3 Permit Monopole Tower/US W
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
JO City Cmt" DriVi, PO Box 147
Chonhassen, Minn"oto 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
Generol Fox 612.937.5739
Engineering Fox 612.937.9152
'ublic Softty Fox 612.934.2524
wtb www.ci.chl1nhlWtn.mn.us
3
-
MEMORANDUM
To: Scott Botcher, City Manager
From: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner
Date: February 24, 2000
Re: Reconsideration of US West Cellular Tower Decision, Holy Cross
Lutheran Church Site
BACKGROUND
Chronological Order of Events:
Sen. 1. 1999: Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of
Conditional Use Permit #99-3 to allow the construction of a 100
foot tall monopole tower wireless communication facility for US
West Wireless based upon the following:
The zoning ordinance requires antennas on church sites to be
camouflaged as an architectural feature such as steeples or bell
towers. The applicant was made aware that they needed to apply
for a variance in order for the City to review the application. The
applicant chose to proceed without a variance application and the
Planning Commission denied the application based upon the fact
that the proposal does not meet ordinance requirements.
Oct. 20. 1999: Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of a
variance to allow the construction of a 100 foot tall monopole
tower wireless communication facility based upon the following:
· The request does not meet ordinance requirements.
· The variance will produce income for the Church.
· Approving the variance will set a precedent.
· The applicant has not demonstrated compelling reasons why
they cannot co-locate on an existing structure.
\e City of ChOl/hassm. A f1TOWint community with cleon [¡¡kes, quolity schoo/¡, 0 chorminr downtown, thrivinr bUlin",,,, ond beouti/ùl parlrl. A mat p[¡¡" to IiVi, work, and p/æ,
·
US West Wireless
February 28, 2000
Page 3
VARIANCE FINDINGS
In reviewing variances, the Planning Commission shall not recommend and the
City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship.
Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use
because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable
use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500
feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of
variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards
without departing downward ITom them meet this criteria.
Finding: This is the only church site within 500 feet that can accommodate
this tower. All surrounding properties are developed single family parcels
which prohibit towers.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not
applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification,
Finding: The conditions upon which the variance is based are not
applicable to other properties with the same zoning district. Commercial
antennas arè permitted in residential districts on church sites as an
architecturaI feature, on utility buildings, or in parks, This is the only church
site within the search area.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value
or income potential of the parcel ofland.
Finding: The purpose of the variation is to allow U S West to build a
communication tower to provide a service. It would be to the applicant's
advantage ITom a financial standpoint to co-locate on an existing tower and
not build a new structure,
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The alleged hardship is not a self-created hardship,
US West Wireless
February 28, 2000
Page 4
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the
parcel is located,
Finding: A 105 foot high tower at this location should not be injurious to
the use and enjoyment of surrounding property or substantially diminish
property values, as the proposed tower is over 400 feet from the residential
neighborhood to the east and at least 102 feet ITom the property to the
south. There is a thick canopy coverage that runs along the south portion
of the site, which is a natural buffer for these homes. Further, the
proposed tower should not endanger the public health or safety if the
conditions attached to the permit and building code requirements are
adhered to.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public
streets or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or
substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair light and air to adjacent
property. Granting the variance will not increase congestion of public streets
or endanger public safety.
Staff is recommending approval of the variance based upon the findings,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approve Conditional Use Permit #99-3 and Site Plan,
to construct a 105 foot tall "cross designed" monopole tower wireless
communication facility for U S West Wireless with a variance to allow a
monopole tower that is not camouflaged as an architectural feature of a
church with the following conditions:
1. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the Arborvitae along the east side
replaced with a Black Hill Spruce. Sbrubs shall be added. The evergreens
shall be staggered and a minimum of 10 feet in height.
2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan and conditional use permit agreement
and submit financial guarantees to guarantee the improvements.
US West Wireless
February 28, 2000
Page 5
3. The tower shall comply requirements in ARTICLE XXX. TOWERS AND
ANTENNAS of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The tower shall be painted white.
5. There shall be no artificial lighting or signage.
6, The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of building permit
application showing the height above grade for all potential mounting
positions for co-located antennas and the minimum separation distances
between antennas. A description of the tower's capacity, including the
number and type of antennas that can be accommodated should also be
provided.
7. The applicant shall install protective fencing at the edge of the trees prior to
construction and shall maintain the fence throughout the development of the
tower."
Attachments
I. Staff report dated January 10, 2000.
2. Report Garrett G. Lysiak, dated February 24, 2000.
g:\plan\sa\uswest.reconsidered.doc
City Council Meeting - January 24, 2000
i. Approval of Termination Agreement, H. Dan Wright,
j. Reconsideration of US West Cellular Tower Decision, Holy Cross Lutheran Church Site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. UPDATE ON 2000 CENSUS. IVAN SCHULTZ. U.S. CENSUS
BUREAU.
Mayor Mancino: Tonight we have Ivan Schultz ITom the U,S, Census Bureau to give us a
presentation on the 2000 census. Is Mr. Schultz here? He's not here. Thank you. Is there anyone
else? Mr. Schultz did not make it tonight and maybe he will be coming to another council meeting
that we have in February. So we'll move forward. Is there anyone here tonight that would like to,
during visitor presentation come before the City Council?
PUBLIC SAFETY UPDATE: UPDATE FROM SGT. DAVE POTTS. CARVER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND THE CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT.
Mayor Mancino: And welcome.
Dave Potts: Thank you Mayor, Council members. For this first meeting I just wanted to present
myself to you so you can see me. See who I am. See what I look like. I saw your names on the City
e-mail address book. Did you all receive or do you all receive the e-mails that go city wide?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Dave Potts: Okay. I sent one out to kind of introduce myself. Wouldn't go any further than that in
my background if you all had a chance to see that or read that or will be in the near future.
Mayor Mancino: We haven't received, at least I haven't received it yet on the e-mail. When did you
send it out?
Scott Botcher: Middle of last week.
Mayor Mancino: Oh okay.
Councilwoman Jansen: I didn't get one.
Scott Botcher: All city users but I'll forward it to you because it's still in my, it's in a folder.
Mayor Mancino: If you want to give us the highlights.
Dave Potts: Well I guess the highlights would be that I joined the sheriff s office in 1981 as a
volunteer reserve officer while I was in college and then in 1984 was hired as a full time deputy.
2
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the site plan review to allow a
16,680 square foot classroom and a 2,000 square foot library addition to an existing building and a
variance to allow a 30 foot front yard setback for Chapel Hill Academy and to review the item
back to the Planning Commission for master site plan review. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN TO ALLOW A FREE STANDING, 105 FOOT
MONOPOLE TOWER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY FOR U S WEST
WIRELESS TO BE LOCA TED ON A CHURCH SITE.
Steven Mangold
Pat Conlin
Mike Reyer
Eugene Sigal
Mike Dalton
Pete Keller
426 No. Fairview, St. Paul
4]6 No. Fairview, St. Paul
426 No. Fairview, St. Paul
426 No. Fairview, St. Paul
4] 53 Hallgren Lane
6760 Country Oaks Road
Public Present:
Name
Address
Shannin AI-Jaff: Thank you. Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. First thing I would like to
do if! may is outline the ordinances that govern this application. The ordinance states that in residentially
zoned districts the maximum height of a tower may not exceed 80 feet. Whenever there are multiple
users on a tower within a residential district, then we have an exception and that exception basically
states that the limitation of the height may be increased by 25 feet. The third section that governs this
application deals with locations of towers within residentially zoned districts and it specifically points
out that it may be placed on church sites when camouflaged as an architectural feature such as... the
applicant is requesting a conditional use penn it and a site plan approval for the construction of a 105 foot
cross designed monopole communication tower. The tower is proposed to be situation south of Holy
Cross Lutheran Church. This is the church site. It is proposed to be located south of the church site and
west of Highway 7. The actual pole height is 93 feet and is proposed to have two 6 foot tall tubes. These
tubes will be vertically stacked and inside them the antennas will be located. The overall height of the
tube again is 105 feet. When we looked at this site we looked at the surrounding area and the setbacks of
the residentially zoned units in this area. What you see highlighted in green is existing vegetation. It's a
natural buffer. This is the proposed location of the tower. The setback is proposed to be 105 feet from
the neighborhood to the south, and it exceeds 380 feet from the neighborhood to the east. Our first, there
isn't any buffer within this area. It's really wide open. When we looked at this site overall, we thought
the best location would be immediately behind the church. What happens as you go behind the church is
the grades begin to drop substantially. Two things that the ordinance highlights. Number one, you
cannot have a Structure between a main building and a right-of-way. So that would have required a
variance. Second of all, as you move the tower down the hiJI you're going to need a height variance. So
that's two variances that you would need to grant for this application. And what this location would have
done would have been to screen the base of the tower. With the proposed plans they're not proposing to
remove any of the existing vegetation. And they are proposing a landscape plan. Staff is recommending
that the trees be 10 feet in height at a minimum at the time of installation. You can't screen a structure
13
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Roger Knutson: If it was 20 years ago, in all pròbability there was no such requirement 20 years ago.
Mayor Mancino: In fact I think our buffer yard ordinance was just done 4 or S years ago actually.
Councilwoman Jansen: Alright. Thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Is that right Councilman Senn? On the buffer yard ordinance.
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Mayor Mancino: 4 or 5 years ago.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council?
Steve Mangold: Good evening Mayor and Council. My name is Steve Mangold. I'm the Regional Real
Estate Manager for the US West Wireless. Our address is 426 North Fairview, St. Paul. I want to thank
you for the opportunity to talk to you tonight. We are here to request approval of our revised site plan
and our conditional use permit. This is an interesting case that we have here. We have been working for
a number of months with not only the city but also with the community to devise a way to put this project
forward and I believe that through the various discussions and changes in our site plan and negotiations, I
believe that we've come up with something that is appealing to the city and to the business and to the
community. At least I hope so. Our last meeting with the City Council we were dealing with two
variances as staff has indicated. The one variance was for the placement of the pole in between the right-
of-way and the church. And the other variance was that we didn't quite comply with Section 20-1506 of
the ordinance. As you will see we have corrected through our revised site plan both of those and now we
are going forward on our application without regard to the variances. I am here with our lead RF
engineer to answer any questions that you may have, and again we are requesting that you consider this
application and approve it as it is. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for Steve from councilmembers? No? Okay. Thank you.
Not at this time. But you do have your engineering here? Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone here
tonight, neighbor, etc, that would like to come up and address the council? If you have a few words. We
certainly have read the Minutes so is there anyone here tonight wanting to address the council on this
issue? Please state your name and address.
Pete Keller: Sure, thank you. Appreciate your time. My name's Pete Keller and I live at 6760 Country
Oaks Road. I live directly to the east. We're right here...buffered field. In addition I'm a stay at home
dad. I'm home all the time so I'll be afforded this view every daylight hour of every day so we're more
than concerned. I appreciate that you've read the Minutes and there is an exceptional, of great detail that
I'd like to add except the Planning Commission has very carefully looked at the application. Denied it on
October 20th. Looked at the variance application and denied that as well. There's a lot of issues that are
involved. I didn't see them all addressed in Sharmin's report but some of them have been addressed
previously and.I hope that within the past two Planning Commission meetings that you've had a chance
to look at all of that information. About the only thing that is new is the cost. And as we were, as some
of us were thinking about what, is it reasonable to look at this piece of property and see a 10S foot tower,
which is about 3 times taller than the trees that are there. And we all pretty much agreed that it wasn't.
