Loading...
1m. Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1996.CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ' REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 2, 1996 0 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ' 1 S-r,Fr E'er W� MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, Bob Skubic, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes and Alison Blackowiak STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director and John Rask, Planner II PUBLIC HEARING: GOODYEAR AUTO REQUESTS APPROVAL TO AMEND T HE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REGARDING HOURS OF OPERATION SIGNAGE AND OTHER STIPULATIONS OF THE PERMIT LOCATED AT 50 LAKE DRIVE EAST. Public Present: Name Address Steve Youngstedt Goodyear Auto Dan Smith Goodyear Auto Alex Krengle 8009 Cheyenne Avenue Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Okay, John a couple questions that I have. Complaints. I'm assuming that Goodyear, I'm not sure when it was open for operation. Was that in 1993? Rask: Yes. Well I think the building was finished. Mancino: In '93. Rask: Yes. Mancino: How long have these complaints been coming in? Rask: From about the time shortly after it's been open. Mancino: So there has been a record of a couple years when the conditions that were placed on them to begin with have not been followed, is that correct? Rask: Correct. Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Mancino: And in what particular areas? I'mean the ones that are in bold that we're changing tonight or are there other areas? Rask: Correct. The only real, well there were a couple other areas. The ones involved have ' certainly been ongoing problems. Obviously the doors are in the summertime only. A tire display was outside at various points. We had talked to Goodyear about that and I haven't noticed that out at all over the last several months. Mancino: There were tires out yesterday. Okay. Rask: Okay. And then the other one was parking in drive aisles. As you can see in some of ' Y p g Y those pictures that I'm passing around, it appears that there's a lack of parking on this site and ' they are parking in the drive aisles. We have talked to Goodyear about this and we have tried to make some arrangements to do some shared parking with Abra and with the Emission Testing station there to use some of their parking for that spillover. Mancino: Okay. And has that been done? Rask: Not to my knowledge. I have no evidence that it has or hasn't. ' Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? ' Conrad: Yeah, the complaints. How many? Rask: Primarily, just a handful of people. I'm not really at liberty to say who they are. Mancino: Is it mostly during the summer when? I Rask: All times throughout the year. Mancino: During the year. ' Conrad: So help me to know who, but have there been five official complaints filed or how ' many? Aanenson: Can we say that there seems to be one person complaining more than others, if that's what you're getting at. Farmakes: Can I ask a question? ' Mancino: Sure. I i Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 1 Farmakes: In the analysis it says that the current management of the Chanhassen Goodyear was not directly involved in the site development review process. Does that mean that the management's changed for the company? t Rask: Yeah. The people that were involved in the original site plan, are not the operators of the Goodyear now. Farmakes: How does that work exactly? Rask: That I'm not sure. My conversations have always been with the manager of the building, ' who's here this evening. I'm not sure when that ownership actually changed. Farmakes: When the condition of approval is agreed to and the building is erected and business is conducted, is that a performance contract? Rask: Yes, it runs with the property. It's not depending upon owner or even the business that's there. If Goodyear was to vacate and some other auto repair came into that site, they would be required to operate it under the same conditions. Mancino: Unless they come in and ask those to be changed. Aanenson: Right, and that's what we did tonight. It wasn't... conditions are reasonable for the staff to try and enforce. Whether or not they're reasonable for the business to operate and I guess that's what... Farmakes: So their approval, if the management changes, is not relevant? Aanenson: Absolutely. Mancino: Okay. Joyce: I've got one last question. Has there been any complaints about the hours of operation? Rask: Well part of the noise and the squealing of the tires is related to the hours of operation because it seems to be of a concern of a neighbor who has to hear these things at 9:00 at night as it appears, I don't know if it's employees leaving or who, but they squeal their tires as they leave ' the site. Also if you're out to the site, as you leave that driveway, obviously your headlights are shining right on the properties to the south there, which is of a concern also. Joyce: The only reason I ask is that my understanding the conditional use was for them not to be open on Sundays or that kind of thing and now they're open on Sundays now. ' Rask: Correct. They are open on Sundays now. I7 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Blackowiak: I have one quick question. Could you please explain the difference between numbers 4 and 5 on the recommendation? You talk about no damaged vehicles stored overnight and number 5, no outdoor storage. How do you differentiate between those two? Rask: Yeah, the no outdoor storage could be, well would be the tire rack. It could be car parts. It could be. Blackowiak: But not specifically cars? Rask: Anything other than a car. Blackowiak: Other than a car, okay. Rask: And then of course, 4 is where we're looking for an interpretation. What was meant by this condition? That they can't have any cars outside overnight or has it meant that they can't have any damaged or inoperable vehicles out overnight. Mancino: Bob, did you have a question for staff? Skubic: Yes John, there's a gas station just to the west of this property. Much smaller than this business and they do automotive repair. Do they have restrictions on their garage doors or hours of operation? Rask: No. That is a non - conforming use. They were before you for a site, recent site plan amendment to add a canopy, at which time we attached conditions of hours on when the canopy could be lighted and so forth. So no, when the building was built it was, I assume a permitted use and they were able to operate without restriction of the doors or outdoor, well outdoor display's covered in the general ordinance but no other operational standards. Mancino: Thank you. Is the applicant here and do you wish to address the Planning Commission at this time please? Steve Youngstedt: Sure. My name is Steve Youngstedt. I'm the owner and here tonight is Dan Smith, the manager. I guess what we're just asking is some of these restrictions on us we feel it's somewhat unfair and it's hard to do business under when it's 100 degrees outside and you've got to have your garage doors open only 12 inches, it's pretty hard on the people that work in that facility. That's one of the more major things that we'd like to get approved. It's unrealistic to try to get air conditioning in this building, or any kind of air. To get enough when you bring hot cars in and try to keep these doors open. The other thing is, you know we've had competition move into town recently. They have basically unrestricted hours and we feel somewhat, when we first originally were doing this plan, there was going to be the 5 year moratorium. That there would be other tire or auto service places in the city of Chanhassen and how that got, you know I don't know how that got in or how that worked but you know, now we have competition which is probably one of our top competition and they really don't have any hour restrictions so that kind of brought a lot of these issues up too. So that's really basically I think we've done a really good 0 1 r Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 job compared to other retail stores that we have. We do have three other Goodyear stores in the western suburbs here and you know, we've kept window signage out. As far as painting the garage door, the glass garage doors, we could put advertisement. You know we've asked and it was recommended that we didn't so we don't. We don't do outside sales. We try to keep everything as confined as we can. I think the tires that you might have saw yesterday, we just got a shipment in. That was a tire shipment. We just had to get them moved into the building. So I am trying to, we're here in Chanhassen. We want to conform to what you know, you guys what and what the city wants and be a good neighbor to our neighbors behind us because there's also the possibility that they're going to be our customer. So we don't really want to get too out of line on it but there are some things that we think that are real hard for us to do business. So that's some of the issues here. Mancino: Okay. Steve, couple questions. What about on parking? You do not have enough parking. That's very obvious the few times that I have gone over. That there was not a place to park. Steve Youngstedt: We're trying to work and actually have a work with Abra. We give them free oil changes to let us use some of their parking. The traffic emission testing center so we try to have all our employees park over there and do some of those things. It's, in some ways it's a good problem to have because we're so busy and I guess we can't tell people that you can't, we can't take you in because there's no more parking. So we try to get the work done as fast as we can and keep those places open. Mancino: So do you have a formal agreement with Abra? With them so that you can park over there. Dan Smith: Can I speak to that? Mancino: You bet. If you could just please say your name and your address. ' Dan Smith: My name's Dan Smith, Manager of Chanhassen Goodyear and I might be ... answer that. Jeff, the manager, I've talked to and, the manager of the Emissions Testing Station and we have a forinal agreement. It's verbal. Mancino: And what is it? Dan Smith: Pardon me? Mancino: And what is that formal agreement. Dan Smith: We can park in the last, or the parking row facing Highway 5 for our employees cars on Highway 5. So that's 8 cars. Mancino: Is that at Abra? 5 �I Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Dan Smith: At Abra. And then at the Emission Testing Station, the manager over there, the young lady said we can use the row facing east facing our lot. Mancino: Okay. And how many spaces is that? Dan Smith: There's about 6. Mancino: They have 6 spaces there. Okay, so you have an additional 14. Dan Smith: 14, yes. I don't like to park too many customers cars over there because they don't want traffic obstructing their customers either so we try to put our employees over there so we get there in the morning. We keep them over there and then they just move once or twice. Mancino: And what is the toy hauler that is parked outside of your shop? Dan Smith: That is a customer, a local customer who has an electric brake problem. Going out of town and he needs wiring on his trailer. The part didn't come in for him. It's tough to fit that thing inside so my only option was, we try to fit as many cars inside. There's eight spots and then we try to keep them on the farthest, or the south side of the parking lot so nobody can see them from the highway but that one is just temporary until our customer, we've got to get the right brake part for him and again now, we couldn't find the parts so it took an extra day or two. Mancino: Can I noticed that you didn't have parking space even for that so. Dan Smith: Yeah, for a double trailer it's real tough. Mancino: But you do have a little