02/27/1996 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Eagan, Minnesota
Tuesday
February 27, 1996
6:30 P.M.
Municipal Center Community Room
I. ROLL CALL & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
III. OPUS PROMENADE/RESOLUTION OF COMMITMENT TO
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
IV. HOLZ FARM TASK FORCE REPORT*
V. DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED PARK BOND REFERENDUM*
VI. WATER RESERVOIR - ANTENNAE INSTALLATION
LEASE AGREEMENTS
VII. ELECTION SIGNS
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
*The Advisory Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1996
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1996
A special City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 27, 1996 at 6:30 p.m., in the
Municipal Center Community Room to discuss the following items:
OPUS PROMENADE/RESOLUTION OF COMMITMENT TO
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Opus Corporation has been notified that in order to finalize the draft indirect source permit (ISP)
for the Eagan Promenade Project, a binding commitment is needed for all roadway improvements
referenced in the ISP application. A resolution of commitment to transportation improvements
is being drafted by the City Attorney's office and will be available at the City Council meeting
on Tuesday night. The resolution is needed so Opus can a ISP. They need the ISP so they
can begin grading. Enclosed on pages through is a copy of a draft letter to Opus
Corporation and to the City of Eagan regarding this item.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the resolution of commitment to the
transportation improvements for the Eagan Promenade Project/Opus Corporation.
HOLZ FARM TASK FORCE REPORT
The Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission will join the Council to
discuss the Holz Farm Task Force report. A copy of this report was distributed to members of
the City Council with the last APRNRC packet. If any member of the Council has misplaced
their copy, please contact my office on Monday and another copy will be delivered Monday
evening. The APRNRC has been studying the task force report and recognizes that there are
many issues to be addressed They would like to discuss with the Council items to which the
Council can give approval at this time and also remaining issues which are of concern to the
Council.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide staff and members of the APRNRC direction
on issues regarding the Holz Farm Task Force report to which the Council can give approval and
also issues which they feel need to be further addressed.
DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED PARK BOND REFERENDUM
The APRNRC has been continuing to meet regarding a proposed park bond referendum to be
held this calendar year. They are scheduled to again meet on Monday, February 26, to discuss
the proposed park bond referendum again and what they will present to the City Council on
February 27, 1996. Like the City Council, the members of the APRNRC have just received the
Caponi Art Park proposal. They hope to form an opinion regarding this proposal on Monday,
in order to discuss a proposal with the City Council as a part of the discussion on the proposed
park bond referendum.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To discuss the proposed park bond referendum and give
direction to the APRNRC regarding further study.
WATER RESERVOIR - ANTENNAE INSTALLATION LEASE AGREEMENTS
The City of Eagan has been contacted by three companies who have expressed an interest in
installing antennae on City water towers along with related equipment facilities on site. These
applicants are:
1. ONECOMM Corp. represented by Buell Consulting
2. Sprint Telecommunications Venture represented by FBA, Inc.
3. American Portable Telecom represented by TEA Group, Inc.
The City of Eagan staff is requesting input from the City Council regarding the extent the City
Council would wish to allow or promote the use of City water towers and related properties for
the installation of wireless communication antennae and related equipment. What fees and/or
other compensation should the City Council establish for antennae installations, and what other
land use/zoning categories should such installations be allowed on.
Enclosed on pages JL through/.-)
is a copy of a memo from Directorf Public Works
Colbert regarding this agenda item. Also enclosed on pages 3 through is a memo from
Associate Planner Dorgan regarding the Personal Communication Services tower requirements.
Enclosed on pages ? throughg� are copies of an article regarding contractual
considerations from the January/Feb ary 1996 League of Minnesota Cities magazine. Also
�
enclosed on pages#hrougl is a copy of an article entitled "Towering Controversies"
from Governing Magazine. The City Council may want to read these articles. They provide an
excellent background on this policy issue. It is anticipated that individuals representing the
proposers will be present at the special City Council meeting.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide staff direction regarding antennae installation
lease agreements for water reservoirs.
ELEC"T"ION SIGNS
Because of concerns raised during the 1994 election, the City Council requested staff to
investigate and review the ordinance related to election signs and to possibly recommend
amending the current ordinance. This item was discussed at the Advisory Planning Commission
workshop held on February 8, 1996. It is the commission's recommendation that five specific
issues should be addr d in a r 'sion to the election sign ordinance and related ordinances.
Enclosed on pages through is a copy of a memo from Planner Tyree summarizing the
recommendations of the APC. Attached to that memo is the original information that was sent
to the Advisory Planning Commission for their meeting.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED; To provide staff with comments and direction regarding
formulating an amendment to the election sign ordinance and any other related ordinances.
/S/ Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
TLH/jeh
R-96%
HIM AO Program Devel Fax:612-297-8701
February 22,1996
Ma. Michele Foster
OpUR Cof oration
P.O. Box 150
hfimmvOus, eta 55""l so
Ma Peggy Reichert
Director of Co=uz&y Davelopmemt
City of Easm
3930 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122.1897
RE: Promenade -Opus Retail Development
Dear Ms. Foster and Ass. Rochat t:
Feb 23 196 7:39 P. 02/20
ff
-IN
The staff of the Air Quality Divisim of *e llTnnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has
completed a drab of the In&cd &mute Permit (SIP) for the, &pn Promenade project located in
the city of Eagan. Please find enclosed a copy of tine draft p =nh and fact shoat for your
information and review.
The droit ISP includes a provision requldng completion of tux assumed Toadway hMrovemertts
before occupe acy of the proposed pirojoct. A kgmlly binding commitment for .s11 roadway
itttprove�e rehrewed in the MSP application aril assumed in the air quality nasi & is noodod
to finalize the draft ISP. In my Fe&uuy 20, 1996) phone co vensgtion with Lissa Freese, city of
V.
Eagan, it was discussed that a binding commitment by the :Vf Eagan and Opus Caagwration
will be provided fior all roadway k rw amob the city and a eloper are rtspansibla far.
In addition, it is also my tactderatsnding from my February 996, phone conversation with
Walter Rockenstein. Famm saad "Beworn. That Opus C"Porrution intends to apply for a 100im
variance for the Eagan P=xnade project. To date, the MPCA has not received an arppUcadon
Am Opals Corporation for a noise Nananee. I suggest that Opus Caporadon oontaet Charlie
Kennedy of doe Air q atity Division, Noise Pro&am at (612)296-7372 to.discusa ft n018C
vamwe application and public notice mq*vn=Is. If application for a noise variaaae is
pi.i.. a 30 day public commend period would be required for the public notice.
In s nm a y, in ofdcr to finalize tiro draft ISP, the following information is needed: a banding
eoma►itt for all rrmdway itnpraNemetA referenced in the LSP application and assumned in the
at quality snalysis, and rmludon of Ox appllcatlen for a vain variance.
If you love any questions regarding this le Ms please call uric t�(G 12)297-2331.
612 297 8701
02-23-96 08:41AM P002 #39
WCA AO Program Devel Fax:612-297 8701 Feb 23 9% 7:39 P. 03/20
Sfn,=cly,
Mery Rofnan
Mobile Somot Unit
Piopun Development and Air Anebmis Section
Air Qw tity Division
Enclosure
cc: 'Waiter Rockenstcal, Faegm & Beason
Lusa Freese, City o£Eapn
Jahn Crawford, SRF Conan ing, Inc.
J. David 7homtowB8dwa ?meson, Air Quality Division
Innocent Eyoh/Susw= SpA=, Air Quality Division
1?-Qr,w 612 297 8701 02-23-96 08:41AM P003 #39
z
—city of eagan
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
C/O THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1996
MEMO?
SUBJECT: WATER RESERVOIR - ANTENNA INSTALLATION LEASE AGREEMENTS
5SU€S
1. To what extent does the City Council wish to allow or promote the use of City
water towers and related properties for the installation of wireless communication
(i.e., cellular telephone, paging, 2 -way radio, etc.) antennae and related
equipment.
2. What fees and/or other compensation should the City Council establish for
antennae installations.
3. What other land use/zoning categories should such installations be allowed in.
PRESENT CONDITIONS
A aafari Ground Reservoir - US West New Vector has 12 antenna panels (4 in each
of 3 sectors) for cellular telephone service installed in 1990. A 14' x 38'
equipment switching building is located on the site within which the City has been
given secured access to a 6'x 14' portion of the building for future City use. The
site improvements are landscaped and buffered from the adjacent single-family
development.
B. LeAnvton Ground Reservoir - US West New Vector has 12 antenna panels (4 in
each of 3 sectors) similar to the Safari site. These were installed in 1992. A 32'
x 32' equipment switching building is located on the site (within the Lexington
Diffley Athletic Complex). The City has been secured access to a 19' x 32'
section for use by the Parks and Recreation Department for storage of athletic
and recreational related equipment The site improvements are being landscaped
by the City in a phased manner to compliment the athletic complex development.