Would it be reasonable to look at a church property and see a cross? I think for a very small, old church
IS
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
like this it wouldn't be something that you would expect to see on that piece of property but it might not
be unreasonable. When I initially heard the cross idea I thought that that might be an interesting way of
solving the problem. However, what I see in the diagram and some of the specifics and the dimensions
and all, I don't really see, I mean without a doubt it's a cross but I don't think that· it is something that
would be reasonably recognized as a religious cross. What I think it's going to look like is a tower with
two hangers sticking on it for the next, third, fourth and fifth user that are going to get things to hang on
and just be exceptionally decadent in the backyard. Which made me think of how do you decide what
really is a cross or not so I looked around in our home and drew a couple crosses that are to scale. This is
one that I bought at a Christian store this weekend and here's it's dimensions. This is one that our family
made as a Sunday School project, and that's, there's it's dimensions to scale. And these are the
dimensions of the cross that they're proposing. Considerably different. About the only thing that I can
come up with as I looked at these, because they all did, and the other one that I did draw is this one. This
third one. This is a cross, and or course I did not climb the roof at Holy Cross Church. I did go over and
have a pretty good look at the one that they have mounted on the cupola to get it's approximate
dimensions. About the only thing that they all have in common is this top portion. This top portion is
usually about a third. If you take this vertical piece and divide it up into thirds, it's usually about one
third down and one third up and one third out. About. Sometimes it's a quarter. And this is 50% of the
vertical. It varies quite a bit. The one that they're proposing tonight isn't going to look anything like that
at all. ...kind of tacky. There are definitely other things that can be done. As lots of the testimony
previously is in the Planning Commission meetings and in the narratives and all, they keep looking at this
site as being the only site in the area that they can work on. However, they've also testified that they
have service right now. They are offering and selling service in the area. They've also testified that
there are other pieces of property that could work. While they wouldn't work as optimally as this site,
they could work. What this site is is they feel is the optimal site. What the only other research that I've
been able to come up with on the situation is that while it may be optimal for their radio frequency
technical terms and mumbojumbo of that sort, none of us are really experts in that. We need to, if we're
going to honestly look at it, I think, and believe it and base, make a precedent setting decision on it, we
really need to get some outside expert independent opinion. Before we sort of take their kind of their
slanted view on it. But I very much appreciate your time. I've done a fair amount of research on this
and...stuffwill be helpful, I'd be happy to share it or answer any questions.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions?
Councilwoman Jansen: No, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Pete, you realize that our job tonight is just to make sure that they do meet the
ordinance and that's about what we can do.
Pete Keller: I do.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Mike Dalton: Good evening. My name is Mike Dalton. I live at 4153 Hallgren Lane. Luckily enough I
live right here. So the 105 foot pole, I've kind of come to accept the fact that in one way, shape or form
this ominous piece of metal is going to end up somewhere within sight line of my home that I've lived in
a very short amount of time but I think some of the talk that I've heard earlier that I got to hear from the
gentleman trying to expand his school or what, you know there's a real concern among the council to
make sure that things are up to standard and then that the integrity of the area is not compromised. And I
guess the only solution that I can see to this thing is, I don't understand, with the exception of having to
grant two variances, why it has to be so close to that tree line. And not only does it worry me if the thing
16
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
were to blow down and hit my house, but more importantly I would see a better idea, out by the church
has a sign there. Why couldn't it go out towards the !Tont of the building, not interrupting anything that
they have for future expansion. But to incorporate it more and shift the burden on the church and US
West rather than the neighborhood, why doesn't the back into the neighborhood. Whether it's my house
or Peter's house isn't the issue. The issue should be that if it's the church who's benefiting ITom the
cross and US West, and if they need their tower, then so be it. If it's going to go there, then so be it but
let's find a location that's suitable and this may be too late and I'm just venting but to back it into the
comer is really no different than the proposal that came across this council months ago, other than
they've attached a 10 foot horizontal pole. So in a way I don't know that we've gained any ground and
we may have passed up some variances but it's really the same project that was in !Tont of you several
months ago. So I guess I would look for somebody to interrupt this process and say you know, is it
feasible to shift this thing forward and is there a burden on anybody else, which I don't think that there is.
The church wants to expand and whether or not that's even feasible I would doubt. But I would just look
to or ask that somebody look at this and try to shift this thing closer to the road and make it a part of, if
somebody comes driving down Highway 7, that they see that it is a church and incorporate it that way so
obviously I don't want it in my, I don't want it where it's supposed to be or where their proposal is, but if
it is going to go there, I would just look to being somewhat reasonable. Look to move it further away
from the neighborhood. I guess iff were trying to develop this thing, that's what I would try to do is to
minimize the burden on anybody. And by backing it into the homes on this road, whether it's my house
or any of my neighbors, I don't know meets those objectives. And if US West wants to work with the
community, wants to have a little opposition to this deal, then I would guess that they would look to do
whatever they could. This looks to me like we're back to square one other than we've called it
something different so it's in your hands and you people are the experts at it but that's what I think so I
appreciate your time.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Mike. I think I'll wait to see if anyone else has questions and then maybe
Sharmin, or US, or Steve could go over some of the other locations that you've looked at. Because it's
gone in front of Planning Commission twice and this is the first time it's been at City Council. Anyone
else? Could you go, take just a few minutes and let us know the other locations that you have looked at
through the Planning Commission.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: US West has always requested this specific location. Same as what is being proposed
right now. It was staff's recommendation that they push the tower behind the church. And that was one
of staff's recommendations at the time. Again, it will require a variance.
Mayor Mancino: And how much would the variance be Sharmin? Do you remember?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: We calculated approximately a drop of 5 feet so that would require an additional 5 foot
variance. Now visually you're not going to notice that because it's dropping down. Therefore the base is
going into the ground and if you're standing here, visually it's going to appear at the same height,
whether it's located here or there.
Mayor Mancino: You just won't see the portion of the pole?
Shannin AI-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So would require about a 5 foot variance, so it would be, are you saying it
would be instead of 105 it would be II O?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Approximately.
17
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Okay. 5 feet more. And right now it's 105. That means it would go to 110. But our
ordinance only allows it to go to 105. The 80 feet plus the 25 feet.
Shannin AI-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. In a manner of speaking, okay. Thank you. Bring this back to council for
discussion. Councilman Senn, are you ready?
Councilman Senn: Sure. The, I don't know, I kind oflooked at basically two different elements of this.
One was basically the height issue with the variance. I have a little bit of a hard time with subscribing to
a variance with one user. You know, we don't have an application in front of us with two users on it.
What guarantees are there that we're effectively solving anything by increasing the height and there's
nothing in the deal, at least that I can find, that forces that action effectively. You know so I somewhat
kind of view it as a situation where you need a certain height so you get that height that way by saying
there's the ability to put a second user on it. So I don't know, I have a little trouble with that part of it.
But I guess that's really kind of immaterial because in reading the ordinance, you know in my mind this
plain and simply doesn't meet our ordinance requirements. We were very clear when we made this
ordinance up. We were very clear on intent and we were very clear on handling this type of situation and
this doesn't meet it so I can't really see you know proceeding with it or giving a conditional use pennit
for it to proceed.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and what part of the ordinance doesn't it meet?
Councilman Senn: Well, Shannin can read it again if she wants to. Essentially the ordinance as it was
written is very specific about how it's supposed to basically be an architectural element. I don't consider
what is being proposed to be an architectural element. It is also to be incorporated into bell towers,
steeples. I don't see, especially when it's encased in two residential areas, I don't see either of those
conditions existing here. I would propose to deny the application and let our attorney draft the findings
of fact for denial.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: I would echo what Councilman Senn just said about not meeting our zoning
ordinance, and very specifically what I don't grasp is how this is camouflaged. Specifically our
ordinance requires that it be camouflaged as an architectural feature. And when I think of an
architectural feature I think of something that someone actually took some time to apply some creativity
to. And if this church building could hold the weight of this structure, technically in my mind it would
meet that criteria of being an architectural feature if you could pick it up and put it on the building. That
it literally looks as if someone designed it to be a part of the existing architecture that's on the site. And
by no means would I ever foresee someone having designed this as an attractive feature on that building.
It's simply a huge pole that's being used for telecommunications with, put a cross ann on it. And
because it has a 90 degree angle we're calling it a cross feature so I'm having a great deal of trouble
conceptually having this meet the zoning ordinance. And then when I read through the conditional uses,
and the different points that it needs to meet, you can certainly justify parts and pieces but, and again I
would follow Senn in wanting someone else to draft this, but I don't think that it's in keeping with this
neighborhood. Point number 4 talks about will it be disturbing to the existing or planned neighboring
uses. Well, of course it will be. Is it designed and constructed to be compatible in appearance with the
existing or intended character of the general vicinity? I don't think so. But there we're getting into my
translation of the different points, but it's certainly what's being echoed out of the neighborhood.
18
City Council Meeting-January 10, 2000
Looking at the site, and I've walked it. And everyone knows that I will give about just about anything to
save a tree, but if you walk the property and you go in the direction of Highway 7. So if you head west
and north into the trees that they're trying to preserve, it's shrubs. It's large trees that have fallen over,
and it's definitely an area where I wouldn't be first of all looking for maximum preservation. Ifby
moving this pole farther to the north and farther to the west we can, if we have to put it in looking like
this, if we can move it farther from the neighborhood and into that area, impacting, there aren't even very
large trees. Again, it's mostly shrubs. I question the location and whether we have actually placed this in
the optimum position to meet what we're saying the conditional use permit should meet, as far as not
impacting the neighborhood. And I guess, those are my comments but mainly going back to the zoning
ordinance and again it's our ordinance from what I gather, that's taking this from 80 feet to 25 feet. That
we are suggesting that this needs to be a two user tower. And maybe because this isn't the type of
location that is entirely compatible with the surrounding area, I don't know what kind of guidelines we
can use to say this is only a one user site. It will only be an 80 foot pole because we can't accommodate
meeting the conditional use permit guideline. Someone would have to address that. But it does seem
like we have put the 25 feet onto this pole by requiring that second user position.
Mayor Mancino: And just so I, or maybe Sharmin wants to answer the rationale behind that was if there
was another company, telecommunications company that needed a PCS site, that we didn't have more
poles in that area. We had less. So the intention was to reduce the amount of antennas needed so that
there can only be one versus going to another pole in the same neighborhood, etc. So that was the
rationale.
Scott Botcher: Let me ask a question though.
Councilman Senn: How do you do that there?
Scott Botcher: US West, if they were by themselves, would they want 105? They want a 105 foot pole
anyway, right? So the idea is that they want to have a co-locate so they can get the height high enough to
meet their own needs. Is that correct?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: So even if there is a co-locater in the future, you still can end up with more poles. It
doesn't make any difference.
Mayor Mancino: Well no. No. If there is one in the area, they have to co-locate.
Councilman Senn: But it only accommodates two people.
Scott Botcher: But the issue that US West is using the co-locate clause in the ordinance to get 105 foot
pole when there actually isn't a co-locate partner right now. Is that correct?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: Correct.
Scott Botcher: I'll defer to staff on this one but it appears to me that US West is using the co-locate
clause in the ordinance to get a pole of sufficient height to meet their requirements when in fact there is
no co-locate party on the horizon, and may not ever be one.
Councilman Senn: So we are requiring them to allow co-location on their pole as a condition of going up
to the 105 feet.
19
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Scott Botcher: But we don't need to allow them to go to 105 feet until the co-locate opportunity presents
itself.
Councilwoman Jansen: So for now we could stay at 80 because there's only one?
Scott Botcher: Well if that was the only issue, yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Can you add a second antenna at any time? Can you add a second locate?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: The extra 25 feet, you can add that later?
Roger Knutson: No. It won't work for them, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you.
Councilman Engel: Can you run two on an 80 foot tower?
,
Roger Knutson: According to them it won't work. That won't satisfy their néeds.
Mayor Mancino: So you could co-locate on an 80 foot tower though?
