Planning Report

Date:	October 17, 2000

Case:	SP00-14, VN00-7

Subject:	Special Use Permit & Variance for a 120 foot Monopole

Applicant:	Verizon Wireless

Request

To hold a public hearing and consider an application for a special use permit and 30-foot setback variance to construct a 120 foot monopole with antennas for Verizon Wireless. Additionally, at the bottom of the pole, Verizon is proposing to construct a 20 x 11.5 foot equipment shelter to house radio, computer and climate control equipment for the site. The subject property is located at 1415 First Avenue North, and is zoned I-1, Light Industrial.

The existing property contains a 100-foot tall monopole with cellular antennas. The applicants approached the owners of the existing pole about the possibility of located antennas on the existing pole, however, the only space available is said to be to low to provide coverage. Currently there are several areas in New Brighton in which service "cuts out" and is unavailable. The proposed new tower and antenna will eliminate those problems.

The following pictures show the
existing pole and site:

Verizon has collocated antennas on towers throughout the City, and that was there first priority in solving the existing coverage problem. However, every site that they investigated did not provide adequate height to solve the problem, therefore, they are proposing to construct the new monopole.

Findings

Section 6-010, I-1, Light Industrial District

Section 8-110, Special Use Permit

Related Past Action

On May 22, 1997 the City Council approved LP-323 to allow construction of a 75-foot tall telecommunications monopole at the US West site located at 390 Cleveland Avenue.

On November 26, 1996 the City Council approved LP-321 to allow a 100 foot high telecommunications monopole on the Rapid Print site at 1415 1st Avenue NW (Subject Site).

On November 28, 1995 the City approved LP-307 allowing a 125 foot high telecommunications monopole to be constructed on the Darling rendering plant site on 14th Street NW (South of Subject Site).

Site Characteristics

1.	Location:	1415 First Avenue North

2.	Lot Size:	The site is 2.6 acres

3.	Topography:	Flat

4.	Vegetation:	The site is well screened from the freeway, no additional screening is proposed.

5.	Sensitive Areas:	None

6.	Comprehensive Plan Designation:	Light Industrial

7.	Zoning:	I-1, Light Industrial

8.	Surrounding Land Uses:

North:	I-1, Light Industrial

South:	I-1, Light Industrial

East:	I-1, Light Industrial

West:	I-1, Light Industrial

Site History

1.	Past Uses:	I-1, Light Industrial

2.	Historical Significance:	None.

Departmental Considerations

Community Development

1.	Proposed Use:	Construction of a 120-foot monopole with four 8-foot antenna panels on the top. Additionally, at the bottom of the pole, the applicant is proposing to construct a 20 x 11.5 foot equipment shelter to house radio, computer and climate control equipment for the site.

2.	Monopole Setbacks:	Required:	120 feet (height of pole)	Proposed: 120 feet

120 feet (side)	Proposed: 124 feet

120 feet (side)	Proposed: 90 feet

The applicant is requesting a 30 foot variance to the above requirements.

3.	Landscaping/Screening:

4.	Impact on Land Uses:	Visibility of a 120-foot monopole with antennas.

Public Works

1.	Streets:	None proposed

2.	Curb Cuts:	Existing

3.	Utilities:	Available

4.	Easements:	The applicant will be leasing a 2,500 square foot area from the land owner, Tipar Investments LLD. Part of the lease agreement will include an access easement to the site.

5.	Grading/Drainage:	NA

6.	Rice Creek Watershed District:	NA

7.	Environmental Concerns:	None

8.	MPCA:	Not Applicable

9.	Other Considerations:	None

Building Official

1.	Structure Height:	120 feet tall

2.	Exterior Treatment:	Galvanized Steel

3.	UBC Compliance:	Will be required

4.	Other Considerations:	None

Sanitation/housing

1.	Weeds:	NA

2.	Garbage/Rubbish Enclosures:	NA

3.	Seating Requirements:	NA

4.	Kitchen Facilities:	NA

5.	Other Considerations:	None

Parks

1.	Proximity of Parks:	None

2.	Proximity to Community Facilities:	None

3.	Impact on Parks:	None

4.	Impact on Community Facilities:	None

5.	Other Considerations:	None

Fire

1.	Hydrants:	NA

2.	Access to Site:	Adequate

3.	Access to Structure:	Adequate

4.	Y Connection Location:	NA

5.	Other Considerations:	None

Staff Comments

Special Use Permit

As specified in Section 8-130 of the New Brighton Zoning Ordinance, no special use shall be recommended by the Planning Commission unless such shall find:

a.	That the establishment, maintenance, or operations of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort of the general public.

b.	That the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood.

c.	That the establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.

d.	That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided.

e.	That the special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it located.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts Cities from prohibiting the placement of cellular antennas/towers within the City limits if the proposal complies with land use regulations. However, the proposed cellular tower/antenna does not comply with the City's required setback. Therefore, the City is not obligated to grant approval in this instance.