light trailer that's been sitting there for many days that has a flat tire on the south side facing TH 5 and it's been there, not 1 or 2 days but many, many, many days. Dan Smith: I can address that. Mancino: Thank you. Dan Smith: That trailer has never had a flat tire. It is there for re- wiring the trailer. There is a couple there and some brake parts needed for the trailer and that will be out tomorrow. It's been brought inside I would say realistically 95% of the time ... inside the building by hand. So it's not out there after operations. Once or twice my night guys did forget to pull it in. Mancino: Okay. Another question that I have. You know you have new hours on your door. You haven't been here yet but you do have new hours on your door that I noticed and when I came in the other night I asked Jeff, who was very friendly. Very nice, polite young man, what your hours were so that I would know if I wanted to bring my car in and he said that they were, right now you were operating under Monday through Friday, 7:00 to 9:00. He wrote it down for 31 1 u 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 me on your card. And on Saturday you're operating right now from 8:00 to 5:00 and on Sunday you're operating right now 10:00 to 4:00. How long have you been operating under those hours? Steve Youngstedt: Three weeks. Dan Smith: Three weeks probably. Mancino: Okay. Otherwise have you been following the conditions of approval from the city? Up until three weeks ago. Dan Smith: We've been working with Sharmin and John. They have contacted us when the problem did arise. We have been trying to stay within the regulations. Somebody made a comment, one of the complaints was squealing wheels at night and we did have an employee that had a nice fast car. A local Chanhassen resident. We have dealt with that gentleman so you will not be hearing any more noise. If I can add on one thing. When this became all public—and we've had three or four phone calls from the people right behind us. One gentleman was ... no noise at all. Fine with what we're doing... squealing wheels. We have taken care of that problem. He will not hear those squealing wheels again. And I didn't get their name and phone number but I just wanted to add that. Mancino: Okay, very good. That's nice to know. Thank you very much. Anyone else have any questions for the applicant at this time? Joyce: I'm just curious. Why would you change your hours three weeks before a hearing like ' this? Steve Youngstedt: Well basically because competition. We've got numerous customers that are saying how they would leave ... and go over to your competition and you know we've been in business down here for three years and we've worked really hard to get a customer base built and you know, that's kind of scary when people start talking about going... Joyce: Did you notify someone from the city that you were changing the hours? ' Steve Youngstedt: I don't believe we did. Joyce: Okay, thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Very much. May I please have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing. ' Farmakes moved Joyce ce seconded too en the public hearing. The public hearing was ' opened. r] Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please come up and do so. State your name and address. Love to hear your comments or any questions that you may have. Alex Krengel: My name is Axel Krengel, 8009 Cheyenne Avenue, Chanhassen. I am the resident that lives immediately to the south of Goodyear. The driveway from the pollution control testing and Goodyear. The lights flash into my house so I know what's going on over there... I'm not against Goodyear. I'm a customer. It's very handy for me. I'm alone. I can take my car over there. Walk home. Walk back and pick it up so don't get me wrong. I'm not against Goodyear. But I am against the late hours and I'll tell you some of the reasons why. This sign, their hours may have been written that it was 7:00 to 9:00 for only three weeks but they've been open much longer than that through the summer because this squealing wheels has been going on most of the summer. I didn't call through the summer because I did see a patrol car over there so I knew other people were complaining about it. I did call over though just recently. I was infonned that they had taken care of some of the problem. However that same night about 8:30 the squealing was there again. Why they burn rubber down that little trail I'm not sure but it must be for testing cars or something. Another reason I'm against these hours is the agreement years ago was that they would restrict their hours because it was a residential area. And my feeling is that they should abide by those rules and regulations and also I know they've been open for later hours for quite some time and to me that's either illegal or dishonest, and I guess I don't appreciate that. I think some of you also do not appreciate that. Again I'm not against Goodyear but I am hoping that we will keep the hours restricted so I can have a little more peace in my backyard in the evening and on Sundays. Thank you. Mancino: Now Mr. Krengel, you understand that when the car wash comes in, those hours can be later. And may be later. And so that you will get traffic from the new car wash that's going in. Alex Krengel: No doubt about it but this summer has been the worse squealing since I've lived there. I've got to believe it's due mostly, maybe not all, to the later hours of Goodyear. So, and 1 understand. I don't understand why the car wash can have 24 hours a day open but. Mancino: It is a permitted use in that area. Are there any restrictions John to the hours for permitted use in that area? Rask: No. Mancino: None whatsoever? So the car wash could be open 24 hours, if they choose to? Rask: Correct. Alex Krengel: I'm just hoping that it won't get any worse. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? 1 i� t F 1 , 1� Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Tom Kotsonas: My name is Tom Kotsonas and I live at 8001 Cheyenne in Chanhassen Estates. I live several houses to the west of Krengel and I mainly—the same things that he's saying. I haven't specifically called a number of times because I live closer to the emissions and down and it's difficult to know which and where the noise is coming from but my main concern is summer time hours, late hours when the residents behind this business and Sunday. The one day that we thought that when this was being built, that we would have where there would be a limited amount of traffic going down the street. And it's been definitely increasing, and obviously now with the car wash coming in and there was nothing we could do as a neighborhood to stop that evidently. It's going to bring a fair amount, but this adds to it. It's like saying... little bit of something and it's not good and all of a sudden it's a greater amount and this will add even more to it. It makes life difficult in our neighborhood. Or at least a little more difficult in our neighborhood and the quality of life that we have. We agree with ... I mean we had many arguments about Goodyear going in in the first place 3 or 4 years ago. Mancino: Yes, we read those. Tom Kotsonas: If you go back to the Minutes, Goodyear was agreeable to all kinds of things. Let us build here. Sure, we'll stay closed on Sundays. We'll close early in the evenings. We'll keep the lot clean. I still question the interpretation of what can be in the lot overnight and what's can't. Our interpretation I think is that those lots would be clean of anything. But three years ago, or four years ago there was all kinds of yes. We'll abide by these things. Just let us come in and of course we have different owners... management and we have competing business so gee, we have to be able to do these things. Their competitors are not backed up to residents, where we are in their situation and so, I ... so much that they had extended ... but if they're extending hours against the law or whatever, nobody's enforced that, that's a little scary. And if they knew three weeks ago that these people were operating... Mancino: I think that's why they're here tonight. Tom Kotsonas: But who do we go to as residents? It doesn't sounds like we're being considered that much. They talked to the Goodyear people. They never talked to us ... and speak and this is our opportunity. So there are a number of concerns here that seem to be forgotten about... And granted, there may be 6 or 7 or 8 houses that are affected but we still live there. I'm a 20 plus resident. This man has been there for maybe more than 25 or 30 years. We need to be considered also in the total picture... development. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you for coming and speaking. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission tonight? On this issue. Seeing none, may I please have a motion and a second to close the public hearing? Skubic moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Planning Conunission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Mancino: I'd like to have commissioners please make some comments, or if you still have any questions to ask that at this point. Not so much as Goodyear but as that land use and looking at it that way and not for one particular business. Craig. Peterson: I agree with a majority of the points that staff brought up with the exception of a couple. I think that the, in order to address some of the needs of the business and the needs of the residents, perhaps excluding Sunday operation may be a reasonable in- between that we can offer as far as a resolution as far as the traffic, so they can have one day where they can depend upon it being quiet and "peaceful ". I am to a certain degree worried though that with the car wash coming in, will that really help. Where the traffic would be ... commissioners comments on that. With regard to adding landscaping I would, my only concern about adding it just on the northwest portion to cover the garage doors is that, in doing so you're worried about creating one area on the Highway 5 that would be heavily green and more towards the east all of a sudden it would be all dramatically changed as far as the density. So I think that I would be concerned about the balance in that as they add the evergreens particularly... All of the other conditions I guess I see as reasonable. That we could go ahead and approve. Mancino: You feel comfortable with the doors being open, etc.? Peterson: Yes. I think that was overly onerous originally personally. Mancino: Okay. And I'm sorry Craig, on the landscaping. That the landscaping should be all along the south side or? Peterson: Yeah...I think from the Highway 5 corridor aspect of it still being there, to just have them all clumped together as you walk out the doors, as you drive by there, would seem to be unbalanced. I can just see going in and pushing in 25 evergreens... then all of a sudden you've got one... Mancino: So you'd like to see it balanced? Okay. Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, I pretty much agree with Craig's comments. The tough one that I have problems with is number 10. The hours of operation and I'm not sure I can find a right solution, but I'll go through the, my interpretation of cars and the lot was as staff has worded it. I think we were talking about cars that were inoperable that couldn't move, and we didn't want them there but I think point number 4 is okay. Point number 6, in terms of doors, for sure the doors to the east don't count anymore. They're totally blocked so that's not even an issue. The doors to the west, I'm pretty convinced that we should let them stay open. I'm not too convinced that there's a visual problem for point number 11. I just, doors being open. Visual problem. Putting in some evergreens. I'm not sure that's a solution that I need. Maybe somebody else who's committed to that can talk me into that. For sure Goodyear should come under the new sign ordinance. There's no doubt about that. That's real clear. So the only one that I have a hang -up on is point number 10. I think the neighbors, we restricted the hours of operation in the beginning. It was a condition. I'm sensitive to competition but in this case I think we have told the neighbors we 10 i 1 'I 71 u Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 were going to restrict those hours. Like Craig I think Sunday is probably off limits, based in my mind. I think I probably can stretch the hours during the rest of the week. Mancino: Okay. So you would keep it 7:00 to 9:00, Monday through Saturday? Conrad: I think so, and you know Madam Chair the thing that, noise was an issue with me and the neighbors. We should protect them. Yet we do have noise makers up and down the road there, including with McDonald's so I don't want to penalize one business when there is several there that don't have to come under these fairly tight regs. I guess if I had my druthers, I'd probably throw out number 10 right now. Take a look at what happens when the car wash goes in and then I'd review it. Or else I'd like to see some method of managing or reviewing the sound. Again, I've got squealing in my neighborhood too, and you know, but what I probably don't have is it consistently every night at certain hours so I'm saying maybe we can defer the review of 10 for a while. Again I throw that out as we see what the effect of the car wash has on noise levels. Maybe that's a possibility. Mancino: Some direction from staff on that. As far as you know, doing a preliminary period when we allow new hours and seeing how that works. The noise and everything after the car wash goes in. Is that something that? Rask: Yeah. Basically in a conditional use permit you can't do temporary conditions. Once a condition is attached, it runs with the life of the property. What you could do possibly, if I'm hearing you correctly, is leave them more restrictive at this point. See what impacts the car wash has. See how that all kind of plays out and see if in a year it warrants longer hours but in order to, you can't limit it, or you can't extend it now and give it a trial period. It has to be. Mancino: Okay, thank you. So that answers that question, okay. Conrad: Well my point would be not to allow it. Let them come back in a certain number of months and amend this condition. Yeah. Aanenson: You can put whatever time frame you want for review, sure. Mancino: And stay with the original? Conrad: And stay with the original or modify it to the degree we want to but you can't, like John just said, you can't give it away because you'd never get it back. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Farmakes: When's the car wash opening up? Joyce: It's pretty far along now I guess. Mancino: Okay, Kevin. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Joyce: Really just kind of echoing what Ladd and Craig have said. I wish that Goodyear had not taken it upon themselves to extend their hours without discussing it first with the City or through some sort of process. It'd make me feel more comfortable and going up to bat for them. I agree with Ladd to a point. If I was to, I wouldn't strike item 10. I think I might extend the hours to hours Monday through Saturday to 9:00 and from Saturday from 7:30 to 5:00, then Sunday not have any. Not have it open. That would be my opinion. What complicates this is the car wash. If the car wash wasn't there, I'd strike the whole item 10. With the car wash coming in, I think that there's going to be a lot of activity down there to begin with and I think it'd be onerous on them to keep these, or keep the hours that we have right now, or supposed to have right now. So I think it'd be a good compromise here to, for me at least, to know that they're not open on Sundays but to let them open later during the week. One of the things they mentioned in their letter was that people were working and things like that. I think that's probably important to them. I can imagine that they need that to be competitive. I think they can get around not working on Sundays, or being open on Sundays. So of all these conditions, number 10 1 would leave Sunday off and leave the hours extended to 9:00, but I'll listen to the other commissioners on that so. Basically the rest of it I'm fine with. ...the doors. If they abide by the sign ordinance, that's fine. And as far as the screening, yeah I do agree with Craig. It'd be nice to have another tree or two there but I don't want to go over more than that either so I'll kind of leave it at that. I'll listen to what the other commissioners have to say about either extending the hours during the week or not having the hours on Sunday or some combination thereof. Mancino: Okay. Bob. Skubic: Well I largely agree with the previously commissioners statements. Related in terms of the Planning Commission and City Council when this went through several years ago, and they were certainly concerned about putting auto type uses in the corridor ... and that's why they put out some of these conditions on here. Unfortunately some of these conditions are kind of piecemeal and with the addition of the Abra and the car wash, which won't have the same restrictions. I'm not sure what good it does to single one business in this area. They were concerned about the adjacent neighbors, and certainly we're concerned about the... for the city. My feeling on the, regarding the doors being open or closed, and I saw the photographs. I didn't think it was appearance wise, I don't think it was offensive to having the doors open. And it doesn't appear that noise is emanating from the source ... so I have no issue... And like I don't feel that we should impose hours on one particular business when others are operating at another Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: I was here at the time that the developer came into develop that property. As I recall Goodyear and Abra were the two developmental forces behind that development. There were people from the neighborhood, Chan Estates here at that time. And the issue was, do we expand car use into that particular area. It was a good location. It was on Highway 5. The car people wanted to be on Highway 5, and as I recall, that was an instrumental issue of their building. They wanted to be off Highway 5. This took place prior to us doing the Highway 5 corridor study. The central issue came back to business use in that particular part of Chanhassen. When 12 1 �I J 1 I � n it t✓� Ll i� Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 that area was developed, the city made an error. There was no buffering there. It was a very small little strip up here of commercial and single family residences right up to it. Mancino: Actually wasn't that whole area single family to begin with? Where it's now. Farmakes: It changed it's use a couple of different times, as I recall. There was originally supposed to be a buffer there. It did not turn out to be a buffer of different houses. It became single family. That's happened in a few areas up here, but in essence what happens is that we wind up today living with that problem. So what we have is, we have some car businesses that want to be in that location. Then we have virtually no buffer for a single family residence. Typically if that was coming, when we were considering that zoning now, we would not permit them. So there are different areas of Chanhassen, because it developed at different times, that are going to have that kind of problem because at that time, let's just say the city wasn't quite along on the growth process to predict some of those problems. ...our commitment to single family zone. They had special considerations in that development of business in that particular area. We're sort of saying well we want this to conform to the rest of the businesses so they can be compatible. And that's basically the comments that were made here tonight. Tires Plus, saying ...compete with Tires Plus and all that's well and good but the situation is such is when does the city and the issue of controlling in it's ordinances say, even though we may have made an error, in putting, expanding that zone there, do we years later say well all bets are off. Now we're going to make everything the same so it's consistent. The reason that these restrictions were on there was part of the negotiating process between the neighborhood and these developers, as I recall. And the driving force behind that, because essentially you go up to single family residences 200 feet away from you. The issue of the doors and so on, they seem silly now but when those doors are open and you're hearing noise levels that come out of the car shop versus say a car wash, and I missed the meeting on the car wash issue but the issue of hours of operation. All these things were an issue when all three of these uses came. The two car uses and then the air standard. The car emissions testing. The car wash came in later. That was a much later issue and actually when these buildings, when the actual developers came in and they started these businesses, the idea was that that was going to be a car area. There was going to be an auto parts store there and things kind of changed over the interim. I think Goodyear and Abra were the first. Abra came in a little later but they were part of the initial process. If you compare Tires Plus, two blocks away from single family residence, to business use that is 200 feet away from single family residence, I think there's a difference there. And I think that the neighborhood has an expectation that the city should give it some consideration there. Part of the conditions of the use and in building there were in place and Goodyear and Abra and many of these other businesses, they decided to build in that location accepting those restrictions. If competition is an imposition or they believe that they were going to be the only business like that in Chanhassen, that wasn't part of the discussions as I recall. That there was a commitment that there's only going to be one tire store and it's going to be Goodyear because at that time I believe Gary Brown had a tire store here and he was concerned about the competition coming in. That really isn't our consideration here on this commission. Issues of competition are part of the marketplace, not us. My concern here is, with any of the expansions, of changing and setting precedent, although I think some of it may be the issue of sign ordinance and so on, I think is not really a problem because the end result is the same. I am concerned however about the issue of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 protecting that neighborhood and acknowledging that it is a different situation. And I think the city should be more concerned about that, rather than just trying to make everything consistent. Because there are areas of the city that were developed prior to some of the things that we consider now and those areas are vulnerable to putting in issues such as ... parks, business districts and so on that are things that are in need of special consideration. Mancino: Do you want to talk on any particular conditions that you would or wouldn't favor? Farmakes: I believe Sunday should be out, and I don't see a compelling reason at this point, unless staff wants to come up with an issue. To me it's the noise issue and the neighborhood has an expectation I think that when they come home after work or whatever, they don't have to listen to that. In the proximity to a commercial district. And the actual issue of commerce I don't think is, I don't think anybody cares about that. The issue is noise. And I don't even need to comment