1f. City Council Minutes October 28, 1996.1- i1
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 28, 1996
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Roger Knutson, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Scott Harr, Don Ashworth, Todd Gerhardt,
and John Rask
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
' agenda as presented. All voted in favor (except Councilman Berquist was not present to vote) and the motion
carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Bob Beduhn: I'm a representative of the Bluff Creek Estates neighborhood and I'd like to make an announcement.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything on? No, I guess there's not. Sure. Why don't you just come up. Please state
your name, your address and I assume it's Bluff Creek.
Bob Beduhn: My name is Bob Beduhn. I live at 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North in the Bluff Creek Estates
neighborhood. And we basically ... to let the City Council officially be aware of the situation with the construction of
the postal service facility that is occurring at the Bluff Creek, or the Chanhassen Business Center. It's on Lot 8 of
the Chanhassen Business Center and I just want to go through some of the issues as we see them right now. This
facility's.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Excuse me Bob. Is this not appropriate under Visitor Presentations? I mean we can
move the agenda around.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, yeah. I think it probably would fall more under that. I wasn't quite sure what this was all
about. Why don't you'll be on the agenda right after our Consent.
Bob Beduhn: That's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Final Plat Approval, Andrew Hiscox.
b. Townhomes at Creekside, Heritage Development.
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Approve Construction Plans & Specifications and Development Contract, Project 96 -17.
c. Lake Susan Hills Townhomes, 2 nd Addition, Jasper Homes:
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Approve Construction Plans & Specifications and Development Contract, Project 96 -18.
e. Selection of Auditors for the 1996 -1998 Contract.
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996 1
i. Resolution #96 -91: Accept Utility Improvements in The Meadows at Longacres 3` Addition, Project No.
96 -3.
j. Resolution #96 -92: Accept Utility Improvements in The Woods at Longacres 2 nd & 3rd Additions, Project
No. 96 -7.
1. Approval of Bills.
,
m. City Council Minutes dated October 14, 1996
Planning Commission Minutes dated October 2, 1996
Capitalization Policy.
p. Approval of Fixed Asset
All voted in favor (Councilman Berquist was not present to vote) and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone here for any of those respective items that have some concern?
Audience: O.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe we can just have Colleen address that.
O APPROVAL OF GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION CHASKA COMMUNITY HOCKEY
ASSOCIATION.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just a quick question. I was uncertain on this application. Do they already have the
permit at the Riv? Since this is a renewal.
Scott Harr: No, this is a.
Hockey Assn. Representative: That is correct. It is...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And who had it previously?
Hockey Assn. Representative: Disabled Veterans.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, that's right. Okay. And we in the past questioned the membership of that... Okay,
that's all I had. Thank you. I move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #96 -93: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
Gambling Permit Application, Chaska Community Hockey Association. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
N. APPROVAL OF 1997 POLICE CONTRACT.
Councilman Senn: Don, if we could do (n). I think Scott has to leave.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we talked about that and I was just going to go back to that one. Why don't you take that and
move along with that.
Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I had prepared the recommendations to the 1997 Police Contract
with Carver County several months ago. The Public Safety Commission unanimously endorsed it. I'm proud to say
that this is, will be the fourth year that there's no increase in the number of hours of police coverage per day. We
continue to support the system through use of Community Service Officers and other creative means. The 3 %,
2
I City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
' roughly 3% increase is more than justified and seems to be an excellent bargain. Particularly considering
that... having considered capital expenditures. However, since the Public Safety Commission endorsed this as
presented by the County, issues have arisen from the State Auditor's Board... with the Sheriff's Department and in
talking with Councilman Senn, he has suggested that we include a 120 day exit clause so that if changes did ensue
with the Sheriff s Department that would affect the City, we would not be held bound to it. Councilman Senn and I
discussed that from practically speaking, 120 days would be too short to even consider establishing a city police
department, but nonetheless I agree with Mark that... concern of the County and the recommendation I had made is
that we do enter into a contract with Carver County for the same number of hours of police coverage per day. But
Councilman Senn can comment on his recommendation which I would not have a problem with considering the
logistical problems... but Councilman Senn, if I could ask you to share your comments.
Councilman Senn: Sure. I had ... that I talked to Scott about. The one that he just mentioned, which I think when we
talked about maybe the 180 days or whatever with the 6 months which is basically equivalent to what the County can
give us to get out of the contract. Right now the County can get out of the contract with 6 months notice. We can't.
So it's just kind of basically a ... clause that basically says we can get out with 6 months. And again I mean it's not
meant as a commentary to what's going on. It's meant as basically as hey, we don't control everything around us as
it relates to this contract. We don't control everything around us. We should at least give ourselves some ability to,
how would you say, get service if we're not getting service given the changes that might occur one way or another in
an outside department. So that was the intent with that and the 180 days we looked at more specifically. The 120
days, if you go to page 6. What I was talking about there is if you'll recall here about a year ago we got hit with a
surprise bill on a new budget year relating to a past... It was then a year and a half old contract. And what I wanted
to do on page 6, under effectively item 9 there is rather than say, by the end of the year as reasonable practicable, set
a time period of 120 days which means they need to get an accounting to us 120 days after the end of the year,
'
which ... and then if there's an adjustment, then adjustments are made. That way we don't get the surprise that we
had before where we're in a budget year and we didn't even know we had extra bill coming from a previous year.
So that was the 120 day issue there.
Mayor Chmiel: If I remember correctly, and Scott maybe you can come back with it after we've talked about that
today, I was thinking that the County, the County Attorney was one at that time that we wanted to make some
changes into that proposal and that was given by the County. I think if I remember correctly, they wanted to keep all
contracts common and they did not want to move on that respective thing at that time. Now maybe there may be
some other cost that they may have but that was one of the things that was brought up rather strongly at that time.
Scott Harr: Correct. The City Attorney and I had reviewed the contract, which has been drafted by the County and
they weren't interested in changing it. However, the police contract with the City of Chanhassen is the largest by far
in Carver County and in fact I can't disagree with either of those recormnendations on Councilman Senn's part. The
contract has seemed to work well, which is why we haven't questioned the changes in the contract. But the 120 day
recommendation did come from a situation that put us in a difficult position and 180 days is, as you were right.
Right now the County could decide to get out but we would not be able to. So I see those as more of a housekeeping
type.
Mayor Chiniel: Yeah, I guess I just wanted to alert you to that fact. I think that it does have a well meaning too, in
the event that one or the other decides but okay. We have one other item. With that proposal, are you going to also
move that?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I'll move that with those two changes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the 1997 Police Contract with
Carver County as amended by Councilman Senn. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to move (k) and (g) to item number 7(a).
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Bob, this is visitor presentation. Would you like to come up now?
Bob Beduhn: As I stated before, my name is Bob Beduhn. I'm a resident of Bluff Creek Estates neighborhood. I
live at 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North. With me are also some other representatives of my neighborhood. What I
wanted to discuss with the Council tonight, to make you and staff aware of the situation occurring in the Chanhassen
Business Center. Specifically in reference to the construction of a postal service annex or transfer facility, which is
being constructed I believe on Lot 8 of that facility. The facility is currently under construction. It is a federal
facility. We've been told that it is not, has not gone through city plan review... process. It also has not, to the best of
our knowledge, not going through the city building inspection process as well. Some of the time line of what has
occurred, as we understand it, is that on October 8` plans were received from the postal service to the City of
Chanhassen and the Building Inspections Department. During the week of October 14` earth work began on this site
and me and my neighbors first began you know kind of had raised some concern amongst ourselves what was going
on. On Tuesday, October 22 " I walked past the facility and noticed the sign indicating that it was a postal service
facility. On Wednesday, October 23 I began contacting the City planning department and numerous other people
involved on the City Council. Made my neighbors aware of the situation. That this facility was being built. Was
under construction. Was a federal facility and we seemed pretty powerless of having to affect a change on how this
was being constructed. We had some serious concerns about how the process has been handled. About the time line
of when, when the City knew about it. The lack of response from the federal agencies. Me and my neighbors have
been calling lots of people and Council people, staff people, people in the federal and state governments. Postal
service and we have serious concerns about the impact of this facility on the Chanhassen Bluff Creek corridor. The
park and trail system. The trail that's right behind our house and obviously our homes. The facility, as we
understand it, is a 24 hour a day facility. Operations will begin early in the morning. Between 3:00 and 5:00 a.m. in
the morning with semi's coming in and bringing mail. The loading docks and all the extra parking are facing the
residents. Some existing benning that was constructed during this process is being removed. And so we're very
concerned about the impacts this is going to have and the lack of opportunity we've had to effectively change on the
design of this facility. There is going to be a meeting on Wednesday of this week at 7:00 p.m. in the Chanhassen
Senior Center that the City I believe has arranged where we've invited, where our neighbors are going to be there.
We hope you folks ... will be there and... representatives, our congressmen and our senator representatives are going
to be there as well. We would encourage as many people from the City to be there to help support us in trying to get
some real change to this facility and to the landscaping plan in order to mitigate the effects of the operation. So our
main goal tonight was to make you officially aware of that and ask for help. We've heard a lot about it's a federal
facility and there's absolutely nothing we can do. I guess we're just not accepting that. There's got to be something
we can do if we all work together and stand firm. We can affect some change. I just can't believe we're all just
going to roll over and let them do this to the City of Chanhassen.
Mayor Chmiel: And you're right when you say that the federal government pre -empts all ordinances of any city.
They have the right to come in and put, we've had discussions on it many, long, long time ago. And even with that, I
felt sort of helpless as well because of the fact that they do pre -empt anyone, anywhere within at least our 50 states.
And if I remember correctly, we did discuss that Kate at that time and that was the answer that we had received from
them. Isn't that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Bob Beduhn: One of our main concerns is really, we hope the City can address Wednesday night is some of the time
lines of this proposal. Really none of the neighbors really knew about this until the earth started moving, honestly.
We did all the, when we purchased our homes about a year and a half ago, the last phase of Bluff Creek Estates was
developed by Keyland Homes and Trumpy Homes. The builders /developers encouraged us to contact the City to
find out what's going on in the Business Center, because we knew we were building up against a building center.
There was no doubt about it. The choices were the Highway 212 corridor, Chanhassen Business Center. You have
to weigh, based on what your economics are and where can you find the best place to live. And we were assured by
the City Planning Department that we would be notified of any development that would occur there. Now I guess we
don't find as an excuse that it's a federal facility so we weren't notified. I don't know if that resolves the City of
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
I City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
responsibility. If you knew something was going on, whether it's federal, state or privately owned. Whether your
regulations specifically say that or not, that doesn't absolve you of direct responsibility for making sure that our
rights are protected and that we knew what was going on so we as citizens can at least get a hold of our federal
officials, who might have some control over the postal service, and let us know what was going on so we could work
on this before. As of today they poured footings for the building. So this meeting Wednesday night is great and
we're really ... many of my neighbors and I have talked to the City Council and talked to people in the City
Manager's office, Planning, Parks, Engineering. There's a solution there. There's something that can be done to
mitigate the effect of this parcel. We've talked to people about it. If you look at the grading plan, you can see how it
could work. It's just a matter of having the resolve to make it happen.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: We're not looking to try to absolve ourselves or walk away or anything else. The fact is that we had
no knowledge as to what the postal service was going to do. There was discussion from literally a year ago that we
knew they were starting increasing the size of this facility, going into that type of an operation. If they were to
consider the Business Park, the best knowledge we had would be, it wasn't going to be on the lot where they're
currently working. It was a different lot. Typically let's say a large user like they would be, would take anywhere
from a 60 to 90 day period of time to get through Planning Commission, City Council. You're absolutely right. The
first notifications that we got plans were from I would say around that October 8 1h date. We've been scrambling to
take and try and come up with the neighborhood list. Everybody within 500 feet. Trying to get a notice out, which
typically is the responsibility of the applicant. We took on that responsibility. We've been working with the
neighborhood trying to set up this meeting that he's been talking about for Wednesday evening. We have as well
have been on the phone with federal legislators, specifically Minge's office, who will have somebody there
Wednesday night. We have continued to try to request information. We're a little reluctant on this meeting for
Wednesday night because we're going to come into a meeting with no application. With absolutely no background
information. With very sketchy plans. This is not the way we would typically hold any type of a hearing. It's not
the way you'd normally present it to a Planning Commission. You have answers to questions, which we don't have.
But we're more than willing to share everything we have and assuming that from Wednesday night and when this
item will be presented to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. Not as hearings but simply make you
aware of everything that we know of, and again both Planning Commission and City Council. We will attempt to
take and work with our federal legislators to ensure that any reasonable conditions that the neighborhood comes up
with, that the City Council comes up with, are, that we try to get them to address those and to agree to them. And I,
' like yourself, am disturbed that they're out there. They're grading. Some options, for example I think if the
neighborhood had the opportunity to go through the normal hearing process, would have said why don't we put the
parking lot in the front and put the building to the rear. Or re- orient it one way or the other. The footings are in.
What are the chances now that the parking lot and building can be switched? I think that it is a shame that the
federal government has taken this approach and we're not asking for anybody to absolve us of any involvement. We
want to be involved with you. I think I can speak for the Council in saying, we'll try to do everything we can but we
do have certain restraints. If we do end up in a war like situation, they will win. We're really hopeful that that won't
happen. That they will be responsive and that they will agree to some things that can make the neighborhood
happier.
Councilman Senn: Don? I think one thing is important because I've gotten several phone calls and as I understand it
back from the residents, they're being told by our congressional representatives that this is basically a local issue.
Okay, and I think it's very important before Wednesday night that we get a letter off to our congressional delegation,
congressmen and senators, and apprise them on the fact that even though the post office is not a federal agency,
which it is not, okay. It's ability to function in this way was created under law by congress. So there's only one
group that can effectively change it, or impact it or lobby to at least make sure that the people are listened to, and that
is the congressional delegation. And so I think we need to apprise them on that and ask their assistance effectively to
go ahead and do that now rather than later and see if we can get pressure put on the Postmaster General effectively
and see what it needs to slow this process down and show them effectively what their process is doing in relationship
to public input. You know I can't imagine congress would sit there and say ... so I think we should call them on it
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996 1
and I think we should do it very quickly and expeditiously and see if we can slow this thing down and get some
things heard.
Don Ashworth: I called Minge.
Councilman Senn: No, I think we should formalize it and put it in writing and really explain that to them because I
think there's been other conversations with Minge's office and again the response kind of was.
Bob Beduhn: It's really, and I've talked to Senator Gram's office and Senator Wellstone, so have my neighbors, and
it's really interesting standing on the outside and I don't know if interesting's the right word. But you're pitting us
against them. What it seems like to us is, is that the locals are saying it's a federal thing and we're powerless. which
to some extent is true. Which is true. I mean apparently they can do what they want. But on the other turn, when
you talk to the postal service representatives they say, and talk to some of the people in Minge's office who seems to
be more familiar about this than the Senators' offices, they say hey listen. Chanhassen knew a postal service was
looking at a site for years. It's their responsibility to watch out for your rights and they knew what we were up
to ... on October 8`" and you know, it's their problem. Then you talk to the City and the City says, it's the federal's.
Gee, you know they've got this terrible law and they just come in here and are running right over our planning
process. And I guess the position of our neighbors. we had a meeting last night is, let's just solve the problem. I
mean there's a solution here. There's, reality is there's a bike path that can be moved. There's a 100 foot easement.