C. Private Monopole Tower #1. - Cellular One acquired property and installed a
single monopole tower with 5 antenna panels uniformly spaced near its top. This
tower is located in the southwest comer of Deerwood Drive and 35-E. There is
a12'x28' equipment switching building located on the site for the exclusive use of
Cellular One. This was constructed on Agricultural zoned land in 1990. There
presently is no significant landscaping onsite.
Antenna Installation Lease Agreements Page 2
February 22, 1996
D. Private Monopole Tower #2 - US West New Vector obtained a lease from a
private property owner and installed a single 80' tall monopole tower with three
(3) antenna panels uniformly spaced at 50' and three (3) near the top (f panels
total). This tower is located on Lot 1, Block 3, Cedar Industrial Park. There is a
12'x 24' equipment switching building located on the site for their exclusive use.
This facility was under construction during the Fall of 1995. Additional
landscaping was required as a part of the Conditional Use Permit along Kennebec
Drive.
E. Sperry Water Tower - The City of Eagan has three (3) omni directional whip
antennae located on'the top of the Sperry Water Tower for public safety radio
communications. A 12'x 8' shed is located inside the fluted base column of the
tower. Subsequently, it is fully screened from adjacent land users.
F. Other Facilities - There may be other structures/antennae located on private
building rooftops that City staff is unaware of. Subsequently, there is no detailed
information available if, in fact, they exist at all.
PROPOSAL
Recently, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) auctioned off several additional
Personal Communication Systems (PCS) licenses to provide additional wireless
communication services to a 5 -State regional area incorporating the 7 -county Metro area,
Subsequently, the City of Eagan has been approached by three (3) additional providers
who have expressed an interest in installing antennae on City water towers along with
related equipment facilities on site. These applicants are:
1) OneComm Corp. represented by Buell Consulting.
2) Sprint Telecommunications Venture represented by SBA, Inc.
3) American Portable Telecom represented by TEA Group, Inc.
Individually and/or collectively they have expressed an interest in all current ground
reservoirs and water towers, including the Deerwood ground reservoir presently under
construction. They are all proposing antenna panels very similar to the current US West
New Vector installations with either freestanding equipment buildings (approximately 12'
x 18') or 1- 4 control cabinets (3' x Tx 5') per site, similar in size to a standard refrigerator.
Each proposer would like to enter into a lease agreement with the City for a 5 -year term
with an option to extend the lease for 2 3 additional 5 -year terms. These proposers have
extended various offers of annual rental for the City's consideration. The attached matrix
shows a comparative analysis of all current and proposed lessees.
7
Antenna Installation Lease Agreements Page 3 February 22, 1996
CONCERNS
1. While their frequencies will have to be compatible, there is some competition for
elevation and azimuth location on the structure itself. Also, each proposer will
need to construct a freestanding structure on the site to accommodate their
equipment switching facilities. The City Council will have to determine to what
extent they want to allow attachments to these City water towers and the
construction of several freestanding structures on the related sites.
2. There is a need to establish a fee structure to be incorporated into the lease
agreement. This fee schedule would determine to what extent the City wants to
promote vs. accommodate these types of applications or whether they should
pursue freestanding monopole installations on private property.
3. If these facilities are to be installed on private property, what should be the proper
zoning/land use and conditional use permit requirements, taking into
consideration the necessity of elevation and adjacent land uses.
SUMMARY
Representatives from the various proposers would like to receive some feedback from the
City Council in regards to their desire to lease space on City water towers and what the
rental fee and other requirements would be. This will also help the staff in responding to
the applicants and in negotiating the lease agreement for ultimate City Council approval.
1 will be available to provide additional information and discussion at the Council
Workshop Session of February 27.
Respectfully submitted,
Director of Public Works
TACty
cc: Department Heads
Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
Mike Foertsch, Assistant City Engineer
Attachments: Antenna Lease Matrix
Letter from TEA dated 2-14-96
Letter From SBA dated 2-16-96
TAC s -WS 9
rvi
N
r
94
M
N
N
r
N
r
AoN
r
N
M
N
N
N
r�i
en
m
rpt
iii
CoCo
M
W
N
S�
N
N
x
40
60
N44
6Q
...
�E
...
.�
^.
'EE
e
e
c
c
�EE�''
e
E
Ec
c
ME
cE
�
WW
W
�}
W
Wr
3
LL�7
S
IL
Co
WyT
O
W
t6 •
W
W
W
10
N
l°
Ifs Y�!
In
10 stF!
M
In 1�
4?
An
M IA
1A Uhf
10 t�!
IA
A
J
Z, y
O
nC
O
O
O
O
CC
O
O
o
N35N
a
s�
O
U
U
N
W
W 0
cc
W t
W p O
r
l7
r
�
r
�
r
r
!h (i
Ri f.i �P�3V
7M(i
OIxU
7
C4
m
w
a
a►
a
ao
c,
Ct)
as
Q
a
4D
0
cc
Mo
r
►�-
'
o
a
a
a
a
$
a
E
E
r
e•r14
1 kdi
10
!+
CD
o
ni
ed
February 16, 1996
Mr. Thomas Colbert
City of Eagan
Director of Public Works
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122
PCS Antenna Installations at Eagan Water Reservoirs
Dear Mr. Colbert:
■
American Portable Telecom (APT), a subsidiary of Telephone and Data Systems, Inc.,
was awarded the Federal Communications License for Personal Communications
Services (PCS) in six major US markets including the Twin Cities. The license for the
St. Paul - Minneapolis market indludes all or a part of six states.
By early 1997, APT will provide the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan area with a
high quality digital communications network with voice and data capabilities. The City
of Eagan, as do all communities surrounding St. Paul -Minneapolis, plays an essential
role in providing this service to users not currently being served by cellular providers.
In order to be able to provide complete coverage for the City of Eagan, APT has
determined that five city water reservoirs; Yankee Doodle, Diffley at Lexington, Sperry,
Safari Pass, and Deerwood would be appropriate locations for antenna sites. By
placement on these structures, the need for individual antenna tower locations is reduced.
APT, through the serfices of TE:X C -cup Incorporated, is interested in working
Eagan in the installation of antennas at these sites. The typical installation would include
nine (9) directional panel antennas (approximately 101" x 6" x 1.5" deep), operating at
the 1.9-2.2 ghz radio frequency range. Additionally, up to four (4) equipment cabinets
may be needed at each site, requiring an area of approximately 100 square feet.
APT is proposing a lease arrangement which includes an initial term of five years,
renewable with three (3) five year extension periods. The annual lease fee will be paid in
advance and each renewal extension period will include a 15% increase over the previous
term fee.
1040 Crown Pointe Parkway ■ Suite 800 • Atlanta, Georgia 30338 + (770) 481-2100 ■ Fax (770) 481-2150
0
Working with the City of Eagan, APT will be able to provide a portion of the seven
county Twin Cities metropolitan area with the "next generation" of wireless
communications systems, utilizing technology operational in European countries since
1991, and currently serving over 10 million customers.
APT has invested substantially to obtain the PCS frequency license for the Twin Cities
market and has a long term commitment to build and operate a system providing superior
voice clarity, security, data transfer without modem, fax, Internet, messaging and paging.
We welcome the opportunity of working with Eagan in developing this new
communications network and request the opportunity to appear before the Eagan City
Council at their next workshop and council meeting. Please inform me of the date and
time APT is to appear before the City Council. Thank you for your continued
cooperation in this matter.
Sincer ly,
OJ►M
SBA, tna • liifireless Communications Consultants National & Intemational
7625 Metro Boulevard • Suite 235
Edina, Minnesota 55439 February 14, 1996
FAX: (612) 8301924 • Phone: (612) 830-1555
Mr. Thomas Colbert, P. E., City Engineer/Director
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122-1897
Dear Mr. Colbert:
Three of Eagan's water towers located at:
1. Highway 1491Yankee Doodle Road;
2. Diffley/Lexington; and
3. Towerview Road
have been identified as a potential site for Sprint Telecommunications Venture's "STV" wireless
telecommunication equipment. STV has been awarded an FCC license to provide "state of -the -art" digital
wireless communication services in Minneapolis. STV has hired SBA, Inc. to locate and lease its
communication sites in Minneapolis.
There are numerous benefits to leasing space to STV. The wireless communication site provides a source
of rental income with no investment by the property owner. The facility will require no improved leaseable
space. The facility is unmanned and will not create any additional activity or traffic. The equipment is
clean, quiet, smoke-free, and safe. Best of all, it will provide additional revenue.
We would like to install the following equipment on your facility:
• approximately 9 to 12 panel antennas;
• approximately 15'x 20' of ground space to locate BTS radio equipment cabinets;
• cables and associated mounting hardware;
• 240 volt, single phase, 100 amp power; and
• telephone line, (T1 span).
The cost of all utilities, phone lines, and necessary improvements will be paid by STV.
I will be contacting you within the next several days to answer any questions you have, set an on-site
meeting to discuss equipment locations and perform our feasibility study.