However, it would appear that the proposal does comply with the standards of a Special Use Permit, subject to screening of the cabinets, proper construction of the tower and obtaining required licensing. The purpose of the required setback is for safety reasons, should the tower fall over, it would then land entirely upon the property it is located. As such, the applicant is proposing to design the pole with a 40-
foot "break point" (see attached plans) which would be designed to break at the 80-foot height and then fall. An 80-foot pole would then fall on the subject property, as the setback is 90 feet.

The applicants are required to meet all FCC regulations which includes a requirement that the subject antennas do not cause any interference with TV lines, cable lines or other phone lines.

Variance

The applicant is requesting a 30-foot height variance from Section 4-600 b.1 of the New Brighton Zoning Ordinance, which requires that all towers and antennae shall have setbacks equal to or greater than the height of the proposed structure. The purpose of the request is to construct a antennae tower to provide a better cell phone coverage area for Verizon Wireless. The proposed height of the tower is 120 feet, therefore, a 120 foot setback is required. The proposed tower has a 90 foot setback on the south side lot line. The purpose of the this setback requirement is for safety reasons, should an antenna tower fall, it would fall entirely on the site on which the tower is located.

In considering an application for a variance, the City must make the following findings:

1.	An undue hardship would be brought upon the applicant, should the variance be denied.

2.	There are unique circumstances related to this site.

The applicant feels that the hardship in this instance is due to the fact that the site is just 220 feet wide. The height of the pole is 120 feet, therefore, the pole could not be located on this lot to meet the required setback. Additionally, the pole could not be shortened, as 120 feet is the minimum required to provide adequate cell phone coverage. The applicants searched this immediate area to find an alternative site that met all of the City's Code requirements, however, no sites were found. Larger parcels were found, however, each contained a building, where a pole would need to be constructed to meet all required setbacks.

Staff does not agree that the hardship is caused by the lot width, and lack of a parcel available in the area. The hardship is actually caused by the applicant's desire to construct a 125-foot tall tower that cannot be supported on this site. If the application is denied, a hardship would not be brought upon the applicant, they would have to consider alternatives such as constructing several antennas in different locations to provide coverage.

Additionally, staff has concerns that granting a variance would establish a precedent for other cellular companies to request a variance to the setback requirement.

If the Planning Commission is compelled to recommend approval of this request, staff would suggest that it rather recommend an Ordinance amendment regarding required setbacks that would allow the proposal rather than requiring a variance. An Ordinance Amendment could be drafted to incorporate language into the Code requiring the "break point", as currently proposed, of the pole that prevents monopoles from falling on adjacent property.

3.	The request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.

4.	The variance shall not be detrimental to adjacent property or to the public as a whole.

Staff considers the above criteria to be satisfied. The request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed use is allowed in industrial zoning districts. Additionally, the pole is to be engineered with a break point of 80 feet above ground level, therefore, if the pole were to fall it would fall on the subject sight, which is the reason for the setback requirement to match the height of the structure.

Recommendation - Alternatives

Approval

Motion to waive the reading and adopt the attached resolutions recommending approval of SP00-14 and VN00-7, subject to the following conditions:

1.	Compliance with all FCC regulations.

2.	Issuance of a building permit for construction of the pole.

Denial

Motion to waive the reading and adopt the attached resolutions recommending denial of SP00-14 and VN00-7.

Staff Recommendation

Because the variance criteria does not appear to be satisfied, and a precedent would be set for similar requests, staff recommends denial of SP00-14 and VN00-7.

If the Planning Commission is compelled to recommend approval of this request, again staff would suggest that rather than recommending approval of a variance, the Planning Commission recommend an Ordinance amendment regarding required setbacks that would allow the proposal rather than requiring a variance. An Ordinance Amendment could be drafted to incorporate language into the Code requiring a "break point", of the pole that would prevents monopoles from falling on adjacent property.

Cary K. Teague, City Planner