There's dirt that can be turned into a berm. There's landscaping that can be done. There's a fence that can be built.
There's lighting that can be changed. Let's do it and that's you know, Wednesday night I hope that's what we can do
and that's what we're all I believe working for is let's fix it because we've been going around and looking at these
,
facilities. One neighbor here has been up between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m. in the morning driving over to Bloomington,
driving over to Edina, looking at these facilities at night and they're lit up like the Las Vegas strip and there's truck
traffic and that's not what, when we went through the planning process, I don't think that's what the City of
Chanhassen permitted for the use on that site. And being a good neighbor goes both ways on this so, and I see under
the agenda there's talk about Bluff Creek corridor and the parks and there's a park referendum coming up. This all
plays right into it because this facility, if you look at it, there's a trail that goes right into our Bluff Creek corridor,
that this site's going to impact. So I guess I appreciate your assistance and hope to see you on Wednesday night.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Bob. Appreciate it. I'm sure most everyone will be there, except I won't. I'm going to be
out of town. So hopefully we can get something resolved. If not, we're going to give an A for effort anyway.
Councilman Senn: Can we get that letter out right away?
Mayor Chmiel: I think Don has, I think did you call? ,
Don Ashworth: I just called.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it should be followed up with a letter.
Don Ashworth: To all of our legislators.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I'd like you to also send the same to Ramstad. Get all the help we can. Even from outside
the District... that's why I mentioned it. Okay, next item. Is there any other visitor presentation before I move on?
Okay, we'll move on to item number 2. Award of bids. This is furniture bids for City Hall expansion project. Todd.
Don Ashworth: Yeah, he was helping a gentleman, and maybe we should ask if anyone else is here. We had sent a
notice into the newspaper anticipating that we would have everything ready for utility certification this evening. So
those people who have delinquent accounts were sent a notice. Somehow we missed getting it onto this agenda so
Todd just go through talking with a gentleman. Is there anyone else here that is here for delinquent sewer and water
certifications? Obviously we can't be dealing with it if we don't have it in front of you so.
1
0
1
t
f]
t
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
AWARD OF BIDS: FURNITURE BIDS FOR CITY HALL EXPANSION PROJECT.
Todd Gerhardt: ...it would be on probably on our next agenda. We would be calling him probably yet this week.
Regarding the award of bids for purchase of office furniture for City Hall expansion. I handed out prior to the
meeting tonight an itemized bid tabulation for each of the groups that staff is proposing the City Council award bids
tonight. And staff accept bids today at 9:00 and we received favorable bids on most of the items received. With that
staff would probably like to go through each of the bid items. We did ... and that bid did come in from Custom
Expressions for $900.00. We did bid out the... furniture. It's an all steel product and a combination we use in our
existing all steel desks. That bid came in with Metro Systems at $112,649.11. Group B shelving. There's three sets
of shelving. Metro Systems, $2,862.72, and that's the metal shelving. As you can see we have wood shelving that
is proposed to be used in the planning conference room for their library of materials. And from T.M. Johnson on
wood shelving for $2,417.74. Under Group B, bookcase. Metro Systems, they were $222.44. Group E was
conference tables for Public Safety conference room. T.M. Johnson, oh no I'm sorry. That was for the table in the
Council chambers. As part of the renovation we'll be having a camera that will zoom in on overheads or maps that
developers or staff may present to the Council and we needed another table for that. That was $261.04. The group
bid, 35 chairs from Metro Systems. 11 of those chairs will be for the Council chambers. We had a bid of
$15,877.02. One table, that is a conference room table for the public safety wing. That bid came in at $2,869.00.
Three tables. These tables have mostly been used be in the engineering room. Right now we've been using, been
laying out our plat maps on top of the plan holders and the congestion back there it just has not been a convenient
space to lay those out. Plan holders, 21 groups of those and those are for the Public Safety, Building Inspectors and
that bid amount of $5,025.03 is wrong. It should be $9,933.27. And then the high density filing system... and
included in that bid was ... and the reorganization of those files. And that bid was also wrong. It should be
$5,025.03. The lobby and vestibule seating, we have chairs set up for the vestibule and by the elevator and also the
lobby area of engineering. Currently there's no seating in the engineering department. If somebody was to come
back and try to meet with Charles, they meet up in the receptionist area right now. But with the reorganization of
City Hall, engineering would have their own seating for their facility. And then the last group, we are using the
current desk and furniture in City Hall. However, there are a couple items that have a different color of paint so we
are proposing an electrostatic painting of those units at a bid price of $450.00. T.M. Johnson
had also bid this. However they did not get the furniture bid so they requested that their bid be withdrawn and that
they should be associated with... furniture contract. The breakdown of costs. The $147,766.46 does include those
bid item changes that I noted. The two bid items changes... were typos and the tax break out on that is $10,290.87
for a total bid amount would be $157,013.46.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any discussion? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Not on the proposal as it stands, no.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just a couple. Why do we need new plan holders for public safety? Are they currently
not being stored that way or?
Todd Gerhardt: No. They're currently using PVC piping and rolled. It's difficult to read a plan that's been rolled
and it also gives each of the inspectors working on a project their own set of plans to work with.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What are we doing with these ugly brown chairs?
Todd Gerhardt: I'm getting a quote currently from Metro Systems to recover them and that they would be used as a
part of guest seating in Kate's office or my office where we currently don't have seating for people who come in.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we're re -using them?
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Those are my only questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: None.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No questions on the bids themselves, no.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion for approving the bids, the individual group bids?
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: If I could. Awarding the bid is nice but the funding for this was tabled with the year end fund
transfers and the actual motion should be one of picking that item back up off the table and approving that transfer
along with the motion to approve the specific bids.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With what Don just mentioned, would there be a motion?
Councilman Senn: Just before we do I'd like to talk about... That's the budget we approved in February which has
$4,000.00 for telephones, $35,000.00 for furniture and $1,800.00 for window treatments. The total project budget
including the $50,000.00 we had set for renovation of the Council chambers totals $1,229,324.00 and we approved
that as a total project budget, not to exceed. Also included a contingency on this $160,000.00 in furniture is clearly
outside of the budget that we approved. Which is the same point that I made at the time that the fund transfers was
being requested at the end of the year. If Council desires to do that, then I think the Council ought to amend their
budget on the City Hall expansion and raise it by the appropriate amount because that's been authorized to this point.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, do you...
Don Ashworth: Well really the same point from when this item was discussed when we were talking about taking
the bids and that is that, I have notes that show that during the time frame that Todd made his presentation to the City
Council as to what each of those items were, it was clear in there that that amount for the furniture was for the built -
in's. The shelves, the cabinetry, the front counter areas. Other items that would go along with the physical
construction that would be under his budget and which would be subject to both an architectural fee and a
construction manager fee. The City has never, with any of our buildings, included as a part of I'll call it subject to an
architectural fee payment, the amount of money for the furniture that was proposed to be put into public works, the
fire station expansion, City Hall expansion. I will make the major apology in that apparently many Council members
were under the misbelief that that number from Todd, at that point in time, included furniture, which it did not. And
we are re -using virtually every piece of existing furniture and to think that we could buy as much furniture as is being
proposed to basically fill those new offices, and all of that could be done for the $50,000.00 amount, I guess in my
mind I never. I think there should have been a footnote maybe at the bottom of that construction manager's report
that said, this does not include furniture. Staff does not have a current estimate and if you wanted to see that further
clarified so that we would have tried to somehow get the amount to fill in, but I'm just saying that traditionally that
has never been handled in that fashion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Berquist: Well you guys know my feeling on this. I'm not inclined to be too contentious right at the
moment but I will ask the question. We're not, the staff that will occupy the new square footage, for the vast
majority or for all intensive purposes, currently work for the City of Chanhassen? In other words, there are no major
staff expansions planned to occupy this space. Is that correct? But we are building it with the intent of being able to
expand as needs and wants demand. But the plans do not include hiring people to fill offices at this time.
J
11
1
1
1
Ll
1 1
17
1
r
1
r
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Don Ashworth: What we currently have is we have two and three people in an office area that at one point in time
housed one person. We have people in rooms that when the building was originally built were conference rooms.
Where there's a recognition, we would first occupy this. That engineering needed conference area. That planning
needed conference areas. Slowly over the years those have all disappeared. When we move into the new building,
each office will be occupied. We will re- obtain those conference rooms. There's no question as years move into the
future, what's going to happen is those offices will end up getting subdivided again and you'll have two or three
people in those offices.
Councilman Berquist: Currently all those people that are double bunked and triple bunked have chairs and they have
desks. What they may lack are filing cabinets, plan tables, those sorts of amenities that they currently have, most of
them. You're shaking your head no. Let me qualify. That most of them currently have desks and chairs from which
to work.
Don Ashworth: Yes. Albeit some are makeshift type of tables and chairs.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, some.
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: Not the majority of them. Not by any means.
Don Ashworth: I would say not the majority by any shape of the imagination.
Councilman Berquist So it's conceivable then that in my mind that we are close to having adequate materials with
which to furnish the offices that the existing employees are going to expand into, save for filing cabinets, plan racks,
a few work tables here and there. Those sorts of devices or those sorts of things that are Group B through Group M.
Don Ashworth: Correct. I mean if Todd would have listed before you 22 new desks, I think if I were you I'd be
sitting there saying well why are we getting 20. Most of those are not, most of those... category you just stated.
Councilman Berquist: What I find interesting and perhaps coincidental is that if we take the total of $157 and we
subtract out the Metro Systems, what they did, we're at $44,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Say there's no.
Councilman Berquist: If you take the $157 total ... and pull out the Group A there of $112,600.00 you end up at
$44,364.00. So I mean the premise that I've been working under is that the $1.3 million in essence bought us a turn
key operation. Then the additional $112,000.00 as contained within the furniture proposal, is a surprise. Now in
your defense, I've known the surprise was coming. We've been talking about it for a number of weeks but that
doesn't lessen the impact.
Todd Gerhardt: I can just highlight a few places where new desks are going. Pam is currently operating off a
Formica counter top. We made a makeshift desk for her knowing that the expansion was going to occur. Jill is
operating off of a similar product and sharing an office with John. Sharmin and Bob are both sharing one of these
cube desk systems, which will be housing the interns after they move out and engineering into their two offices. So
they both are getting new desks... creating two more offices. Currently engineering is taking their desks in that area
over to ... planning people. The drafting table that takes up that area. And then Beth has been sharing a similar unit
with the Carver County Deputies in their office and the Carver County Deputies are taking that into their space. And
we're also adding a similar area that currently is in that...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Under the Group A, those are free standing? Those are not built in's?
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996 1
Todd Gerhardt: On Group A would be the similar to the one in my office and Kate's office... The nice thing with �I
that, when you do rearrange, you can re -use the equipment and... inventory system of all the products. The overhead
doors and utilize those products throughout other areas.
Councilwoman Dockendor£ Well, we have known about this issue for weeks, if not months. I think the, it's not fun
to. I think everyone went in with the idea that $1.2 -$1.3 was the max and I don't want to pay a portion of this budget
to a construction manager for furniture. However, it should have been included in the overall project budget.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other? Yeah, I think I can agree with what you're saying Colleen. A lot of discussions have
been done on this, at some of our work sessions that we had as well. And it's, I think it's unfortunate those kinds of
things happen but we still are staying within that particular total amount of dollars. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that the Council accepts the bids as shown in the memo dated October
28`" and at the same time that we approve the transfer from the City Hall Expansion Fund to Capital Projects in the
amount of $160,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: All right. We've got a motion. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Yes, second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? If hearing none.
Councilman Berquist: Yes there is. Todd I know that you've done your darnest to whittle this thing down to the
minimum amount of stuff. But do we have to spend $112 grand in furnishings? For furniture.
Todd Gerhardt: I think if there's any room in this products, the plan holders could be probably done a phased
project. And I could sit down with Kirchman and talk about that a little bit more.
Councilman Berquist: There's nothing as far as a phased purchase or a plan purchase of the furniture? I mean
$112.000.00 worth of furniture is going to be used from the get go.
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. I mean we're trying to schedule it so when the public safety wing's done, we can move the
furniture into there and then the building department can move into their new wing and then the contractors can come
in and remodel the old public safety area. Once that's remodeled, then the second phase of furniture can come in and
then the finance and engineering area will then be remodeled to accommodate planning and their use.
Councilman Berquist: And the spec wasn't overly restrictive? 1W
Todd Gerhardt: Pardon me? ,
Councilman Berquist The spec wasn't overly restrictive? Of the two bidders.
Todd Gerhardt: It was to somebody would come in with a similar all steel product. The problem is if we're going to
try to re -use a lot of our existing multi - purpose desks, you want to have ... so it was an all steel product that we did
bid. Or a similar compatible product.
Councilman Berquist: Not from an aesthetic point of view but from a bolt together point of view.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct. And we did have two people bid on the all steel product line. There were two vendors in
the metro area to accommodate us. To keep us honest and the one vendor did leave quite a bit of money on the table
if you look at that. Almost $15,000.00 on the table and I like to hope that the reason he did that is that he has
serviced us in the past. We have bought new equipment from him...
Councilman Berquist: I know you can understand my frustration.
10
[I
J
1
1
,q
r,
1
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Any time we have to spend an abundant amount of dollars, it's frustration for everybody here. Okay
with that I'll call the question.
Resolution #96 -94: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the Council accepts
the bids as shown in the memo dated October 28` and at the same time that we approve the transfer from the
City Hall Expansion Fund to Capital Projects in the amount of $160,000.00. All voted in favor, except
Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
ZONING MAP INTERPRETATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF TH 212 AND EAST OF TH
169 ON THE FORMER SITE OF SUPERAMERICA, LARRY HOPFENSPIRGER.
John Rask: Last time Council met on October 14` the City Council considered an appeal of the Board of
Adjustments decision to find the property located at 1650 Flying Cloud Drive zoned A2, Agricultural Estate. The
Council voted to table action on this item until the full Council was present. Within the staff report we found some
additional information on this site. Last time we discussed this, a lot of other issues seemed to be pulled into it.
When in fact what we were looking at was an interpretation of the zoning map. I put this additional information in
there for your consideration. The applicant is requesting that the City Council find the Board of Adjustment
incorrectly interpreted the zoning map and find the site to be zoned BF, Business Fringe. The Council may also wish
to consider a second motion which would affirm the Board's decision that the property is zoned A2 and if the
applicant wishes to make or to use this site for commercial use, he could request a zoning change at that time. With
that I'd be happy to answer any questions or go over the zoning districts if you so choose.
Mayor Chiniel: Okay, thanks John. Is there any questions of John at this time? Okay, good. Thank you. Is
someone here this evening, and I see that face once more.
Bruce Rubbelke: Yes Mayor, my name is Bruce Rubbelke, R- U- B- B- E- L -K -E, on behalf of Larry Hopfenspirger.