on the issue of compliance because that's been pretty much discussed here. It's an issue again of management. Just basically saying doing what they want. Even though they're in what I think is a sensitive area of town. Not only are they 200 feet away from the single family residences but they're in a corridor that the city spent a tremendous amount of time trying to do something different and if the comments here tonight is that they're busy, even though they have a moderate operation as far as if they go signage and with flags and typically things that you see with car dealerships and the sales car parts, they appear to be doing business. And they appear to be doing fine so it seems whatever restrictions we put on there isn't putting them out of business. And coupled with the neighborhood, it seems that a few issues, if they can corral this guy with the squealing tires, pretty much this thing is working pretty well. So long as he stays complied with. Mancino: Thank you, Alison. Blackowiak: Well, I agree with most of what was said. I like what Jeff was just talking about. That it's really not our place to decide what kind of business they do and when they do, what affect competition has on them because that's really not our job. Our job is to look at where they are and how they're complying with the conditions and what changes they'd like. 1 don't think Sunday hours are really a necessity at this point. I agree that the neighbors have the right and the expectations and were led to believe that there wouldn't be the late hours and wouldn't be the Sunday hours. I'm somewhat curious as to what happens when conditions aren't met, because it seems like we have conditions that are being ignored to a certain extent, or changed and I'm new so if you could help me out somebody, what happens when things aren't followed? Rask: Conditional uses are a little different from a typical zoning violation where you have a violation of a specific code requirement. In a conditional use what you have is a contractual agreement between the developer or the property owner and the city. So it's not real easy for us to just go out and say here's a ticket. You're violating this condition because there's really no clear law that they're violating. It's a contractual agreement. So in this case our options are one, we can revoke the permit that was part of whenever we enter into a conditional use permit. We say failure to comply is grounds for revocation of the permit. Or two, we can file a summons and 14 I L I� L -1 r f Lam' it Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 complaint in Circuit Court and go through legal action to get compliance so basically it's two options. One, take them to court. Two, revoke their permit. Blackowiak: There's no middle ground or nothing a little less? Aanenson: Well I guess that's why we're here tonight. We want to make sure, some of the conditions that were placed on it as it went through the process, for those of you who were here before ... as we went through the process, so some of the conditions that got added were outside of the staff. You have to recognize, some of them are a little bit more difficult to ... to enforce and that's why we want to make sure that we readdress those and make sure that you're comfortable with the conditions that were placed on there and the ones that you think were ... are reasonable with the property. Mancino: Those are your comments? Blackowiak: Yeah. Mancino: I will close with a few of my comments on it. On the conditions. On condition number 4. I feel comfortable with the way that staff is, the damaged or inoperable vehicles. The way that you are understanding that. Meaning that it is often times when I need to have some work done on my car that I will take it the night before the work is going to be done and leave it off so I can get to work the next morning and I will park it there so they can start, and leave my key there, so they can start the next morning working on it. So I do feel comfortable with changing number 4 and staff's interpretation. Number 6. Noise levels. I sat three different times on three different days and listened to the noise level on the frontage road and I did not hear noise. I was on one side of the car wash. And other times I didn't have that as an obstacle and did not really hear. I heard Highway 5 a lot and the noise level from Highway 5 was great but I didn't hear any air impact wrenches, etc., taking off lug nuts, etc. and that's really what I was sitting there listening for. So I do feel comfortable with the doors being open and only during those few times in May and through I would say September. And I expect from November I" through the end of April that it will be shut all the time. Sign ordinance. I'm very comfortable with the Goodyear or that land use complying with our new sign ordinance. I think it's a good one and I think it will be fine in this area. Hours of operation. That's a big one for me. And 1 think that's what affects the residents the most and I can understand that. Number one, I don't feel that there should be hours of operation on Sunday. On Saturday I don't think it should go until 9:00 at night because I think the people should have their Saturday nights. Their family nights with not extended hours so I would not extend those to 9:00 on Saturday nights. I would leave those at 7:00. And in fact right now what you're operating is 7:30 to 5:00, which I think is very good and says to me that you are, people aren't coming after 5:00. They want to quit and they want to go home and be with them family too on Saturday nights. Monday through Friday. 7:00 to 9:00 or 7:00 to 7:00. That's the one I have the hardest with making a clear cut decision right now. I would sat at this point I would go with the, what they are now. 7:00 to 7:00 and at some point, if you are abiding by those hours and show that and the car wash does come in, I would certainly look at it again. And feel comfortable with looking at it at a later date. The last 15 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 recommendation as far as evergreens and shrubs along the northwest portion. John, is this up to the Highway 5 standards right now? Rask: What's in there is. Mancino: Okay. Then I would feel comfortable with what's there now. May I have a motion? Joyce: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #92 -2 with the following conditions 1 through 11, with number 10 being, hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 7:30 to 5:00 on Saturdays and not open on Sundays. Mancino: Is there a second? Conrad: Yeah, I'd second that. Mancino: It has been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Farmakes: Can I ask for a repeat on that hours again? Joyce: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 7:30 to 5:00 Saturday. Closed on Sunday. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Peterson: ...three different nights and noise wasn't an issue. And what motivated them to change it... Mancino: From 7:00 to 9:00? Peterson: Yes. The staff recommendation of 9:00 to 7:00. Mancino: From 7:00 to 9:00. Being open at night 2 hours. Because one you have the squealing later, because your employees are leaving. Also you get light coming directly into the houses because of the ... and there's just a lot more activity. Conrad: Madam Chair, just my point for keeping it at 7:00. I would entertain looking at a different time later on. These are the conditions. I think if you had followed the conditions I would have looked at it differently. When you break the conditions, you broke the conditions so I think I want to be absolute on that. I think things will change when the car wash goes in. And I would look at the hours differently in 3 to 6 months from now. Or I would look at them at an upcoming time period just to see, and some of that depends on the neighbors. How good a neighbor you are and some of those things are out of your control. Steve Youngstedt: ...make another comment on... ursi 1 s 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Mancino: Can you wait until we vote because I'd like to make one too. Any other discussion? Bob. Skubic: The Abra facility to the east of this, do you know what the hours...? Rask: Their conditions are very similar to these with similar hours of operation. Similar conditions regarding doors being open. Skubic: That's a conditional use permit also? Rask: Yeah. We are involved in code enforcement activities with them also. I don't know if you'll be seeing that one. We've encouraged them to either comply or come before you and we haven't had any response so. Mancino: Well let's have a vote. Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #92 -2 with the following conditions: 1. No public address systems are permitted. 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 requirement or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency guidelines at the property line. 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 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and not open on Sunday. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 11. The applicant shall add evergreens and shrubs along the northwest portion of the site to screen the garage doors from views from Highway 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: The motion carries and it goes to City Council on? Rask: The 28 Mancino: On the 28` of October. Steve, you had a couple comments. Steve Youngstedt: Yeah, just one last comment. I don't know if the Planning Commission knows but we are also the operator of the car wash. And I guess there's been, there's no restriction on car wash hours and I would have to say in front of the Council that we're willing to work with you on the hours on the car wash. Also I know it's going to be a concern of residents too. Again we want to be a good neighbor so I guess, I don't know if we want to take it on to City Council from here or not, or if we want to wait until after that opens up and see what ... we plan on being open in about two weeks at the car wash so I guess I'd like to make that point. Mancino: Well Ladd has already made the point about sticking with the conditions of the conditional use permit which tell us a lot and say a lot about you as a company. Secondly, squealing tires. Whatever you can do, as you heard tonight, would be most helpful and to really, whether it's training of employees. Whether it's, I mean whatever you can come up with would be very helpful. Steve Youngstedt: In the 3 years or 4 years that we've been there, that was one employee and one instance that we know of I don't, we resolved that and hopefully that doesn't happen anymore. If it does, the neighbors are certainly welcome to either call me personally or call Dan and we'll put an end to it. Mancino: Thank you. Thank you for coming tonight. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING ANTENNAS AND TOWERS. Public Present: Name Address Peter Beck Jay Representing AT &T Wireless Services John Rask presented the staff report on this item. 1� 1 P , Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Mancino: Now when I think of a tower, I always associated a utility building with a tower. So you're not just saying tower, you're saying tower, utility building? They always go hand and hand? Okay. When I say antenna, I don't think of a utility building. I just think of an antenna ' attached to a building or an existing lighting that's at a soccer field or whatever. But I don't think that there will be an associated utility building with that. 1 n I� Rask: There would be some accessory buildings even with the antenna to house the equipment. Mancino: Okay. So when you say that would then be a permitted use, then the utility building would be bundled with that antenna as a permitted use? Rask: Correct. Aanenson: But through the lease agreement we would make sure we... Mancino: Okay. Just needed that clarity, thank you. Rask: And with that I have no further comments. I would be happy to answer any questions. Mancino: Okay. Any questions from the staff at this time? I have several but I think I'm going to wait until after. Joyce: I have one or two. Why, on the setbacks. Number 2. Why are we, when it was 2 to 1, why are we going back to 1 to 1? Rask: With the building code requirements, I don't know if it's so much a safety issue. Obviously they're designed to meet I believe an 80 mph wind load and they have to hold a certain ice load on it also. You want to have enough of a setback so if you get ice accumulation on the tower, if it blows off, the ice from the tower isn't going to blow onto any structure and so forth. So it's more or less for aesthetics at this point. As you recall, staff had recommended the 1 for 2 and I believe this was, I don't know if there was concurrence among the commission but I know several commission members had indicated a willingness to consider something else there. So that change was made. Joyce: Was there a problem going 2 for I ?... Rask: I think the issue was, was 2 to I going to be aesthetically more pleasing than I to I? Joyce: I'm thinking more too close to this proximity to obviously... The other question, are there any pending site plans for these things right now? Rask: We have been approached on several sites within the city. Obviously are ordinance is restrictive to the point where it's almost prohibitive at this point and we do allow them in certain districts. So yeah, we have been approached for several sites. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Joyce: So there's more or less a need to get this ordinance straighten away? Rask: Yeah I think there's people trying to... Joyce: There's some communities that have put moratoriums on these things just to see how...? , Aanenson: Well I think we did the research. -we researched it. I Joyce: Yeah, I do too. I just you know, the way it looks in the paper ... some are just throwing it out because I really honestly thing that there are a lot of people that are talking about things they really don't know what they're talking about because they haven't happened yet. They're just shooting in the dark here. But yeah, it looks like you put a lot of work into it and I appreciate that. Aanenson: I guess we compare it to when we had the hearings on the National Weather Service, if you followed those hearings. The information that we had to provide the residents and that was kind of controversial technology. Mancino: Any other questions at this point? Peterson: I've got one on setbacks John. On page 4 where you talked about the setbacks on the residential areas. On point number 7, page 4. Is that, is the setback from residential, is that from the property line or is it from the structure? Rask: It was my intent to make it from the property line so maybe that just needs some clarification. ...discussed last time. We believe it needs to be from the property line because if it's a vacant lot, you don't know where that house will be in the future. Mancino: We'll have another chance or some more chance to talk about some other issues here. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing and a second please? Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. ' Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. May I just ask that if you're coming up and speaking about something and you are a provider, if someone before you has already made ' the same point, you don't need to. Thank you. Peter Beck: Chairman Mancino, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Peter Beck ' and I am here tonight with AT& T Wireless Services. And I apologize to the commission for the fact that I was not able to be with you two weeks ago when you looked at this the first time. I was dealing with the Woodbury Planning Commission on the identical issue in that city. More importantly, I particularly apologize to staff because I have not had a chance to get back to them to talk a little bit more about the provisions and would have preferred to have let them know 20 1 L� t L� Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 what our concerns were about so that they were put on the spot tonight but I just wasn't able to do that so what I'd like to do is talk briefly about 5 or 6 concerns we have with the current ordinance. The current proposal in front of you. Most of the, I also have some very minor things that I will pick up with staff. I don't think I need to trouble you with that. First of all ... more broader perspective on this ... two weeks ago. AT &T is one of two existing cellular providers. They've been in this market for 10 or 12 years. We do have some experience with these facilities, with the cities, how cities address them. Where they go and that sort of thing. So there is some, there is a reservoir if you will, of experience. It is true that the newer, the new license is being issued, so called PCF's. Licenses being issued that there are more providers and there will be more antennas but I think that the principal of experience within the last 10 years will carry through. And the most important thing that we can take from those 10 years of experience is that these facilities tend to go where the cities make it easiest for them to go. In other words, where they become a permitted use. This business is growing very fast. The companies, when they have a need for a new site, they come immediately and they tend to go where they can get that site in as fast as possible. In other words where it's a permitted use. Where they don't have to invest in infrastructure and so on existing structures, that kind of thing. So I think one of the greatest tools at your disposal is that distinction between permitted and conditional uses. If you have someplace where you want these facilities, make it a permitted use. That's where it will go. In the City of Minneapolis for instance you have 12 antenna sites. Eight of them are industrial zones where they've been a permitted use. Can't do everyone because it needs the technology. We don't have a lot of flexibility but they tend to go, by one way or another, where they can be the quickest. And what we're looking for is we work with cities all over the metro area in these ordinances, is enough flexibility so that we can make this service available to the citizens of the community and the larger community. Those that happen to be passing through this community from time to time, while still protecting each community from the perceived and real adverse impacts of the facilities. So when we, in no city have we gone in and shoved a particular facility ordinance... in the 10 years that I've been representing AT &T, which was previously known as Cellular One. We haven't received any, when we worked with ... so when I raise these issues I hope that you will take them in the spirit in which they're intended, which is to build in enough flexibility so that we can find places to put these poles where they will have the least impact on the community... and when I talk about things like setbacks... The 1 to 1 setback gives us the opportunity to come in and request a location that may be ... residential district but it's still ... to deny a conditional use pen if it doesn't meet the requirements ... for some reason that's inappropriate for that facility to be... So by going to a 1 to I ...difference between 1 to and 1 to 2 but we... If it is too close ... then that would be denied. What I'd like to do is just go through the ordinance... At the top of that page number l ...with the exception of industrial use... flexibility to push these facilities back along the property lines and back... keeping in mind that it would only apply on institutional use where the property line you're up against... another institutional, industrial or business zone district. Again the thinking is typically an institutional use is on a large piece of land. In the back, on the edges... Number 3 ... set back ... a distance equal to one half the height of the pole. Again, typically these kinds of facilities you would want it be either in or as close to the right -of -way as you can get because that's where people are used to seeing it... I think the tall power wires along Highway 5 that we all see, I think most... That's one again I wish the commission would consider. That the commission consider some additional flexibility in the ordinance... 21 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Mancino: Peter, that's where we have our trails. A lot of our trails are on the right -of -way on TH 5 so we have to be a little careful. Peter Beck: I understand that but I don't think this use is going to be incompatible with that type of a use. The trail use. For those of you that are familiar with the new Cedar Lake trail that Minneapolis opened ... last summer. Very nice facility. It happens to be ... from my home and I've been up and down it a few dozen times or so probably in the year that it's been opened. We have a pole right on that trail and in that case... designed the equipment building to replicate an old train station which was what ... along that trailway. Along the right -of -way. And I have had universally positive comments on that site. There's been no objection to poles ... so I'm not saying it'd be right in every situation, and again you'd have to review it as a conditional use. But I do think it could work in some situations and be their best solution and you shouldn't prohibit it by the language that you've got in the ordinance. That's a suggestion anyway. Point number 6. A similar comment with respect wetland setback. We think, we've asked and we propose that if we go in a wetland that the wetland setback as I understand it in those instances is 75 feet. Is this true? Rask: 40 feet on what we term as an agricultural wetland ... 20 foot buffer so the most you'd be looking at would be 60 feet. Peter Beck: Okay, I apologize then. Nevertheless, the wetlands will typically, will often times be on a property line or in a corner and there is ... and would sometimes be a duplication... but I think it's important that you have that condition... site plan of a large piece of institutional, industrial property, say why don't you put it over here... Again, I'm just putting it on the table for the commission to consider. At the very bottom of the page... I noticed that number 2, a, b, and c, church sites, when camouflaged as an architectural feature such as steeples or bell towers. I guess I think that many church sites have real similar... If you have a large church site, where if you put the facility out where it is not going to cause a problem, that should be okay even if... On page 5, the very bottom of page 5. This is one ... new language about requiring written statements of compliance from the FAA and FCC just simply won't work because they don't issue those kinds of documents. What we can do is state or certify our compliance with our FCC license which constitutes in effect FCC approval but we can't, the FCC isn't in the business of issuing site specific approvals for the thousands upon thousands of cellular sites that are installed each year. Aanenson: Can I just make a point of clarification? In 8 our intent is that we put the applicant on notice that they're responsible for that. I guess, I don't think we're asking ... but just putting them on notice... Peter Beck: That's certainly no problem. We would submit to you in our engineer's... certification that we're complying with our license but we just can't get FCC approval. Aanenson: Right. That's what... 22 n ri PI Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 1 Peter Beck: Then we would need to address that issue also at the time... One thing, also at the top of page 9... for the