can flush out the issues with more clarity and establish
=�what their positions are, that is what he would be looking for, and that the
public riearing be held open.
The motion carried with a unanimous.voice vote�oE 6 to 0.
Drafted by: Submitted by: Approved by:
��S�_
Donna Sanders
Roge Ryan
����.������
Barbara Wencl
Vice Chairperson
0
�
(' `° �
1" '
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boulevard West
1��d2itl
::�� .
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, March 28, 1997, at
830 am. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners
Absent:
Also Preseqt:
Mmes. Duarte, Fazicy, Maddox, and Messrs. Chavez, Field Jr., Gordon, Gurney,
Kramer, Lee, McDonell, Nordin, Nowlin, and Vauaht.
Mmes. *Geisser *Treichel and *Wencl and Messrs. *Mardell and *Sharpe
*Excused
Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Nancy Frick, and Roger Ryan of
Planning and Economic Development.
° I. Approval of Minutes of March 14,199Z
MOTION: Com`nissioner Gurney moved approval of the minutes ofMarch I4, 1997;
Comrnissioner Chavez seconded the motion, which carried unanimously on a voice vote.
II. Chair's Announcements
- Gladys Morton has resigned from the Planning Commission to join the City Council, which leaves
the Planning Commission with three openings; applications will be taken until Apri123, 1997.
- Gladys' leaving also leaves an opening on the Zoning Committee, which by statue must have nine
members. Stephen Gordon will replace Gladys as the ninth member; and Litton Field will be the
new chair of the Zoning Committee.
Chair McDonell met with Pam Wheelock to discuss PED's restructuring and its affect on the
Planning Commission; and also the concems of the Commission regazding the restructuring. Ken
Ford will remain staff administrator. Reporting responsibility for staff support goes through Tom
Herran, a new member and a team leader. Zoning will continue to be staffed as it is. Pam is
hopeful that the restructuring will involve the Commission with more and different staff people
from the other elements of PED. She is hoping that this will make the Planning Commission's
work more effective and more viable.
- Planning Commission Retreat will probably be held immediately afrer we have inducted three new
members. The Steering Committee will continue to plan it.
- Patrick Seeb, from the Riverfront Development Corporation came to speak to us this morning about
the development framework for Saint Paul on the Mississippi River. The City Council has
requested them to put on a series of community forums; they, in tum, have asked the Planning
Commission to be co-sponsors, along with the City Council, of the community forums.
MOTION: �ommissioner Vaugltt moved that the Planning Commission be involved as a co-
sponsor With the City Counci! and the Saint Paul Riverfront Development Corporation in putting on
a serie"s of community forums on t/:e developrnentframework for Saint Paul on the Mississippi
River. Comneissioner Gordon seconded the motion.
Commissioner Field spoke in favor of the motion and he spoke of the need to get a cross section of
participants.
The motion on the floor carried unanimously o a voice vote.
III. Planning Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Ford commented further on the proposed town meeYings on the Downtown River Corridor
Development Framework.
Commissioner Gordon suggested that a broader participation might be acquired by identifying issues or
perspectives and then set up sign-up lists for each ofthose issues or perspectives and then alternate
speakers from tist to list.
Commissioner Nowlin offered his hope that in revision of the Comprehensive Plan, all of the divergent
plans that are being developed for the City would be brought together under one framework. First and
foremost, get a presentation directly to the Comprehensive Planning/Economic Development
Committee on what the Riverfront Corporation and Mr. Greenberg are proposing, so that it can be
incorporated into the overall Comprehensive Plan for the City.
About the Koch Mobil site, Mr. Ford noted that the City Council adopted a resolution favoring the
housing development for the entire site; the Department of Planning and Economic Development
recommended relocating Plastics, Inc. to a portion of the site. The resolution states that housing would
be a better lona term use for the land and directs staff to negotiate with the Science Museum to allow
Plastics Inc. to remain at its present location until a good site is available.
Commissioner Field informed the Commission that the Koch Mobil site will become a zoning case
because the property will aeed to be rezoned from its cunent staTUS to a residential use. He encouraged
the Commission to follow the issues regazding the case because a position will probably need to be
taken eventually.