Briefly Councilmembers, I have three questions regarding the zoning interpretation on this piece of property. I will
be brief. As you recall from my... we're looking for an interpretation of the BF... Number one, Mr. Hopfenspirger
was repeatedly told by the City that this was in fact BF. He was told this by Kate Aanenson. He was told this by
Bob Generous. I believe we provided a letter to the Council... detailing that he in fact had been told by the City that
it was zoned BF by the City. In other words they thought it was zoned BF. Secondly, if we look at the maps. John,
can you put that '86... If we look at the maps, prior to the '86 -`89 map, I don't think there's any dispute... If you
look at the map that's out there now, '86, Revised '89. The parcel is clearly included in the BE zoning. Now that is
the last map that conclusively has the property zoned under the BF... The map I believe... That has the line going
through the property ... we're not sure but that map clearly shows it BF. Thirdly, if you look at the historical use of
the property. West of the property we have the old drive -in. North of the property we have a used car lot. East of
the property we have the motel. So we have BF on the west, BE on the north and although the motel is A2, it's
simply a conditional use... So if we're looking for interpretation rights... Now interestingly enough in the report that
John prepared for the Council today, the City doesn't dispute that he was told it was BF. The City doesn't dispute
that the most recent map incorrectly shows the zoning. We all know that there's a problem with the existing map. I
guess Mr. Hopfenspirger's point is that based upon historical use, based upon the representations, based upon the
known map, we would ask the to interpret that, that the property is BF.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there any questions? Okay, I guess not. Thank you. John indicated, he made
mention of the fact that affirms the Board's decision on this and the fact that even though staff had indicated that it
was BF, we're looking at the, conclusion as to what it should be. I guess Council does the determining factor as to
what that property is zoned. As I have looked at it, and really looked quite longly at what was proposed for this, for
this proposal, I guess I still see that it is zoned as A2. That was my thought and that would affirm, as far as I'm
concerned the decision.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, since I was the one that wasn't here last time, I think it's most appropriate that I
address it. I think there's no question that some mistakes have been made in past maps and what the applicant was
told, and that's because the maps are ambiguous. So I don't think there's any argument that what we're here tonight
to decide is an interpretation of the map as opposed to what's right and what's wrong. So when I look at what the
past uses have been, it was an SA for a while. It's covered in you know bituminous. I look at the surrounding uses
11
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996 1
and you know, they're albeit conditional uses but still they're business type uses. And I kind of weigh that against
what the city's overall goals were for that area. I don't want to offend any surrounding tenants but we are trying to
clean it up. However, I don't want to penalize a property owner who bought this piece of land with a good faith
interpretation that he thought this was zoned BF. So I guess considering the fact that the maps have been ambiguous,
I think it would be appropriate to give the BF designation. I also say that with the knowledge that the applicant also
has lots of hurdles to go through. There's no utilities available to the site. The access to TH 212 is treacherous at
best. It's a postage stamp piece of land so there's, I don't see how you can get any parking on it. So depending, it
has to be the right use and the applicant still has to go through the process. What that use will be, and as I said,
there's a lot of hurdles to it but at this point it would be my recommendation that we determine that the interpretation
is BF.
Councilman Berquist: Is that a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll make that a motion.
Mayor Cluniel: We're not done going through each individual yet.
Councilman Berquist: Do we need to be?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Do you have any comment on this?
Councilman Berquist: The comment I'll make was consistent with my comment last week. Or two weeks ago. The
interpretation of the map by staff was erroneous. And that's fine, everybody makes mistakes now and again. We can
correct it by granting the owner a BF zoning classification. It won't negatively impact us hardly at all. Long term
plans. Short term plans. What the zoning map clearly indicates is not definable. The attorney indicates that if in
fact the zoning map is ambiguous. which is a given within the staff memo, then the property owner is entitled to the
least restrictive zoning classification, which is what I argued for two weeks ago. That's my continents.
Mayor Chmicl: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well, I can fly in the face of adversity but it seems like kind of a moot point. I'm not going to
deny that this is ambiguous and I also then ... from our attorney, and it's still, we still have the right as a Council to
decide whether it is A2 or BF. Based on the opinion I'm hearing from Council, certainly the comment about
ambiguity is a point well taken. This is one for me that I think in terms of the City, I would just as soon have it be
A2 but I do think that with all this confusion, and with what other comments from our City Attorney say, the point
about it, the zoning map is ambiguous. The property owner's entitled to the least restrictive zoning classification.
do not quite honestly agree with the BF but I will not be voting against that motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. I
Councilman Senn: I don't have anything new to add. My comments are pretty much the same as two weeks ago.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So I'll restate my motion that we interpret this parcel to be zoned Business Fringe.
Councilman Senn: Second. I
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council find that the Zoning
Map Interpretation for the property located at 615 Flying Cloud Drive be designated as BF, Business Fringe.
All voted in favor, except Mayor Chmiel who opposed, and Councilman Mason abstained. The motion '
carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: So the motion carries 4 to 1.
Councilman Mason: I did abstain.
12
r
1
u
r.
11
1
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So there is one other abstention. Thank you.
REQUEST FOR SIDE YARD IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCES
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILIY RESIDENCE, 9225 LAKE RILEY BLVD., DAVID
DUHAIME.
Public Present:
Name Address
Eunice Kottke
David Duhaime
D. McCoy
9221 Lake Riley Blvd.
9225 Lake Riley Blvd.
11345 Wild Heron Point
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The subject property is located is RSF, single family
district. It's approximately 7,800 square feet. It's located on the west end of Lake Riley. Surrounding land uses are
primarily residential. This item was first heard by Board of Adjustments on September 23` At this time the Board
had tabled action on their request to give the applicant an opportunity to revise the plans. On October 14` the Board
again considered the revised variance request. By a 2 to 1 vote the Board recommended denial of the variance
request as submitted by the applicant. A simply majority by the Board serves only as a recommendation to the City
Council who shall then make the final detennination on the variance request. The applicant has made a number of
changes to the original plan. This is what is currently being proposed. You have Lake Riley down here. Lake Riley
Boulevard out here. Originally the applicant was asking for 5 feet on the west property line and 5 feet on the east.
He's still at 5 feet on the west property line... What the applicants have done here, this was 5 also. They stepped this
in a foot and then they reduced the entryway by another 2 feet so with this revised plan they have been able to
maintain the 7 here. I should also note they reduced the overall width of this house by 2 feet so they have in this
corner essentially reduced it by 4 feet. And then another 3 here and 2 up here. So they have made those changes. A
couple other issues when it first came in was the steepness of the driveway and how the site would be graded for the
home. By revising the plan slightly we were able to reduce the driveway to an acceptable level. The slope of it and
make some minor amendments to the grading plan to adequately handle surface drainage. The only concern we have
on drainage yet is where we have the 5 feet. As you're aware, 5 feet makes it difficult to handle drainage in that
amount of area. They are showing this quadrant here... Gutters are used on the home. They could also lessen the
impact. It currently looks like there are some drainage problems here so regardless of what happens it would be
beneficial for the applicant to work with this property here to come up with a grading plan that would benefit both
parties. Just to give you a little bit of an overview here. We do have a vacant lot. This property here is currently
vacant. What I've done here is I drew in kind of a hypothetical home to show you how in the future this could
potentially lay out and what the setbacks and the separations would be on adjoining structures. Again this is what's
currently being proposed by the applicant with the 5 foot setback, or 7. It would leave you with a 16 foot separation
here. 14 between the applicant's home and a future home on this lot and then 14 between a potential built home and
the property located here. I should note that the owner of that vacant lot has indicated a desire to construct a home
and would also be requesting similar variances. As I indicate in the staff report, there were some concerns addressed
by neighbors. Most of them seemed to be, most of them seem to favor the 1 %z story design but did express some
concerns with setbacks and the overcrowding of the lakeshore. Just for your information we've also included, the
existing home is 6.8 feet on the one side and 2.1 on the other so there are already some reduced setbacks. However
the home, as you're aware is getting much longer. With that staff is recommending that the applicant provide 7 foot
setbacks on both property lines and staff was in favor of the setback variance from the lake and impervious surface.
This is also consistent with what the Board had recommended. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Steve, do you have any questions of John?
Councilman Berquist: Out of curiosity John. I don't know if you can answer this or not but, how far towards the
lake would the structure have to move to get that additional foot and a half?
John Rask: We did look at that. The problem is that there are several significant trees up front. Some large oak
trees and it was the Board's desire, as well as the neighbors who live around there, to see those trees preserved.
13
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else?
Councilman Berquist: Well yeah. I mean not that I'm going to urge that we go in that fashion.
John Rask: Yeah. I think you'd probably have to get close to about 20 feet from the lake so maybe another 20 feet
forward.
Councilman Berquist: Move 20 feet forward to pick up a foot and a half?
John Rask Yeah.
Councilman Berquist: Based on that...
John Rask: Yeah, it's not as, we've tried that and we've play around. Maybe the builder who's here can answer that
more specifically but it really didn't, we didn't gain a whole lot there.
Councilman Berquist: All right, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm not picking up what the hard surface coverage will be.
John Rask It's still approximately 50 %. So it'd take a 25% variance. We limit impervious surface to 25 %.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the trees are all to the south?
John Rask: Yeah, there would be one tree that would be in question but the majority of them would be saved.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And what kind of protections are you looking at?
John Rask: We would do our standard tree protection fencing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But in terms of penalties.
John Rask: It would be a replacement situation. The kind of good point here is there's already a structure. They're
not going to go any closer than what the existing structure is so the root zone would be not further impacted.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So there's no excavating?
John Rask: No, they would be doing some but the roots have already established themselves away from.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Those are my questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: John. I just want to clear up one thing. You did say that these variances are consistent with the
Board of Adjustments... at this point?
John Rask: Yeah. The only difference is the Board requested 7 on both sides and the applicant wants 5 on one.
Councilman Mason: Right, but I mean this recommendation.
John Rask Correct.
14
1
l
1
u
1
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Councilman Mason: All right, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: All right. The applicant's here. Is there something that you wish to say? Or are you in some
agreement with what staff has been discussing.
David Duhaime: Yeah, there's a few points that I'd like to make. If John, you could... The first point I'll go over on
the overhead, if you look on page 4 of John's layout. It talks about the existing side yard setback of the homes on
either side of my property. It being 3 and 11 feet in the one case, and 3 and 18 on the other. And I want to point out
that in both cases that does not take the garages into account. These lots, in all cases these lots are pie shaped lots
and so it narrows as you go away from the lake. ...towards the road, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the
necessary setback. When you look at, I've got the survey here. This garage up here on the side that there is a home,
on the lakeside corner is actually the 7 and 25 feet and then the street side corner is 4.7 feet from the property line.
Part of the slab on that home, or on the garage behind the home is actually, the stake of the corner of the lot in
question here is in the slab so when the surveyor marked that, he put an X on the cement. So again a feel for just
how congested the area already is and what I tried to do with this plan, if you look at the relative sizes of these
houses, this one being existing next to the, and this being the proposed house, you can see that they're, if you took
this... it's roughly the same size except in my case the garage was included in this plan and I don't need to put the
garage all the way in the back and incur that kind of nonconformance again with side yard setbacks which would be
an increased problem if I tried to do that. So if you look at the uses, the reasonable use of the property as compared
to the neighboring homes, it's actually I think fairly conservative in terms of overall size and footprint because it has
the garage included. In a similar footprint in the neighboring lots, they have a garage in addition to that... So those
setbacks of the neighboring homes are understated if you would consider the garages. And I looked at them, if you
probably have been out and looked at the lots. It's almost a necessity because you don't have much more width than
what a garage is ... build on these lots. ...What I'm showing here, there's three quick slides to make three quick
points. Right here on the west side where there is a home, this is the lot line. All these slides were done to scale, to
the best of my ability anyway. This is 5 feet off, which is remember I'm requesting 5 and 7 and 5, or excuse me, 7
and 7 is what staff has recommended. But with the 5 and 7, which is shown here. This being the line of the
proposed property. The lot line. Over here to the 7 foot line. What you see is that the requirement for 7 feet over
here is just because of the tip and you reduce the need for the 7 feet over the course of this triangle. So the blue area
is the area that when it gets by here, doesn't conform to 10. This is a 10 foot setback line which would be the, I
don't know the side yard setback requirement without variance. And so this additional 3 feet is about, a little more
than half of it is used with the triangular affect. So it's kind of a tip but part of the whole thing. On this next one,
this is a little bit more difficult to understand but what I'm showing here is that in all cases, the side yard setbacks are
improved over the existing property. We need to take and outline this complete box right here. That would be the
existing property. If you looked at the little green squares, there's two different things that happen here. On the east
side, this would narrow to the 7 foot setback that I'm requesting. And the existing property runs virtually right up
against that. The existing property touches out here at 6.8 feet. The proposed property is actually an improvement
over that. Coming in at 7 feet—that area up where the proposed house is because of the angle of the two different
homes. In this area, where the existing home is, there's actually an improvement because I don't ... again like I
showed you before, that whole 7 feet in this area. On the other side it's even more significant that this is the lot line.
The furthest outline. The next one in is 2.1 feet from the lot line and that line is where the existing property touches
so I move this corner of the house from 2.1 feet to 5, which is the third line in. The third line or excuse me the fourth
line in, is the line of the proposed house and that's 5 feet in because it's actually the variance requested line that I'm
making. The third line in is 3.9 feet, and that's the corner of the, that's the front, lakeside corner of the existing
property. In other words, the front corner is 3.9 feet. The back corner is 2.1 feet currently, and what I'm proposing,
both of them are moving to 5 feet so I'm significantly improving the setbacks from existing. The next one, and this
picture kind of relates to some of the feedback we got from the neighbors and Councilman Senn of course being on
that Board was present for this. The overall discussion involved, and Monday Night Football may have caused some
problems with some of the support I may have otherwise have had. I don't know. But the property, as I propose it,
the existing property is 34 feet wide. The proposed property is 30 feet wide so I've actually reduced the width from
15
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
the existing to the proposed by 4 feet. The 2 feet that John refers to is in a revision of the drawing. We went from
32 to 30. Is that right John?
John Rask: Yeah.
David Duhaime: Okay, What I'm showing here is, if I have to conform to 7 and 7 feet versus 5 and 7 that I'm
requesting, I have to shave 2 more feet off the house and go from a 30 foot width to a 28 foot width. If I do that, I'm
going to lose a foot on each side. What I'm trying to build here is a 1 1/2 story A frame structure and this is
something that the neighbors on both sides felt was very desirable because the second time you go up the 18 feet,
a... sort of home, I go up 9 and then angle the roof and I leave a lot more open space as they look out their second
story windows. So this line here is the neighbor, where there is currently a home, Ron Ytzen. If he were to look out
his second story window in the proposed property, with the A frame structure, he would be 16 feet away from this
roof line. If, or excuse me. That's right. 16 feet away from this roof line. He would be alternatively I could come
in a foot and he would look at a wall that goes straight up between these two homes, all the way back and as you saw
from the previous drawing that John had up, the houses essentially are parallel along the lot line. The reason why
this is relevant is that if I had to come in another 2 feet, the architect tells me you cannot build a story and a half
home because that second story will look like a very narrow, long hallway and he can't recommend that you build
such a thing... Hang onto those 2 feet. It's very important to save them. If, and so what I'm showing here is the red
portion. If I'm going to squeeze in and go with a true two story, instead of a story and a half, we trade off, to get this
1 foot on each side of the house, which are the green areas ... the neighbors on both sides have indicated that they
would far and away prefer the story and a half. Similarly on this side, I would hope that when Al Dirks builds a
home over here, he would employ the same kind of story and a half, so that I too would have, you know I understand
he's going to have the same need for a variance I do and I would be talking to him hoping that he would employ this
kind of design also in consideration of the same need I have. And lastly, if you look at, I'd like to call attention to
how difficult and unnatural a design is right here where we are stepping the house in a foot at this point, and stepping
the house in 6 inches again at this point. Just to conform with my requested 5 foot and 7 foot setbacks. I've also had
feedback from the woman across the street here. The other immediately affected neighbor, who would far and away
prefer my design, which has an attached garage, to the alternative which would be to shorten it up, then put the
garage back there, as several of the neighbors have done, with an even closer setback than I've currently got. And
she would be looking straight across the street into a garage instead of looking out at a nice A frame and seeing a lot
of lake that she currently sees now. Also, if you look at the width of the garage here, compared to the width of the
lot, look at how much space there is to create an entrance to the home. You need a very, very narrow lot and I think
I've gone through a great deal of trouble to try to accommodate the needs of the neighbors and use the minimum
setback variance required. Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there any questions at this time of anyone? Okay, good. Is there anyone from the
neighborhood that would like to address anything in regards to this proposal? Okay. If not, we'll bring it back to
Council. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Well I try ... variance on it's own merits but I've got a couple of questions as we're talking
about widths. Six weeks ago we looked at a plan on Red Cedar Point, and one of the bones of contention was the
width of the home. The gentleman indicated that he wanted to maintain a 30 foot width as I recall. And I don't
remember what his requested variance setbacks were. We held fast and, as I recall he's not constructed a 26 foot?