Scott Botcher: So shoot, you can co-locate on a 20 foot tower. It's just whether or not it's going to
work.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I'm looking at this picture and when I've got the three applicable' regulations here in
the staff report. As far as camouflage, it just doesn't make it. I mean there's camouflaged involved
there. It's just a big, tall pole. If it sits on top of a church with any kind of elevation to it, and can be
supported a slightly lower height, then I could go for the camouflage stipulation but this doesn't seem to
make that guideline based on the pictures I'm seeing. So just based on that alone, the height is really
another circumstance as well but it just doesn't make it from a camouflage standpoint at all so I'm not
liking it too much.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I don't need to, I'm not really adding anything new. I do have concerns with
Section 20-1506 of the ordinance about church sites and camouflages and architectural feature. And
again, this is a monopole. It's the same monopole that was introduced at the first Planning Commission
meeting and just has the cross bars added to make it a cross so I have some concerns with that too.
Scott Botcher: Can I take a shot at?
Mayor Mancino: You bet.
Scott Botcher: What the heck, I'm in the batters box. Couple things. What is the diameter of the
monopole versus the diameter of the cross pole? Is the diameter of the cross been increased to support
the cross member on the top?
Shannin AI-Jaff: You mean ITom the previous application? Not to my knowledge. I believe that it's still
the same.
20
City Council Meeting - January 10,2000
Scott Botcher: Okay. One of the issues that I think is out there, and there's a couple and I'll get back to
Linda's question about the ordinance in a bit. RF and as you guys at least know I've had the fun of going
to the appellate court on this one, so we know the Telecom Act really, really well. And the
telecommunications industry has a very nice lobby. They make many contributions. But the reality is
that the federal government, the Telecommunications Act to some extent doesn't necessarily care what
your local ordinances say. There's a balancing act there. And you know aesthetics are certainly part of
the puzzle, but the federal government is also not going to let you use aesthetics as the sole determining
factor and I guess I want to just caution you as we go into this that the applicant does have certain legal
opportunities before it that the federal government has granted it. Not that I disagree with anything
anybody said but I think I owe it to everyone to say that. Secondly though, RF engineers are sort of like
engineers who build streets. They want itto be perfect. They want itto be exact. And I guess I just
question, because there is technology out there, and this is one of the things that really bugs me, and it's
not US West because I don't know these guys so I don't have anything against these guys. They're
always serving the community they're in and somehow they're always around highways. They're not
serving Chanhassen with this. They're serving Highway 7, and that's cool. That's great, but don't come
and tell me you're serving the city ofChanhassen. That being said, there is technology out there, because
I looked at it last year, and maybe I should go back and find it. That the mini cells. The hub cells. If you
go to, and if you go to Milwaukee, drive 1-94 and Highway 83. Two big four lanes. It crosses in
Delafield, Wisconsin. There's a huge bowl there. It's a kettle marine topography. There's a big bowl
there. We stuck little cells with Ameritech and Cell One through a pattern that their RF engineer said
had gaps in it. It wasn't perfect. Now I think Pete said geez, you get service now. Is there really a gap?
That's always a fair question. Is it as nice as the RF engineers and the companies would like? No. They
probably get complaints for dropped calls and they are trying to respond to their customers, and they
should. But there are other technologies available besides just sticking up a big pole and covering
everything between Tonka Bay and what is it, Minnetrista? Something like that. That I don't know if
we've looked at. And I mean in my own personal experience I've hid these things in flag poles at Burger
King. And then the next one was a flag pole at Target. Which wasn't that far away but you know it was
Interstate 94. It wasn't Highway 7. And we just worked out way from one end of the bowl to the other
and back and forth. Those technologies are there and I don't know if they were looked at. But you
know. it certainly is, to some extent easier for the company just to do this. I tend to agree. I don't
consider it an architectural feature. I think they're using the ordinance and the co-location thing just to
get a pole high enough for their own use and we may never see, and I think that's what Mark said. We
may never see a second user. Probably will just given the competition but we may not. They're going to
own the pole. They may not be able to reach a suitable lease arrangement with Company ABC to the
satisfaction of both parties and just say too bad, so sad, we couldn't do a deal. And those are just some
concerns that I have.
Roger Knutson: Without opening up the whole seminar on Telecommunications Act and the zoning
laws. Just to briefly over cap a couple things. First, they initially, I shouldn't say initially. At one point
they had an application for a variance before the city because they weren't going to be an architectural
feature. And a suggestion was made to try to make it architectural feature and I believe the suggestion
was, how about a cross? Because of that we just felt that a variance was not needed if they complied
with that requirement, ordinance requirement. If they do not comply with that ordinance requirement,
which they can of course apply for a variance or continue their variance application forward to get a
variance from that requirement. And so then you'd be facing a situation, are they entitled to a variance.
So just because the one issue is decided, the other one wouldn't be, i.e. do they get a variance or not from
that requirement. And second, just so we understand the Telecommunications Act. Just a little bit, and I
know I'll be very brief on this. Regardless of what your ordinances say, your ordinances are trumped by
the Telecommunications Act if the denial of this location prevents, has the affect of prohibiting wireless
21
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
service. Creating substantial gaps I'll say. If that is the case, then regardless of what your zoning
ordinance says, your zoning ordinance has to make way for the Telecommunications Act and you're
required to approve it. So the question becomes, is there that gap? Do they need this? Is there a less
intrusive way of accomplishing that? The City has not hired a radio engineer. We've discussed that
initially and that's rather expensive and the decision was made not to do that, which I thought was
appropriate. But that's where we're at.
Scott Botcher: Did we receive the RF engineer's analysis? I don't see it in here but, where they went to
the different sites. They referenced conflicts at the fire station and all these different sites and.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct...memo.
Scott Botcher: But I don't see the study.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: No. We don't have a study.
Mayor Mancino: And they also said, when you also put in the application you said that you needed 150
foot monopole. That that would give you optimum coverage and all of a sudden it's down to 105. So
Steve, do you want to respond to a couple of the questions about alternative technology, etc and move the
mic around to you.
Steve Mangold: I think that, I am the Real Estate Manager. I don't know ifI am the best person to talk
about the new technology. Eugene Sigal is here from our office. He is the lead RF engineer. But before
we get into that, and we certainly can get into that if you wish. This tower siting issue is not an easy
issue. Tonight we have five different meetings going on throughout the Twin Cities. You mayor may
not realize it but there's over 130 jurisdictions just within the Twin Cities. Now the reality is that US
West and the telecommunications carriers do not write the ordinances. The cities write the ordinances.
The city is what's putting up the game plan here. And the city also through. the ordinances is basically
stating that if we comply with the ordinances, then a conditional use permit should be granted. We are
not asking for any variances tonight. We can go down the list, we can go down the ordinances and we
can show that we are complying with every instance of the ordinance. We're talking about co-location.
The ordinance says design to accommodate a co-Iocater. We don't have another co-Iocater right now,
but it's not to say that it won't happen. And I think that the Mayor correctly pointed out that the reason
why you have put this in is to eliminate additional towers in the vicinity of this search area. We have the
issue with the tower design. We did talk with the church. We did have a structural engineer look at the
church and see if we could build something to that church that would accommodate the height that we
need, and I think in your packet you will see that there is a letter ITom Dale Thorn, our engineer,
structural engineer stating that it just isn't feasible. It's not structurally feasible considering the height
and weight of the additional bell tower. Now again, you look at Section 20-1506, Section 2(a), it says
church sites are approved when it's camouflaged as an architectural feature such as steeples or bell
towers. I mean this to us when we read this, we're saying that we're reading that this is indicating
examples. It doesn't say architectural features being steeples or bell towers. We didn't write the
ordinance. We're just trying to comply with it. We have worked with staff now for approximately eight
months on this issue. We have met the setback requirements. We've worked with the staff as far as
moving the site around the parcel a number of different times as to how it would fit best with the
community. We have complied with every section of this ordinance. We are not looking for any
variance. This is the ordinance that you, that the city wrote and we're just complying with it and we are
requesting approval of this.
22
Scott Botcher: So does US West have an interest in considering other technology? Just for the record.
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Thanks Steve. Any other discussion ITom council members?
Then may I have a motion please.
Steve Mangold: Yes, I think that I will refer this question to Eugene Sigal, our RF engineer.
Councilman Engel: Does the fire station out there have a flag pole? Is there anything else out there with
one?
Eugene Sigal: My name is Eugene Sigal and I'm the lead RF engineer for US West Wireless in the Twin
Cities and I will be happy to address any questions that you may have regarding the RF engineering
questions or problems.
Mayor Mancino: Okay Eugene, Scott had a question about alternative technologies. If you've looked at
those.
Eugene Sigal: It's very difficult, if not impossible for me to give you an evaluation of a different
technology that a different company in a different city is using without knowing who they are, what they
do and what kind of a system they have and what objectives they have for the system. To the extent a to
whether US West has a different technologies, by all means we look at the latest technology that is
available to us. In fact, the examples of the sites in this case and other cases as well, US West Wireless
makes as great of an attempt as we can to minimize the visual impact of our sites. As an example, the
kind of a design being proposed, even with the initial monopole, instead of proposing an array of
antennas at the top of the pole, a proposal we made was for a slender design so there are no protruding
antennas from the pole. We're using what is called ...polarization antennas to accomplish that. The
other example of the latest technology is for the base of equipment that we use, as large as it may seem to
those who have not seen the equipment used by some of the other carriers, in our case our equipment is
far smaller than some of the other installations that some of you mayor may have not seen. As an
example for cellular companies to install sites, they actually have to build a building to house all of their
electronics. Whereas in the case of US West, we house all of our equipment in an outdoor cabinet. So
with that said I can assure you that if we can use the latest technology, we will do that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much Eugene. Okay, Steve we're going to bring this back to
council now.
Steve Mangold: Yes Mayor and council members. I would like to just point out one thing and this is
relevant to what that last question was. I would like to bring a couple pictures to the Mayor if I could.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Steve Mangold: I think that this will pretty well point out the degree that US West has gone in
developing technology that will show a more advanced siting for these antennas. What this photograph
is here is it's a photograph of a tower in Chanhassen that was permitted through a conditional use permit
process in a residential area. As you can see, if you compare this particular tower to the tower that we
have, you will see a considerable difference and an extreme advance in technology of design. I think that
that's a good indication of how US West has tried to do the best that they can to promote a more
aesthetically appealing design, and again I wanted to, I do want to point out that this is in Chanhassen
and is in a residential area. And it was approved through a conditional use permit.
23
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much.
Scott Botcher: I guess my question is though, because it wasn't really answered. This technology is still
stuff that's up in the air. And it's just pretty simple. It'sjust up in the air. There are technologies and
you 'can go to the AP A Journal, and this is not beating on Shannin but where they attach them to bridges.
They,attach them to flag poles. They attach them to all sorts of stuff. I'm assuming then that you guys
didn't consider any of thattechnology for this site. You just considered, regardless if it's this one or
monopole or a cross, you considered a tower.
Steve Mangold: There was no existing verticality in the area that we were looking which means if there
was nothing existing to attach these to. US West has about 300 sites in the Twin Cities. And out of
those 300 sites I believe that we have about 85 monopoles and about 215 of the locations are located on
something like monopoles.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Bringing it back to council, may I have a motion please.
Councilman Senn: I'll make the motion to move denial of this application as submitted to authorize the
conditional use penn it to allow a free standing cross design monopole tower to be located on a church
and site plan to construct a 105 tall monopole tower wireless communication facility for US West
Wireless. And that Findings of Fact...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second?