Please find enclosed an Entry and Testing Agreement, a PCS Site Agreement, and an Equipment Data
Sheet for your review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (612) 830-1555.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Debra Michaels
Site Selection Specialist
Enclosures
1�city of eagan
TO: Tom Colbert, Public Works Director
Peggy Reichert, Community Development Director
FROM: Steve Dorgan, Associate Planner
DATE: ' February 23, 1996
SUBJECT: PCS (Personal Communication Services): Tower Requirements
MEMO
Staff is currently in the process of reviewing information relating to the technology of PCS towers
in response to recent inquiries by PCS providers to locate in the City of Eagan. Some
municipalities have recently revised their ordinances in response to the current demand for tower
space by telecommunication companies. Staff is currently reviewing several ordinances obtained
from other cities in addition to specific information relating to the PCS technology. As you know,
the City will need to respond to the anticipated influx of tower space demand by PCS providers.
The following is a summary of information the city has obtained to date.
PCS is a significant improvement over current cellular technology in that it can transmit data and
video in addition to voice. It also offers higher quality and capacity. The new technology is
predicted to dramatically impact local municipalities in the next five years with the proliferation of
communication towers.
The design of a tower network for a PCS provider will require more frequent but shorter towers
than a cellular network. Currently, cellular networks require towers every 5-7 miles. The PCS
technology may require a tower every 1.5-2 miles_ Therefor, a PCS provider will require several
more towers to provide service to an area than a cellular provider.
PCS represents a technological change that will have a significant impact on most municipalities.
The City of Eagan has recently been approached by several PCS providers who are requesting
use of municipal water towers and other potential sites within the City to locate the transmitters
required for the technology.
Reducing the number of overall tower sites within a city is in the best interest of all parties. Cities
that have fewer towers and providers reduce their expenses and avoid the inconvenience to local
Memo - PCS Towers
February 23, 1996
Page 2
citizens. There are several methods by which a municipality can proactively moderate the
negative impacts of new communication towers. The recently passed Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996 retains state and local government authority to regulate the
placement, construction and modification of PCS towers and sites as long it is done in a
nondiscriminatory manner. The most promising method is to require providers to collectively
locate on new or existing towers. The providers operate on different frequencies, therefore,
multiple transmitters may be placed on new or existing towers along with cellular providers onto
one tower.
Some municipalities restrict communication towers to specific zoning districts. The PCS
transmitters typically are required to first locate on existing towers or structures located in
commercial or industrially zoned districts. Conditional Use Permits may be used in addition to
the zoning regulations to further manage the placement of towers.
Another approach used for locating tower sites involve PCS companies that build towers and out
buildings on city owned property. The tower and building is then owned by the City and leased
to other PCS providers. This allows a city complete control over where towers are located. Also,
cities may use existing city owned structures such as water towers to provide PCS companies
the necessary tower space. Attached is list of MN cities and the respective lease agreements
for providers who occupy space on city owned towers. In addition, attached is a survey of tower
ordinances from other cities for PCS.
Eagan City Code currently requires a Conditional Use Permit for the erection of TV/radio
antennae which are in excess of the height limitations imposed in each respective zoning district.
The code does not specifically address PCS towers.
Staff will continue to review other ordinances and information pertaining to PCS towers. A draft
ordinance will be prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission at their regular meeting
on March 26, 1996.
League of Minnesota Cities
February 7, 1996
145 University Avenue Wed
St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
TO: City officials interested in ordinances and lease agreements pertaining to
personal communications services (PCS) facilities
FROM: Ann Higgins, IGR Representative
RE: Materials collected from Minnesota cities enclosed; meeting announcement
request for meeting agenda items
The League has now received the following materials from member cities:
City Item Terms Fees
Afton ordinance pertaining NA NA
to antennas, towers,
and related telecom-
munications infrastructure
Bloomington lease agreement 5 yr/renewable 5750/mo 1st yr;
2 additional Syr 5900/mo 1st renewal;
terms 51,080/mo 2nd term
Brooklyn Park transmission tower i yr/renewable 5405/mo
zoning height
(150-) and performance
requirements; lease
agreement Arai amendment
• Burnsville
ordinance on
placement of
am mas; standard
kase Agreement;
antenna rates, site
application
5 yr/renewable
additional S yr
terms
variable depending on
sWe or muld- se,
Tepeater, etc.; 3 %
hwrease based on CPI
Centreville felecor _ _cations NA �� NA
and zoning ordinanoes .-�`
Circle Pines
Dellwood
Eden Prairie
Edina
Falcon Heights
Golden Valley
Jordan
Lake Elmo
Lino Lakes
Ike Canada
13 r-tv 7
lease agreement
telecommunications
ordim=
zoning regulations
lease agreement
6 yr/renewable
3 additional 6 yr
terms
EW
S amount blank
annual in advance
3 % times the number
of yrs in expiring term
NA
NA NA
4 yrs/renewable 512,000/yr in equal
four additional Syr monthly installments
terms + $500 option.
Formula increase over
extension periods.
letter re: PCS antenna NA NA
zoning requirements
ordinance pertaining NA
to telecommunications
towers (120')
ordinance pertaining NA
to telecommunications
towers (45')
current zoning NA
ante= height
regulation (65')
zoning conditional NA
sod permitted use for
transmission towers
ordinance pertaining NA
to essential Services
building code, zoning NA
ordinance
form agreement; 5 yrs/reaewable
zoning ordinance for 3 additional
/(o
/ Syr. terms
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$ amount blank,
5S b=aase per yr
+ other terms
Oak Grove
zoning ordinance
NA
NA
prohibiting towers or
antennas
Plymouth
zoning regulations;
NA
NA
conditional use permit
Prior Lake
lease agreement
5 yrs/renewable
5700/mo. in advance
four additional
renewal increases based
Syr. terms
on CPI (5 % cap)
Richfield
zoning regulations
NA
NA
pertaining to antennas
and towers
Robbinsdale
zoning code re:
3 yrs/renewable
$ 833.33/mo
ht. limits, antenna;
four additional 3yr
increase based on CPI
lease and right of
entry agreement
Spring Lake Park
lease agreement;
5 yrs/renewable
5500/mo. renewable
ordinance require-
for 4 additional
terms based on CPI
meats for telecom-
5 yr terms
(Capped at 20%)
munications towers
Waconia
zoning ordinance
NA
NA
pertaining to towers/
antennas
f�
W
O
z
0
V
D
dr
V
J
Q
O
w
W
IL
_
f
a
x
I
i T4
a
a
E
i
•
g
4
' s
V
d
.•
J
r""
L■
�'
a
sui
w.
Yp
Or
Z
QO
ti
Z
J
9
5�
o�
Ui
On
The latest buzz word in the press and broadcast media connected to the
concept of the information superhighway is personal communications
services, or PCS. PCS refers to communications services that enable
people and devices to communicate independent of location. PCS
networks and devices operate over a wide range of frequencies assigned
and authorized by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The
two major frequency spectrum ranges that include most of the PCS are
the 800-900 MHZ band and the 1,800-2,000 MHZ band.
PCS emerged in the past decade with
the introduction of car phones,
portable phones, pagers and mobile fax
products. But this was only the begin-
ning of the wireless revolution. Technol-
ogy exists today to provide new PCS
products such as telepoint, wireless PBX
and mobile data, as well as products
that combine voice and data services
such as a personal digital assistant. (See
list of products and terms.) With the
completion of the FCC's recent
spectrum re -allocation and licensing
process for new PCS services, the
explosive growth of wireless communi-
cations will continue. This growth will
significantly impact Minnesota cities in
several areas.
PCS is an upgraded version of
cellular telephone technology. Th
major difference of interest to Minne-
sota cities, in addition to the greater
technical capabilities offered through
PCS, is the requirement of much
greater base antenna/site density than
required bs the conventional cellular
telephone networks. This requirement
translates into a need for 100,000 to
200,000 new PCS sites throughout the
United States in the next several years.
Currently, several groups of real estate
companies are combing the Twin Cities
metropolitan area to obtain numerous
new antenna sites for their PCS industry
sponsors. Municipal water towers are
ideal sites for these much needed new
PCS base/antenna systems because:
• They are secure and not subject to
vandalism.
• They are usually located on the
highest ground elevation site in the
area. PCS frequencies travel in a
line -of -sight mode to the higher a
PCS antenna is located, the better
the PCS communications range.
• Water towers are solid and stable
structures that withstand harsh
weather conditions.
• Water towers are accepted by the
public as necessary structures; they
typically do not evoke outrage from
residents as is common in residential
areas.
• It is far less costly for PCS companies
to rent space on existing water
towers than to build their own metal
towers and shelter buildings.
Other Issues
Because these PCS transmission and
reception facilities have the potential
MINNESOTA CITIES f JANUARYIFEBRUARY 1996
for interference with other radio and
television users, cities that are contem-
plating leasing tower sites or space
should seek the expertise of an experi-
enced professional communications
engineer to ensure that their govern-
ments are not plagued by technical
problems. Professional communications
engineers can also provide cities with
the knowledge of the value of antenna
sites to PCS providers. As a result, cities
will be confident that they are receiving
a fair price for water tower space and
not leasing at too low a price. The cities
of Lakeville, BumsNille, West St. Paul,
White Bear Lake, Champlin and St.