Do you know who I'm talking about?
John Rask: Correct. 28 foot.
Councilman Berquist: It's 28 foot? I'm looking at the plan that he brought into us about 10 days, 2 weeks ago. That
turned into a pretty nice two story. A two story and there aren't really any neighbors across the street that would be
affected. Would be impacted by the sight lines of that two story. You apparently have some neighbors that would
be affected. So I'm gathering that the neighbors in general are in preference, would prefer to have a modified, one
and a half story, modified A frame go up?
David Duhaime: That's correct.
16
1
1
I�
1
1
u
I
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Councilman Berquist: As opposed to a two story.
David Duhaime: That's correct. They've all, the two sides publicly expressed that and one side, across the street,
she asked me if I wanted her support at the meeting and I said yes but she's not here.
Councilman Berquist: What did we end up with the setbacks adjacent?
John Rask: 7 and 7, I'm sorry.
Councilman Berquist: Was it? Didn't we split the difference?
John Rask: He was asking for 5.
Councilman Berquist: I thought it was 5 and 7.
Councilman Senn: No, I think we stayed with 7 and 7 because... stick with the 28 feet, which is what this is. We
held to our guns on that one. This one too. They reduced it to 28. They wanted it at the 30 originally.
Councilman Berquist: All right. So that one, we stuck at 7 and 7 and a nice structure is being build, so the issue
really is more of height in terms of my way of looking at it. More in height and the affect on the neighbor across the
street. The adjoining neighbors apparently have no real problem with the variance, otherwise I would think they
would be speaking to the issue.
Councilman Senn: The neighbor on the west side, which is the side of the, the west side which is the side of the 5
foot. Yeah, where the existing house is. That's the west side. He stated he was very happy to work with it. He
would much rather see 5 foot than increase the height in structure, which was a lot of what was driving...
Councilman Berquist: Okay. And lot coverage you say is 50% so we're fine there.
John Rask: They need the variance but if he reduced the home by 2 feet, it's not going to change that.
Councilman Senn: Steve, that was the same issue with the neighbors. If we can reduce the coverage of the lot,
they'd just as soon reduce the coverage of the lot...
Councilman Berquist: Okay. All right, that's all I've got for right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Variances like this always strike me as trying to put a square peg into a round hole.
But we do have, you are intending to...property and these usually do come down to compromises. I guess I don't
have any objection to what the applicant is desiring...a lot of time and consideration into it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: Well, I don't know. I don't like being put in the position of, and I'm not, I've not heard from
anyone else. I don't question what the applicant is saying about what his neighbors want or don't want. It's a lot
nicer when I can either see or hear them speaking for it. I have some trouble with that. Maybe that's a moot point. I
also feel as though, through perhaps no fault of the applicant, well if you don't do it this way then I'm going to build
a two story. I don't know. I think I know why the Board wants 7 on both sides. Clearly there's a ton of variances in
that neighborhood and I live in a neighborhood with a ton of variances so that's kind of the way that goes. I guess
John I'd like to ask you, what do you think, what is your opinion I guess. In planning department's expertise or
whatever, is that A frame still doable with 7 foot side yard setbacks on both sides?
John Rask: Well given the floor plan that he's chosen, it would be getting difficult simply because what he's reduced
is the size of the bedrooms down, and I think they're down to 12 feet in width now. However, I mean there are
17
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
divisions that could be made. I would just point out too, if he did come in with a two story dwelling and it was over
powering or over shadowing on the other properties, deny it for that fact if he's asking for side yards. Even if it was
8 feet on both sides so that's certainly within your authority. If a two story would further impact it for other reasons,
you'd have every right to deny it on that basis. I don't know if that answered your question.
Councilman Mason: No, you did. Thank you. Thank you. That's all I have for now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I don't know. This isn't in my mind that different from the one in Red Cedar Point. I don't like
these situations at all. I think it's putting too much on a small piece of land. I wish there was some way we could
require people to combine lots and do it but unfortunately we can't do that. Not liking the situation but at least in my
review to the Board and stuff, and what I wanted to do was listen very closely to what the neighbors were saying
because when you're down to splitting hairs on variances like this, at least in my mind, I know it's not going to be
the end of the world whether it's 7 feet, 8 feet or ... or whatever. I mean we're talking a foot or two difference. The
impact isn't that great one way or the other. There is, if there's an existing structure if you would look at even in this
case here with the existing structure on the one side and the proposed new structure on the other side, it balances out
to the same on both sides. Roughly around 16 feet between structures on both sides is kind of the way I started to
look at it. Was well do we balance it... But all the neighbors you know, I think pretty much said the same thing.
They would be, as far as the variances being requested as it related to the surface coverage and also as it related to
the width, they did really wanted to keep the height of the structure down and one of you had a picture... but I don't
know. I think you can balance this any way you want but about the only way it works without running the risk of
forcing it beyond the story and a half is to ... so that's the way I look at it.
Mayor Cluniel: Okay, good. Any other?
Councilman Mason: I guess I do. Just as I'm reading through the Minutes here. So John you talked about needing
to get together with the neighbors to come up with a grading plan for drainage. What's going on with that?
John Rask: Yeah. I think basically what's happening now. The property's essentially draining this way, and there's
kind of a low point... With this house going in here and then the driveway revision is going to force water here, as
opposed to towards... We're not overly concerned there. It would be beneficial to both parties to maybe do a
common swale along the property line to direct any water that's coming this way, down through here, so that it
doesn't get redirected to. I think it would improve the situation on the neighbor's lot just because the home is going
to direct water away from that property. I guess it didn't look like a good, it wasn't a good situation to begin with
and I think we can make improvements whatever happens.
Councilman Mason: That's it for me.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. John, is there any way we can make sure that the swale is also included in with this?
John Rask Sure, that can be.
Mayor Chmiel: And making sure that there's no runoff to the adjacent properties.
John Rask: Sure, that can be a condition of approval. We've also, with our recommendation put, even with the 7
foot setback, either way we'd want to see rain gutters to direct.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay, I would like to make that as an item number 6. Okay, anything else? Is there a
motion?
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of a 5 foot variance and variance on the, 25% variance on the lot coverage
and that we add a stipulation number 6. The drainage swale put in between this and the abutting property.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You also mentioned the 33 foot lakeshore setback.
1 8
1
1
J
I
J
L�
1
Pi
PI
H_
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Councilman Senn: Yeah. What was it, the...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: 33 foot variance.
Councilman Senn: Okay. 33 variance on the lakeshore setback.
Councilman Mason: That motion means 5 foot on one side and 7 on the other?
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: The 5 foot to the west and 7 foot to the east?
Councilman Senn: Correct.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Setbacks, not variances.
Councilman Senn: Correct.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second your motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve a seven (7) foot setback on the
east, a five (5) foot setback on the west side, a thirty -three (33) foot lakeshore setback variance, and a
variance to exceed hard surface coverage by twenty -five (25) percent based on the findings presented in the
staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Maintain a seven (7) foot setback on the east property line, and a five (5) foot setback on the west property
line.
1,
2. Maintain a forty -two (42) foot setback from the lake, including the deck.
3. Rain gutters shall be utilized to direct runoff from the roof away from adjacent homes.
4. Type III erosion control shall be utilized during construction activity and until the site is revegetated.
5. Tree protection fencing shall be utilized during construction.
6. A drainage swale shall be constructed so no runoff goes onto adjoining properties.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
GOODYEAR AUTO REOUEST TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE SITE PLAN
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REGARDING HOURS OF OPERATION, SIGNAGE, AND OTHER
STIPULATIONS OF THE PERMIT, 50 LAKE DRIVE EAST.
Public Present:
Name Address
Alex Krengel 8009 Cheyenne Avenue
Dan Smith 18555 39` Avenue No, Plymouth
Larry Youngstedt 65 Gideons Point Road
19
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Chanhassen Goodyear is requesting an amendment to
the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit, CUP #92 -2. Over the past year, past two years, city staff
has received complaints regarding the conditions of approval. Staff informed Goodyear of the situation and asked
them to bring it into compliance with the conditions. Goodyear corrected several of the minor violations. They
would like the Council to consider several revisions to the conditions. These modifications include hours of
operation, signage, and the requirement to keep the garage doors closed or open no more than 12 inches. The
Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on this on October 2 of this year. By unanimous vote the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the amendments as outlined in the recommendation section of the report.
The Commission modified condition 6 to read that the door may be kept open, the garage doors may be kept open
from May through September. Condition 9 was modified to read that temporary signs could be used as long as they
were consistent with the ordinance. With the sign ordinance. Just a point here. We didn't have the sign ordinance
revised when this came through. We do have detailed standards now for the use of temporary signage. Hours of
operation was one area that the Commission did not wish to change. They were concerned with the past violations of
this condition, as well as how this would impact the neighbors. The Commission did recognize that this area is
changing. There is an additional businesses being constructed at this time. The car wash, several industrial users,
and office space further down the road on Lake Drive, so they do recognize that that may change kind of the
character of the area in the future and indicated that they would consider possibly revising the hours at a later date.
With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: No sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes sir. The sign ordinance. Or the sign restrictions. I didn't understand...
John Rask: Right now they're not allowed any, the use of any temporary signs. There was concern when this came
through for the Highway 5 image. At this time we do not have our sign ordinance finished or revised one. The use
of temporary signage just wasn't addressed very well. But the Planning Commission was of the opinion that with
these revised standards that they should be allowed the same opportunity.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So our current sign ordinance does allow for temporary signage?
John Rask: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So they're working under conditions that are more restrictive than other businesses
along the corridor.
John Rask: Correct.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Why is condition number 11 struck? To add evergreens and shrubs along the
northwest.
John Rask: The Commission didn't think that the garage doors being open was that big of an issue. They felt that
the landscaping that was there complies with the ordinance. It's well balanced. Adding several more shrubs really
wouldn't accomplish a whole lot and would just kind of disrupt what's been created out there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thank you. That's all my questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: I have none.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
20
1
Ll
L�
J
1
1
r I
u
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Councilman Senn: John I got a few calls. Which of the existing conditions have basically been... effectively
observed or whatever. The contentions I have are 4, 5, 6, and 10.
John Rask: Yeah. Number 4 was, there was an interpretation of that condition. The condition read no damaged or
inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight on the Goodyear site. What staff has always struggled with in trying to
interpret this condition was, did this mean a car waiting for brake repair or a car that needed new tires, is this
considered inoperable and should that be allowed overnight. There were several neighbors who thought that this
condition meant the parking lot had to be vacant at night and all vehicles either parked inside or removed from the
property. So we had kind of a disagreement in the interpretation of that one. The garage doors, it's pretty obvious I
think those were consistently left open throughout the summer. And as far as there were some problems with the tire
displays but those have, to the best of my knowledge, have been taken care of. And we've never had. I should note,
a problem with temporary signage on that site.
Councilman Senn: How about the hours of operation. What have they been?
John Rask: It's my understanding that they are to 9:00 p.m. or were. And that they were open on Saturdays and
Sundays. Saturday beyond their permitted hours and they were open on Sunday when they were supposed to be
closed.
Councilman Senn: That's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I guess I don't have any questions.
Councilman Berquist: I've got one. I haven't read this particular packet. I would like to pass on, tell me a little bit
about the conversation that took place regarding the hours of operation.
John Rask: With the Planning Commission?
Councilman Berquist: Right.
John Rask: They were concerned, there was several residents in attendance who spoke about traffic lights as they
drive out of the Abra and Goodyear, where there's a shared driveway, along with Emission Testing. And the car
wash is also going to use this same driveway now. The headlights shine right in the back of those homes. At least
one. Maybe two as you're turning. So that was certainly a concern of the Planning Commission. There has been
some noise problems. Squealing tires and that sort of thing also associated with whichever business has been. I
think it's Goodyear because I think they were the only ones open that late.
Councilman Berquist: Don't we own a park? Doesn't the City own a park right there?
John Rask: No, that's out by the residences behind. There is one. It's further to the east.
Councilman Berquist: All right.
John Rask: Just one other note. There was also considerable discussion about the car wash. The car wash is a
permitted use in that district. Therefore when it came in you did not have the opportunity to put conditions regarding
the operation. You looked at the site plan and you were able to comment on that and add conditions but you weren't
able to add performance standards or conditions so they are basically unrestricted on their hours of operation
basically. So if they choose to be open 24 hours, they would have that open.
Kate Aanenson: So just to add to what John said, some of the discussion came about how we'd discriminate between
whether they were coming from the car wash as far as ... hours of operation.
Councilman Berquist: And if we were to reject this now off hand, at what point can they come back in and re- apply?
21
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
John Rask: At any point.
Councilman Berquist: At any point, okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The applicant is here this evening. Is there something that you'd like to address?
Dan Smith: Hi, I'm Dan Smith. I'm the manager of Chanhassen Goodyear. I came in about 6 months ago on the
Chanhassen Goodyear. There's really two points I wanted to make quickly. If you look... whether it's the morning,
night, weekends or whatever. Most of us work until 6:00 or later. To repair a car from 6:00 to 7:00 is very hard
sometimes. Weekends are the only times that most of our community can get a car in. We want to be open for them.
Do I enjoy opening Sundays? No. Do I enjoy opening nights? No I don't but that's number one. Number two, we
want to play the same field as our competition. Our competition is open Sundays and is open until 9:00 at night.
Just a couple, I want to just address a couple of these conditions for you. Help you explain it a little bit more.
Damaged or inoperable vehicles. We don't have a lot of cars in there. And if anybody's been there, very short term.
We need to get the cars in and out as quickly as possible. That's the way we make our money. I have a verbal
agreement with both Abra and the Emissions Testing Station to park employee vehicles over there whenever
possible. And mostly it's on the very hot days or the very cold days when we have a spell. But we do not work on
inoperable vehicles, or I should say damaged vehicles. That's the body shop's that are repaired, they do that next
door. So it is our intention to get them in and out as quickly as possible. Number two. Condition number 6. Doors
should be closed no more than 12 inches. ...work in their garage in the summer, with the doors shut... have the
door open. To have eight cars running with the sun coining in on the glass and when the doors are shut, I don't leave
my dog in my truck with the windows shut and a car running in the parking lot more than 5 -10 minutes. It's just,
I'm not opposed to reasonable conditions. Just so you guys know. I have no problem with reasonable conditions.