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Counèilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council deny Conditional
Use Permit #99-3 and Site Plan to construct a 105 foot tall "cross designed" monopole tower
wireless communication facility for US West Wireless and direct the City Attorney's office to
prepare Findings of Fact for denial. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER MODIFYING THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT WITH LAKE SUSAN
APARTMENT HOMES IN VILLAGE SON THE PONDS. THE SHELARD GROUP.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Barbara Jacoby
Wayne Holtmeier
Jim Jacoby
Jim.Amundson
Sherry & Bob Ayotte
Lynne Wyffels
ShelWert
Vemelle Clayton
Peter Coyle
85 I 6 Great Plains Blvd.
8506 Great Plains Blvd.
84 I 0 Great Plains Blvd.
8500 Great Plains Blvd.
6213 Cascade Pass
I 1455 Viking Drive
11455 Viking Drive
422 Santa Fe Drive
7900 Xerxes
Scott Botcher: You have in your packet a memo, and I won't read it to you because you guys can all
read. Summarizing some of the options that you have, and as was said at the work session, there are
24
i
,
-
,
z
.«
D
:ï
J..
1-
C(
«
-
=;t
a
J.I
-
-
:n
CITY OF
CHANHASSEH
P.C. DATE: 10-20-99
t+
-
C.C. DATE: 1-10-00
CASE: 99-3 CUP
BY: Al-Jaff
.
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
A Condition Use Permit to al10w a fi'ee standing "cross designed" monopole
tower to be located on a church and Site Plan to construct a 105 foot tal1
monopole tower wireless communication facility for U S West Wireless.
.
LOCATION:
4151 Highway 7, Excelsior, MN 55331
;
.
APPLICANT :
US West Wireless L.L.C
426 N Fairview Ave. Room 101
St. Paul, MN 55104
(651)642-6291 David Fisher
Holy Cross Lutheran Church
4151 Highway 7
Excelsior, MN 55331
(612)474-9242
PRESENT ZONING:
RSF, Residential Single Family District
ACREAGE:
Approximately 7 Acres
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
N - Highway 7
S - RSF, Residential Single Family District
E - RSF, Residential Single Family District
W - RSF, Residential Single Family District
WATER AND SEWER:
Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER:
The site contains a church. Mature trees are located along
the south and northwest portion of the site.
~,
2000 LAND USE:
Public - Semi-Public
g5 Road
~
IJJJJ flh.,_
US West Wireless
January 10, 2000
Page 2
There have been numerous changes affecting this application. Staff opted to write a new
report rather than edit the old report. The background is combined with the Planning
Commission Update section ofthe report.
ÂPPT.TCART.R RF.~TJT.ÂT'ONS
The subject site is zoned residential.
Section 20-1503 (I), "In all residential zoned property, the maximum height of any tower,
including all antennas and other attachments, shall be eighty (80) feet.
Section 20-1504 (I), "Multi-use towers designed to accommodate more than one (I) user may
exceed height limitation of section 20-1503 by up to twenty-five (25) feet.
Section 20-1506 of the zoning ordinance states that "Towers to be located in residential zoned
areas are subject to the following restrictions: Towers supporting commercial antennas and
conforming to all applicable provisions of this Code shall be allowed in residential zoned
districts in the following locations: Chur"h ~it,,~ wh,," "~mout1~gl'ti ~~ ~" ~r"h;t"ctur~1 f,,~tllT"
~lI~h ~~ d~P.p1p!Õ:. or hp.l1 tnwprs.;"
A-NÂT ,VSIS
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and site plan approval for the construction of
a 105 foot "cross designed" monopole communication tower. The tower is proposed to be
situated south of Holy Cross Lutheran Church and east of Highway 7. The design of the tower
was generated to meet the letter of the ordinance by creating a structure that can be camouflaged
as an architectural feature on the church site. The actual pole is 93 feet high and is proposed to
have two 6 foot tall tubes, vertically stacked on the pole. The antennas will be enclosed in the
tube. The second tube is to accommodate a future user. The overall height of the pole with the
antennas is proposed to be 105 feet (co-locatable towers may exceed the 80 foot height limitation
by 25 feet).
The tubes are proposed to have 1.7 feet diameter and will be painted whit to match the
galvanized monopole which is also proposed to be painted white. The horizontal cross members
wi\l be 1.6 feet in diameter. The base ofthe pole is proposed to be 2.5 feet in diameter.
An equipment cabinet measuring 5' x 5' x 4' is located and enclosed near the base of the tower.
The applicant stated in an attached letter that the Radio Frequency (RF) design criteria required
for this search area originally was 150 feet high to provide optimum coverage, however, due to
the height restriction in the Chanhassen zoning code, the applicant is proposing a 105 foot tower.
US West Wireless
January 10, 2000
Page 3
The tower is located south of the existing church building. There is a residential neighborhood
located 380 feet west of the proposed location, and a second neighborhood located 110 feet south
of the proposed location. There is a tree buffer screening the neighborhood to the south,
however, the views to the west are open. Staff envisioned the tower to be located between the
church building and Highway 7. This location would have provided the least visual impact on
the residential neighborhood. However, the grades on the site drop west of the church which
would mean constructing a taller tower which would require a height variance. Also, the
ordinance prohibits locating towers between a main structure and public right-of-way which
would have required a second variance.
From the submitted plans it does not appear that the applicant is removing any existing
vegetation. To ensure this, staff recommends that protective fencing be installed at the edge of
the trees prior to construction and maintained throughout the development of the tower.
Landscaping will not be able to hide the pole, but could direct the eye away ITom the tower. The
applicant is proposing to plant a total of 10 trees along the north, east, and south sides of the
tower. The species consist of Black Hill Spruce and Arborvitae. The Arborvitae along the east
side should be replace with a Black Hill Spruce. Shrubs should be added. Staff recommends
that the evergreens be staggered and a minimum of 10 feet in height. Access to the tower is
provided via existing driveways.
Staff is recommending the application be approved with conditions.
CTFNFRAT r.ONnTTTONAT TT~F PFRMTT ANn ~TTF PT AN
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a 105 foot monopole "cross designed"
tower for wireless communication services., The City's Zoning Ordinance allows
telecommunication towers and antennas in Residential Districts provided they are on a church
site, park or govemment, school, utility and institutional site. However, the ordinance requires
antennas on church sites to be C"SlmnlJf1S1~tI su: fin SlrC"hitpl'hlr,,1 fPAtnrp. ~1Il"h alii: ~tp~p'P~ nr
h..n tnw..r~;" and subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the City Council. The
"cross design" of the tower meets the letter of the ordinance.
CONnTTTONÂT. TTSE PERMIT
When reviewing a conditional use permit, the city must evaluate the request under the general
issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, which include the following 12 items:
I. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or
general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
u S West Wireless
January 10, 2000
Page 4
Finding: The proposed tower should not endanger the public health, safety or welfare of
the city.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter.
Finding: The proposed use is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and will
comply with city ordinance requirements.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance
with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the
essential character of that area.
Finding: The proposed tower will be designed as a cross and have a galvanized finish
allowing it to comply with city ordinance requirements and is compatible with the character
of the area.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Finding: The proposed tower will not be hazardous to existing or planned neighboring
uses.
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and
schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons
or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
Finding: The proposed development is provided with adequate public services.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Finding: The proposed development will not require excessive public services.
7.
Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of
excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash.
ii
it
Finding: The proposed tower should not create conditions that are detrimental to persons
property or the general welfare of the community.
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or
US West Wireless
January 10, 2000
Page 5
interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Finding: The proposed development will not interfere with traffic circulation.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic
features of major significance.
Finding: The proposed development will not destroy or damage natural, scenic, or historic
features.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Finding: The proposed tower will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
II. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Finding: The proposed development should not depreciate surrounding property values.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
Finding: These standards are as follows:
The City ofChanhassen finds it necessary for the promotion and preservation of the
public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the community that the construction,
location, size, and maintenance of wireless telecommunication facilities be controlled.
Further, the City finds:
a) Towers and antennas have a direct impact on, and a relationship to, the image of the
community;
b) The manner of installation, location, and maintenance of towers and antennas affects
the public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the community;
c) A reasonable opportunity for the establishment of wireless telecommunication must
be provided to serve residential and business needs, and;
d) Uncontrolled and unlimited towers and antennas adversely impact the image and
aesthetics of the community and, thereby, undermine economic value and growth.
The following constitutes our findings:
A 105 foot high "cross designed" tower at this location should not be injurious to
US West Wireless
January 10, 2000
Page 6
In locating a telecommunication antenna, the applicant must demonstrate that the
antenna cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building
within a one half mile search radius. The applicant is requesting approval to erect
a monopole tower because there are no existing structures of adequate height in
this portion of the City. City Code requires new antenna support structures to be
designed to accommodate additional users. Providing opportunities for co-
location is important if the total number oftowers in the city are to be kept to a
minimum.
the nse and enjoyment of surrounding property or substantially diminish property
values, as the proposed tower is over 380 feet ITom the residential neighborhood
to the east and at least 105 feet ITom the property to the south. There is a thick
canopy coverage that runs along the south portion of the site which is a natural
buffer for these homes. Further, the proposed tower should not endanger the
public health or safety if the conditions attached to the permit and building code
requirements are adhered to.
The maximum height of an antenna in the Residential District is 80 feet.
However, the ordinance also states that multi-use towers design to accommodate
more than one user may exceed the height limitations by up to 25 feet. The tower
design consist of two 6 foot high tubes to accommodate the applicants antenna as
well as a future user. To ensure the possibility of co-location in the future, the
applicant must submit a letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her
successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in
writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use, and so long as
there is no negative structural impact upon the tower and there is no disruption to
the service provide. The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of
building permit application showing the height above grade for all potential
mounting positions for co-located antennas and the minimum separation distances
between antennas. A description of the tower's capacity, including the number
and type of antennas that it can accommodate should also be provided.
Accessory structures located with the tower include one equipment cabinet
measuring 5' x 5' x 4' near the base of the tower.
£
,
Staff finds that the applicant has met the general standards for all conditional use
and the design standards for towers.
The tower will be painted white and will contain no artificial lighting or signage.
PARKTNOITNTERTOR rTRrm ATTON
US West Wireless
January 10, 2000
Page 7
Parking lot circulation is straight forward. The existing parking will be used. No additional
parking is proposed and non are required by ordinance.
Ar.r.R!':!':
The existing driveway will be used to access the tower and equipment.
T.ANn!':('APTNC1 ANn TRRR PRR!':FRVATION
From the submitted plans it does not appear that the applicant is removing any existing
vegetation. To insure this, staff recommends that protective fencing be installed at the edge of
the trees prior to construction and maintained throughout the development of the tower.
Landscaping will not be able to hide the pole, but could direct the eye a~ay ITom the tower. The
applicant is proposing to plant a total of 10 trees along the north, east, and south sides of the
tower. The species consist of Black Hill Spruce and Arborvitae. The Arborvitae along the east
side should be replace with a Black Hill Spruce. Shrubs should be added. Staff recommends
that the evergreens be staggered and a minimum of 10 feet in height. Access to the tower is
provided via existing driveways.
T .TC1HTTNC1
Lighting is not shown on the site plan. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and
shall not display strobe lights unless the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state
authority for a particular tower specifically requires such lighting.
STnNAC1R
The applicant has not shown any signage plans. No signage, advertising or identification of any
kind intended to be visible ITom the ground or other structures is permitted, except applicable
warning and equipment information signage required by the manufacturer or by Federal, State, or
local authorities.
C1R AOTNC1/1)R ATNAC1R
Minimum grading is proposed consisting of clearing some brush to locate the tower and
accessory equipment. The grading is insignificant.
COMPLIANCE TABLE - RSF DISTRICT
Ordinance
Proposed
US West Wireless
January 10, 2000
Page 8
Tower Height
125 feet
105 feet
Tower Setback
N-I05' E-I05'
S-105' W-I05'
N-400' E-380'
S-105' W-300'
PI ,Å NNlNc; COMMTS~TON IJPDA TF.