Mr. Ford and Cathy Nordin were among others who yesterday attended the Conference on New
Urbanism, where Mr. James Howard Kuntzler, author of Geography of Nowhere, gave a keynote
address.
Mr. Ford reminded commissioners about the April3rd Cities at Work program on Chattanooga.
IV. Zoning Committee
#97-033 Courage Center - Nonconforming use permit to allow a community residential facility for
seven adults with physical and/or cognitive disabilities (1145 Argyle St; zoned R-4).
c- . �. ; r� ,
l • , �i
MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of t1:e requested nonconforming use permit to
allow a comr�eunity residential faci[ity for seven adults wirh pltysical and/or cognitive disabilities at
II45 Argyle Street, which carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Mr. Ryan added that although the Zoning Committee recommended that the fee should be waived on
this application, staff decided that the fee shou(d not be waived.
Commissioner Vaught informed the Commission that legal counse(, Mr. Peter Warner, had advised
him that the Zoning Committee/Planning Commission had the power to waive the fee. He feels that
the issue should be revisited.
Mr. Ford commented that he doesn't feel staff has authority to waive the fee in this case and will check
�vith Mr. Warner on the Commission's authority.
Chair McDonell announced that the issue will be taken up again at the next Zoning Committee
meeting, and that the Committee will repoR back to the Planning Commission if there is legal authority
to waive the fee.
Commissioner Field reminded the Commission that the waiving of fee is a recommendation, and a
higher power can choose to not accept the recommendation.
#97-034 Michael Allen Sullivan - Special condition use permit to allow auto repair (1229 Payne Ave;
zoned B-3).
, Commissioner Field..stated that this matter was lai ���1997, and the Zoning Committee
invoked the 60-day extension.
„ Antenna Amendments - (Roger Ryan)
Mr. Ryan explained that an interim ordinance had been put into place in October and the Planning
Commission was asked to study antennas. The interim ordinance has now been extended an additional
90 days to June 25, 1997.
Mr. Ryan proceded to go through the outline regarding the proposed regulations of cellular telephone
antermas. He stated that the City Attorney has been asked to research the question of how far a city can
go to require colocation because there may be anti-trust issues involved.
Commissioner Lee asked if river corridors are addressed separately and/or how they would be affected
by these requirements.
Mr. Ryan answered that the river corridor districts wouid not treat antennas any differently; they �vould
be regulated by underlying zoning districts.
MOTION: Commissioner Fie[d moved approva[ of the antenna amendments.
Commissioner Gordon questioned the idea of adopting the amendments before counsel's research on
colocation was heard.
Mr. Ryan stated that the options in this case are: 1) to lay this over until the City Attorney completes
his research; or 2) to pass the amendments and then have the research analysis passed on to the City
Council.
Commissioner Vauaht responded that it was the consensus at the Zoning Committee that fewer poles
�vould be better than more, so colocation appears more attractive to the City. The question is whether
the City has any Iiability if it forces colocation. Commissioner Vaught cvould like to see the City
require colocation, but he does not know if the City has the legal right to do so. He indicated that an
altemative might be to, rather than allow a 75-foot pole, to allo�v a 100-foot pole even if it has only one
cell on it, but then not allow another pole within one-half mile of that 100-foot pole, unless the
application for the second pole can prove that there is no colocation site available. Commissioner
Vaught expressed that he would like Mr. Warner to research the question of how far the Zoning
Committee/Planning Commission can legally go in this matter before the issue is moved along. He
stated that he intends to make a motion to continue this matter on the Planning Commission agenda
until tlie April 11 meeting in order to give Mr. Wamer a chance to render his opinion with respect to
how far the Planning Commission can go with respect to colocation, w ith the idea that we would then
pass it on depending on his advice.
Commissioner Kramer suggested that the Planning Commission approve this now as is, and then add a
m inor zoning amendment at a later date, if and when the Cit}� Attorne} provides the opinion that the
Planning Commission can recommend requiring colocation.
Mr. Ryan said that could be done.