Noise is the question. I haven't had any complaints. I don't think staff has as far as the noise. One of the members
of the Planning Commission even sat outside across our street for 3 days. On three different occasions. The traffic
on Highway 5... is considerably louder than any of our air guns. Condition number 9, banners. We just want to play
on the same playing field as our competition. We don't have a problem following the city ordinances. Hours of
operation. We do have a problem. There are three businesses there. The Emissions Testing Station, Abra,
McDonald's is two businesses down. McDonald's is open until 11:00 on weekdays and 1:00 on the weekends with
considerable traffic. And a review on our number of cars that we take in between 7:00 and 9:00, 7 to 12 cars. On
Sundays, and yes we were open from 9:00 to 3:00 on Sundays... to be competitive. I wanted to see if it was worth it
or not to even come before you. And Sunday, like I say, 12 to 15 cars a day. The car wash is projected to do up to
200 cars on a Sunday. And on Sunday 9:00 to 3:00, the car wash is projected to do up to 65 cars. We do have a
problem with one of our neighbors, which I didn't realize until last Council meeting. Notices went out to the whole
neighborhood. We got two complaints. Alex Krengel is a very good customer and is directly in front of our
driveway, and ... lights go right into the back yard. If I lived there, I'd be complaining too. 1 didn't know there was a
problem there. Since that meeting I've had numerous contact with the office and the city, including the Forester. I
think we're on the right thinking to take care of the problem. The fence is a last resort. Alex has a beautiful back
yard. I agree with him. A fence would... if we don't have to and we would put up some shrubs. A little bit more
than we've already done so far... because lights go in there. I know the problem will get worse and I want to address
it before he does have a problem. Alex is a good customer of mine. I didn't realize that at first. He's been in since
and he's been in before the Planning Commission, but I want everybody here to know that we're willing to take care
of, and basically it's only Alex that I think that there's a problem... Anyway, if anybody has any questions, I'd be
more than happy to answer them. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Any questions? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: I don't think I've got any questions right now. I've got a few comments but no questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
22
I�
J
l
1
I
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Councilman Mason: None.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't have any either. Thanks. Okay, is there anyone from the neighborhood that would like to
come forward.
Alex Krengel: ...I'm not sure if they can help ... that traffic and the lights, and Steve Berquist brought up a good
point. I've gone to the city a couple times about a different driveway... and yes, there is a park there and that's the
logical place for the driveway... If Goodyear really wants to alleviate some of that problem, they could put a
driveway on the east side there and... I will work with Goodyear. I've got nothing against Goodyear. I'm just
against the late hours. The noisy traffic that seems to be there in the late hours... The noise from your establishment
has not bothered us. It's the noise of vehicles that are leaving... and I don't know if it's all employees or friends of
employees. It has gotten a little better since the public hearing, I will say that. But I'm just not sure what they can
do ... if they did go the extra hours, I would still recommend shorter hours and no Sunday operation...
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Anyone else? All right. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm assuming Mr. Krengel that the inspection station traffic doesn't bother you because
they have a tendency to, I mean their hours are very limited.
Alex Krengel: And it's usually only a couple times a month that it seems to be real heavy. And also of course the
hours are shorter now I think than they were. And the I think the traffic is less than...
Councilman Berquist: The, well I've got a few comments but I want to just talk about the driveway. The signs and
the driveway. When Abra and Goodyear were built it was, I'm trying to remember why that driveway was located on
the west side as opposed to the east, because I know the utility easement comes in from the west side. Or from the
east side.
John Rask: Yeah, I wasn't directly involved in that. You do have kind of a road area there and then you also have a
curve as you head by that park and go to DataServ. So I imagine they wanted to provide some separation between
that curve and this driveway, especially seeing that it was going to service four properties. There's a significant
amount of traffic there. I think it made more sense to ... just carve off Abra, Goodyear and the testing station.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Currently the testing station, the testing station existed prior to the other properties.
1 So as I, and I wasn't sitting here at that point. But from what I remember, conversations with the long ago
underlying developer, there was an issue of sharing cost on the access. There was some benefit realized by that, and
I remember my conversation as it allowed for addressing the curve on the road. Okay. Then Goodyear has
expressed an interest in attempting to alleviate the problem that they have participated in creating. Short of redoing
the driveway to the east side of the property line, how could the affect on Mr. Krengel's property be minimized?
Coniferous trees'?
John Rask: Yeah. Additional trees may help. It's my understanding the City planted a row of arborvitae in there.
It's fairly shaded so it doesn't produce, they haven't grown real fast. Another option that we've discussed, that I
have with Goodyear is the possibility of erecting a fence. Either right on the property line or if we could
accommodate it by moving it into the right -of -way site, we can work out the other issues. That may be a possibility
also. And that would satisfy, or it would improve the situation as far as the lights are concerned.
Councilman Berquist: Mr. Smith, is Goodyear willing, is Youngstedt willing to participate in any costs that are
associated with trying to...with Mr. Krengel and his concerns?
Larry Youngstedt. Can I answer that Mr. Councilman? I'm Larry Youngstedt. One of the owners and yes we
would, very much so.
23
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Good. Now how do we get.
Councilman Mason: Make a condition to the motion.
Councilman Berquist: John, how do we do it?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We can make it a condition.
Councilman Berquist: Make it a condition that Youngstedt's participate in the satisfaction of Mr. Krengel's
concerns ?... Well if I address it issue by issue, without getting too terribly involved here. I can certainly understand
where Youngstedt's are coming from insofar as that the hours of operation from 7:00 to 7:00 in the business that
they're in, in the society that we live in, is extraordinarily restrictive. Sign ordinance is a no brainer as far as I'm
concerned. I'm a little bit surprised that the overhead garage doors may be kept open from May through September
but on October 1 ", those suckers have got to go down. I'm not certain that I understand that.
Well I mean you'd think that someone would have sense enough on December 31" to say, by god you know it's cold
out. So but on the other hand, I also want to mention that, I'm certain that during the approval process the concern
of the approving bodies was for the neighbors. Not necessarily to foster attracting the business climate as you would
have liked. You wanted that site. You were willing to live within the restrictions of, you know the Council and the
planning Commission were looking at the neighbors behind you and saying how can we minimize the impact from
these people. The problem is going to get worse with the car wash though so I think if we can get this thing resolved
we'll be able to avoid some type of a confrontation down the road as well. As far as a motion goes. Why don't I
withhold a motion until everybody has a chance to comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll just take them one by one. The interpretation of inoperable vehicles stored on the
site, I don't have any problems with the amendment to that. To number 4. Noise levels. It's tine as it reads in terms
of the overhead garage doors may be kept open from May to September. Why don't we add from October through
April, no more than 12 inches. Just in case we do have an Indian summer, you can open it at least 12 inches. You
know I'm a stickler for signs. I realize that yours are, the current conditions are overly restrictive but you know the
overall problem I have with this is that, when Goodyear and Abra first came in, I mean it started a whole discussion
on this Council of moratoriums and you know things are getting out of hand and perhaps we went a little overboard
with our conditions of approval but now I feel like we're peeling back all of those so I'm having an internal struggle
with the action we're taking tonight, but I'll go on. I would just as soon see the sign condition continue as written, as
opposed to any changes to it. The hours of operation. I think 7:00 to 7:00 probably is overly restrictive in your
business, and I'm certainly not trying to put you out of business or constrict you in any way. However. I would be
comfortable with hours of operation from 7:00 to 9:00. I would still prefer it be closed on Sunday. And that isn't to
say that a year from now when the car wash is built and we recognize what their hours will be, that we wouldn't be
willing to consider that later. I think it would be nice if we could add a condition about assisting and putting in some
buffering for Mr. Krengel. And I'm going to pass it onto Mike.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike.
Councilman Mason: I certainly agree with the way number 4 is rewritten about new brakes or tires. The garage
doors, I don't have any trouble with them being open. I like the addition of the 12 inches. I'm okay with item 9 and
temporary signage shall comply with the sign ordinance. I'm not a great fan of temporary signs but since they came
in, I think the people who worked on the sign ordinances did a fairly comprehensive job and I'm okay with the
changes for that. Hours of operation. I don't know that Goodyear needs to be closed on Sunday. I think the point, it
certainly does add to the traffic, although I would have to agree with Mr. Smith that there's more traffic going in and
out of McDonald's on Sunday than there ever will be for Goodyear. I certainly do want some sort of condition
added that Youngstcdts and Mr. Krengel will work on the buffering issue. I almost see that as the most, I see lights
in the back yard as the most paramount issue here, quite honestly. That would just drive me nuts. Just drive me nuts
to have to put up with that. And I think, you know what's within reason but I think that needs to be worked out with
24
1
t
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
' Mr. Krengel's satisfaction and I would almost say that has to happen before these other things do but as long as
that's part of the resolution here, I'll support that.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: John, I guess I don't want to be indifferent to Mr. Krengel or to the other neighbors that called in.
' There were also a number of other people that were out at the time when this originally went through. The general
comment that came from the neighbors is you know, why are we talking about changing the rules now. Those were
the rules were put in place. Now I can understand on number 4. Changing the rule for clarification, even though I
know that there's one lady in the neighborhood there who vehemently believes it was no cars parked in the parking
lot but I think that makes sense to clarify as it's being proposed. And plus in talking with Mr. Krengel and the other
people, they just, they don't like the competition or arguing with it is kind of like this conscience decision was made
to be here and be here with the conditions under Highway 5 and some of those... Highway 5 which makes them not
abutting a residential neighborhood, which makes them basically... and I just really don't want to, like I say, be
indifferent to those people. They made whatever decisions they've made in the last couple of years based on the
original rules we put in place and I think to start changing the rules ... at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I did receive a couple of calls also and I had some discussions with Mr. Krengel. I think
from him taking it to the point where he has concerns with what they're doing, but also is amenable to correcting
some of those situations, as he's indicated. Screeching of tires, things of that nature, that would cause some problem
with me as well. And I think Youngstedt's did address some of that and try to take care of that for you as well. With
the competition of course coming in, I think it should be pretty much a full playing field rather than to distinguish
hours from one to the other. I guess I don't have too many problems with the hours from 7:00 to 9:00 also, Monday
through Saturday. I don't think that being open on Sunday is, or could cause some problems. If it does then I think
we should have the opportunity to revisit it and address it at that particular time. I don't know, did you look John at
all staggering and putting evergreens within that particular location? Rather than a fence. I'm not sure whether Mr.
Krengel is acceptable to a fence or not.
John Rask: Yeah, I think that was his second choice. He would prefer some more substantial vegetation.
Mayor Chiniel: Yeah, and I don't know, of course the cost of trees are very costly and they grow very slowly so
you'd have to put in something a minimum of at least 6 foot. And by staggering them, you can plant one here and
then probably just keep it moving back and forth so it does deter light from coming in. And being that they're going
to be there forever, and they grow, and that would probably be the better buffer than I think a fence. That would be
something that Youngstedt's would have to look at as well. And I don't know if they would be amenable to that.
And we have a better handle as to cost on trees as well. I do like that particular aspect of it. Other than that I guess I
don't see any other problems.
Dan Smith: Can I make one comment to that?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Dan Smith: One continent was made, let's wait and see what the car wash will, what their hours would be. I'm one
of the owners of the car wash and we don't want to be open 24 hours a day. Right now they're talking from 7:00 to
9:00 is what we're going to run. 7:30 to 9:00. And there's considerably more traffic...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. All right, is there any other discussion?
Councilman Berquist: Yes, I want to understand this May to September.
John Rask: That was put on by the Planning Commission.
25
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996 1
Councilman Berquist: For what u ose? I
q p �
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Because it's hot.
Councilman Berquist: I understand that. Why throw the, why say October I the doors have to come down? It gets
hot in October once in a while too. April as well. I can't understand.
Kate Aanenson: When we revisited the conditions I guess, we looked at it and said, is it a reasonable condition that
the staff can enforce. I guess their intent was to make sure that they try to minimize the door being open all the time
with the noise. There's no magic to May or September. The intent is, if we had our deference, we would just leave
it a little bit more open ended. But I guess we want to make sure.
Councilman Berquist: The car wash. I
Kate Aanenson: As far as the door being open. I think they'd use good judgment when the temperature, and noise,
if there's a problem, give them a call. The intent is to try to minimize the noise. Certainly there are days in the
summer that it's going to be warmer, if they want to open. We're just saying it's impossible for us to try to enforce it
the way it's written so when we went back through the conditions, that was one we wanted to re- examine.
Councilman Berquist: You don't think that car wash is going to buffer almost all, if not all of the noise from the
open doors? I hate to say it but the car wash will cause more noise as...
Kate Aanenson: If all the bays are being used at once, there's going to be some. But that was the intent. Was to try
to minimize the noise and we're saying as a staff, it's pretty hard to try to make sure they're always no more than 12
inches. We're just saying that's maybe unreasonable one to try and enforce.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. All right. Well let me try a motion with a couple of separate amendments that will
allow us to perhaps address the... I would move that the City Council approve the requested amendments as listed in
the staff report, including number 4 as it's written. Number 6 striking May through September. Number 9 as it's
written, with temporary signage shall comply with the sign ordinance. Number 10, hours of operation from 7:OOa to
9:OOp, Monday through Saturday and 10:OOa to 4:OOp on Sunday. The item I 1 would be scratched. Item 10 to read,
Youngstedt's or the owners of the Goodyear facility, to work with Mr. Krengel specifically to minimize the night
time auto headlight affect to his residence and receive his approval. I know that's rather open ended, lest we can re-
examine these amendments. That would be number one. So if he is not satisfied and he complains, we get to open
the worins again. And item 13 would be complaints by neighboring residences shalt also cause re- examination of the
amendments. So if in fact open doors cause a profound enough impact on the neighbors from a noise point of view
that they call and complain, we can re- examine the operating hours.
Councilman Senn: Point of clarification on your motion. I don't think we can do that. Can we Roger?
Roger Knutson: We can't delegate to the neighbor, or neighbors, what is acceptable or not. You could, on the
headlights, you could say that that condition has to be addressed, a proposed solution drive and come back to you for
approval. You could do that.
Councilman Berquist: So there has to be some closure at the Council level.
Roger Knutson: You have to decide what's acceptable. You can't delegate to the neighbor what is acceptable.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Should we delegate it to the staff? '
Mayor Chrniel: Well I'm sure that between Mr. Krengel, who is a nice gentleman to work with, and I think I
Youngstedt's understand the problems that are directing to him. I think that solution can probably be done.
26
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Councilman Berquist: I feel that I have, in the motion and the reason I made it as open ended as I did is because I
understand that Youngstedt's want to work with Mr. Krengel and I understand that Mr. Krengel wants there to be
1 some resolution to it. The fear that I have is that something will happen and 2 or 3 months from then, after giving
tacit approval you'll say, you know it's just not quite right. If only we would do this. Or maybe we could do this.