Paul retained professional assistance ir
the leasing of water tower space. These
cities receive many thousands of dollars
in net revenue each year from their
antenna site leasing programs while
keeping cost, interference and neigh-
borhood problems to a minimum.
Contractual
considerations
Another area of concern associated
with the implementation of PCS
technology is the legal agreement or
contract between the PCS company and
the city. Since the value of antenna sites
is appreciating rapidly as their need
becomes more critical, it is essential that
the initial rental rates be commensu-
rate. PCS companies will spend hun-
dreds of thousands or even millions of
dollars on their PCS base equipment at
each site; therefore, rental rates of
several thousands of dollars per year/
per PCS -lessor is not unusual. It is
crucial to establish a commensurate site
rental fee schedule so that cities benefit
fairly for co -locating PCS antenna,/base
equipment on city property. Again, a
professional communications engineer
can assist in the development of fee
schedules for ratification by a city's
council.
Another point to consider is that the
value of PCS and other business
communications sites is increasing more
than the cost of living or Consumer
Price Index (CPI) figure, Therefore, it
is unwise to sign up for a long-term site -
use contract with a PCS company. Any
term of more than five years is excessive
since contract renewal can be coupled
with a rental rate increase. In addition,
13
the usual contract suggested by PCS
companies has a 60 -day escape clause so
that the agreement with the city can be
immediately canceled for a variety of
company-controDed circumstances.
Since the value of PCS antenna sites is
increasing faster than the CPI, short-
term contracts (five years for example)
should be used so that greater rate
increases are possible after the initial
contract period has expired.
Zoning considerations
The cities that have been the most
successful in generating revenue from
the lease of water tower antenna space
have a rigorous zoning structure that
strongly discourages erecting PCS
antennas in residential areas. By
establishing zoning legislation that
encourages the use of city water towers
for antennas, the PCS companies are
encouraged to apply to the city govern-
ment for antenna location. Thus, the
city maintains control of site safety,
aesthetics, and radio/television interfer-
ence considerations, while also guaran-
teeing a substantial revenue stream for
the city. City zoning ordinances must be
carefully drafted to cover all of the
above and numerous other consider.
ations, such as insurance consider.
ations, fee schedules, payment process,
removal of obsolete radio equipment,
and transfer of leases (numerous
ownership changes have occurred in the
,:
'e s Z.n 2=s c
wireless communications industry and
many more are expected).
The leasing of antenna/base station
sites to PCS companies and similar
agencies is a current hot topic for
Minnesota cities. Substantial revenue
can be generated for the city at very low
cost, if any at all. It is essential that
zoning ordinances and policies be
revised or strengthened to protect city
interests. City officials are encouraged
to contact cities that already have an
active and substantial effort underway in
the area of PCS technology. Another
recommended course of action is to
contact a professional communications
engineer experienced in this unique
area of communications engineering so
_ . i Smarr! irodtlllts d d
t Pe1"i0t11>s� �OtEllttlfYA ia'I�iol'1= C� R 1n ....•. _ ..:: - . �.• .. �
CJkA r A PCS service•
tions of turd, voice *uogm and Peim,
functions like dab entry or raHaving
provides Mro-wal►wics and data ; _
`
tialh video messages among computers!
information atom a database.
communications ouvugh hand-held, "
personal digital assistants and daiobases.
Prrsrx+d mobility - A feature d,ot may Ix
portable and car dash -mounted phones
Mobile data services can be provided by
offered by some PCS services that tracks �-. --
and through wirelms rnodenrs incorpo--._,
a number of to hnoksgies like cellular PTS,
and makes cells and inforrnaltim to
rated into devises h1w laptop computers
mobile satellite and ESMR, as well as
specific people ratFw than specific
and electronic notebooks. Cellular can .
networks built w ius;v y for dato PCS ' .
locations. r
offer enhanced 6*urw like voice mail
applications.
Pam number -A *ephooi number
and call waiting Geographic cxwerage '
Allo bge salWbe -A PCS server that is
that is assigned b a person and not a
areas for cell+w metrics ars kuge and
anticipated to provide two-wvy wsm alxl,
geographic location.
` can swat cities, asurdies, antics stales or ''
data commvnicoikx s using saMelliies,
Perxortiaf %leccmn icctia+ns Services
= even the entire Un7ed Skates:
hcnxi-!geld phones and wireless modems- :'
- A PCS service that is es�rected tc
�:y,.
Data tervics - The elect, of k irons er OF
iraoorrcmi l into device: like iciabca
pravi& two-way voice and data comma•
dab ordigital information.
kis epeded dad mobile
nidations through bond -held and oar:
E-rrrail - The electrenic ftInsfer a-sd
sakilife sewices will offer v4KInced -•
mounted phones and thmugh wireless
"10 of wrWW aressagea.
feakxm like call waiting and voice mol.:.
modem inlegraled into corr>p<rters and -
;• E:rlwrwed Spwiafmrd Mabrlls Rood -ice '- "
Geographic service dovero8e is sterid-
c*w drAcm like electronic rrdebcaks_-
- APCS serYice drat is anticipahld .
talo
pdtecl b be kxger than recast PCS srvids�,
be
PTS a asiieipasod to after •nixrnoerd
ieatur+er like
b after too- voile and eommrxar
and may even warldwidec . -
rotas mail and aik wailing
cations dtrough I�rd-h�eid and oar ;:
�
A PCS servids lhd pr imorr r_
d-o'-lsy-.f—�
pT5 is service areae ars :_. :
ksge
rrmarmled plso�rr*s, and .«rrsieat�
�
ern voice and
ar�b�br and may cover
' '�
Incidents WYp7rparated ll* �"
K� = porbble ownpulers aria electrorwe {*<z` _
aarnrrxrraicotisns voice or we6�r; .
message, or a data kciftsfer to a pager cry.
a011ntiee arfd entire r. • _ . r -z : T
Telepoint - A PCS service drat can Pvvidi
' rsateboola, ESMR is sxpaded to ofd?
a device like a kap" axrupulsr with a
either over or two-way ►wide diad
_ many � teleses (rias voice maria
built-in pogar. Geogr,aplric servin -
oon.nUniCUlion: through l"Id-fysld -
_.. and call wailing. Ceog aphic serv+aet=, : -
a wwage amm for irig ars kegs, wrtfs"
phorr. 01 A devsdw kks elscswk-r:
x3-.
�.{�N
dssrI RgA are= arsanticipated to be-;
trees- paging nig nelson-
es ankcip�ed tYsd -�-«=
large and may r.'+aw arras, aounhes,'� �?
wide coverage. _
xervresi wig covw wa�er •iF �•. -S�'
entire stats,r and wren the entire EJrri a yr
�reaetd el ilia a M - A tt
fea'
ureas and offer tarter hites than Maar*
.
Stalte� �; - �. , : • _ �:
doviae that processes p (oras dais arxi
PCS services, such as alukr and PiS, at -
h i agree - A PCS ierw;os dad is e;p@,-i -
mWeagn aced porkma aornp W1W -oY _
a kawer pn'c&. :y, ` : + x• _ , _
tD prVAde two-way wsreleas
••
- .. .R r-a.a b! '.✓ -. i'i'��"'S
- - - ]�' T
-�'y. `�' -
_ _ .: ... .:� .` '•_ .... .' -• t" ec:."1 r.-".• •_»d;. ,:- ... -:
it •-y - i -.. � i- V..-�. ram i-••
�• =� - �4 -:cif ;��';.�{w.i- : - - s W � ,i� :' ! � -
. - '.'�'+ `t � k
iyyTL�..�
1 [ r .!;'ice yam...
.. �i�. �-.TyT,�1".X�,i��Ni�� i��Yu .M-._�
: -
_ � .�y�' iT�W. T.V,7
; .�y ♦
+'}_�' ,+Jy t
a_i -�Y��vi�•lr�i i �.,..i -.'M-1 .._ - •�w4arCf�+.j— •{�+h-.tit�'+��:_µi•r` ��A_.b�. ?... h4. �+�I
e"2 0
14 MINNESOTA CITIES I )ANUARY,FEBRUARY 1996
Ct)o--, L
that the technical and financial interests
of the city are adequately protected V
RobertHickson has been city
nd-iniststor of Lakeville, MN for the
past seven years. Erickson has also been
city manager of Moorhead and Maple
Come, MN, and of Helena, MT. He can
be reached at (612) 985.4401.
Dr. John DuBois is a registered
professional wmmuniications engineer
with 30 yews of experience is radio
systemengineering
DuBoisc nventlyassistsnumerous
cities in managing their water tower
asset. He em be reached at (612) 835-
7657.