Commissioner Field stated that he tends to agree with Commissioner Kramer's suggestion because it
would keep discussion on this issue moving forward.
Commissioner Gordon commented that this colocation issue is really si�nificant and the Commission
needs to be especially clear on it. He asked Mr. Ryan to eYplain, as things stand right now: 1) What
can be done with colocation? 2) Do these amendments, if �ve pass them today, affect what can be done
with respect to colocation? and 3) What would be the future amendment to accomplish what
Commissioner Kramer is talking about?
Mr. Ryan responded to the first question is that for the amendments now you need the two antenna
providers when you make application. To the second question, he responded that right now you can
build a tower 75 feet high only; the amendments would allo�v you to build 25 feet higher if you have
rivo antennas. To the third question, he said that a future amendment would require the language that is
found in the memo in the handout.
Commissioner Vaught stated that he needs to disagree with Mr. Ryan's last statement. He said that he
made the motion at the Zoning Committee and the amendments before the Commission right now are
not consistent with the motion that he made. He reiterated that his motion was not to allow 75 foot
poles or 100 foot poles if there were two locators at the inception of the application. It was to allow
100 foot poles, and then to require that anyone who would �cant to put a pole within one half mile of
that, e�aust all possibilities and prove that there was no colocation available. He also stated that he
does not fault staff with not comprehending his motion because of the chaotic nature of the meeting.
He added that he would not have made the motion that he made at the Zoning Committee meeting just
�
�R��T � _ � =� ��� '
to move the issue along, he made the motion because all the providers seemed to think it was a good
idea, and because he had the anticipation that Mr. Warner would be able to opine on the issue of how
the anti-trust question would be dealt with before the finat passaae. He continued that if he had known
that the intent was to try to move it along without resolving that issue at this level, he would not have
made the motion at the Zoning Committee meeting. He said he feels that this is a critical issue, and
reflects exactly what will happen. He finds no conceivable competitive disadvanta�e or serious
disadvantaae either the companies or the public will be placed at by not passing this along until April
11, and he objects to the fact that the amendments before the Commission today do not reflect the
intent of his motion at the Zoning Committee meeting.
MOTION: Com�nissioner T�aught moved to postpone this matter until the Aprilll, 1997, meetiirg
of the Planning Commission to allow Mr. Warner to opine, and to a11ow the amendments to be
redrafted so that they reflect the motion that was made at the Zoning Committee meeting. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Chavez
Chair McDonell stated that this is a continuation motion, which has preference over the existing
motion.
Commissioner Field asked that the motion maker and motion seconder consider amending the motion
to provide that if we do not have the appropriate opining by the April 11 meeting, that it not be
forestalled forever and that the original motion come to a vote at that time.
Commissioner Vaught stated that he would not accept that amendment.
Mr. Ford drew commissioners attention to one thing in the staff report for consideration. On page two,
it mentions there are trade-offs in allowing higher free standing poles for colocation.
The higher, more massive poles can be more obtrusive in residentiai districts and in business
districts near residential areas.
Mr. Ford continued to say that he started out thinking that taking the strongest position possible to
encourage colocation and reduce the number of poles would be the best option. However, after
carefully looking wherever he has been as to what is going on with antennas and their poles that
support them, he and staff have become less convinced that would be the best route to take. When out
in Orange County, California, he noticed that everyone on the freeway was using their cellular phone,
however, he did not find a lot of tall, obtrusive antenna poles. He found that they were short and small.
To accommodate a taller pole it must also be larger and more obtrusive. He reiterated that he and staff
are not convinced that a taller, larger pole with more antennas is necessazily better visually, near a
residential or other type of neighborhood area, than a larger number of smaller poles because they can
be significantly less obtrusive.
Commissioner Vaught commented that although he appreciates Mr. Ford's comments, he would have
appreciated hearing them at the Zoning Committee meeting. He then asked for the vote.
Tl:e motion on the floor carried on a voice vote.
Commissioner Vaught asked that in the event that the Planning Commission finds that it cannot
directly require colocation, that the actual wording that was intended by the motion at the Zoning
Committee be added to the draft in terms of the alternative.