So I'm reluctant to give immediate closure to it. I'd like him to, I mean he's going to live there forever. Dan, you
may manage another Goodyear somewhere and you may be there forever as well but Mr. Krengel is a resident and he
has no intentions of going anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. And he's affected every day. You and I go
home. So how can we do that?
Roger Knutson: You could put it in terms of, the lighting concerns. The lighting that's being put into that back yard,
that issue must be resolved as approved by the staff. If the staff and the applicant can't work it out, then it has to
come back to you for resolution. For a more formal resolution. Either they convince staff that it's okay or.
1 Councilman Berquist: That's the difference. All right, will you restate the end of my motion please.
Roger Knutson: I would just suggest that, I have to be careful how I say this as well. The city staff will be very
cognizant of the concerns expressed here tonight, and I'm sure they will, and they will not approve something unless
it's in the City's best interest. So you could say that the lighting problem must be resolved to minimize, to the extent
practical, lighting into that back yard and the technical solution is to be approved by city staff. And the rest of these
things cannot take place until that issue has been resolved. Not the trees planted necessarily, or the wall constructed,
because of the time of the year, but the solution must be agreed to. Must have been established to that issue by city
staff. You could do it that way. Or you could have it brought back here.
Councilman Senn: Does that eliminate the second point then?
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, because my point 13. Complaints by neighboring residents shall cause re- examination.
Roger Knutson: You can say that, you don't need to. If there's a problem with any use, whether it's any conditional
use, that the conditions are not being complied with, it can always be brought back here.
Councilman Berquist: I think I'd like it on there for the record, if that's appropriate.
Councilman Senn: Point of clarification on that then. I mean you said if the conditions aren't being complied with.
We liberalized the conditions. So that's even more liberal for us to make them more strict, is what you're saying.
More or less if they had, we're liberalizing the conditions, they'd have to be using even more liberal conditions for it
to come back to us and put more restrictions on it.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Steve your desire is to say.
Councilman Senn: And I thought he was saying something different. I thought he was saying we could go back to
more restrictive if we simply feel it is not happening and my question on that is, can we do that? Because I don't
think we can.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Steve's saying, if the neighbors don't like the additional hours, can I make a condition
to go back to the more restrictive ones?
Roger Knutson: No.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You're saying we can only go back if they're... more liberal.
Roger Knutson: In violation of the conditions. Whatever conditions you set, if they're in violation. You can
' examine them to determine whether there's a violation. Not just based on neighborhood complaints. You can't take
action based just on that. You have to look at the substance to see whether there's in fact a violation of the
conditions of approval. And one of the triggering mechanisms to bring it back to you, if someone says there's a
27
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
violation, which would be maybe a neighbor, then you could examine to determine whether there has been a
violation.
Councilman Berquist: So in other words, I mean this is getting old real fast. Why can't, I cannot put a trigger in that
if we get a half a dozen phone calls in a two week period of time after they go to 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and open on
Sundays. Or 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and open on Sundays. We get a half a dozen complaint calls from noisy
automobiles speeding and that sort of stuff. Or an abundance of air hanuners or air wrenches going off. I can't have
that trigger, or an event that we re- examine.
Roger Knutson: Those conditions to add or subtract the conditions? No. You can enforce the conditions. For
example I think there's something in here about noise in general. Noise level shall not exceed OSHA requirements
or the MPCA guidelines at the property line. If there's an example, because of air hammers or whatever, an alleged
violation of impulsive noise or something, then you could examine that and determine whether that condition has
been violated. But you can't, you couldn't come back and say.
Councilman Berquist: ...temporary approval on conditions that will expire after a certain amount of time? Can 1
make a motion that we approve these set of conditions from the time that Mr. Krengel's headlight problem is
satisfied, according to city staff, until a year from then, at which time we will relook?
Roger Knutson: And re- examine the whole issue?
Councilman Berquist: Simply explore whether or not we choose to make it permanent.
Roger Knutson: Why don't you ask the applicant if they would agree to that condition?
Councilman Berquist: But your answer then is that can be done?
Roger Knutson: If the applicant agrees to the condition.
Councilman Berquist: Gentlemen? Evidently everything that I made in my first motion is unable to be done for
some.
Larry Youngstedt: That motion sounded real good but anyway, yes. In answer to that, we want to work with the
neighbors. We want to be good citizens of Chanhassen. I think we have been for the past couple of years and we
run a professional operation and we want to continue to do that but we want the neighbors happy and we want all the
constituents happy here in town. If they're not happy, they won't come in to see us anyway so in regards to that, we
want to make Mr. Krengel happy. We'll do whatever it takes on our part.
Dan Smith: Just one other note. We were ready to make a solution immediately. It was on Alex's suggestion
that ... fall. Let's talk to the Jill Forester, or Jill Sinclair. Let's wait until next spring. We didn't want to wait. We
wanted to...
Councilman Berquist: ...satisfaction of him.
Councilwoman Dockendor£ ...solution. Not the necessary satisfaction of erecting or planting anything.
Councilman Senn: At the end of your motion you could...
Roger Knutson: So I'm understanding what happened is that, and the applicant has agreed. The changes, these
changes that are in front of you now, if the Council votes to approve it, would be in effect and there would be an
additional condition, which the applicant has agreed to, that this issue would come back to the Council in one year to
examine how these changes have affected the neighborhood and whether they are reasonable as working, or not
working. If the changes in the hours of operation have created the problem or not, for example.
28
l
F,
rl
i I
L_ -�
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Well let me try this again. Roger jump in at any moment, at any time. So my motion
remains consistent until we get to item 12.
Councilman Mason: I think you missed a number somewhere. You struck 11.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, so we'll change the old I 1 to a new 1 I which will read something like.
Roger Knutson: Are you talking about the review?
Councilman Berquist: Yes. The satisfaction of Mr.
Roger Knutson: No. No.
Councilman Berquist: The satisfactory proposal of the solution.
Roger Knutson: Yeah because the solution for that, the staff finds a satisfactory solution to the headlight in back
yards issue. And that be implemented.
Councilman Berquist: And the solution does not need to be, the solution simply needs to be agreed upon. It does
not need to be implemented for the changes outlined in I through 10 to take effect.
Roger Knutson: A time period would have to be agreed to, considering the time of year. I don't know whether they
can plant this late or.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's getting into that range.
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: Will that motion, and what he said, just reading the Minutes, will that fly? Is that
understandable? You guys know...
Kate Aanenson: ...we understand exactly where...
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Roger Knutson: And then the next item 12, as I understand it would be, that these amendments be reviewed in
approximately 12 months by the City Council in October of next year to assess any negative impacts on the area.
And if there have been negative impacts, that they conditions may be revoked. These amendments may be revoked.
Councilman Berquist: All or part.
' Roger Knutson: All or part.
Councilman Berquist: That's my motion.
' Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Yes, I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor with a second. All those in favor say aye.
Councilman Senn: Before you do that, I have a question for Mr. Krengel. Mr. Krengel, is that what you, I mean is
that what you want to do is wait? What he's saying is do you want to wait until spring to resolve this? I mean are
you okay with putting up with the extended hours and not solving the.
29
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Alex Krengel: I don't think I have a choice. It's getting pretty late in the year to plant evergreens. I've been
planting trees for over 15 years and I know that the weather's going to beat us out so I don't think I have a choice.
No, this isn't exactly what I wanted but it looks like it's ... when you can't beat someone I guess you have to join
them. And I can see now that they are going to get approval on the hours and with all the other conditions so I might
as well join the group and try to get my problems resolved.
Councilman Berquist: I want you to know though Mr. Krengel that I'm making the motion of approval on the hours
predicated on your being, your problem being resolved. If your problem is unresolvable, in your mind, I will
withdraw the motion.
Alex Krengel: No, it's resolvable. I don't know that we can do it in a year. Trees don't grow that fast.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well we need some 8 footers.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. There's a motion with a second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve an amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit #92 -2 with the following conditions:
No public address systems are pennitted.
2. No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the site.
3. No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives, or public right -of -way.
4. No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight on the Goodyear site. (Cars awaiting repair such
as new brakes or new tires are not considered damaged or inoperable.)
5. No outdoor storage shall be permitted at the Goodyear site.
6. Noise levels shall not exceed OSHA requirements or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency guidelines at the
property line. The overhead garage doors may be kept open.
7. Pollution levels shall meet standards set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
8. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and Subdivision #90 -17.
9. There shall be no exterior tire displays. Temporary signage shall comply with the sign ordinance.
10. Hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. on Sundays.
11. The issue regarding headlights shining in the back yard of the neighbors shall be resolved to staff's
satisfaction prior to any amendments of conditions taking effect.
12. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed for compliance of conditions in one year.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF TH CITE' CODE REGARDING
ANTENNAS AND TOWERS, FIRST READING.
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. What we have here before us this evening is a new
ordinance pertaining to towers and antennas of a commercial nature. This item has also appeared before the
Planning Connnission on several occasions and they are recommending approval of it with the changes as outlined in
30
F
d
1
1
i�]
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
the draft ordinance. I'll try to make this as simple as I can. It does get kind of complicated so feel free to interrupt
me at any time. There's been a number of things going on here. Ong is with the adoption of the
Telecommunications Act earlier this year. The other change that has occurred has been in the technology used for
wireless services. With the change over to digital technology as opposed to analog technology, has really expanded
the... The Telecommunications Act authorized the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, to sell
additional licenses throughout the country. In this area there was three additional licenses sold. Originally AT &T
and Airtouch, which used to be U.S. New Vector Group. They currently provide wireless service right now in the
metro area. They use an analog technology, some of whom are in the, I know AT &T for one is in the process of
switching over to digital technology. The three additional licenses were obtained by Sprint Spectrum, American
Portable Telecom, and OneComm. It's these three users that will be looking to establish service in the metro area. I
know there, well I know for sure that Sprint Spectrum and AT &T are actively pursuing sites in this city. I've not
talked to anyone from OneComm. With that, and additional licenses, it kind of goes hand in hand with the changes
in federal law and how they look at wireless services. The Telecommunications Act of this year did a number of
things from breaking down barriers to establishing services to how companies could deal in a wide range of
telecommunication services. As far as we're concerned though with this ordinance, the Telecommunications Act
limits the city's ability or authority to regulate certain aspects of the establishment of wireless services. Among those
are basically three limitations here. One, the city may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally
equivalent services. That is to say since we already have two carriers here, we cannot say the rest of you go away.
We're satisfied with what we have. We basically have to allow an opportunity for all five carriers at this point to
establish services in our city if they need a site. I should also note that there may be additional licenses sold in the
future. I think at this point they're looking at two more. So we could have seven carriers within the next few years
all looking for antenna sites throughout the metro area. The second point, cities may not prohibit or have the effect
of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. That is we cannot come up with an ordinance that would
prohibit services, such is we said antennas can't be over 50 feet. Well that would have the effect of basically
prohibit them the ability to establish so we have to set reasonable standards. The third point is, cities may not
regulate personal wireless services on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent
that such facilities comply with FCC regulations. This primarily deals with EMF. The electromagnetic fields. We
cannot regulate, as you've been aware, through towers in the city. That's often a concern to residents who actually
live near -by. It's also a concern with other uses such as power lines. Overhead power lines. This chart here I
received from Sprint Spectrum and it basically shows you where personal communication services, PCS fits on this
spectrum of uses. It is fairly low. It's considered a non - ionizing source. It's the ionizing source of ultra violet, the
x -rays that are the real health hazard and being that these lower non - ionizing ones are not really a significant health
issue. So we cannot regulate based on that. I'm going to just show you a couple of examples of what we're looking
at for tower sites here and I'll also pass around a book that has some colored pictures that may be of some help to, if
you haven't seen this stuff yet. I've tried to keep you updated as we've worked on this and included some
information in the packet. This also is in some of the ordinance requirements. What we're looking here as an
ordinance requirement is a requirement to require monopoles, which would be this type of a pole. A lattice tower
would be prohibited. We do have a lattice tower currently in the city. It's just south of Stone Creek on the... so
that's what we're looking at. When we talk about, throughout the ordinance about antennas located on buildings or
antennas designed to be camouflaged or to serve as an architectural treatment, we're primarily talking about a panel
antenna. And this structure is a bell tower. These are the antennas. They're pretty low profile. They're 4 to 5 feet
in height. About a foot to 6 inches in width. And they're basically, for the most part, camouflaged. Here again
similar. There are some, what you see here are antennas on the side of a building. These cannot be used in all
instances. They're limited. They only throw out a signal within a certain radius so it is, with antennas, the regular
stick antennas, have to be utilized in some instances. These two are fairly small. They won't be over 15 feet in
height. Just to give you an example. This has also been discussed. It's camouflaged in light fixtures, or antennas in
light fixtures. When we talk in the ordinance about how we're allowing them in parts or on city property in certain
instances. This is what we had in mind as an example. It would be ball diamond lights possibly at Lake Ann. They
could be fitted. The light standard could come down and the antenna could go up. And this whole issue was brought
before the Park Commission at the recommendation of the Planning Commission. They did not have a problem with
it per se as long as they had an opportunity to review it. They also commented on the fact that they did not want to
see them in private parks. In Lundgren's development there's a few private parks that are owned under the
ownership of the Association. They would want the city to have that additional control. And again, the way the
ordinance is written is that it allows an opportunity, but obviously with the city being the property owner, we have an
additional opportunity to review it or prohibit it outright for whatever reason that you chose. The reason we did this
31
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
is if we were to restrict it only to industrial we would limit the areas of the city significantly. Everything north of
Highway 5 is primarily residential. So we pretty much put out the northern third of the city. When these carriers and
providers establish services, it's predicted that in the future they'll need antenna sites anywhere from a mile, one
antenna every mile to 3 miles. So you will see a significant increase. And again if you have seven providers, each
one of them needing their own antennas. What we've done to try to reduce this, and reduce the number of towers, is
where we have a co- location requirement where each tower would have to accommodate the users antennas and then
would have to provide space for one additional antenna for another carrier to utilize the same tower.
Councilman Berquist: Quickly John. The light standard tower. Is that four separate antennas or is that?
John Rask: That would be for one carrier in which it would send it out in all directions. As I indicated they're
limited on, the panel antennas send out a specific signal. They're not, it's not a 360 deal.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. So that in fact, when we talk about each carrier needing their owner tower. In order to
get two carriers on that type of a configuration you'd have to have two banks of those at different elevations.
John Rask: That's correct. And you need approximately 25 feet of separation between the two. For technology
reasons you can't, you'll get interference with antennas that are any closer than that. That's why within the
ordinance we've provided a 25 foot height bonus if they do design the tower to accommodate an additional user.
Councilman Berquist: And once we're saturated we're every mile to 3 miles?
John Rask: Ultimately.
Councilman Berquist: With 7 carriers with maximum of two carriers per tower.
John Rask: That may be a worst case scenario but it is a possibility.
Kate Aanenson: Don't use your cellular phone.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well you've got to hope that the technology will change.