Planning Commission and City Council and all cities have gone to this approach. Administrative approvals for these facilities and what most of them have done, or what we've suggested... staff's position and then you typically appeal to the Board of Adjustments... That's more of a suggestion than anything. Aanenson: We have ... as far as we believe that the Planning Commission is probably more educated on this issue and believe that... so those are the two things that we do have come to you and staff's more comfortable... rather than the Board of Adjustments... Peter Beck: ...in the middle the time limit on tower completion. Once a tower is approved ... I believe the normal limit permitted in a normal, permitted for a normal conditional use permit is one year, I believe in Chanhassen. I didn't have a chance to check that but in almost all instances it's one year and I don't know what is so unique about this use that they would do that a different standard... Aanenson: Yeah, a conditional use would be. I'm not sure for a time limit to the building permit. Rask: Generally a conditional uses have one year to, same with a variance. Once a variance is granted, you have one year to build the structure. Otherwise the variance is considered void. Peter Beck: Are we talking ... with administrative approvals? Mancino: You're saying 90 days just for the building permit and one year for it to be completed. Rask: I'd be comfortable with just leaving completed within one year. That's consistent with every other... Peter Beck: Then at the very bottom of the page, number 2. About taking off unused portions of the pole. That is, as you might imagine, would cause ... some problems that, although it sounds simple enough... But worse than that, I think we are getting back to kind of a basic ... do you want to get two or more users on these poles or don't you? And staff is finding the trade off is, with two or more users you have perhaps fewer poles. If we only have one user pole, you might have more poles. Taking off is going to take away... opportunities. What was there, to mount someone on that won't be there anymore. And the way these systems develop, they're constantly, our system since it's began... covered a wide area. And as the systems develop you add antenna sites. As you have more users, you need more antenna sites so you're adding antenna sites. So even though there might not be a user for that facility at the time that the user that's on it moves down. That doesn't mean that there won't be someone... another 5 or 6 providers as their system develops. They would someday have a need for that location and it would be a shame if it weren't available because ... the top portion of the pole was not so I think that one, I think it has problems from both sides of the equation. If it is a problem with the company to the point where quite frankly I think what would happen is they would just leave the f 1 23 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 antennas on top, whether they needed it or not because the cost or the problems with removing it... Be that as it may, if they did come down to take it off, they've lost the... Mancino: Peter, I'm assuming that co- location means that there's two antennas on the mono- pole? Peter Beck: Two providers on a mono -pole. Each provider will have, for instance in our situation we typically have six antennas in groups of two so if you've seen some of our facilities, there'd be a pole and then there'd be antennas coming off like leaves... So the second provider would be roughly six additional antennas. And they need to have. Mancino: They need to be 25 feet in- between them. Peter Beck: Yes... Mancino: In- between the set of three? Peter Beck: Well, it gets more complicated than that because a single provider could be in more than one height on the same pole. The systems, as you might imagine, the whole technology is incredibly complex and designing these systems is very complex... engineers. Each antenna covers 120 degrees, of the 360 ... and they won't always have the same techniques all three segments they call it. So you might have one provider that's at two heights on a pole and if you get room for a second provider, it needs to be 25 feet from both. Now that's again, I haven't learned everything in this industry but that's a general rule... If for instance you have one height going one direction and the other provider could be closer than 25 feet facing the other direction, that might be doable. Generally the companies are going to cooperate with each other on that, partly because of the desire of the municipalities to get the business in if they do so and ... reduce their total capital cost. Mancino: Sure. And I'm assuming that the mono -poles come in sections and they are put together so that you can uncouple the sections and take them apart. Peter Beck: In theory you can. I mean the ... to where the natural, where the sections come together but it is not as simple as a Lego set or something. Mancino: An Erector set, yes. Thanks. Peter Beck: It can be done. It's not something that we commonly would do. On page 10, underneath number 3. Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications. The first sentence there, no new or existing service shall interfere with public safety telecommunications is just fine because that is a condition of our FCC license, and we will of course comply with it. The rest of that section it is talked about you can't get specific FCC approval so the second sentence is ... but then at the bottom, that last sentence. Before the introduction of new service, shall notify the city. This language comes from a lease. A water tower lease for instance. When we're on a public facility where they are generating public safety communications, the lease would typically 24 J C! ,J Ll r� 1 1 1� 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 require everybody new coming on to do a study to show that there won't be any interference. If they require, as a regulatory condition for a free standing cell site is unnecessary because there wouldn't be, unless there can be a situation where we were right up against the public services in addition to ... but there's only interference problems when there's very close horizontal proximity so I don't think it's going to be necessary but I also do think it's beyond the regulatory, the zoning regulatory authority that the city has. This is an FCC issue. These types of interference questions. So I don't think it's, I guess more important... We wouldn't have to have horizontal proximity... and maybe add something that can be of... This is the only comments I had. Again, we're here to work with you all. With the staff, with the commission, the Council. I offer these comments in the nature of, as I said our goal, and I hope yours, is to provide a balance between the flexibility needed to provide this service to your citizens throughout the city... Mancino: ...marketing from AT &T on new products. Peter Beck: Yeah ... kind of a traveling road show to represent the various companies because we're going to city to city and there's always a little bit of give and take about new and improved... For the purpose of regulations... Mancino: Thank you. Peter Beck: Thank you. Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission on other issues? Jay: My name is Jay... I'll keep my comments short for two reasons. Probably most important is that you asked me to. The second most important reason, and I hope my wife isn't watching. Tonight's my anniversary so I want to get... What we've got proposed in my letter, I confirmed that the information... although I've got no understandable explanation from the structural engineer... Mancino: Thank you for checking. Jay: So we checked and there's no... The second and final request that we have deals with, and this is in a letter that Mr. Rask passed out, with respect to setbacks when you have a district that follows the right -of- way... As it is right now the setback would be 1 to I from the property line. Anything that is zoned, guided for... The problem with that is, there are many instances in which you have industrial, well not many instances. There are some instances in the State which have industrial... Right now your ordinance provides for a 10 foot setback for industrial uses. Recognizing the fact that railroad right -of -way provides an additional buffer for the residences and what we would ask is that a similar setback, that 10 foot setback be imposed upon the cell towers so that cell towers, like the rest of the uses, can take advantage of that railroad right -of- way buffer rather than having it be the distance of the railroad right -of -way, you can't be 50 to 150 feet on top of an extra 100 or so feet... What you have is a basic industrial building would have a very large footprint on the site and you require a 1 to 1 from the back property line... What that means is that they agree with the ... Thank you. 25 J Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 fl Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Thank you. May I have a motion to close the public hearing, and a second please? Joyce moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Thank you. John, I don't know if you ... but how do you feel about the industrial, the right -of -way? When you have the railroad right -of -way abutting the industrial? Do you have any comments? Rask: Yeah if we could incorporate the right-of-way. So if the right-of-way's 50 feet, it would � need to be 50 feet back from the right -of -way. I think that is consistent with what we've done elsewhere. For example where we have industrial that abuts up to residential, we count the right - of -way, if there's a road between the residential and industrial, we count the road as part of the buffer. So if the right -of -way's 60 feet, their only buffer they need to maintain is an additional 40. So that they provide the 100 foot buffer partly within the right -of -way. Aanenson: For example, the Chan Business Center. It has 100 foot on the south, where it's abutting the residential. Where it's abutting Audubon it only has a 50 foot so the right -of -way was inclusive so I guess we would acquiesce and say that it could be in closer but we still think it needs to be consistent with what we've done to our buffer setback, and again... Mancino: Okay. So for instance, let's just take one on Trotter's Ridge and south of there is industrial office and we have a buffer of 100 feet. It's guided in our comprehensive plan so if we were to put a tower up there, we would have the 100 foot and that's it? Aanenson: Correct. Rask: Unless the tower was 160 feet in which. Mancino: We'd have 60 more? Rask: 60 foot setback. Mancino: A 60 foot setback. Okay. That makes sense. Thank you. Craig. Peterson: I think that staff has one through most of these issues. With regard to a couple of the g g g items that the person there from AT &T brought up. I wasn't sure what item number 2 on page 4 where it talks about... as it relates to the comment on point 6 where we talk about, he's requesting the wetland to be less than that. I agree with that. ...wetland area and part of the goal of that was to leave the area, the wetland areas... point number 7 on page 4 where you put in there that the setback away from the property line is the distance from the... As it relates to page 5 where we've added the applicant is responsible for receiving written statements. I'd like to u 26 1 F Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 offer that we change that to the applicant is responsible for receiving any required statements of compliance, as a possible verbiage option... Rask: Frankly, just to comment quickly. I think the concern was obtaining what the FCC terms or written statement of compliance, a specific form or whatever that they