#97-008 Hamline Universitv - Special condition use permit to allow expansion of the existing
campus boundary to include the property at the following addresses:
1472 Taylor
1478 Englewood
744 Simpson
740 Simpson
745 Pascal
739 Pascal
1463 Minnehaha
1471 Minnehaha
1479 Minnehaha
1485 Minnehaha
1495 Minnehaha
MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested special condition use permit to
a!!ow zrpansion of the existing campus boundary to include the properties listed above.
Commissioner Nordin expressed that she had a conflict in the listed conditions. She noted that under
condition #3 it states that all the driveways aze to be constructed on Pasca( Street. The conflict exists
with condition #4, item #2:
that there be no access to the pazking lot from Simpson Street untif Hamline University has the fee
ownership of the property at 740 Simpson Street
Commissioner Nordin reiterated that item #2 in condition #4 states that they could have access from
Simpson Street while condition #3 states that all the access must be from Pascal.
MOTION TO AMEND: Commissioner Nordin move�l to delete item #2 in condition #4 of the
resolution. The motion to amend was seconded by Commissioner Maddox
Commissioner Field commented that there is a conflict but he expressed that he does not understand
the issue, so he doesn't feel qualified to vote on the �.mendment at this point.
Mc Ryan commented that the access to Simpson Street was restricted only until the property at 740
Simpson Street was made a part of the campus.
Mc Gurney added that the reason this was added is because Hamline does not have fee ownership of
740 Simpson Street at this time, and the concem was that the property not be included in the campus
boundaries; nothing was mentioned about access or parking once that parcel is obtained. Once fee
ownership goes to the University, then it would become part of the campus boundazies. There was no
mention about access to the street.
Mr. Ford continued that Mr. Ryan is correct. Regarding access and egress, the Public Works
Department has examined this repoR and finds access and egress on Simpson Street adequate, as
originally proposed by the University. He noted that the language in condition #3 was not meant to
mean driveways shall be constructed only on Pascal Street, but that
Driveways to parking lots shall be constructed on Pascal Street only when the City Traffic
Engineer deems them necessary.
�.�_��5 �
�; ,
��=- -
In other words, unless driveways are deemed to be necessary, we should not even have them on Pascal
Street.
Tlte motion to amend carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Commissioner Gordon asked what was the reason for including the rivo Minnehaha addresses that «ere
characterized as bookends atthe previous meeting.
Commissioner Vaught replied that the western most parcel (vacant lot) is an integral part of the parking
situation involving the church. The second one is currently being used as an office building for
Hamline University.
Commissioner Gordon further asked, with respect to the two Minnehaha parcels he referred to earlier,
must they be included in the campus boundary in order for them to be used as they are.
Mr. Ryan answered that they do.
TJae amen�led motion on theJloor to approve the requested special condition use permit to allow
erpansion af the eYisting campus boundary to include the property at the above addresses carried
unanimously on a voice vote.
Commissioner Field announced that there will be no Zoning Committee on April 3, 1997. The next
meeting will be held o� Thursday, April 17, 1997.
V. Comprehensive Planning and Economic Development Committee
Commissioner Maddox reported that the committee met last week; a resolution on the Transportation
Plan will be forthcoming next Planning Commission meeting, Friday, April 11, 1997.
VI. Neighborhood Planning and Land Use Committee
Commissioner Kramer announced a meeting on Monday, March 31, to discuss the Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Vaught interjected that he attended the last meeting on metal shredders and found it
very informative and useful. He hopes that other commissioners will take the opportunity to attend one
of the meetings and/or to listen/watch a tape.
VII. Communications Committee
Commissioner Lee reported that the 1996 Planning Commission Annual Report was mailed in the last
packet. The new format is brief and concise; a brochure that's clear and easy to read.
Mr. Ford addressed the mistake in the paragraph on metal shredders on the back of the brochure.
VIIL Task Force Reports
None.
IX. Old Business
None.
!:�
XI.