-W%6O ■IA -76 Jechc4rK sl0ra8e and
`=_*cnsfw aF vaics and motion video
� A - skwags or
- ansfsr of audible messages
rntiuss 14J* - Wrueless Local Area
r: flistwa& (W+1s) pra%ide vArelws
mmwdxxu for devices Gke porkNe
_ jaiw do �s
;�_ - ' Ylrssalsrs and so dwabases.
LANs acs w pecied to be bulk for
3 .1,prirde+aer such as a business
ivitftin oarea WW a
_.-Axminess compAor dal area.
.M�sre MX - Wireless PBX is
lava
"rri01 that is assentiany a wirwM
' ttnirou Wep6ne. it is wgww that
ssrv+cs wr"g pnihsmYvde te ae
Y= o rrlr pnare, I n e Tw MCA old
.76 phow
�;`ti -e able b rnalw and reca:+re mks when f re
ehe'sw shin a awn�iK,e aoyera�s ansa
eaQs areas far rvirrless P1lX ate
fa.lticipated to b. prinuar,� wAin build- .
and insiefrrsdlatedvofareas.�stacl,
7s. 4
.,ws a bua r ess aon" or aawsain
.:.� ,+ INS irrnar+nfwa isdstnbgy
`yxmtcrl►afirnirr�ie
to expersse old
IN
-�=�_ �w9rin� ne+w�dines kir ear+�rsr I
Several Minneapolis area law enforcement agencies are participating in a
project that uses data warehousing and open connectivity standards to
provide shared access to police data The project — the Multiple jurisdic-
tion Network Project (MJNP) — helps police investigators do their jobs
more efficiently and accurately.
The problem
The project began in early 1992
when the Crystal Police Department's
juvenile specialist identified a recurring
problem when dealing with young
offenders. Juveniles are often deferred
to other agencies or programs to help
them change their ways before they
accumulate permanent arrest and
conviction records. While this effort
helps many young people, some
become experts at slipping through the
system. If the police departments do not
realize that the young offender has also
had recent contacts with other police
departments, his or her chances of
being deferred to a juvenile program
rather than arrested, booked and
processed, improve.
In 1992, the only way to find out
whether a juvenile had recently had
contact with other police departments
was to call the neighboring agencies
and request a record check. An efficient
system to check on a person's possible
recent contact with neighboring police
departments was badly needed in order
to appropriately identify and deal with
problem cases.
Crystal's juvenile specialist attended
several professional organizations'
meetings in an effort to determine if
existing computer systems could be
organized to quickly and efficiently
make the needed inquiries. Until
recently, the answer was usually "no."
Since Minnesota police departments
computerized their records systems at
different times over the years, they have
a wide variety of computers and
networks that do not communicate with
one another. In addition, security and
data control issues often impede the
ability to share computer data—even
with other police departments.
The solution
During the process of attempting to
create a more efficient system of
information sharing, Crystal learned
that the Minneapolis Police Department
was willing to allow a trial connection to
their police records system for inquiry
purposes. Crystal took Minneapolis up
on their offer and made the connection
(a terminal connected to the Minneapo-
lis mainframe using a leased telephone
line) and found the results beneficial.
In fact, investigators found that easy
access to Minneapolis police data
helped not only in juvenile cases, but in
adult cases as well.
At about the same time, the Mine•
apoUs Police Department was complet-
ing their plan to move their records
system from a Unisys mainframe to a
NNNNESOTA CITIES ! JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1996 - 1S
teen U.S. ("CIII :
to Wild another
tower in Alachua
f-lorida, a L -Imp)
agl it didn't ext
in the wav of resist:ulf-M.
For one thing, the cown-
pany already had seven
antennas in the north
Florida county. For
another, the new tower
was slated for an undevel-
oped, wooded area, just
the kind of place one
might expect to find the
occasional water tower or
radio transmitter.
To county officials,
however, the 240 -foot
tower would stick out like
a sore thumb against an unint
seemed particularly inappropriat
horse ranches planned for n p pe
owners near the site complained thar the appeal and value of
their land would drop, the county commissioners rejected the
company's application for a special -use permit. 'This com-
mission has for years tried to protect our
residential neighborhoods from the incur-
sion of commercial development," says
County Commissioner Leveda Brown. "We didn't think
therewas anything unusual about that."
The commission thought wrong. The company took the
board to state court, where a judge ruled that the residents'
testimony was not "competent, substantial evidence" on
which to base a decision. He ordered the county to grant
the special -use permit. The only thing stopping the com-
pany now is the paperwork for the building permit.
The situation in Alachua County is hardly typical, given
that the vast majority of antenna applications in the United
States are approved with little delay. But as the number of i
applications increases and the towers start casting shadows
over residential neighborhoods, more local govenuzrents
are likely to find themselves in the same position as
Alachua County: caught between a phone company and a
group of angry homeowners.
At the same time, the courts and Congress are making it
harder for kxsil governments to say no to antennas. The
rulings have some local officials wondering if they will be
at the merry of the phone companies' technical experts,
unable to stop or slow the proliferation of antennas in
their communities.
Rather than trying to block the antennas, some juris-
dictions are looking for ways to profit from• the
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
lr wanted nie-i' Ilse• o
antenna example.
a Co ilty, coIIIt)allle.
e of ,vc.u-s the phone
)ec:t much IOWIRING repilaton
;0KiR0V[RSI1S
Some communities are tying to keep cellular
phone companies from crowding the
landscape with towering antennas. Others
are trying to get a cut of the action.
i
errupted skyline. It i �{ �% ) of the ones going up n
e next to the upscale ; The proliferation of
earbv lots �i'hen ro rtti new technolo 'es and n
r m i. &W iN rmaa..
f the public rights of Way --i
I
dr►nanding .1 share of the
c' nWIN111c's. Not surprisingly,
exanpmic's h:lye :uked federal
to NUI tlrtt land of IL'%V.
Today there are
roughly 20,000 transmis-
sion facilities for mobile
phones. By the ,year 2000,
the industry estimates,
there will be 115,000.
That means close to six
antennas for every one
now standing, not count-
ing the ones that handle
paging and data -transmis-
sion services. The cellular
antennas will be replaced
by smaller ones as their
numbers grow, but many
no,
are 150 to 250 feet tall.
antennas stems in part from
gi ewly authorized services. The
two cellular companies in each market soon will be joined by
half a dozen new competitors, all of them needing to install
antennas. Some of those competitors—the companies offer-
ing a more advanced form of cellular tech-
nology known as "personal communicatio-
services, or PCS—have already paid L.
federal government dose to $8 billion for their frequencies,
so the pressure to get the services up and running as
quickly as possible is formidable.
i don't think you want to be the jurisdiction that stands
in their way," said E. Eugene Webb, assistant director of
hilbr ruation systems for St. Petersburg, Florida "If you get
into a war with one of these outfits, they're going to use
atomic bombs. They're not going to start out with rifle
shots "
Industry officials say that new antennas invariably follow
the demand for portable phone service, which increased
58 percent from mid-1994 to mid-1995. Thus, the losers in
the disputes over antenna sites are not just the phone com-
panies, they say, but also the residents whose mobile
phones won't work as well without the extra antennas.
Antenna strategies vary from company to company, but
the basic needs are the same. Each service area is divided
into "cells." As the number of users increases, the cells
have to be split into smaller and smaller units, each
served by its own antenna. The antenna mot be tall
enough to be seen from any point in its unit, but low
enough to be hidden from the signals in neighboring
units.
When service is just begsruuing, a company can usually
�.
S.ANNEENNER
1S =' _
get I►v with otv- or two tall towers. 'I'1►cy
Also lktvc a kit of flexibility in pkicing the
w%vers k-atiisu there usitally :ur: plenty of
tt-(:hnic,dly ruitaldt' SRUS. & the crlls arc
split into snnaller and snwller fragn►ents,
however, a lot of that flexibility is lust.
Some local officials complain that
mobile -phone companies have adopted a
take -it -m -(cave -it strategy. Backed by in-
house engineers and consultants, some
companies have insisted that their chosen
sites are the only ones that are technically
suitable. This kind of approach puts small
towns and rural counties without the
resources to hire their own experts in a
tough position when residents complain
about a proposed antenna.
Such was the case in Blairstown Town-
ship, a bedroom community of about
5,000 residents in the foothills of north-
western New jersey. Looking to eliminate
gaps in its coverage, Pennsylvania Cellu-
lar proposed in 1994 to put a 180 -foot
antenna tower on a hill in an industrial
zone that had yet w attract any industry. A
handful of property owners in the area
argued that the antenna would drive
down the value of their homes, and the
Blairstown board of adjustment denied
the company's application for a variance.
Pennsylvania Cellular then sued in
state Superior Court, accusing the board
of acting arbitrarily. A state judge ruled in
mid-1995 that the flower was a "beneficial
use of property, so the local board had to
allow it to be built somewhere in the
township. Despite several alternatives
offered by local officials, the company
insists that its originally proposed loca-
tion is the only suitable one.