This application appeared before the Planning Commission on September 1,1999. The
application was reviewed and the commission unanimously recommended denial of Conditional
Use Permit #99-3 to allow the construction of a 100 foot tall monopole tower wireless
communication facility for US West Wireless based upon the following:
The zoning ordinance requires antennas on church sites to be camouflaged as an architectural
feature such as steeples or bell towers. The applicant was made aware that they needed to apply
for a variance in order for the City to review the application. The applicant chose to proceed
without a variance application and the Planning Commission denied the application based upon
the fact that the proposal does not meet ordinance requirements.
The applicant submitted a variance application for the city to consider. The variance was
reviewed on October 20, 1999. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance.
The following is a summery of Planning Commission's discussion:
The Planning Commission asked if the tower could be integrated into the Church steeple. Staff
explained that the building is approximately 30 feet tall. The antenna need to be located 102 feet
above the ground. This would translate into a 70+ feet high steeple above the building. The
applicant explained that they did not think it feasible to locate a structure of this type on the
church. In order to maintain the structure and the structural integrity of the church, they would
essentially have to redo the foundation of the church to support such a tall structure so. We did
look at that but we don't think it would also fit with the premise of the church.
· The request does not meet ordinance requirements.
· The variance will produce income for the Church.
· Approving the variance will set a precedent.
· The applicant has not demonstrated compelling reasons why they can not colocate on an
existing structure.
· There are other options that could provide rRvpr"u. The applicant desires to provide
nptimnm .-nVp.rAgp:.
"
US West Wireless
January 10, 2000
Page 9
· The applicant explained that they could potentially provide coverage with two lower towers.
On December 29, 1999, the applicant submitted revised plans that reflect a "cross designed"
monopole.
~TÂFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approve Conditional Use Permit #99-3 and Site Plan to construct a
105 foot tall "cross designed" monopole tower wireless communication facility for U S
West Wireless with the following conditions:
I. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the Arborvitae along the east side replaced with
a Black Hill Spruce. Shrubs shall be added. The evergreens shall be staggered and a
minimum of 10 feet in height.
2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan and conditional use permit agreement and submit
financial guarantees to guarantee the improvements.
3. The tower shall comply requirements in ARTICLE XXX. TOWERS AND ANTENNAS of
the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The tower shall be painted white.
5. There shall be no artificial lighting or signage.
6. The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of building permit application showing
the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas and the
minimum separation distances between antennas. A description of the tower's capacity,
including the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated should also be
provided.
7. The applicant shall install protective fencing at the edge of the trees prior to construction and
shall maintain the fence throughout the development of the tower.."
A TT Ar.HMFNT~
I. Letter ITom applicant dated December 28, 1999.
2. Letter from Dale Thome, PE, Structural Engineer, dated December 27,1999.
3. Letter from Pastor Robert Johnson dated November 29,1999.
4. Search area.
5. Antenna design.
6. Planning Commission minutes dated September I and October 20, 1999.
7. Application.
8. Public hearing notice.
9. Letter rrom Pete and Mary Keller dated October 9, 1999.
10. Letterrrom Del and Wendy Hammond dated October 19,1999.
11. Letter from Gregory HaIm dated August 31, 1999.
12. Letter ITom Bill and Lorna Slott dated December 16, 1999.
13. Computer simulated views ITom surrounding area.
14. Site Plan dated received December 29,1999.
u S West Wireless
January 10, 2000
Page 10
U S WEST Wlrel.... L.L.C.
426 North Fairview Avenue Room 101
St. Paul, MN 55104
..kIf-WEST
Jiles better heni 0
December 28. 1999
City of Chanhassen
Planning Commission Staff
690 City Center Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Narrative for a Conditional Use Permit Cor US West Wireless L.L.C. to construct a lOS' cross design
monopole located at the Holy Cross Lutheran church to provide Personal Communication Services to
the Chanhassen Community.
BrieCOverview oCUS West Wireless Backl!round
US West launched its network in 1998 with 200 sites. In 1999, US West planned an additional 95 sites to
its network based on the need for coverage using fill in sites, capacity sites and planned expansion sites. A
fill-in site is a site that is used to fill in coverage between existing sites located in the network. A capacity
site is one that is used to offload calls from an existing high usage site that can not accommodate additional
calls through that site. An expansion site is one that is used to expand the coverage area of US West's
network. The specific site requested is an expansion site. The site meets all setback and height
requirements specified in Chanhassen's Zoning Code. This will be a constructed to accommodate one
additional communications user as specified in the zoning code.
The Specific ReQuest is to construct the followinl!:
US West's application is to construct a 105' AGL co-locatable, tapered Cross designed monopole
camouflaged as an architectural feature that is consistent with the Holy Cross Lutheran Church property and
the City of Chanhassen's zoning code. The lease area encompasses 30' X 40' to accommodate US West's
equipment and one additional user. The actual pole is 93'AGL and would have (2) two, (6') six foot tall
AcCellerator tubes vertically stacked on the pole. The antennas will be enclosed in the acCellerator tube.
The second aCellerator tube is to accommodate a future user. The overall height with antennas will be 105'
AGL. Each acCellerator tube is I '7" in diameter and will be painted white to match the Galvanized
Monopole which will also be painted white. The base of the pole will be 2' 5" in diameter and will be 1'7"
in diameter at the top of the pole. The horizontal cross members will be I '6" in diameter and also painted
white to match the monopole. US West will landscape the site with Arborvitae and Black Hill Spruce
Trees, which are depicted on the zoning drawings.
Brief Overview of US West's Real Estate ACQuisition Process Cor the specified site:
. Issuance oC a search area: Issued: 11/01/98:
. Coverage Objective was defined:
This site is a planned expansion site of US West's existing network. This site is designed to provide
coverage along the Hwy 7 corridor and the surrounding community and connect to the Merrywood Lane site
located to the West along Highway 7 and the Tonka Bay Water Tower site which currently provides
coverage along Hwy 7 to the East. This site will also connect with the site.located South East to the Chaska
lattice tower located near Hwy 41 and Jonathon Blvd. LN. This site is also planned to connect to the South
West to US West's future site along Hwy 5 in Victoria.
. US West's RF Engineers defined the Specific Search Area: (Approximately 1/4 mile wide by y, mile long, )
U S Ais criteria is based upon the terrain, existing sites, the coverage objective and community objective
O~O
~¡ ¡ I~~!!I3·99 Narrative 1
36USC380
(based on the zoning code) for the search area to connect with the existing sites surrounding the area. Since
issuance of this search ring, two adjacent US West sites have been completed. The completion of these two
sites greatly reduces the flexibility on which locating this site.
. The RF engineers determined the mounting height required to achieve the RF design objective:
The RF design criteria required for this search area originally was ISO' AGL based upon drive test results
and experience with terrain and foliage similar to this area. Although the optimum height is 150' US West
is proposing to construct a 105' AGL due to the height restriction in the Chanhassen zoning code.
. US West RF Engineers defined the Specific Search Area size:
Once a search area was issued, US West's first priority was to identify existing structures in which to
collocate. In this search area, unfortunately there were no co-locatable structures available.
US West pursued the possibility of utilizing the Shorewood Water Tower, but it was disqualified from the
RF engineers for two reasons:
Firstly, 11 is approximately I Yz miles outside of the search area, which would cause a coverage gap along
Highway 7 and would not meet the RF objective for this search area.
Secondly, This site would interfere with the US West's Tonka Bay Water Tower.
· This site was then disqualified as a viable candidate in which US West Wireless could collocate.
Once US West identified that there were no structures to attach US West's antennas, US West detennined
that a ground build site was necessary. US West Real Estate Dept. then met with the City Planner to obtain
the zoning code and zoning map as well as discussing most suitable locations within the search ring.
· US West pursued the Fire Station, but after negative drive test results and the lack of ability to meet the
setback requirements, US West disqualified this site.
· US West disqualified the following sites that did not meet the RF Design criteria or zoning code
requirements:
· Shorewood Water Tower
· Chanhassen Fire Station (located south of Hwy 7 on Minnewashta Parkway.)
· Catheart Park
· Round House Park
· Joan Hallgren's Property
· Minnewashta Regional Park
US West identified Church as the most zone able location that will also meet the RF objective. The Real Estate
coordinator, the RF Engineers & US West Construction team detennined to proceed with the Holy Cross
Lutheran Church.
. US West identified The Holy Cross Lutheran Church which met the RF design criteria as well as the
zoning code. A drive test was then peñormed to determine the site would work based on the height
restriction from the zoning code.
. After the drive test was approved, US West met with the City to verify that the site met all of the zoning
code requirements.. After discussing our results with the City, Chanhassen also agreed that the church
Min286-12-28·99 Narrative
2
property was most compliant site with the zoning code located in the searcb area.
· Once US West identified that the site met aU of the zoning code requirements and RF design Criteria, US
West obtained a lease from the landlord.
· When meeting with the planner April 28, 1999, US West discussed preferred locations with the City of
Cbanbassen to determine the most desired location within the search area.
· Once US West and the City of Cbanbassen determined that this location best fit the City Zoning Code
requirements and US West's Real Estate criteria, RF Design Requirements and Construction
requirements, US West proceeded to zone this location.
The foUowing is a Ust of disqualified locations within the Holy Cross Lutheran Cburcb property:
First Location:
The first location was furthest West in the trees just south of State Hwy 7. There were several construction
issues involved as well as the fact that it would be virtually impossible obtaining a permit from the state to
access from State Hwy, therefore causing US West to access from the church and take down trees all the
way to the site for an access road. It is also not in US West's best interest to take down healthy vegetation
when there may be another site that would meet US West's objectives without destroying several trees.
The second location:
was located northwest of the church but there is a sewer run located there and this location presented
greater impact to the neighboring houses and the future church sanctuary.
The third location:
was located to the Northeast of the church because: it would have greater impact on the surrounding
houses.
Selected Site:
.The Church preferred to place the site in the South West corner, because the Church felt that location had
the least impact on the neighbors and the future sanctuary plans as well as avoiding a conflict with the
existing sewer line. This location is in compliant with the zoning code and does not require any variances.
Whv the Holv Cross Cburcb site was selected:
This location best meets the RF deign criteria. construction and Real Estate Criteria. This parcel is
approximately eight and a half acres and does provide the largest parcel in the indicated search area. The
parcel is atypical from that of other parcels in the Residential District in relation to its size and use, and
more closely confonns to the uses defined in Section 20-1506. The size and use of the parcel were guiding
prerequisites for the selection of the parcel. The size allows for the tower to be setback away from all
adjacent properties, which allows for the impact to the surrounding area to be at a minimum. The Holy
Cross Lutheran church is least impacting site within the search area to the community that best meets the
zoning and RF requirements. US West has a lease agreement in place with the landlord. US West feels this
is the most suitable location for the site.
US West's RF Des;!!:n Obiective & Overview:
. The Holy Cross Lutheran Cburch is an expansion site of US West's existing PCS network
This site is a planned expansion of US West's existing network. The coverage objective of this site is to
Min286-12-28-99 Narrative
3
provide continuous coverage along Highway 7 from US West's collocated site on the Tonka Bay Water
Tower to US West's collocated site in Minnetrista and to provide coverage to the surrounding communities.
This location is crucial to obtain the RF design objective.
. US West has coUocated on four structures in the ChaDhassen area:
The Tonka Bay Water Tower located at: .24200 Smithtown Road.
A monopole located at 4700 Merrywood Lane.
A self support lattice tower in Chaska located at 141 Jonathon Boulevard.
A monopole located at 1455 Park Rd, Chanhassen.
. Why US West's choices a very limited in this search area and why US West has selected the Holy Cross
Lutheran Church:
· Dense Foilage
· Varying Terrain
· A Bend in the Highway will cause connecting coverage to be a difficult objective to achieve.