New Business
Commissioner Chavez reminded commissioners how very important the metal shredder issue is. He
encouraged them to make every effort to attend committee meetings that speci£cally addressed tl�e
metal shredder issue.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Ford
Planning Administrator
\planning\
Approved
(Date)
Carole Faricy
Secretary of the Planning Commission
minutes.frnt
�
St. Anthony Park
� �q� s ��i►�
� � ��
�9�9 � �u��G � ��,
Community Council `
890 Cromwell
St. Paul, Minaesota 55114
(612) 292-7884
�
,�
June 1, 1997
Roberta Megard Roger Ryan
Ward #4 City Council Person PED Planning
Third Floor City Hall il City Hall Annex
15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Cellular Telephone Antenna Zoning Amendments
Dear Ms. Megard and Mr. Ryan:
We recently received a copy of the proposed Zoning Amendments for
cellular telephone antennas that were the subject of a public
hearing last Wednesday. The Community Council, by letter dated
April 17, 1997, stated our concerns about the proposed amendments
as they had been outlined to our Physical Planning Committee by
Mr. Ryan on April 3.
`Phe Communit� o�n '1 con nd ha a g��ia� condit�onal use
p�rmit should be re�ired for any cellular antenna so that
commt?nity in�ut i s obta? ned before any such structure i s buil t.
The frequency of anticipated ante:.na applications if a
conditional use permit is required is not a legitimate basis for
a zoning amendment that facilitates construction without
appropriate review of an application.
Additional concerns about the proposed amendments were
in our April 17 letter, a copy of which is enclosed.
with concern that our April 17 letter was not included
copy of PED's file that was recently sent to us.
appzeciate our position stated in this letter and our
correspondence be included in the official records
proposed zoning amendment.
detailed
We note
with the
We would
April 17
of the
' �oger Ryan
` Page 2
6/1/97
.�
�� ����
Thank you for your attention to this letter. We will appreciate
your response to our concerns and hope that the suggestions made
in this letter and in our April 17 correspondence will be
accepted.
Sincerely,
JES:id
�
ST. ANTHONY PARK ^
CO_ *�7ITY COUNCIL '
l/ r ,
� ` ,�.
f �vi/�L� � ✓ � ,
J`mes E. Snoxel� ,
¢o-Chairman
�
�� ����
�
St. Anthony Park Community Council
690 Cromwell
St. Paul, Minaesota 55114
(612) 292-7884
April 17, 1997
r�
. � -�,%
�i � �._
Roberta Megard Roger Ryan
Ward 4 City Councilperson PED Planning
3rd Floor, City Hall il City Hall Annex
IS W. Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102
St. Paul, Mi3 55102
Re: Cellular Telephone Antenna Zoning Amendments
Dear Bobbi and Roger:
Earlier this month Roger appeared before the Physical Planning
Committee of this Community Council to outline cellular telephone
� antenna zoning amendments that PED is considering. This letter
is meant to convey some of the Committee's concerns about the
proposed amendments.
The outline of the proposed amendments do not properly address a
number of community concerns. First, the proposed amendments do
not provide any limits on the number of poles that may be erected
in a particular area. The amendments simply provide that if the
criteria for placing an anter.na are met, an antenna may be
�
erected. The City should not ignore the aesthetic effect of
having multipie antennas in ar, area, and the zonirg amendments
need to address how many antennas can be erected in a particular
area.
being thought about.
Second, Roger acknowledged that PED has not assessed how many
antennas may be required or needed. Considering the total number
of antennas that may be sought in particular areas is a
fundamental part of the amendment process that apparently is not
Third, the proposed amendments do not regulate how close antennas
� may be to each other. Accordingly, in some areas such as along
Interstate #94, where multiple antennas may be sought by multiple
• " � �oger Ryan �
� Page 2 a�,� \
April 17, 1997
f�
��
service providers resulting in an ugly proliferation of closeiy-
spaced antennas. Zoning amendments need to address how closely
antennas can be located to one another.
Fourth, the amendment process does not appear to be considering
possible health concerns. we assume that there is
electromagnetic .radiation associated with cellular telephone
antennas, and we have no idea whether the potential health
consequences of exposure to such electromagnetic energy have been
assessed by the City. If such considerations have not been
analyzed, they need to be cor.sidered in connection wi�h zoning
amendments restricting antenna locations.