John Rask: Yeah. The good thing too is, there's a lot of issues here so I'll try to stay on track but as they density,
the towers will come down in height. You can't have overlapping signals so where we may start out with towers
being 150 feet high, as they density their cells, the towers, the antennas come down on the towers. We've also tried
to address that issue by requiring them to remove unused sections of towers and that's kind of been a sticking point
with some of them but we certainly want to have the ability to get rid of some of these tail towers in the future. Also,
as they density and come down, they'll be able to make use of other structures. Buildings. Things that may not have
been feasible the first time out. So we will have some, as technology improves, they'll be able to handle more calls
per antenna. AT &T in switching to digital will get that. So there are some improvements but ultimately you could
see them every 2 miles so that's, what the industry is predicting. A lot of it obviously goes with usership and then
topography. It's a line of sight signal. Therefore if you have an obstruction such as a large hill, large building, it
blocks the signal so that's an issue. And where we have, we're blessed with rolling topography out here, it's also
somewhat of a hindrance when trying to establish cellular service. With that I think I'll just get into some of the
ordinance here and just hit the high points and then answer.
Councilman Berquist: No pun intended.
John Rask: No pun intended. They had a couple of changes too I'll mention as I move through here. Or instead of
going through the changes, maybe I'll, Peter Beck from AT &T is here this evening and has recommended some
changes and some of them, we have 2 or 3 others I think we still have some concern with so we can go through those
here in a minute. Maybe I'll just hit a few high points. I think the first few pages of the ordinance are pretty self
explanatory. Moving to page 3 of the ordinance, under Section 20 -1503. In residential districts, the height of any
tower, including antennas, shall be 80 feet. The reason we picked 80 feet is trees typically grow between 70 and 75
feet at a maximum around here and they need to be above the tree line. Again when we're talking residential, we're
32
F7
i
L-�
I'
II
�l
'1
L
F
'I
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
talking city property. Park sites. Could be a water tower. In the cases of the water towers, obviously they're going
to be over 80 feet. That's why in (d) we provided an exemption. Oh no, excuse me. Further down under
exemptions to height restrictions. We provided an exemption so that we could utilize existing structures and not be
limited on the height. In (b), we've limited the height of towers to 150 feet in all non - residential so it'd be your
industrial office park. It'd be BH and BE We did prohibit towers in the CBD, in the Central Business District and
the General Business District. So you will not see any towers in those two districts.
Councilman Senn: On your height. On basically you're kind of setting the guideline to really as applying to right -of-
way, which is it can only be 50 %. 1 mean that's ... 50% of the height of the tower?
John Rask: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Is that what's common now? And I may be dating myself here but I remember back when some
' of these towers in Shoreview... setback required the full height of the tower. You want to stay on your own property.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Or collapse in so.
Councilman Senn: Yeah... collapsing, whatever. Have we covered that off or are we opening up a public safety
hazard so to speak?
' John Rask: Well, originally we had greater setbacks in here and some of those were relaxed as kind of a compromise
with the industry at the Planning Commission level. There are some very stringent building code requirements that
are applied to these things. I believe they have to be designed to withstand an 80 mph wind with certain ice loads
and so forth. So basically, I'm not an expert in this area but basically if that tower goes down, there's going to be a
whole heck of a lot around it that goes down too so. But that was something that we had a concern with certainly.
That was something that has been relaxed throughout the process.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well on those monopoles, I mean they can't just implode. It's just a signal...
John Rask: They maybe designed to progress or to collapse because they're basically a telescoping pole. That was
' a requirement that we originally had in our ordinance and it's been deleted from the draft ordinance. Moving on
through. We do have some exceptions to the height restriction. Here's where if it's located on existing structures
you can exceed it and then the City Council may permit antenna heights of up to 25 feet. If for some reason the
antenna signal is obstructed. Setbacks. Here's where we talk about from rear property lines and from right -of -ways.
We did leave for sites that are adjacent to parcels, developed, guided or zoned residential, setbacks shall be equal to
the height of the tower. So it would have to be from the property line so in most cases the strictures are going to be
at least 10 feet on the property line. So they do enjoy that luxury there or they do have that protection from
residential homes. Yet we still have setbacks half the distance from the right -of -way. Part of the setback there too is
the aesthetics. We obviously don't want a tower slammed right up right next to the right -of -way, which is also
addressed in number 5 where we said towers cannot be located between a principal structure and the street. So if
somebody was going to locate a tower behind an industrial building, it would have to go behind an industrial
building. It couldn't go in the front yard or elsewhere on the property...
Kate Aanenson: Maybe to just add a little bit to what John was adding too. Since these are going on private
property, they also have to get a lease from the underlying property owner and that's part of the discretion of looking
at relaxing the ordinance... We looked at that as they need to get an underlying lease, there's insurance requirements
with the underlying tenants and some of that responsibility goes with that too so the tenants, whoever leases... So
again, at a minimum. That certainly...
Councilman Senn: What about when you're in an I zone and let's take the Post Office just as an example. Let's say
there's some industrial property backing up to residential. And now you're requiring effectively the I zone to be in
the back of the building. I mean is that in fact contrary to what we're really trying to achieve... residential?
John Rask: Yeah we have, in most cases, I think in all cases where we have industrial that abuts residential, we have
1 a buffer. In this case we have a 112 foot buffer. But yes that is, as long as they met the setbacks, that could be a
33
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
situation where you could see it between industrial and residential. Originally we had 1 %z times the height of the
tower for the setback from residential and that was reduced down to the distance equal to the height.
Councilman Senn: Could you say that...
John Rask: Certainty.
Councilman Senn: Well I was just saying leave it open for, so it's a decision on the city's part to put it on the side or
the front or whatever rather than just figure it's going to end up next to residential?
Kate Aanenson: I guess in looking at this we try to go back to the criteria of where John originally said no
reasonable application... and where there's reasonable opportunities. A lot of our industrial park...
Councilman Senn: But I'm just saying, you can still get reasonable opportunity on the side of the building or in front
of the building versus abutting residential, right?
John Rask: Yeah, I think it's possible.
Councilman Senn: ...I'm not saying that ... each one individually.
John Rask: Sure. We could take a look at that also. Towers in residential zoned districts. I went through that.
Under 2. I'd make an amendment as recommended by the Park Commission. It would be city park sites. We need
to clarify that, and not private parks. And again, as long as they're compatible with the nature of the park, the Park
Commission did express a desire to review those.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That was my question. Isn't that kind of open to interpretation what's compatible and
what's...
John Rask: Yeah. Again, incorporating it into a light standard, which would be something compatible. If somebody
wanted to locate it right in the middle of, in open space that's used as a play area, they certainly have, you could
deny that for no other reason except for you know like it's, since it's on city property.
Kate Aanenson: A light pole. Part of a backstop. Part of an existing structure... incorporated as part of the system.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I can just comment on that. I personally don't get as concerned when you're talking
about putting it on public property because they have to negotiate a lease with you and if you don't want it there, all
you've got to say is no.
Kate Aanenson: And that's what the Park Commission would like to see it before they come to you...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What kind of dollars are we talking about?
John Rask: Depending on the location. What's been the going rate, from what I understand is between $8,000.00
and $15,000.00 per year.
Councilman Senn: Outer suburb or what? A lot more are going to come...
John Rask: That's Apple Valley. I think Apple Valley is closer to 15. Part of the, I guess if it's a suitable site, I
guess we don't want to set such a high price that you would potentially discourage it because the only reason we
were concerning any residential areas is because, and we may have to in the future. We would rather have additional
control that we would obtain by putting it in city property. So no, a lot of cities have kept it low because they have
some real desirable sites such as water towers. It may be a piece of property that doesn't have much value. That the
HRA owns for some reason. So that's why I say, it's a wide range. I mean if it's Lake Ann Park and it may be
somewhat undesirable and maybe you wouldn't want it. So I guess that could be determined with each instance. We
provided construction requirements. What's needed at the time of application. Tower and antenna design I think is
34
1
1
i�
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
pretty straight forward. We've required just... color. Co- location requirement. That's where we get into
constructing it for one other antenna. Also kind of a unique feature of this section sitting at the top of page 6 is that
we have some control over where towers... other sites that, and just to kind of go through this. On 1. The proposal
for a new commercial tower shall not be approved unless the City Council finds that the telecommunications
equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building
within a one mile search radius for towers under 120 feet. And then towers under 80 feet are exempt so this gives us
some flexibility. We can say hey, have you looked there. Have you looked here and try to get carriers to work
together. Try to get them to work on existing structures. So it does give you some leverage in that perspective. The
rest of it I think is pretty self explanatory. I don't think I'll go over it unless you have some specific questions. At
the very end of the ordinance we've listed what districts it would be permitted in and which would be conditional
uses and so forth. Basically in residential, any tower would be a conditional use. Antennas could go as a permitted
use if they meet the standards. In industrial, if you have an existing tower, you could put another set of antennas on
that tower as a permitted use. Again, this is the current, we wanted to encourage co- location so we said if you can
find an existing tower or existing building, we'll approve it administratively subject to the standards in here. If
you're going to put up a tower, you're going to have to go through the conditional use permit. Do the search radius.
Provide us this documentation showing why you need this location and why you can't do it anywhere else. But again
it's kind of the carrot and the stick approach. We wanted to provide some incentive for co- location... Provide some
ability to speed these things through. It's a very competitive industry and they're all trying to get tower sites up and
to establish service so as soon as this ordinance is passed, you're going to see a few of them here in front of you.
There are some, several that have been talking to us for several months now. With that I think I'll just entertain any
questions that you have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone that has any questions on...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, you have to understand that I think radios are magic and there are little people in
my TV set but interference with other signals, I mean without getting too technical..., how does that work. I mean is
it going to screw up any of our 911 service or any of our police...?
John Rask: Yeah, that's something that we were concerned with. On page 9 of the ordinance, Section 20 -1520
we've asked that they notify us. Anytime anyone puts up any sort of radio antenna, they need to seek FCC approval
for commercial uses and FCC is the governmental agency that regulates interference and maybe some of the people
here this evening can speak to you a little bit more about that but that is governed. We have, they have, what we're
requiring in the ordinance is that they notify us at least 10 days in advance so if we want to, we can monitor
interference levels. There are at least one of the carriers is concerned with this and would like to see it deleted.
We're simply asking that they call us and let us know so that we can monitor. Whether it's technical or not, if we
just, so we're aware of it. If other people have problems they can call us and we can certainly relay that infonnation
and let them know that somebody is testing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But are these like, are they, and again. No knowledge basically at all on radio
frequency or bands but is there enough to support what they potentially...?
John Rask: Well I guess the market's going to determine that. That was part of the Telecommunications Act was to
break down these barriers and expand market opportunity for not only wireless but cable television, the Internet, a
number of areas that it addressed. Because of that we now have to deal with this issue. Also the technology has
changed and they offer a wide variety of services that there weren't before so.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? If not... Peter.
Peter Beck: I'm trying to see how I can move this along quickly. We have, first of all... representing AT &T
Wireless Services and I've been working with them for almost 10 years. They were previously known as Cellular
One. The old McCaw Communications organization, for those of you who recognize that name. It was acquired by
AT &T a few years ago. So we've been working for AT &T for the last couple years. And we are one of the two
original, if you will, cellular providers. We've been in this market since 1984. Have put up 90 some sites to date in
the metropolitan area. We have worked with many cities on specific sites and more recently in many cities on
ordinances exactly like this and I would say that the ordinance you're proposing is very much what other cities who
ILI
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
are on top of this issue are doing. Very consistent with what I would call the state-of-the-art ordinance as of October,
1996. And the technology is moving very quickly. We have had an opportunity to work with your staff on it. I
think we've got it awfully close. What I did is I took the copy that I got for tonight's meeting and marked it up with
some of my thoughts. What I'd thought I'd do is pass that out. Many of them are just technical issues if you will,
that I'll be working with Kate and John on but I think I'll just focus on the three or four what I'll call policy
issues... Council should be aware of. And then if I can answer any questions that you have. Working with this
industry for as long as I have, I think I can answer most of your questions that... Please interrupt me at any time if
you have a question as we go through this. We'll move through it rather quickly. As I mentioned, AT &T is one of
the current cellular providers and the new licenses, the so called PCS providers are also represented here by Jay
Littlejohn, who I'm sure will speak. For the most part our issues are the same but there are some differences in and
I'm sure Jay will... We'll start on page 2. Under permits, because I think just a technical issue. I would just suggest
that you make it clear that what we're talking about here is building permits and conditional use permits. In number
3, the temporary facilities. Again I would call this a technical issue. What I'm trying to do and again, the
suggestions that I'm making tonight and that we've been making throughout this process are our effort at getting as
much flexibility into this ordinance as we can while still being consistent with your vision for the city, your goals for
the city in terms of these uses. But 3(b) deals with temporary facilities. They're typically ...mounted on trucks and
they couldn't comply with any of the, virtually any of the requirements that are otherwise applicable so I would just
suggest that that language be stricken. And also the 72 hours. In some instances... would requirement an on -site
communications for an extended period of time, where you might have like a building. Very, very unlikely to
have ... and I think we could address that... The next page is 3. The exceptions for multi -use towers. This is
a ... we're not in disagreement with the staff and I think it needs to be ... but I do want to highlight this issue for the
Council so you understand. A multi -use tower, what we're suggesting that be a tower that's designed for two or
more users so that if we were to put in a pole and someone else down the line had a need in that general area, we
would have space for them. We could make it available. The way it's written now, you'd have to have the two users
at the beginning in order to be a multi -user tower, which would probably almost never happen that these companies,
at this stage in their development, would have a need in the same location at the same time so the problem is you
wouldn't be able to design a pole for two users because it wouldn't qualify as a multi -use tower, which would be the
purpose of that co- location.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why is that Peter? I mean you're both trying to start and you're...
Peter Beck: Let me back up a little bit and talk, sort of a Cellular 101. Try to condense as much as I can. The
technology of this, as you know, is the so- called cellular. This word cellular comes from the fact that the technology
works by each antenna site delivering signals to a given area or cell. Okay. And the magic in it, and believe me it's
magic to me too, is that the computers and the system can transfer calls as you move from cell to cell. That as you
design the system the constraints are, capacity and coverage for quality of signal. Each cell is only licensed for a
limited number of radio frequencies. So it can only handle a limited number of calls. So as usage goes up, the cells
go up as you get capacity, you wouldn't be able to get on your phone. You'd get a busy signal. You'll get nothing.
That's when that cell needs to be broken down into smaller cells anywhere from 2 to 4. Typically when we're
breaking down the cells. Each of those cells, the new cells covers a smaller area. Therefore it needs less height.
The distance that the signal travels is directly related to it's height. But it needs enough height to get over the trees,
to get into the valleys and the area that it covers, into freeway trenches, and those kinds of geographic features. So
as, again as the berm, as your system matures, your customer base increases, you're building more cells but you have
to make each cell fit into the whole network. At this point 90 some cells. It has to cover the area to provide
complete coverage to that area but it can't go beyond that area, and you'll hear us talk about, we can't go on a water
tower because it's too high. Our signal will go too far and what happens then is the signal will broadcast beyond the
cell into another cell on the same frequency and you will be able to cross talk. Be in someone else's conversation.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But if you're in a very competitive market and you're building a customer base at
basically the same rate as your competitor, and you're both running into those capacity constraints, why wouldn't
you run into the issue of needing to build a tower in a similar location?
Peter Beck: In a similar location?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah,
NR
I
F
6
�I
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Peter Beck: Probably at this point anyhow, it could happen... There are some differences. We have an existing.
We have 90 some sites. We're building about 20 or so new sites a year. Jay's client and the other so called PCS
providers are building now...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you're at different levels in the chain?