· Varying from the Holy Cross Lutheran church site will not allow US West to achieve the RF design criteria.
This site must provide coverage West around the bend on Highway 7 in order to connect to US West's site
located in Minnetrista along Merrywood Lane, while providing coverage to US West's Tonka Bay Water
Tower site. Moving the site East or West from Holy Cross Lutheran church could generate gaps in
coverage that would not allow US West to provide continuous in this area. Moving this site either North or
South from the Holy Cross Lutheran Church could also create a gap in coverage.
The dense foliage on mature trees and varying terrain have an adverse effect on the signal propagation.
These factors limit the flexibility of locations in which US West can choose from to provide Wireless
Communication' Services for the Chanhassen Community and surrounding Communities. The Holy Cross
Lutheran Church site provides US West with required coverage while utilizing a tower height less than the
original design height requirement.
. US West performed a drive test on the Fire Station, which failed.
A drive test was perfonned at the Chanhassen Fire Station, but it did not meet US West's RF objective and
would cause interference with the Tonka Bay Water Tower site. This site would also not allow US West to
connect with our Merrywood Lane site located to the west along Hwy 7. This site would also require 3
variances in order to zone this site. US West disqualified this site as a viable ground build location based
on the previous reasons listed. It is US West's goal to select sites which are consistent with the zoning code
of the City.
The Holy Cross Lutheran Church is the least impacting site within the search area to the community and is
the most consistent site with Chanhassen's zoning code. US West has an agreement in place with the
landlord and it meets all of US West's RF Design, Construction and Real Estate Requirements. US West is
requesting that the City of Chanhassen approve US West's application to construct a 105' co-locatable
architectural feature designed as a Cross at the Holy Cross Lutheran Church. We look forward to providing
wireless communication services to the community of Chanhassen.
Min286-12·28-99 Narra~va
4
On behalf of US West Wireless L.L.C., I would like to thank City Stafffor thier help with this site.
David W. Fischer
US West Wireless L.L.c.
Real Estate Consultant
lJtL
Min286-12·28·99 Narrative
5
U 5 WEST Wireless, L.L.C,
426 North Fairview Avenue, Room 101
St. Paul, MN 55104
LI,.WEsr
December 27,1999
Ms. Sharmin AI-Jill, Planner
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: US West site MIN-286, 4215 Highway 7, Chanhassen
Dear Ms. AI-Jill,
I have reviewed the set of drawing prints of the addition and alterations to Holy Cross Lutheran Church of
Minnewashta dated 11/9/82 prepared by Roberts Architects in Minneapolis. The addition is a single story wood
framed structure. The overall plan dimensions are approximately thirty-two feet by forty-eight feet. Four wood
trusses spanning the thirty-two foot dimension support the roof and provide an open space below.
The wood framing cannot withstand the imposed loads and forces by the placement of a structure on the roof to
support US West antennas. Nor can the wood framing be reinforced to provide structural support.
If you have any questions please call my direct line, 612 272-0089.
Sincerely,
f)Øv æ~
Dale R. Thorne, P.E.
Structural Engineer
Minnesota Registration No. 17205
Access2 TM Advanced PCS TM
Paging Services
.CJ~
~,
Holy Cross Lutheran Church
4151 Highway #7
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
612-474-9242
November 29, 1999
US West Wireless L.L.C.
David W. Fischer
426 North Fairview Ave, Room 101
S1. Paul, MN 55104
RE: US West Wireless, L.L.C. Telecommunications Communicator Pole.
David Fischer,
The Holy Cross Lutheran Church has reviewed and accepted the plans regarding US West's
proposal to locate the 105' monopole (overall height), which will be disguised as a cross and
located in the southwest comer of the church property (the original location depicted on the lease
agreement.
Pastor: Rev. Robert D. Johnson
Home: 612-470-6253
..
..
œ
"
.. "
'5 «
1:" 0 'C
J)~ ~ a: ~
~! II) Ë »:ê
.~!. a:~'&a:¡~ ~~"O~ ~
.;-: 0 ...... ¡- .2> ii as..... ð
;~~ ~·~~~e~!3ii~-g~~
~i~ ~ firifiE~f;j~~
p~~7~ u ~/~~~~1r-ìl~m~, ~~~: ~ ,-f~~ -
1-./\1 ' /1 bO -q.,\/I-W: .c '7C" ~ J I·r' r ¡r '\
=~ ~ ~..., ~ L~ ~7 l~ '-
11 Wff ~'I;:: ;¡ ~ ~ ~;;! ~~ 't'1 I" {
""!¡'.' "j ;:¡¡ Tt) L~ - ~~:V ~ ')
r-..._c.:.. F .~ - ~~ Ii (>~ '~µ ,,,::rn;:~ ~
¡ .~ ~ (I'.) ~ "\. -" .Þ' '~~'U""f:. X \ ~
..:::::;(1'.) ~. ~~B rY~:>..
. v J;\ :g I ¡:: ~
! J.- :g ~ "( ~ ~~ ~ ~ . 0 It) - ~ 1~'
i... .~ ..~ Ælë - ~ "-- ~~M ¡;; ~ "~J ~
L§ ~ ~~. ~~=tl7 ~ ,:~~~~ ~ ~ 'j
¡ ( ) m ~¡;; ... ~ -:z J....'-= (I'.) IlJ ~ tJj~ ...
,.'....-4 h..V .s. 0 ~ U ~ -/,. ::> .....-'" ...: (
't5..I'~~.'." CI) .<;:::¡... I.-I f' bO ['0
I 8 ~~'....ª ~ ~ r- tr:\!?fí I :~ ~ \ ~ ;: 'f
j~~=~~~~.f1' .~~_\ ---~ ~1\~~\6/~'\:'~
,¡~ 9- ëï5 ~ ~~ 1,); ~~ ~ ~t
!] H ~ . .J . ~ :~ ~ -5" "7':g:r v ~ \
1....-4 I \ (I'.) ~ 0 ~ 0 I 1.£3
'~ ......~~ ~ ~ ~~ õ ~l\ ( (\ ~
~ ,r--.... '-. .§)~.s£ r; ~
tJ:) ?' r~ .~ ,/<".' "-<I ...... c<j j ¡n ~ ~ f...-'/
~ ~ .~-0-- ~ ~.: l..,. (It)-<
~"J < 8 ....:I.. '-" .s::::
.s:::: U r-"-; (,)
tJ:) ". ~ ;:... ....... ;,¡
"'Q
t1""" It .s::::'
N .~ ~ '--. g
, ~,: ~ 'ì\ --, ~ · ' j
~:J ~ ):, ,,,' ~ ~ ð 1
\:
f-.. :$17,~7\
~ J -
j
~
"
:i
j{
~
( U. :5 'tJE:5r
.' ~
I -
~~~ f\1a\
A
iii !} ~ ~
. .
....
-
....
"""
...,
IJOO
...,
-
>COO
u__._·__..._
B
~ ~
c
~ !
II
Ð
8
;;
~
iii
~
! H
I
!
H
I
Ii!
"'"
"""
.-
7<00
"""
-
TJOO
"""
....
"'"
11 1100
"""
:j
,
I
..., § ~
N
N ~-
74.' to)
~.
,,"I
~-. .,
, -
..)N olri ëñ
,l . ,~ i
. I'!J -
.~CÌ!"" 8 ~
1JI~<f~ ~ UBLN
1Â :g
.~ '"
)~
I ~. '--! I
_. z ='
\ ~\....I w-j
-yr...=rt .
f.-i ~ ~.Ay.
. 0 \
I.DO- ¡...
¡;
-
'"
¡::
:~ ]
f~13 '% ~
"--i 0
i
!
iii
,
,!
c¡
,:
"
~!
f--
J
~
æ
~.
IV
.,
.s
IV
~
I>
:;
¡,1)'\-',Þ'i\',~",
~~\
'\
~"''>~ .~
, . .~
-""-"
""
"
...,
i5
.~
~
:¡j
.--- ~
o'¿',,,,,
~' ""
~
N~_
'"
E
~
~
'.
N
~
c:
IV
]!
GJ
c:
I!!
o
I>
'"
~
.,
>
.~
-
"
.,
:.õ'
o
.,
ë
.,
>
8
õ
IV
W
I>
'''~~"
..
.,
..
<:
.c
"\. ~.¡ ~
1 F' -: ..
~L5 ð\
¡::
~
:g
~
.3
!:!
.¡¡
~
.
~
ÐNIA ,
~
"
~
.~
¿¡¡
!!
...
~
~
........
,..J~EM5",REl.Ess
..
-
I
19" AcCELLerator™
TI
4&Þ
eÞ
48
..
!Kto< 10 Seclor Isoletion
.tmper Cat' ~ Connectors
Lfllning .~ '¡;tion
Electrical
>40 dB
7·16 DIN (female)
Chassis Ground
(Optional air terminal kit)
Single
Dimensons: Height 72 inches (183 em)
Diameter 19 inches (41 em)
Rated Wind Velocity 100 mph (161 kph)
Side Wind Load @100 mph 190 Ibs (845 N)
Weight 150 Ibs (68 kg)
Mounting Hardware '4 ea. 0/. - 10 Bolts
on 12 inch bolt circie
Stacked
144 inches (365.8 em)
19 inches (41 em)
100 mph (161 kph)
380 Ibs (1690 N)
300 tbs (136 kg)
4ea.0/.·1080Ils
on 12 inch boll circle
Fer aU other electrical performance specifications including radiation
lItem data, please refer to the individual antenna data sheet.
-.". -.------. ------ ------------------.-------__ __ _0.___
þJr Terminal Lightning protection kit including 24 in. Air terminal and 20 ft. #4 AWG
--------------.----------. ---___________c9ppe!J)ig~L___________________
Amplifier Housing 16 inch. 0.0. x 24 inch tall canister for housing receive low noise
amplifiers. Can be supplied from the factory with LNAs pre-Installed
and tested.
MOdel Number
f.G-.\oQ'{ 2
Mounting Plate
1!~10.02
16 inch dia. Steel plate with mating hole patterns for AcCELLeralor"'
series antennas. Use to make your own custom mount or monopole
. - - ___m____ - - --- ----- _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _____ __ a~!,,~__ _ __ __. ----_____h_____ _______ ___ __mm_____
Mounting Mast 10 ft. x 4 Y, in. 0.0. Galvanized steel pipe with welded antenna
- ---__h_n_ -- __nh_ -- -. - -- -. -- -- -- ________!"?u~~i~~p~~te:n___nmn____ -.___h_ ____ m_ __h_ _n_ _ _____.
10ft. Mounting mast plus brackets for wall attachment.
'.
-; representative and variations may Occur. Specifications may change without notice due fa continuous product enhancements. Digitized pattern
~ factory or via the web site www,emswireless.com and reflect all updates.
- - - ~-- -.-. -
-·_____u
EMS Wireless
+1(770) 582-0555
Fax +1 (770) 729-0036
263
19" AcCELLerator~
-
1
t':
--
~eM5wIRELESS
r----- ",
\-~~
..~
112 CARl ~ OPENING DETAIL
w..=
C:.7~10
UNe....
Mountina Interface
TOD View
264
EMS Wireless
+1 (770) 582-0555
'I
_.J.
144"
72"
j
j
19"
19"
¡~
;"
"';j
c
Air Terminal
.~
.1
,;;
.:~
~
,~
CO.!
.~
~
... 19N AcCElLerator ,..
- Þ!i'.plifier Hcr....s;r'.]
Mountir.g Mast
Fax +1 (770) 72S< '36
Planning Commission Meeting - September I, 1999
Department. Cross-access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over
the lot.
15. Mylar as-built construction plans of the utility improvements will be required by the City
upon completion of the site improvements.