Fifth, we object to the proposed amendments' giving essentially
unlimited right to erect antennas on top of "institutional use
structures" even in residential areas. Institution use, as we
understand that term, includes many non-business buildings,
including, far example, churches, schools, government buildings
such as recreation centers, and the like. Accordingly, there are
� many buildings in residential neighborhoods that could have
antennas erected above them.
These antennas, under the proposed amendments, could rise 15 feet
above the structure, meaning that antennas could tower a
significant distance into the air. Rather than allowing
unlimited construction of antennas, again without any restriction
on the number to be erected in a particular area or how close
they can be to each other, the amendmeats should impose other
rules�to protect neighborhoods against tne visual intrusion and
safety concerns of these antennas.
In general, the proposed amendments appear designed to facilitate
antenna construction rather than to protect the community from
antenna proliferation, safety issues, and visual impact. The
amendments appear to essentiaily remove a community's ability to
object to inappropriately located antenna sites and provide no
restrictions for aesthetic reasons. The amendments should be
reviewed to recognize the community's interest in protecting
against the harmful visual impact of unsightly antennas, the
inappropriate locatior. of antennas in residential areas, and to
provide an opportunity for ccmmunity response to the location
� where antennas are suggested. Communities should also have the
�
��
*ROger Ryan
Page 3 � � �
April 17, 1997
ability to respond to proposed construction of an antenna on top
of an existing structure in a residential area.
Zoning rules are supposed to protect the citizens of a community
by helping balance the competir.g needs of business, services, and
residents. The proposed ame^dments do not, in our judgment,
properly balance ;.'r.ose compet:ng needs. We request that PED
review the proposed amendments and adjust them to take concerns
such as the foregoing into consideration. We also request that
the proposed amendments be circulated to s�11, of the district
councils at least two months Defore they are presented to the
City Council, and that Community Council responses be seriously
considered. we further requesc that the City Council consider
the needs of residential neichborhoods and take the CommuniCy
Councils seriously as they consider adopting the proposed
amendments.
This is a
St. Paul.
appreciate
foregoing
very important matter to this and each neighborhood in
Thank you for your attention to this letter. We would
your response to our concerns and hope that the
suggestions will be accepted.
Sincerely,
S'F. ANTHONY PARK
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
/ , I ,�
r / � � � !
✓ V � {� % � � t, /t� 7 K"/��
Co-Chairperson
S ��'
;�
Y� '� V � �
• n Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: June 10, 1997
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney
RE: Agenda Item 25. Question posed to Planning Staff at the June 4, 1997 City Council
meeting concerning the impac[ of certain amendments to the cellular telephone ordinance.
ISSUE
The following question was posed to planning staff at the June 4, 1997 City Council meeting:
could a parcel of land zoned residential and occupied by an institutional use [for instance, a fire
• or police station] which was less than one acre in size become a location for a free standing
cellular telephone antenna? Answer: Yes.
ANALYSIS
One of the amendments introduced stated that in order to locate a free standing cellular
telephone pole in R-1 - R-4 residential zoning districts, the lot where the free standing pole is
located must be at least one acre in size. This one acre lot size restriction was added as a
condition of the special condition use permit.
The creation of a one acre lot size restriction raises the foliowing question: would a variance
from the one acre lot size restriction granted for the purpose of allowing a free standing pole
on a Iot smaller than one acre constitute a"use" variance? A"use" variance allows the
establishment of a use in a zoning district that does not permit such a use. For example,
granting a variance to allow an apartment building in a single family zoning district. Under
Minnesota law "use" variances are strictly prohibited. See, Minn. Stat. §462.357. Subd.6(2).
Since cellular telephone antennas located on free standing poles are permitted in all zoning
districts, they constitute the same type of zoning use irrespective of the zoning classification of
the land upon which the free standing pole is located. Granting a variance from the lot size
requirement goes to an area d'unension condition and not to a use restriction, because, as noted
above, the poles are permitted in all zoning districts. Therefore, granting a variance from the
• one acre lot size condition would not constitute a use variance prohibited by law.