get. I think what Mr. Beck was stating was maybe so the applicant was responsible... receiving approval from the Federal. Taking out that verbiage written statements of compliance because I think that refers to a specific piece of correspondence or specific form from the FCC. That's what they have trouble getting. Peterson: I think the point is, they won't get it. So I don't think we should. Aanenson: Right, we'll make sure it gets... Peterson: As it relates to, moving to page 9. I agree with the point on the time limits. Where we talked about changing that. Deleting the 90 days. I'm struggling with the fact that the ' unused portions of the of the towers being taken down. I guess in real terms I don't think it's going to happen. I think it's in many ways, I'm trying to picture the tower, the concrete towers. They angle out and kind of dissipate obviously at the top. If you end up cutting it off, it's going to look perhaps awkward. I don't know ... but I'd be comfortable leaving the tower as it is and I personally because I think what's going to realistically happen is that they're just going to leave ' the antenna up there anyway. It is too costly to take it down. As it relates to point number 3 on page 10. It states all applications for new service shall receive FCC approval. I'm just changing the language there ... FCC guidelines. I think all the other points brought up last week have been addressed... Mancino: If you could give comments on one other thing and that is, if you feel comfortable about the permitted use of the antenna in the residential area on, in parks, on park structures and city owned property. It just goes through administrative. It's a permitted use and the only thing that comes through as a conditional use is the towers. Peterson: I'm comfortable with that. Mancino: Okay. Ladd. Did that make sense? My last question. Conrad: Well I won't change it. A lot of working changes. I'm not sure what we're hopefully going to pass out. I think I agree with most of what Craig said. There on page 9, I think we had to change the top also on point 4. We had to reword that. Mancino: The FCC? Conrad: The FCC. You have to reword it. You have to reword the thing on the limit of the tower completion. On page 10, interference with public safety. I really didn't follow Mr. Beck in terms of the last paragraph other than he seemed to have some interesting points but I couldn't follow that but it seemed like we should be doing something. 1 27 P i Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 1 Aanenson: ... we can check. I think it may be another public safety issue because there are other jurisdictions that are ... we'll check with the Public Safety Director and make sure that... Conrad: I have a question. In terms of taking down the unused portion of the tower. I don't know. I just don't have a clue on that. Something that seemed interesting to me that Mr. Beck brought up was relating to minimums, and let's go back to page 4. It's number 2. Basically we don't have, let's see. If we can set a minimum, this is an absolute that says is, and I guess I wouldn't mind saying, shall be at least but not to preclude it from being greater than. Up to 2 to 1 or whatever we like. Again, the best thing that makes some sense to me. We have a minimum but maybe based on this specific site, we want to increase it. The same with number 3. Tower setback. There could be a minimum to that and then an exception based on staff review that requires more. I don't know, I had some notes here but I can't remember what they meant. On number 7. Well, maybe Craig you already talked about that. Anyway, there's just a lot of little changes here. I don't have areal problem with this going. It's too bad Mr. Beck wasn't here last week. Was there a reason we opened the public hearing a second time Madam Chair. ' Mancino: Because we made some new changes after last week. Conrad: Did we table it? But we had a public hearing. Mancino: Yes we did. I Conrad: We had a public hearing, okay. I don't know. I'll let somebody make a decision whether we want to see it again or if we're clear enough. Maybe we'll ask staff if we've been clear enough and they can carry this forward. I don't really think I need to see it again. My concern, and I'm still trying to interpret some of this information. My concern is, really making sure that the antennas don't impact the residential neighborhood and somebody comes in and says, this tower's going in across the street from me and I'm trying to think of those scenarios and I guess I haven't really been able to determine if we've protected the citizens. Maybe somebody can tell me if they feel that we have. Mancino: Okay. Kevin. Joyce: I've got to ask for help. Isn't there a minimum on this number 2. When we said there'd be a minimum of 1 to 1? Conrad: Minimum, yeah. The words were, it said it has to be, or at least that's what. Shall be equal to the height of the tower. That's 1 to 1, right? Joyce: That's the minimum? Conrad: Yeah. I'd like to put the minimum. I'd like to say at a minimum 1 to 1, and maybe we put a maximum in there but at least the words at a minimum. Because the ordinance will be 28 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 r interpreted exactly the way it reads. If it says I to 1, if it says the height of the tower, I'll guarantee you that is exactly what it will be set at. Unless there's a wetland in the way. Joyce: Can we do that then? Mancino: Sure. Joyce: I'd feel more comfortable that way of thinking. Mancino: Make sure you make the motion that says it. Joyce: I'm not making the motion on this. Conrad: Madam Chair, this is a tough one. Joyce: I was concerned about that because we were at 2 to 1 and suddenly we're 1 to 1 and that was my major concern was residential so thank you for that. One paragraph up, I don't know if we addressed that but Mr. Beck was wanting to include institutional usage in that. Aanenson: Yeah. We really don't have that many institutional type. We have some office, which are very limited, adjacent to residential. I understand his issue but I think it follows through on 2(a) where it talks about the church sites. The concern we have with that, along church sites. We did put it as an architectural feature because we have no control on that one. That would be a permitted use so we had no control. We felt it would work if it was compatible and blended in but it does create a large loophole for us where the other two sites, we certainly have control over... There is a lot of church property that has substantial acreage with it but again we have no control so we'd be concerned about how it would be... Joyce: So we're not going to put IO in there... Mancino: Institutional. Joyce: Yeah. Institutional. Rask: I don't know if we have any OI next to industrial or business owned districts. Not that I can think of sitting here and... Aanenson: Some of the churches are... residential. Downtown City Hall area. Joyce: Okay. Once again I like Ladd's use of that minimum on number 3 with the right -of -way so I could live with that. Forget about wetlands. I'm not interested in that at all. And as far as the railroad right -of -way, as long as staff is comfortable what we just discussed, I'm okay with that too. So that's... all my comments. Mancino: Kevin, do you want to see this back again after it goes through another round? 0 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Joyce: Not really. No, I'm happy. There are a lot of little things but my major things have been put in. I'm happy with it, okay so if someone would put that in ... conditional uses. Conrad: But can I interject something? The problem is going to be making a motion. Seriously. We'd love not to have it come back but I hope somebody's smarter than I. Takes really good notes. Joyce: Alison? Blackowiak: Not on my first night, no thanks. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: Just leave it up to staff. I think the did a good job incorporating the feedback from the p Y g J g last time. Virtually I don't know how we would tell you what it is. We don't allow any structures in wetlands or wetland setbacks currently do we? Aanenson: No, you can average the setback though but you'd have to have to put it all the way around. Skubic: Yeah, how would you do that with one structure? I Aanenson: Well there is ... there's some opportunities... I guess our objective is that we try to protect these natural resources... that's our first choice. Especially, we're not just talking about the tower. We're talking about a building. Skubic: Right, so I think that's appropriate. I agree with what's been said previously. The abandoned towers however, I think we do provide an extension with a condition here. The unused portion could remain intact. I think it's essentially the right thing to do. I mean you're looking after ... to minimize the impact of the towers. I'm not sure if that's the best way or the only way of doing it but lacking any other alternative... Mancino: Any other comments? Skubic: No. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: I have nothing to add. I Mancino: Alison. Blackowiak: Just a couple things. I do agree that the wetland areas should be left alone. On page 9, on the bottom. Unused portions. From what I understand, the purpose of this is to 30 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 encourage co- location. I don't know if there's any way we could, maybe 6 months is too short a time span. Maybe we could look at a year or two years. Something a little bit longer. Maybe that would be more realistic. Taking it down, I don't know if that's the answer. I think it might look pretty stubby. Lopped off. Not, you know, not pleasing for the residents and I guess that's who we have to think about too so. Mancino: That's your comments? Blackowiak: Yes. Mancino: Okay, thank you. My comments, a couple of them don't have anything to do with what's been said tonight. One of them is on page 4, under towers and residentially zoned districts. 2(b). Park sites, when compatible with the nature of the park. I have a concern in our ' neighborhood parks, especially when they're small neighborhood parks. 2 acres, 3 acres, etc. Allowing a tower to go in. I'm fine with the smaller neighborhood parks if there's an existing structure that they can go on. An antenna. But I do have a problem, and I think residents who live around these neighborhood parks will have a problem with a mono -pole and antennas and the utility building going in their small neighborhood park. So I would like to make sure that if it's on a park site, that it is on an existing structure. If it's an antenna. And I would also like, I would hope that the Park and Rec Commission review this before it goes to City Council and to get their input also. Aanenson: The entire ordinance or each...? Mancino: Well I would certainly like them to review the part that has to do with park sites. Aanenson: We have conferred with the Todd, the Park Director so he's aware of this... Mancino: Good. Then I would like him and John and any member of the Planning Commission who would like to attend that Park and Rec session, to just have them look at it from a Park and Rec viewpoint. And how it will impact our neighborhood and our park system and also our trail system. Secondly, so that I would like to see changed. With compatible with the nature of the park or just say on existing structures. The other item that was missing was from the first iteration of this that we saw about landscaping and removal of vegetation. Page 8. It says under landscaping, removal of existing shrubs and trees shall be prohibited and then we changed it to minimized through careful site selection and design. Which I, you know 80 %, 90% of the time I feel very comfortable with. However, I would hate to see us taking down special trees or significant trees to put up a tower. And especially if we have a site that has come in and already been planned and staff has worked and the Planning Commission has worked with the site and we had helped the developer or the homeowner develop the site in such a way as to save some of the existing special vegetation. If they've already gone through that through a site review plan, etc., I would hate to then see this come in and go into some of those areas and take down special trees. Aanenson: Can we address that issue? 