16. A building permit shall not be issued until the access driveway meets fire code
requirements. The driveway may be constructed with a bituminous and/or Class 5 gravel
section, 20 feet wide which meets a 7 ton per axle design.
17. Staff recommends the applicant consider raising the curb elevation/parking lot grade in the
northwest comer of the site a minimum of one foot.
18. Construction plans for utility extension to the lot ITom Main Street and Grandview Road
shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. All
utilities shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard
specifications and detail plates.
19. The applicant shall provide parking lot and building lighting plan, i.e., light fixture design
and height, location, photometrics, etc. for review and approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REOUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 100 FOOT TALL
MONOPOLE TOWER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGi; : FAMJLY AND LOCATED AT 41S1mGHWAY
7. U.S. WEST WIRELESS IN CONJUNCTION WITH HOLYCROSS LUTHERAN
CHURCH.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Dave Fischer
Peter Keller
Deb Reiff
Robert & Mary Blue
Barry & Giselle Matsui
Loren Witte
Bea Gemlo
Bill & Lorna Slott
Jason Hahn
Pat Yantes
US West Wireless
6760 Country Oaks Road
6750 Country Oaks Road
6770 Country Oaks Road
4170 Hallgren Lane
4101 Glendale Drive
6780 Country Oaks Road
4167 Hallgren Lane
4142 & 4162 Hallgren Lane
4156 Hallgren Lane
13
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
SharmiR Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Any questions for staff at this time?
Kind: Move to open the public hearing.
Joyce: Can I get a second?
Burton: Second.
Joyce: That's quick. Alright this is open for a public, no I can't, I shouldn't allow that. We've
got to get the applicant up here.
Kind: Oh, sorry.
Joyce: You should be sitting here. Withdraw that. We need to talk to the applicant so if the
applicant would like to make a presentation at this time, please step forward and state your name.
Dave Fischer: Good evening Planning Commission, staff and citizens of Chanhassen. My name
is Dave Fischer representing US West Wireless located at 426 North Fairview Avenue, Room
10 I, St. Paul, Minnesota. And I'd like to just give a brief overview of where we arrived at this
location. How we started and kind of the quick A to Z ifI may. US West engineering
department issued the search ring for this location November 1st in 1998 and the coverage
encompasses the following locations centered around Highway 7. And the search ring goes as
far north to Howard Point, east to County Road 41, west as far as Srnithtown Road, and south to
Red Cedar Avenue. On April 28, 1999 I met with the City staff to discuss the possibilities of
locating our facility at the Chanhassen Fire Department. Based on positive feedback ITom the
City to allow us to pursue this location we performed a drive test and based on a couple different
reasons, one being our RF engineering requirements for the height and our objective to locate to
connect our coverage ITom that site to the west in Minnetrista, and also the lack of ability to
achieve our setback requirements being the height of the tower and half the height of the tower
ITom the right-of-way. Being that this was the issue and we could not meet these requirements,
we disqualified this location and pursued further locations to the west to try and meet up with our
other existing site to the west. June 7, 1999 I scheduled a meeting with the Chanhassen staff to
discuss height restrictions, setbacks, zoning restrictions within our search area, and after
reviewing the area, keeping in mind the zoning requirements and our RF engineers objectives, we
determined the Holy Cross Lutheran Church would be the best site that would meet and comply
within the zoning regulations. After several meetings in June with the city staff and talking with
them we determined that we could be permitted through a conditional use permit as long as the
US West comply within the following zoning ordinance guidelines. In Section 20-1503 the
height restrictions up to 80 feet unless we accommodate one other additional user. In Section 20-
1504, that we may exceed the height limitations up to 25 feet. In Section 20-1505, that we
comply with all the setback requirements. Since US West was in compliance with all of the
guidelines as staff had pointed out in the zoning ordinance. US West proceeded with the Holy
Cross Lutheran Church. Understanding that there had been concerns fÌ'om the community
.."
~
"
,
!j
14
Planning Commission Meeting - September I, 1999
surrounding the church, US West decided to hold an open house to address any questions and
concerns of the community. Under Section 20-1506 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance,
towers in residential zoning districts, subsection (c) allowing towers in residential uses for
government, school, utilities and institutional sites. It has been US West's experience with
jurisdictions such as Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnetonka, Woodbury, and many other jurisdictions
that churches are typically defined as institutional sites. Since the City of Chanhassen does not
have a definition of institution and the city staff had not conveyed anything to the contrary, US
West had proceeded with the proposed site at the church under Section 20-1506. Towers in
residentially zoned districts, subsection, as an institutional use, which is very common
throughout the Minneapolis area. When we held this open house, US West notified all residents
within 500 feet of the proposed property to address the following issues. Why US West chose
this location. How it related to our design requirements. The concerns regarding aesthetics and
how this affect property values. Why US West chose this site, the Holy Cross Lutheran Church
is the most sensible location that achieves our objective, yet also complies with all applicable
zoning outlined in the Zoning Ordinance that I stated previously. As well as subsection, as an
institutional use. The location allows us to meet all setback requirements and height
requirements and still achieve our objective in meeting with our site located to the west. One of
the other issues which we understand the concerns ITom the public are regarding property values.
Based on the review of property value studies, including an article in November, 1996 there was
a real estate value impact study conducted in the cities of Stillwater, Golden Valley and New
Hope in 1996 by Rupert and Rupert Associates. And the study concluded, the findings of this
study indicate that all three study areas, there's no measurable difference in the market value and
selling prices between the property in close proximity to the communication towers and those
that are farther away ITom the tower. Therefore it is our conclusion that communication towers
do not have a measurable or identifiable impact on residential values, unquote ITom Scott Rupert,
MAl ill of Rupert and Rupert Associates. On behalf of US West I'm requesting approval of this
application for the CUP be approved for a 100 foot monopole structure to be located at the Holy
Cross Lutheran Church located at 4151 Highway 7, Excelsior. US West makes this request
based on the following criteria. Compliance to Section 20-1506 of towers in the residential
districts. Compliance to Section 20-1505 regarding to setbacks and compliance to the Section
20-1503, Subsection (b)(1) and 1504, Subsection (1), as well as Subsection 2(c) of 1506 of
institutional uses. I would like to thank the City of Chanhassen for their assistance regarding US
West's proposed wireless communication at the church and request approval for this application.
And would be more than happy to answer any questions concerning this.
Joyce: Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? Thank you very much.
Dave Fischer: You bet.
Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Joyce: Okay. This is open for a public hearing. If you'd like to address the commission on this
topic please step forward, state your name and address.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - September I, 1999
I guess I'll volunteer to go first. Good evening. My name's Pete Keller and I live at 6760
Country Oaks Road. I've also served on a commission, local commission and I know it's a long
and huge and often unthanked job so I appreciate your dedication to the community. I'm a stay at
home dad. I do daycare. Have a home based daycare business and look directly at the church's
property. This is the primary view ftom my back yard. I fmd it wonderful that Dave's had the
time to read the ordinance. I can't agree more with Sharmin's conclusions that the tower does
not comply with 20-1506, number 2, section (a) that it quite clearly says that a church site, that it
has to be camouflaged within the steeple or the bell tower. It certainly is open to interpretation
whether a church is an institution or not but because it more specifically outlines a church as a
church, and the rules that apply to it, I think that's what we need to stick with. I also have to
thank Sharmin. It's been a true pleasure in working with her and getting some great feedback in
how the process works. And that if we want to go into the business ofJooking at a variance
request ITom US West, I think at that time it'd be far more appropriate for us to get into the
compatibility and residential neighborhood. How it's going to affect values. We would need to
do things like get a little bit more organized. I mean when I talked to Sharmin about her report I
was inquisitive as to why a lot of the things that we had discussed left out and it's essentially a
moot point. It's not appropriate to address at this time. The ordinance collectively says it's not
right. We need a variance to go into those other things. The other things, you know namely have
a lot of them have been brought up by Dave but I think it'd be interesting to get our experts on
whether there really is a need for this technology and our experts to look at real estate values and
our experts to look at resale and things like that. And also again, at the variance time it would be
interesting to look at things like increased incidents of lightning in the trees that are around there
and how this would negatively affect my business that I run at home with a view of this tower.
Why they really, truly believe that this is the best location considering Minnetrista's about a
stone's throwaway ITom approving a 150 foot tower that's actually less than 2 miles away ITom
this location. And why really specifically should we come to the conclusion after approving
great hardship that the church is the only place that it could be. Why it has to be in clear view of
the neighbors without any screening whatsoever. This is in full view of our homes so I guess in
closing I really don't have a lot more to add except that I very encourage you. 1 understand you
are an advisory commission and I very much encourage you to advise the City Council on the
staff recommendation. Thank you very much.
Joyce: Thank you. Anyone else that would like to address the Planning Commission at this
moment.
Robert Blue: Hi. My name's Robert Blue. I live at 6770 Country Oaks Road. Right next door
to Pete, and as he did point out, this view here is directly west of my house. That tower, 100 feet
tall is approximately I would guess about 300 feet away ITom my house, and there is no
shielding. There is no trees. There's no nothing. It's going to be an eyesore sitting on my deck
and that's why I bought that lot in the first place was for the nice view in the back of that church.
I can't recommend this tower being there at all. Thank you.
Joyce: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - September I, 1999
Deb Reiff: My name is Deb Reiff and I'm on the other side of Pete at 6750 Country Oaks Road.
I have with me a letter that was given to us by the church one week ago when they had their
initial hearings or informational meeting on this. It states in here, if you believe that this tower,
which will be explained to you tonight, is something you can't live with, then neither are we
willing to have the tower built on the property of Holy Cross Lutheran Church. I don't know if
there's any church representatives here tonight but I think that we have 100% representation here
tonight of every house along the back there that will get to enjoy this oversized flag pole view.
And that the advantages to Holy Cross congregation as they listed in here, actually there's only
one and that is the fmancial payment that they would be receiving for this. I guess my feeling is
that churches should be holding fund raisers rather than erecting towers that are going to lower
our property values and just have this site in our back yard. And in criteria number 5, in their
recommendation, it is not true that it would not be, that there would be aesthetic impact because
there will be. The houses to the south have tree cover but as they explained a week ago, come
wintertime that tree cover is gone and these people that have built these nice homes there will
have that huge pole right in their back yard. And we have no tree cover so we can enjoy this
tower all the time ITom our back deck. So I request, I strongly request that this be denied.
Thank you.
Joyce: Thank you. Anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed,
Joyce: Okay, commission.
Sidney: Mr. Chairman...staffreport and appreciate the comments... The zoning ordinance
clearly states the fact that this site...
Joyce: Anyone else like to comment on this?
Conrad: It doesn't meet it so the staff report is appropriate.
Kind: I agree.
Joyce: The only comment I'd make, I mean who was the fellow that used to work for the
Planning Commission that did all the work for us on the.
AI-Jaff: John Rask.
Joyce: He became quite an expert on that. And just a note to US West, I think we really did
some due diligence on monopoles and really looked at our ordinance very, very seriously and did
a lot of research on it. John did a lot of research on it. This doesn't follow the ordinance so I
really don't think I could vote for it. So with that said, could I get a motion please.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - September I, 1999
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of
conditional use permit #99-3 to allow the construction of a 100 foot tall monopole tower wireless
communication facility for US West Wireless based upon the finding in the staff report.
Conrad: Second.
Joyce: Any discussion?
Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of
Conditional Use Permit #99-3 to allow the construction of a 100 foot tall monopole tower
wireless communication facility for US West Wireless based upon the following:
1. The zoning ordinance requires antennas on church sites to be camouflaged as an
architectural feature such as steeples or bell towers.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. unanimously.