That doesn't sit well with Elwin V.
Barker, chairman of the board of adjust-
ment.-Theyre asking people to make a
sacrifice for their benefit," Barker says.
Miey re coming along and saying This is
the way it's going to be because we want it
to be that way, so we can make money.' "
ndustry o idals have their owh set of
complaints. While most local zoning
boards are fair and reasonable, says
industry spokesman Mike Houghton,
companies are running into an increasing
number of roadblocks stemming from
superficial or irrational objections.
In West Hollywood, California, for
example, the city council turned down
Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.'s bid
to upgrade an antenna after residents
complained about health risks. One
woman claimed that cellular antennas
While local govern.
ments approve the vast
majority of antenna
,applicatigns, the indus.
try wants to take them
out of the picture.
had killed one of her dogs and given her
other pets headaches. Rather than going
-to court, though, the company has redou-
bled its public -relations efforts in the
community as it keeps trying to build
new antennas.
To ease concerns about health and
safety, the mobile -phone companies often
mount grassroots campaigns touting the
strength of their antenna poles and the
comparatively low power of their opera-
tions. Lisa Bowersock, a spokeswoman
for [;S West's cellular -phone division,
says the companys typical antenna oper-
ates at roughly 100 watts—the power of a
strong light bulb.
Responding to residents' complaints
about aesthetics, many wireless compa-
nies are placing their antennas with other
companies' antennas or camouflaging
them to blend in with their surroundings.
Antennas have been made to look like tall
pine trees, church steeples or street
lights.
So far, the companies have been
largely successful in their antenna-
build-ing efforts. A survey in November 1995
by the American Planning Association
found that 92 percent of the applications
for cellular antenna towers had been
approved in 230 U.S. cities and counties.
Almost three-quarters were approved in
Less than two months.
Ne%ertheless, the industry's trade asso-
ciation has tried in Washington to take
local governments completely out of the
picture. The association has asked the
Federal Communications Commission to
curtail local zoning power over antennas,
but the FCC is not expected to grant that
request.
The industry also lobbied Congress to
limit zoning powers as part of the massive
telecommunications -overhaul bill under
consideration last year. Lawmakers came
down largely on the side .of local govern-
ments, but they did propose to prohibit
local officials from taking any action that
effectively blocks mobile communica-
ro,a)
tions services, ingroses unreasonable
delays or discriminates unreasonably
among competitors.
Toprepare fi►r the increase in
antenna a pplications, some commu.
nities are writing; ordinances to
address the most common public con-
cerns. Blairstown Township ordered
companies seeking new antennas to pro.
vide a master plan for all antenna sites in
the community. That way, the township
can factor the future antenna needs into
its land use plans and possibly avert dis-
putes down the road, says Richard T.
Coppola, the township's planning consul-
tant. But industry officials say it is hard to
predict how much the demand will grow
and where growth will be concen-
trated—two key elements in determining
the need for and placement of antennas.
St. Petersburg has taken a different
approach, trying to steer antennas onto
public property. Webb predicts that as
companies rush to build towers, cities
and counties will cut deals allowing the
towers to be built on public property in
exchange for part of the revenue.
Typically, cellular companies pay fixed
rents to lease antenna sites rather than
paying a percentage of their income.
Under an ordinance adopted in 1990, St.
Petersburg plans to charge PCS services
5 percent of their gross revenues, in addi-
tion to a $50 permit fee and a $100
annual fee for each antenna
. The phone companies argue that this
kind of regulation was outlawed by Con-
gress in the Omnibus Budget Reconcilia
tion Act of 1993. A provision of that law
prohibits state and local gov,ernments from
regulating the rates or entry of mobile
communication services in their markets.
After Roseville, Minnesota, adopted a
series of ordinances that demanded 5
percent of the local PCS companies m-
enues, the companies appealed to the
Federal Communications Commission
for preemption. The commission is still
reviewing the companies' petition.
Nevertheless, Webb argues that using
public property is the best way for local
governments to get a handle on antennas.
You cannot attempt to manage their
technology," he says. "You have just got
to manage what you control, and that s
the rights of way and the real property
that the jurisdiction owns. Beyond that,
you're just asking for trouble. You're
going to be sued and you're going to lose.
And probably rightly so." IB
THE MAGAZINE OF STATES AND LOCALITIES
FEBRUARY 1996/S4.50
rd
ow TO: Mayor Egan and City Councllmembers
FROM: Shannon Tyree, Planner
DATE: February 21, 1996
SUBJECT: Election signs..
INTRODUCTION
Attached is a copy of the election sign memo prepared for the Advisory Planning
Commission members for a workshop meeting held February 8, 1996, Following is a
summary of the APC's discussion and recommended action.
ISSUES
The Planning Commission identified several issues related to election signs and signs
in general. The issues raised at the workshop specific to election signs were as
follows:
► Election signs should not be located in the public right of way or on public
property.
► Signs should be allowed to be erected 90 days prior to an election and allowed to
remain up to 10 days after an election.
* ► The City should establish procedures for removal of signs in violation. Those
procedures should be given to the candidates with other campaign information.
► The City should uniformly enforce the sign rules throughout the campaign.
► A $10 charge per sign should be required for release of any signs removed and
stored by the City.
PROPOSAL
The Planning Commission members have discussed the issues associated with
campaign signs and have recommended that an ordinance be drafted to address
these five issues.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
Staff is requesting your comments and direction in order to formulate an amendment
to the election sign ordinance and any related ordinances.
a
ofeaaan
TO: Advisory Planning Commission Members
FROM: Shannon Tyree, Planry.
DATE: February 6, 1986
SUBJECT: Election Signs
MEMO
Introduction
Because of Issues and concerns raised during the 1994 election the City Douncil
requested staff to invesigate and review the ordinance related to election signs and to
possibly amend the current ordinance. In order to do to, staff is requesting the Advisory
Planning Commissions comments and direction on the matter.
Background
On November 7 and 8, 1994, a large number of signs were installed along streets and
on property where polling places were located. After receiving complaints from the
community and the election judges, three candidates had their signs removed by the
Pc - department. The signs removed were within 5' of the curb, and were either
m.moved or were laid down when the truck became too full. The signs were located on
Dakota County right of way and in violation of the County's resolution prohibiting election
signs in its right of way. Also, some signs removed were located within 100' of a polling
place. This is a violation of the Minnesota Election Laws Fair Campaign Practices which
prohibits signs to placed within 100 feet of the polling place; and anywhere on public
property which is a polling place. In some cases the signs were causing a hazard by
reducing visibility.
Because of this Incident, a number of questions were raised related to the difference
between the City and County's rules, enforcement of the rules, the procedures for signs
in violation, and election day procedures.
Current Rules:
City Code Section 4.20 Subd. 7. Exernotions is the only reference In the City Code
related to election signs. It reads:
"Political signs for a period of up to ten days after an election,
provided such signs contain the name and address of the
individual responsible for erecting and removing the sign."
Political signs are addressed in the exemptions category and are not required to obtain
a sign permit. Exempt signs are limited to 16 square feet in size unless otherwise stated,
Because no specific sign size was specified, exempt signs have a maximum size of 161
.
However during a state general election there Is no size provision and signs can be as
large as the largest commercial or business sign permitted by the City.
The City's policy on signs has been to allow them on public property as long as no
hazards are created (sight lines, etc.) and to allow them on private property with the
owners permission. Several examples of major city streets where signs can be located
are: Wescott Rd., Slackhawk Rd., Wilderness Run Rd., Dodd Rd., Rahn Rd., Elrene Rd.,
and Nlools Rd.
akt 2y_nty Rules
In 1990 Dakota County adopted (by resolution) a policy prohibiting private signs placed
In Dakota County right of way. County Roads affected by this ordinance In Eagan are:
Lone Oak Rd - CR 26
Yankee Doodle Rd - CR 28
Diffley Rd - CR 30
Cliff Rd - CR 32
Pilot Knob Rd - CR 31
Lexington Ave - CR 43
1. The County Highway Department Is directed to actively pursue removing any
private sign placed along County roads and within the right of way that are within 30' of
the edge of the traveled lanes.
2. The Highway Department is directed to actively pursue removing any private signs
In the road right of way and beyond thirty feet from the edge of the traveled lanes when
the adjacent owner requests the removal.
3. The County Auditor Is to give copies of this sign restriction policy to all persons
Sling to run for office in Dakota County or for State offices and also to mail copies of this
policy to City Clerks or Administrators and School District Superintendents requesting that
ti,ey provide copies of this policy to persons filing at those locations.
4. Signs that are removed from the road right of way will be stores at the highway
shop for a reasonable period and returned to owners requesting the signs for a 56.00
handling The per sign.
The Minnesota Election Laws Chapter 2118 Fair Camaaion Practices which states:
"in any municipality that regulates the size of noncommercial
signs, notwithstanding the provisions of that ordinance, all
noncommercial signs of any nature may be posted from
August 1 In a state general election year until 10 days
following the state general election."