Peter Beck: Yeah. Now they're going to need more cells right up front, partly because of their technology. They're
on a little bit different wave length in that band that was on there, and the signal won't travel quite as far so they're
going to need more cells up front than we do. But our system will turn on the big cells. On locations like IDS
Tower. The northwest and southwest bank... Xerxes where I used to office. Tall sites. There's one up here... putting
lattice structures in places like Minnetonka, as you can image how it was received. But now we're lower. We have
90 some sites and Jay can give you an exact number... because of the distance that that particular signal traveled.
But as we look at a cell, we're fairly site sensitive. We get the so called search area ... to the point where it's
measured in blocks. So if Jay's client or another client happens to have a cell, a hole a half a mile away, sometimes
it just won't work for him. We hope that it will because this is a very capital intensive business. Very capital
intensive so that's why McCaw... doesn't exist anymore. They needed access to AT &T's money and they'd never
build a pole if they don't have to because of the extra capital. If there's an existing structure to go on, they'll do it
and they'll save some money on that site and I believe that would be true most the time... but what we would like is
to build it to ... so we can get the second user on there in the future, if that's the way you want to go. If you want to
have poles...
Kate Aanenson: Let me just clarify. We intended that ... but we agree with that...
Peter Beck: But I think it's a good issue for the Council to understand, to the extent I can make it understandable.
So let me go... Towards the bottom of the page, there was some questions that you will see under setbacks. Where I
have suggested that they've included institutional zones in the industrial and business zoned districts where if you
had institutional zones that butt up against the industrial district, it could go along the property line. Where we try to
put these poles typically is as far away from everything else as we can... outside of the parking lot... Councilman
Senn had a question about where industrial is up against residential. We do have in here, in all instances in that case,
there'd be at least the setback of the height of the pole. It would never be against the property line, as this is written
and that's, we think that's a good idea. The setback from the height of the pole is a reasonable aesthetic requirement.
It's not necessary for safety reasons. These poles are extremely reliable and extremely safe. In the Shoreview
instance that was a guide wire structure that... construction. Lattice structures will fail. They're designed to fail...
What happens with the pole is it just simply won't fall over. They're engineered to be, to withstand a 90 mph wind
but have been as high... and our vendor has tested their design and found that the first failure occurred at about 105
mph winds and what happens is it kinks. Somewhere along it's height... but they've survived in winds tike Hurricane
Andrew and that's what happens, it kinks. But they don't fall over. So the so called fall zone concept which arises
out of the older technology, the lattice and guide towers, where you cut the guide wires, it could fall over. It really
doesn't apply. As long as they're sure that ... and the other design, there are agencies that have set design
requirements for these. An important one of course is the footings and foundation and that has to be adequate to
hold the pole. But again, with the vendors that we deal with, I'm not aware of any failure.
Peter Beck: The antennas?
Councilman Berquist: Excuse me. I believe you that the pole will never fall down but what about the mechanism
itself? The relay device.
Councilman Berquist: The antennas.
Peter Beck: The antennas at the top of the pole? Again, and I didn't bring any pictures. They're very small. It
comes off like a leaf...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It just impales people when it falls.
37
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Peter Beck: Well that's not really what we're doing right now. Yeah, I'm not going to say that in 105 mph, they
wouldn't blow off.
Councilman Berquist: Well yeah, in 105 mph obviously I'm not.
Peter Beck: Well at 90 they will not. The whole pole, the whole facility is designed to withstand a 90 mph. That's
the design speed that AT &T insists on for it's facility.
Councilman Berquist: And not for the pole design but for the mechanism on, the actual relay mechanism?
Peter Beck: The pole and the antenna. Actually the computer for the relay mechanism is in an equipment shelter at
the base which is also designed to withstand up to 80 mph winds. That's a 12 x 28 foot equipment building.
Councilman Berquist: Wait a minute. 12 x 28 equipment building?
Peter Beck: Yeah, 12 x 28.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Feet?
Peter Beck: 12 feet by 28 feet long.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So with every pole we're getting, we're also getting that?
Peter Beck: Most the poles. Sometimes we can put that equipment in existing... on the base of a water tower.
Existing equipment building. Again, they don't build them if they don't need them but in a typical installation.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What's the height?
Peter Beck: They're about 8 feet.
Kate Aanenson: The existing tower on Lyman...
Peter Beck: And those are typically designed to match ... to be compatible with whatever else is on the site. We've
done them in brick... industrial area. We'll try to match the color and materials that are on existing buildings.
Councilman Berquist: So a significant percentage of these towers would be accompanied by a 500 square foot
structure?
Peter Beck: Yeah...
John Rask If I could comment on that briefly. We did limit the size of the building to 400 square feet in the
ordinance. We provided some design standards for those buildings. That they be architecturally compatible with the
surrounding structures. That they use brick, stucco or some material, quality material. No metal seamed buildings or
anything to that extent.
Peter Beck: And this is one area where we do differ.
John Rask: Yes. PCS will use smaller receivers. This is kind of what, this was provided again by Sprint. I've heard
the comparison made that their units at the base of the towers will be about the size of a couple vending machines.
Couple of Coke machines so they're, go ahead.
Peter Beck: The next, again...PCS's technology does have a smaller need. The bulk of our equipment building
is... so we can stay on the air. And at the very bottom of that page is the setback. For one half the distance from
the... Again, I think this is probably a policy issue. In many instances there are existing structures in rights -of -way
so we can try to match and make this facility less conspicuous if it's in a row of power poles or something like that.
38
7I
�__J
F
L
1�
1
1
k
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
So I guess our thought would be, it wouldn't be a setback from the right -of -way. Maybe from the road surfaces and
so forth but in the right -of -way it's often times a good place for this kind of facility so.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What kind ... but I didn't realize a building was coming along with this but do you need
10,000 square feet or what?
Peter Beck: For a site?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah.
Peter Beck: No. A typical site would be 30 feet square. 40 feet square. Virtually all... You had a question about
how much. That varies by location but also it varies on what we're leasing... costing hundreds of dollars a month. If
they're leasing space on a water tower, or on a structure, then you're talking maybe a thousand or more per month
because we don't have to invest in a pole.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What about this structure at the bottom? When you're leasing.
Peter Beck: We lease the same square footage whatever it is. We put the pole on the building and typically...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Peter, as you probably well know, we can shut this off at 11:00, which is our dead time.
What I'd rather see done is rather than address each one of these respective areas that you're talking about, I would
like to see you put this in writing and bring it back to Council. I would much prefer that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'd like, I mean considering this is a first reading, these aren't big items for staff.
Mayor Chmiel: No, but I don't want to rush into this thing either. There's an awful lot of things that I see concerns
with and total numbers of these structures in and throughout the entire city. When you get seven handlers and each
are going to put it in one mile each, or two miles max.
Peter Beck: I think that, I was going to get to that. I think that's more than, considerably more than reality...
Mayor Chmiel: Under those circumstances, it's almost like looking at the old day when antennas came in for
television. Every house you saw had one and it was not the most desirable sight you'd like to have. I think there are
a lot of technologies that are still out there that have not yet been addressed. And many of those technologies can
become better use for both the operators as well as going to each of the cities. And I understand what you're
basically talking about. But I would still much rather see this in writing so we can really go over that thing and as I
say, the bewitching hour is 11:00 and I would just as soon hear from the others in a rather short, brief presentation.
Roger Knutson: Mayor? Maybe I could suggest, to the extent that the cell companies, or PCS. Whatever those
folks are. And staff are in agreement, they could bring back a revised draft incorporating everything there's an
agreement on and then you could focus on the areas where there are disagreement with staff plus anything else you.
Kate Aanenson: I think that's where we're at today. I think Peter would agree. That's where we're at and that's
kind of why he's summarizing. We're in agreement except for the changes that he wants to present to you. There
might be some other things but we're pretty much we've been, we're there. I think we're...
Peter Beck: There's three or four items, just on policies and ... all that's left. And I'm really just pointing out the
other things...
Councilman Berquist: And one of those would be to be in the rights -of -way, or at least... Whether it's to, whether
it's in an institutional zone.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Even putting them in a residential zone because I know I'm not too acceptable to that.
39
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Peter Beck: Well it's not... residential zones but only on what you would call institutional sites. Schools, churches,
that sort of thing and that really would be necessary in order to provide this service to a community like Chanhassen
where you have large areas of the community.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think when we allowed the first one in they said this would be the last one you'd see. That's
no longer the case.
Peter Beck: And that was done I think by MCI?
Mayor Chmiel: I believe it was, yeah.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What page...?
Councilman Senn: ...right -of -way issue.
Councilman Berquist: 1505.
Peter Beck: The bottom, very bottom of page 3. Number 4. The ordinance requires that the setback be half the
height frotn rights -of -way and.
Councilman Senn: And you're saying that... consideration.
Kate Aanenson: Right. We didn't want to change it for aesthetics.
Peter Beck: And we're thinking of situations tike we talked.
Kate Aanenson: High tension power lines.
Peter Beck: There might be others. That was why I thought...
Councilman Senn: ...can't you use those?
Peter Beck: Someday we hope, right now we can't.
Councilman Senn: I was going to say my phone won't work anywhere near them.
Peter Beck: What we can do is throw a pole up you know the same style and color and we've done this on a number
of school sites where there's existing, other services existing. Light poles. Where they were not always to use them
but to put up a pole that matches them. Replicates them. Same height. Same color. Size.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can we provide for coming in for a conditional use?
Peter Beck: Well everything's a conditional use for the poles.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right but that would be my recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: With a conditional use you'd have a little more control from the city's standpoint than you would...
Roger Knutson: You have more control to say no to a variance than you do to a conditional use permit.
Mayor Chmiel: Then that's vice versa of what I said...
Peter Beck: ...why don't I just, the rest... Channel 29 for instance is just right next to us in the frequency band...
and that's why ... the requirement is to notify the city... The whole system has to be retuned to accommodate these
new cells and the frequencies reallocated so ... on a common use facility...
40
u
L
r
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Councilman Berquist: How long does the fine tuning process take? You're talking about retuning the cell.
Peter Beck: It's typically done ... when usage is down...
Councilman Senn: ...every time you remne you notify?
John Rask: Well our original concern was over public safety. Telephone communications so that's what we were
most concerned. I'm not going to pretend to know everything about their industry. We also have
telecommunications that interact with our well houses. With our pump lift stations... I don't know. I think in the
future...
Peter Beck: ...be able to have that many.
Councilman Mason: But everyone has e -mail. I mean you can just flash an e- mail... This area is going to be worked
on. I mean Peter I don't believe that can't be done. I mean I understand it's a hassle but I also know with e -mail and
that kind of stuff, if you get a list of all ... you'd press one button and it's gone. I mean for what it's worth.
Peter Beck: It's come up in other cities... I'll be happy to answer any other questions...
Mayor Cluniel: Well I think we can sort of review this again and ... ask those respective questions.
Peter Beck: I'd be happy to come back out... We don't have any imminent sites in Chanhassen in '97 but again the
company is investing in my time to go...
Councilman Berquist: When you were researching this, did you talk to any, I'm just wondering about the
communications interruptions for public safety in other communities. Did you talk to anyone who had experienced
that or was that?
John Rask: No, but a number of connnunities have adopted ordinances that takes this one step further than we do.
They require an intennodulation study, which is a very detailed study showing potential interference problems. We
took that out and we said you need FCC approval, and they said well we don't want ... so we took that out. So now
we're at, just call us.
Councilman Berquist: Is the inner... study a one time deal upon the initial cell set -up which would tell us whether or
not we would have a communications.
I �
II
John Rask: They would certainly provide it the first time. I don't know as they tune them and adjust them if they
would have to do the same thing...
Peter Beck: In Burnsville, a situation there is they have a long time policy of requiring everybody that needed
antennas to put them on their water tower, and it was a major revenue source... That's how this language appeared in
the ordinance. They also allowed it on other locations if the water tower...so it's not, in that instance...
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks.
Jay Littlejohn: My name is Jay Littlejohn and I'm representing U.S. West Vector Group for 9 years... Peter's
Cellular 101. I'll give Cellular 102. Or 201. ...that site that you saw with the church bell tower, that is one...
stealth antennas and that... Right now ... Airtouch Cellular ... U.S West built their first site in 1982 in Minnetonka on
the water tower. We've also... There's a question of interference and... Staff has done an excellent job of working
on this and I'm just here to answer questions...
Councilwoman Dockendorf asked a question regarding cloning of her cell phone in Philadelphia.
Jay Littlejohn: Boy, if I knew that I wouldn't be here today...
41
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No I was using out in Philadelphia...
l; p
Doug Cowan: Good evening. My name is Doug Cowan. On behalf of the American Portable Telecomm I just ,
wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for—and we look forward to any additional hearings that you want to
present... assist staff... let us know. And we agree with the comments that have been made this evening. I think in
particular to address the interference and we would ask that... authority of the FCC because I think the practicality of '
trying to both monitor and ... so again, thank you...
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. '
Jay Littlejohn: Somebody asked the question about the tower cycle. I know of one in the next two years that will be
done by my client...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, great. '
Councilman Berquist: I did notice though that while Peter was talking there was one, a couple statements that he
made that you were shaking your head.
Jay Littlejohn: Oh that's the PCS...
Peter Beck: I apologize...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Did we provide guidance to you guys to do a final reading?
Kate Aanenson: This is on for the first reading... I
Roger Knutson: There's no reason not to pass first reading. They'll bring back a revised draft and then if there's
any remaining issues, they can, staff can highlight them for you and then you can resolve it. ,
Councilman Berquist: ...public hearing'?
Ro�(Ter Knutson: No. I
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Berquist: The only issue I was wondering was whether or not we provided adequate direction was 20- I
1520. Interference with public safety telecommunications and John, if you seriously...
John Rask: ...it has been a concern I know with a number of communities. As you're very well aware, this is all '
being played out here in front of us. Nobody knows. There's a lot of uncertainties here yet. One of the reasons we
assigned separate articles and sections to this ordinance is we know it's going to be coming back. As technology
changes and as we learn as certain things get challenged in court, we will be back so that's why I'd prefer to ... see
how it goes.
Councilman Senn: I'll move first reading for now...
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. I
42
1 7
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1996
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the first reading of a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code regarding Antennas and Towers as amended. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's try to crack the rest of these in.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: We have a work session coming up this next Monday night. One of the items I forgot to put onto
this agenda was setting a time and place to canvas election returns so we do need to handle that item. I would
suggest that these three items be at the very first part of next week's work session. In fact they might go a little bit
faster in a work. You'd have to convene the Council together for the first part of the meeting but I think that they
would go faster in kind of that smaller session.
Councilman Senn: On the 4`'
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Senn: We won't be doing the election results on the 4""?
Don Ashworth: No.
Roger Knutson: You'd better not be
Don Ashworth: You have to canvas the returns within 48 hours following the election so on Monday night you
would be setting the time and place that you would actually canvas those returns, which would be either the 6"' or the
7 ti,
Roger Knutson: So technically what you would do tonight is adjourn this meeting to the 4` at, set the hour.
Don Ashworth: 5:30.
Roger Knutson: So it would be a motion to, if that's what you want to do. To adjourn this meeting to November 4'
at 5:30... taking care of those meeting issues. If that's what you want to do.
Councilman Mason: I would move that
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adjourn the meeting to November 4, 1996
at 5:30 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. This portion of the meeting was adjourned at 11:20
p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
43