1 31 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Mancino: Sure. Aanenson: Certainly why we put it in in the first place, and in revisiting the item, we do put conservation easements on a significant portion of the plans that come before you. Specifically residential. As far as no removal. We really felt like we needed to treat this like any other development. Certainly it's always our, we try to work with vegetation significant where we relocate. We would hope that the applicants are operating in good faith in trying to do the same thing but realistically in saying that they absolutely can't, we don't allow that of anybody else to say you absolutely can't. The way we address it is to say, you have to replace it so in fairness we felt like we had to treat this the same way we do the other developments. And again we believe that in good faith that they're going to try to blend in and not do that. But we share their concern. I think the way we have it written as a conditional use we can address that. Mancino: What benefit does the city get from this? Do we get. Aanenson: Residents get to use the technology. Mancino: Do we get any increase in property taxes? I mean you know, part of the reason we get no increase in property tax value. Aanenson: Same benefit when you have utility poles go up in the city. We get the benefit of using, or the gas lines or the telephone. It's a service... Unless it's on public property doing a lease, but if it's somewhere else, on the back of a residential lot, where there's... Peter Beck: I'm sorry but they do add value to the land in areas. All of our leases with private property require us to pay any increase in tax as a result of the facility. I wouldn't represent to you that it's significant but there is some. And of course, the police and fire and safety agencies are... Mancino: Okay, thank you. Good for bringing that up because I want to make it fair to everyone. So we need to take that into concern when we're looking at conservation easements. Okay. The other thing is, I would just like to, again I don't think this will come up much but on page 7 we have limited the square footage of the utility buildings and I would just like to make sure that they're not over one story tall. There's nothing about height there so I would just like to make sure that nobody goes up 3 or 4 stories with one, not that they would want to. Yeah, I understand... Those are my additional comments. And I, boy. I have really nothing more to add than what's been said about some of the issues. The other issues that were brought up tonight. I don't think we need to add the institutional use. Wetland setback. I would not like that to be more flexible. Working with the FCC approvals. You understand that. Going through the normal city process, which we have set up is fine. One year completion date. I just have nothing new. My only, and I feel much like Ladd, not being really smart enough to know about the unused portion of the towers. I like what staff has written. I'd like to keep it this way. John, as you do more research and present it to City Council, if you have more thoughts that you can add on it, I think that that would be helpful because I think it is a concern for providers and I 32 1 1 lJ F Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 understand it. I am, from staff's comment on making the antennas a permitted use. I think that's ' a good suggestion and that the towers in residential zoning be a conditional use. May I have a motion please. And we will try our best, and if there are some friendly amendments to this motion, we will certainly entertain those. Peterson: Madam Chair, I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance as it relates to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code pertaining to towers and antennas. And in turn I would recommend that staff further fine tune the language as it relates to point number 2 on top of page 4. As it relates to setbacks by adding, at a minimum, after shall be. So it shall be at a minimum equal to the height of the tower. And staff would develop better language as it relates to lessening the public right -of -way from distance. Number 7. That the property line be integrated into that clause. And 2(b), that existing structures be inserted in park sites. On page 8. Item under A that the language be reworded to address the issues raised this evening. As would be the case on page 7 where we would, under accessory utility buildings would be limited to one story. On page 9. That we remove the 90 days and work with the one year time frame. Time limit on tower completion. On point 2, under abandoned or unused towers. We would leave it as written. With staff review prior to Council. As it relates to page 10. Staff work to rewrite the language that will get something that addresses that it's within FCC approval. I believe those are the issues that I have down. I'm open to any friendly amendments that would be necessary. Mancino: Would you accept one friendly amendment on page 4, number 1, and I think it was actually John who brought it up at the beginning of the staff report and that is that we add a minimum of 10 feet shall be maintained from any property line. Peterson: Yes I would. ri Mancino: Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? Joyce: I'll second it. Mancino: The motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? Conrad: Just a little bit. On 4. Page 4. 2. Craig, did you, (b). What was your direction? Peterson: On the first number 2? As far as the setbacks? Conrad: No, second. Under towers in residential districts. In response to large or small parks. Did you make any? Peterson: Yeah, I stated that the park sites that within the park sites they be limited to existing structures only. Conrad: And Madam Chair, your concern was with small parks. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Mancino: So that if there is a small park in areas on lighting. Conrad: You don't have a concern with large parks? Peterson: Where do you draw the line? Mancino: Where do you draw the line? Farmakes: Community park, neighborhood park designation. Mancino: What, we have 21 neighborhood parks. Well obviously my first choice in any park, whether it's community or neighborhood park would be to put it on an existing. Something that's existing. For instance light poles, etc. On a community park, boy I'd love to have, well I'd like to have Park and Rec look at this anyway. It could be a tower but on a neighborhood park on an existing structure. Peterson: Is there a friendly amendment here Ladd? Conrad: I think what your motion was, it was intended, was referring to community parks. So it's just a point of clarification unless Craig you wanted it to imply to both. Peterson: No. We can limit it to neighborhood parks I think. Mancino: That is the intent, neighborhood. Peterson: Let's rephrase the original motion in looking at the existing structures to neighborhood parks. Rask: Okay, ' one amendment and that would be just about the replication of a structure. If it was a light pole or a ball diamond light. I don't know if we have ball diamond lights in, well yeah I'd say we do. What I'm thinking is they take down the light standard. Put up one that would have a tower. Mancino: If it was compatible with it, yes. Any other friendly amendments? Any other discussion? Is there a second to the motion? Joyce: Second. Peterson moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code regarding antennas and towers as amended by the Planning Commission and staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: The motion carries and it will go to Park and Rec and to the City Council. 34 C 1 I t s F U Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Rask: The 28`" provided we can get to Park and Rec. Mancino: Thank you very much. Thank you for coming. The next item on the agenda is new business. Aanenson: Didn't have any. Mancino: No new business. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 18, 1996 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Aanenson: Yes, thank you. At the City Council September 23` they did approve the plat for Villages on the Pond. Minus the soccer field... Mancino: So there won't be a soccer field at all? Aanenson: Correct, not at this stage. Mancino: So it won't be south. It won't be north. It won't be anywhere, okay. At this point. Aanenson: They did finally approve Paws and Claws and what they had decided on that is they let the metal go on the stable only. I think they felt like that would be ... in the future so that would be all metal... The would building would be consistent with the city ordinance as far as materials, and that would be the kennel. Mancino: And do you think they will go ahead and build? Aanenson: ...she seemed real, the applicant's going to look into that alternative. On Creekside, 2nd Addition did get approved. The medium density that we did ... although the developer did look at four units, on the end units where there's a possibility of making it single story to reduce the price. That's what we were looking for, a bigger price spread in there so those may come in closer to like $130,000.00 so there's a little bit more variety. Again we're looking at that as an option but there are people that are looking for single stories so hopefully that will provide a little bit more variety to the price points in that project. And the Council did approve that one so there's... Mancino: Was the variation in price at Creekside, was that a condition of approval? Aanenson: No. Just a good faith effort on the part of the developer. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996 Mancino: Okay, thank you. Ongoing items. ONGOING ITEMS. Aanenson: Yes, in your administrative packet we did put in, Todd Hoffman, this item went to the Council and the hockey association for Chanhassen, Chaska Hockey Association is looking for sites. They can do the financing if they can get some cheaper land so they were looking to the city to step to the plate and help them out. They're looking at the, in Chanhassen Business Park, Lots 5 and 6 which has a significant wetland, poor soils and is also heavily wooded. A site plan was prepared showing how we could possibly get a hockey facility on the site. Some of the concerns that the staff had, most notably myself and the City Engineer, that there are opportunities for the city to maintain the site for uses that we could use. ...for a large recycling, composting opportunity if we can ... so we want to make sure that the Council is aware that there are other opportunities for this site... I think as far as parking, to get the density on those two lots, you have to first of all ... so that's still a compromise. Mancino: Thank you. Ongoing items, I just had a question. Is something from the staff going with this sustainable development projects? Aanenson: Yes... Mancino: Is it possible to get a 15 minute summary or letting us know a little bit about it? At one of the meetings, that would be great, unless someone else is going. Anyone else from the commission going? Open discussion. Comprehensive plan amendment... adjourn the meeting. Any discussion from anyone on the Commission? May I have a motion to adjourn the meeting and a second please? Peterson moved, Joyce seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 36