02 q
The statute does not address placement or manner of signs, only the length of time signs
may be posted in general election years.
A state general election Is defined by MN Election Laws 200.02 12efinitions, "General
Election means an election held at regular intervals on a day determined by law or
charter at which voters of the state or any of its subdivisions choose by ballot public
oflrclals or presidential electors."
The state does not permit election signs In its right of way.
ElecUon civ_ Rule
In addition, the Minnesota Election Laws are more specific about election day activities.
In the case of election day, the 1995 Minnesota Election Laws 211 B.11 Election Day
Prohibition Subd. 1 states:
A person may not display campaign material, post signs, ask,
solicit, or In any manner try to Induce or persuade a voter
within a polling place or within 100 feet of the building in
which a polling place is situated, or anywhere on the public
property on which a polling place Is situated, on primary or
election day to vote for or refrain from voting for a candidate
or ballot question.
If signs are located nearer than 100 feet to a polling place prior to election day, those
signs must be removed according to the above referenced statute.
Analysis
Fourteen cities were surveyed (Apple Valley, Burnsville, Farmington, Lakeville, Inver
Grove Heights, Mendota Heights, Rosemount, South St. Paul, West St. Paul,
Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Plymouth, Woodbury) and examples of what each
ordinance permits are listed in for your reference (see attachment).
• Cities which list a maximum sign size also state In Its ordinance that the size
Imitation is as prescribed by state statute. Meaning that for general elections
between August 1 and 10 days following they do not limit the size.
• Under state statute the Cities cannot regulate campaign signs size or type
between August 1 and 10 days following. Cities listing specific time periods may
be attempting to regulate elections other than state general elections (i.e. primary
elections or school board elections)
• None of the City"s surveyed permit signs to be located on public right of way or on
public property.
• Only four of the Cities ordinances refer to the Minnesota Election Laws.
• West St. Paul 1483 no specific ordinance In Its Code regulating election signs.
Issues
• "The City's current ordinance only addresses when the signs have to be removed,
and does not address placement or manner. Should the City adopt regulations
such as maximum height and size for non -general elections?
• Eagan Is the only city In Dakota County that permits signs to be located on public
right of way, The County does not allow election signs in its right of way. This
causes confusion because of the Inconsistency. Should Eagan adopt an
ordinance restricting signs in city public right of way?
• Eagan is also the only community surveyed that allows signs to be located on
public property as long as no sight hazards are created? Should election signs be
restricted to private property?
• K the City continues to permit signs in public right of way should there, be a
setback regulating the distance form the edge of the street (curb or pavement).
Rosevillle is in the process of adopting a standard IS' setback from any city right
of way. Apple Valley has an 18' setback from the gutter or edge of the roadway.
Currently candidates in Eagan may place as many signs as they wish on a parcel.
The City of Edina limits the number to one per frontage and Eden Prairie limits one
per lot or parcel. Should the number of signs be limited?
Summary
To be consistent with Dakota County's resolution and to avoid situations in the future, like
those that occurred in 1994, not allowing signs in the City right of way may avoid
confusion and eliminate sight line hazards all together. The majority of the communities
in Dakota County and others surveyed in Hennepin County also prohibit the placement
of signs within the public right of way and in public property.
Once a new ordinance is adopted a summary for all candidates outlining the local, county
and state taws can be assimilated in order for candidates to be dear on where their signs
can be posted, for what length of time, size, etc...
Staff is recommending that the City define and outline the procedures for signs which are
In violation of the election sign ordinance or the Minnesota Election Laws. Those
procedures could be given to all candidates when filing for office. By doing so candidates
will have an understanding of what will happen If their signs ars In violation.
Folkrwirrg is a list of options for the Pianning Commission to consider,
1) Keep the existing election signs ordinance Ch. 4.20 Subd. 7.1-1. as is, which
basically restricts time and manner.
2) Amend the ordinance to restrict other elements (i.e. placement, and manner).
3) Adopt by reference applicable provisions of M. S. 2118. Fair Campaign Practices.
Regardless of any change to the ordinance, this would be an appropriate time to identify
speWc procedures for removal, storage and replacement of signs in violation prior to
election day and on election day.
requested Action
At this time staff Is requesting comments and general direction from the Advisory
Planning Commission in order to formulate an amendment to the election sign ordinance
and any related ordinances.
30
-Z I
Cl"i
V1 o a,
W 8:6
w
0
z
�a
0
o
c
� e �
C6 a< r
s
m
h
^ o
� u
f 4.20
ti<C. 4.20. PLACZMZTP, nZCTION AND !O1•IlflZHAN."z o! SXUNS.
Subd. 1. "ose, Construction and Definitions.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section shall be
to regulate the placement, erection and maintenance of signs in the
City so as to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the
residents of the City.
D. Construction. All terms and words used in this
Section shall be given their common sense meaning considered in
context, except as hereinafter specifically defined.
C. Definitions. The following terms, as used in
this Section, shall have the meanings stated:
i. •Signs - Any surface, facing or object upon
which there is printed, painted or artistic matter, design or
lighting.
2. "Nuainess Signs - Any sign upon which there
is any name, designation. or advertising which has as its purpose
business, professional or commercial advertising and which is
related directly to the use of the premises upon which the sign is
located.
2. •lion -business Signs* - Any sign such as
personal name plate or designation as for residence, churches,
schools, hospitals, traffic or road signs, which do not contain
�.
advertising and are directly related to the premises upon which
they are located.
4. slree-Standing ground Signs, - A business
sign erected on free-standing shafts, posts or walls which are
solidly affixed to the ground and completely independent of any
building or other structure. Any business free-standing ground
sign which projects more than seven feet above ground level is
considered a pylon sign.
5. sOff-preatise Signs - A sign, which directs
attention to a business, commodity, service or entertainment
conducted, sold or offered somewhere other tban or. the property
upon which the sign is located.
•
S. OPYloa Signs - A business sign erected on
free-standing shafts, posts or walls which are solidly affixed to
the ground, and which projects more than seven feet above ground
level. Pylon signs, when authorised, are considered a conditional
use, as defined in the Zoning Chapter, and are subject to all
conditions, regulations and fees required for conditional uses.
7. *Sign Areas - The gross area, exclusive of
supportive franc, which contains copy or identifying features such
64 (9-l•94)
f 4.20
as a Logo, character or identifying figure. The gross area shall
f be calculated as an enclosed area bounded by no more than twelve
(12) straight lines.
S. *Sign Height• - The distance from the
lowermost ground point to wh1ch the sign is attached, to the
highest point on the sign.
Subd. ]. Veraitted Uses.
A. Location of business Sigae. Business signs are
permitted on property zoned Business, Industrial. Agricultural,
Public Facilities, R i D or PD only in conjunction with an approved
• Business, Industrial or Agricultural Use.
S. Location of Business Signs inotesidential Areas
Business signs in Residentially zoned areas or areas of PD
designation for residential use only under the following cases:
2. *For Sale*
upon Rent' xor
smaller, advertising the premises sch sign is located.
:12. Real estate •for sale• signs, not over 100
square feet, of a land developer, which are located upon the
Premises offered for sale.
apartment complexes. 3. Area identification signs for major
Subd. 2. general sign Standards.
A. Obstruction of Vision. No signs shall be
erected or maintained in such place and manner as obstructs driver
vision, or is noxious, annoying or hazardous because of method of
lighting, illumination, reflection or location.
B. Location to Property Line. No sign shall be
located nearer than test feet from any property or dividing line.
C. Location to Street and ,Railroad Might -of -Nay.
No sign shall be located nearer than ten feet from any street,
highway or railroad right-of-way, except only residential name
signs which are attached to mail boxes, lamp posts, or the like.
V. MOTIng tarts, Lights. No signs are allowed
which contain moving sections or intermittent or flashing lights,
• except for intermittent display of time and temperature.
S. Soares of Lighting. No signs are permitted for
which the source of light is directly visible to passing
pedestrians or vehicle traffic.
T. tainted Signs on 0"Idings. No signs are
allowed which ars painted directly upon the walls of a building.
65 (7-1-94)
3�
5 4.20
O. Coaatruction and traction of signs. All signs
Shall be constructed and erected in a good and workmanlike manner
Of sound and sufficient materials so as to ensure the safety of the
Public and in accordance with all reasonable standards employed by
.professional sign makers.
Subd. 4. Off-Prearise Signs.
sone within the City M off-premise
f -p a ase sign shall be permitted in any
Y ep permitted under SUM. 4 hereof.
B. The owner of an existing off -premise sign may
construct a new off -premise sign pursuant to a conditional use
the it heCity Codin
c
Code, and underuthe following of criteria:
Chapter St of
the number of signs be No sign will be permitted which increases
depicted in
(which follows this Sectio ),nd as amen ed frooms time to time?able A
2 NO sign shall be permitted which increases
the total Snare footage of
square feet depicted in Table A (wShiehAfo�lowabthia number
amended from time to time.
3. No sign. shall be permitted which increases
the tota
'I number of sign surfaces beyond the total number of sign.
surfaces depicted in Table A (which follows this Section). as
amended from time to time.
4. The
f a
be 250 square feet; however, maximum
may allow taQgiog_ in sign
ssaof
ll
250 square feet upon (i) the reduction of the total number of
signs. square footage or surface areas depicted in Table A (which
follows this Section), as amended from time to time, and (ii)
amendment to said Table A to reflect such reduction, and (iiil
further so long as the total square footage of all signs is not
increased beyond the total of sign square footage depicted in said
Table A, at the time of application for a new sign.
Other reetoff-premise sign than, 1$500 lineal be located
the nearer
same side of
the •treat or 300 lineal feet on the opposite side of the street.
6. No sign shall be located on a platted lot
which contains a business sign.
7. No sign shall be located within 300 feet of
any free-standing ground sign or pylon sign.
S. No sign shall be located within 200 feet of
any residentially zoned district.
66 (7-1-94)
35_�__'
S 4.20
1IL 9. No sign or any part thereof shall exceed 40
feet in height as measured from the land adjacent to the base of
the sign.
C• Any new sign permitted sander Subparagraph B,
above, shall not be placed upon any property upon which a building
or structure already exists.
above, shall be.Any located w Sion permitted under Subparagraph e,
industrial use. Y property zoned for business or
X. Any sign, now existing or permitted to be
constructed shall be removed prior to the City approving the
Platting of the property upon which the sign is located or prior to
the City issuing a building permit for the construction of a
structure upon the property upon which the sign is located,
-whichever occurs earlier.
Y. Any sign constructed pursuant to a conditional
use permit issued pursuant to Subparagraph B, above, shall be
subject to the Council's authority under Section 11.40, Subd. 4 of
the City Code.
Subd. S. Building xount•d business Signs, standards.
A. Number Parmitt•d. No more than one business
sign for each major street frontage shall be permitted on a
building for each business located within such building. j
b. Design similarity. All business Signa mounted
on a building shall be similar in design.
C. Sign Area. No signs or combination of signs
mounted up o ing shall cover in excess of 20% of the gross
area of
D. San Protection. No si
building s allowed t' gn mounted upon a
vertical sur see of hepbuilding.ze than eighteen laches from the
b• Baof Sipes. No sign mounted upon a building is
allowed to project above the highest outside wall or parapet wall.
Sub& 5. tree -,Std pusLuess Sigsas, standarda.
. A. h'e*-Staanding atouM Signs. Up to nae allowed
por building. Such signs shall be limited to seven taut total
height, with tour foot s"axiMM height of sign area.
b. Pylon Signs, tip to one allowed ,per building.
When used, a pylon sign is allowed in lieu of a frss-standing sign.
No pylon sign may be located within 900 feet of any other pylon
67 (7-1-94)
I
3 �p
L
S 4.20
sign., measured on the same side of the Street. ' No pylon. signs
shall project more than 27 feet above the lot level, roadway level,
or a specified point between the two levels as determined by the
Council. The level used shall be based upon visibility factors
from the adjacent roadway(s). The applicant shall submit diagrams,
drawings, pictures and other information requested by the City
prior to action by the Council upon the application. No pylon sign
shall exceed 125 square feat in area per side except pylon signs
authorised under Subparagraph C, below.
C. Kalov Coaapisx. When an area identification. is
required, such a$ for a shopping center, major apartment complex,
or major industrial building, up to one free-standing or pylon sign
may be allowed for each major adjacent street. The Council arall
determine the maximum size after reviewing the applicable
conditions including terrain, safety factors, etc.
V. Freeway Locations. An on -premise pylon sign for
identification purposes is allowed for a business sign located
directly adjacent to a freeway within the City, Any business that
acquires a permit to erect a pylon. Sig -,for freeway identification
may be allowed an additional free-standing ground aig^ to be
located on the side of the property opposite of the freeway. All
signs must comply in all other respects with the provisions of this
Section. A freeway shall be defined as a principal arterial
highway as defined .in the Comprehensive Flan.
fubd. 7. =zemptions. Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this Section, the following signs are exempt from the
permit or fee provisions of this Section. No exempt signs shall
exceed 16 square feet of area except where stated below:
A. For sale, lease, or rent signs of real estate
when located on the property advertised, and when under 16 square
feet in total copy area.
D. Church, hospital, or school directional signs,
less than six square feet in total copy area.
site. C. one on -property church sign for each church
D. Signs warning of hazardous conditions.
i. Simple information signs, such a■ `Exit".
GLoading Dock•o etc,
t. Simple name plate signs on or over the entrance
to a place of ,business or used to identify the parking ares of a
place of business. Not to exceed three square feet in gross area.
O. Signs erected by a recognized unit of government
having luriadiction in the City, or a school district within the
boundaries of the school district.
3
1
se (7-1-94)
s 4.20
R- Political signs for a period of up to ten days
after an election, provided such signs contain the name and address
Of the individual responsible for erecting and removing the sign.
I. Temporary signs for special civic events or
garage or neighborhood sales, for a period not to exceed twenty
days.
J. Temporary signs for special business sales.
There shall be no more than three such signs on any lot, with a
combined area of less than ZS square feet.. Temporary business
Signs shall be limited to a period of ten days out of any calendar
month. The ten days are counted sequentially from the day of
installation of the first temporary sign to the removal of all
temporary signs.
subd. 8. lion-Coatoraing 9igas .
A. The Protective Inspections Department shall
order the removal of any sign erected or maintained in violation of
the law as it existed prior to the effective date of this Section.
Removal shall be in accordance with Subdivision 10, below.
E. Any non -conforming temporary or portable sign
,existing on the effective date of this Section shall be made to
comply with the requirdments set forth herein or shall be removed
within sixty (60) days from the effective date of this Section.
this Section and. Otconforgnsmingexisting to its on the effective date of
conform to previous laws shall e regarded asssionsnon-conformingrov, butdid
which may be continued if properly repaired and maintaied gas
provided in this Section and if in conformance with other
provisions of the City Code. If maid signs are not continued with
conformance of above, they shall be removed in accordance with
Subdivision 10, below.
MUM. 9. sign Persists and Tees.
A. sign Permits. No signs, except those specified
in Subdivision 7, above, shall be erected or maintained anywhere in
the City without first obtaining a sign permit.
a. RPPlicaticn, Pewit and Tees. A formal
application together with accompanying documents prescribed by the
City shall be submitted to the City Clerk -Treasurer to obtain a
sign permit. Permit feem are as adopted by resolution of the
Council and shall accompany the permit application.
C. Review of Applications. The Protective
Inspections Department shall approve all sign permit applications
except that applications for approval of permits for advertising
signs, pylon Signs and any sign requiring a variance shall be
submitted to the Council for final approval.
i9 (7-2-9+)
C
S 4.2d
application shall be denied, the City Clark -Tr�aaurer shall return
said
the applicants permit fee, 1098 a r0450nable amount determined by
the Council which shall be retained as an administrative coat.
Subd. 10. S4IM0val. All signs which have not been
removed within the designated time period way after due notice be
removed by the City and ahy expense incurred thereof may be charged
to the sign Owner or assessed against the property on which they
are located.
Source: Ordinance No. 367, 2nd Series
Effective Data; 6-18-93
69-1 (7-1-94)
s 4.2C
. TABLE •A•
Number of
Siang
IMASIgn
are Feet
Surfacen
1•
Hi hwa 3
`
South O Of County Road d32
500 Square Feet
2
_•
Highway SS - Junction
.
Highway 169
500 Square Peet
2
3.
Highway 55 - Mast of
Lexington
110 Square Feet
2
4.
Highway 23 - Between
Cedar and Rahn
110 Square Feet
2
S.
Highway 13 - At Silver
Bell
1,344 Square Feet
2
6.
Highway 13 - Between
Cedar and County Rd. 30
250 Square Feet
1
7.
M 77 - Horth of Highway
23 (On Railroad)
756 Square Feet
2
8•
MN 77 - Between County
Roads 30 and 32
756 Square Feet
2
9•
MN 77 - North of
Highway 13
756 Square Feet
2
10.
I -35E - North of
Lone Oak
756 Square Feet
2
11.
I -35E - South of
Diffley Road
500 Square Feet
2
32.
Highway 169 - South of
Yankee Doodle Road
110 Square Feet
3
13.
1494 -.West of pilot
Mob Road
756 Square Feet
2
14.
1494 - Junction of
'
I -35E
756 Square Feet
2
TOTALS 7,960 Square Feet
28
99-2
(7-1-94)
s
I
i 4.21
SSC. 4.21• '(Repealed by Ordinance No. 129, 2nd Series.
adopted 9-16-91. Ordinance No. 142, 2nd Series, adopted May Z,,
1992, declared a moratorium which expired December 31, 1992.)
(Seetians 4.22 through 4,29, inclusive, reserved for future
expansion.)
(7-1-94)
�f
C.
0