Joyce: This topic will come up again in ITont of City Council September 27th. Thank you all for
corning.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE SO FOOT SETBACK
REÒUIREMENT OF THE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR (HC-2) DISTRICT REGULATION
TO PERMIT THE ENCLOSURE OF THE SANITATION DOCK AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EXISTING BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED
lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 8000 AUDUBON ROAD, C.F.
RAGLIN AND PILLSBURY COMPANY,
Public Present:
Name Address
Dennis Wendt
Tom Lind-MacMillen
Dotti Shay
4749 Diane Drive
3311 East 51st Street
7230 Frontier Trail
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Any questions ofstafTI Would the applicant like to make a presentation?
Dennis Wendt: My name is Dennis Wendt. I'm with Setter, Leach & Lindstrom. Basically we
concur with the recommendations the staffhas made and we are willing to look at adding the
additional trees that they want. As far as applying for a building permit, the information that
they're looking for will be part of our contract documents for the city. I have the, a couple
18
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
Burton moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing, The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Closed. Commissioners, any thoughts on this one?
Kind: Sure. I liked the idea of having the daycare but...they would be close to their kids during
the work day. I think that'd be neat. As far as, as long as they're complying with State
regulations. I was surprised to hear about the fence. My gut tells me that the cyclone helps little
feet climb but if that's in compliance, I'll go with that so I'm in agreement with staff's
recommendation.
Peterson: Thank you. Other comments? Hearing none, is there a motion and a second please?
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit #99-4 to allow a daycare center in an lOP District, Children of
Tomorrow to be located on Lot 3, Block I, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as
shown on the plans dated received September 17, 1999, subject to the conditions I through 4 as
shown on the staff report.
Blackowiak: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion?
Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Conditional Use Permit #99-4 to allow a daycare center in an lOP District, Children of
Tomorrow to be located on Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition
as shown on the plans dated received September 17, 1999, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a conditional use permit agreement with the City.
2. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval.
3. Obtain all applicable state, county and city licenses.
4. Show type of fence and landscaping for the outdoor play area.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FREE STANDING MONOPOLE TOWER TO BE
LOCATED ON A CHURCH SITE BETWEEN THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN TO
5
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
CONSTRUCT A 102 FOOT TALL MONOPOLE TOWER WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY FOR US WEST WIRELESS.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Diana & Dave Ferris
Deb Reiff
Mary Blue
Bea GernJo
Scott Hines
Pat Cenluo
Dana A. Nelson
Lorie Reller
Kent & Sue Kollodge
Mike Dalton
Bobbie Headla
JoAnn Hallgren
22891 Forest Ridge Drive
6750 Country Oaks Road
6770 Country Oaks Road
6780 Country Oaks Road
426 No. Fairview Avenue, St. Paul
426 No. Fairview Avenue, St. Paul
3967 Linden Circle
4020 Glendale Drive
6730 Country Oaks Road
4150 Hallgren Lane
6870 Minnewashta Parkway
3921 Maple Shores Drive
Kate Aanenson and Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff.
Kind: Mr. Chairman I have a question. Sharmin on this handout, there's this little box down
here. Is that all that's required? The Stone Creek facility has a building. There's no building
required with this... Were you able to review any drawings of what it would be like...
AI-Jaff: The building is approximately 30 feet tall. To add a 75 foot steeple on top of that, in
our opinion would not, it would have looked disproportionate. We haven't tried to put up a
steeple on the building to see what it would look like.
Kind: For example it wouldn't have to be all steeple. They have like a couple of things. On top
of the church right now. That could be made bigger or more massive...wouldn't have to be all
steeple. I'd like to explore that option. If that would be a possibility.
f
~
Al-Jaff: It might require reconstruction of the church. I have not investigated, no.
Kind: Okay.
Peterson: Other questions?
Burton: Yeah, I have a question Mr. Chairman for the City Attorney. Over the past day or so
I've looked into this a bit and one of the questions I had, well I reviewed a case ITom the 7th
Circuit which had been referred to me by the City Manager and I was wondering about, in that
6
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
case it says nothing in the Telecommunications Act forbids local authorities ITom applying
general and non-discriminating standards in making these decisions. I'm just wondering, that
was the 7th Circuit case. I'm wondering if there's anything different here. In the 8'h Circuit or
Minnesota.
Roger Knutson: I'm not aware of any circuit cases. As far as I know there are no reported 8th
Circuit decisions on it. But just to speak to the subject generally. I mean Telecom Acts require
two things. First, you cannot unreasonably discriminate amongst providers a function to provide
services. And your action, your regulations cannot have the affect of prohibiting the provision of
wireless service. So iffor example they need this location and they can show you that they need
this location, then they're entitled to go with this location if in fact this is the location. They can
demonstrate that that in fact is the case. If that is the case then your local regulations are trumped
by the Telecommunications Act. And you can't discriminate and that's a question offact as to
whether you've allowed the competitors at locations which you would prohibit them ITom
locating at similar locations.
Joyce: But that brings up the question, have we done that?
Roger Knutson: I guess I'm giving to the one on, they needed this site to provide.
Joyce: But my question is do we, have we done a conditional use somewhere else. I don't
remember. Do we have a similar case where it's an RSF area in Chanhassen right now?
AI-Jaff: We have a conditional use permit located in our residential district. The tower is
approximately 130 feet tall. It has, it's the lattice type of tower.
Joyce: Did that come in ITont of us?
AI-Jaff: Yes. However that was, the application was submitted in 1990 and the tower went up
in '91. So it wasn't this planning commission.
Blackowiak: Let me ask you something Sharmin, not only not this planning commission but
prior to Telecommunications Act so that didn't even apply so that's kind of a moot point.
Joyce: What I'm understanding the City Attorney saying, I mean I don't want to get into a
dialogue here but I'm just asking. Are you saying that we can't discriminate against US West if
we already have one of these situations in our city right now.
Roger Knutson: You've allowed, you'll have to be the judge of the facts. I'll be the judge, I'll
ten you what the law is.
Joyce: That's what I'm asking really.
Roger Knutson: If you've allowed a competitor in in residentially zoned property under similar
circumstances, somewhat similar circumstances, then they would have an argument that you are
7
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
discriminating against them. And you'll have to be the judge of whether these situations are
similar.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I do, but the fact that it predates the, not only the
Telecommunications Act but also our city ordinance, does that have any bearing whatsoever?
Roger Knutson: I don't think it has any bearing that it predates the Telecommunications Act.
There are no exceptions in the Telecommunications Act for that sort of thing. I don't know what
the ordinances were substantially similar or different. I don't remember what they were like in
1990. So I can't answer that question. Were they that different in 1990?
Blackowiak: We didn't have one, did we?
Roger Knutson: We had ordinances on towers, sure.
Aanenson: Sure we did.
Al-Jaff: There was a height limitation. The standards would have to be met.
Aanenson: I think our objective was to require more of them in industrial zones off of Highway
5. Highway 7, we allowed them...
Peterson: As I recall we looked at that ordinance...
Aanenson: Right, because we knew we were going to get significant number of them coming
down the road so we wanted to look at spacing and where we would facilitate them going on
sites where we wanted them. Our preference was existing facilities. Again, where there's high
water towers, those sort of things. That's where we wanted to encourage them to look at those
places first. And what were our second choices.
Peterson: Not to split hairs either but this is a PCS tower which is a different kind of
communications system that perhaps. .. big umbrella for the telecommunications. However you
communicate.
Roger Knutson: Yeah, I mean there are analog versus digital versus that. They're all competing.
Kind: Mr. Chairman. Roger, could you talk a little bit about the.. .have the applicant comply
with ordinance. Camouflage it...
Roger Knutson: If it is a reasonable thing to do, obviously some churches are easier to integrate
than others. I mean if you have a massive cathedral for example, you probably wouldn't, I don't
know how high those reach but some of them probably reach up 60, 70, 80 feet. Some higher, I
don't, never measured one. I don't know, there's some of them look huge ITom the ground
anyway. Now that's obviously an easier thing, more feasible thing, at least easier to do. Whether
it's feasible to do it on a church that's 30 feet tall, is that what I heard? About 30 feet tall.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
Whether that is feasible, again that's for you to decide. How feasible, whether that is structurally
possible too. I don't know what these monopoles weigh. Maybe the applicant can address that
issue.
Kind: So it's reasonable for us to expect the applicant.
Roger Knutson: Or explain why they don't think they can.
Peterson: Other questions? Hearing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address
the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please.
Dave Fischer: My name is Dave Fischer representing US West Wireless, Holy Cross Lutheran
Church located at 426 North Fairview Avenue, Room 101, St. Paul, Minnesota. US West
understands that the community has concerns regarding this site location. Located in residential
areas so I'd like to take a few minutes to give a brief summary as to how US West identified this
search area and why it is crucial that this site be located in this location. And I'd like to first give
a little brief background of US West and where we've come to date as far as our system and our
network. US West launched it's network in 1998 with 200 sites. And in 1999 has planned an
additional 95 sites with sites that we call fIll in sites, capacity sites and planned expansion sites.
A fill in site is a site that is filled in between existing sites to fill a gap that we have. A capacity
site is a site to off load another site that is, has existing high usage. An expansion site, which is
the site that we are planning for, is an expansion site, is a site that allows us to expand the
coverage throughout the entire network. And this is an expansion site that we are have planned
for 1999 to be completed in the year end. We initially launched or issued a search ring for this
location November 1st of '98. So we've been working on this for II Yz months. Typically the
time ftame that a search ring is issued to the time ftame it is completed and zoning and a permit
is approved is typically 4 to 6 months. And obviously being that we're II Yz months down the
road, it's very important that we try to get this completed as soon as possible. I'd like to just kind
of explain the site acquisition process so that you're aware of all the work and detail that is
involved in trying to identify a site and why it is important in the location that we're applying for.
Firstly, a coverage objective is to find, the specific coverage 'Objective for this site is to provide
coverage along Highway 7 corridor and the surrounding community. It wil\ connect to the Tonka
Bay water tower that provides us coverage east of Holy Cross Lutheran Church on Highway 7.
Then we also want to connect our site to a site located to the south off of Highway 5 in Chaska
located near the Chaska water tower. And also to connect west on Highway 7 to our site located
along Merrywood Lane. The next thing that we would do is issue a search area. As I mentioned
this was issued November 1st '98. And what they would do, after they issue a search area they
determine an estimated mounting height that would meet our criteria. They base this on existing
terrain, foliage, and existing sites surrounding the network in order to achieve our radio
ftequency design objective. Once the contiguous sites are in place surrounding the location that
we're pursuing the site, the locations that were flexible to move in that search area diminishes as
other sites are always put in place. Another reason why it's difficult to move our location within
that search area. Then what we do is defme a search area. This search area can be defined
anywhere ITom a block radius to a mile radius depending on the terrain, the existing sites and the
coverage objective to achieve our design. Since we have issued this site in November we have
9
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
had two adjacent sites, one to the north. Or one to the south and one to the west of the Holy
Cross Lutheran Church that are now existing sites which is even more critical of why our
movement is limited in the location that we're at. This specific search area is a quarter mile wide
by half a mile long. Once we have identified a search area, what we do is we identify existing
structures to co-locate our antennas on within the search area. As we noted and as staff
mentioned, there were no existing co-locatable structures within our search area. We did identify
the Shorewood water tower but it is a mile and a half outside of our search ring. This would not
work for two reasons. One being that it would for one not meet our objective and being that it's
outside of the search area would cause a gap in the location that we're looking to provide
coverage. Secondly, it would interfere with our next site located on the Tonka Bay water tower.
Thus disallowing ns to achieve our objective. Once we've identified that there's no structures
available, what we will do is determine that the ground build would be the next necessary item to
pursue. Then basically once we've decided that we're pursuing a ground build to construct a
monopole we'd meet with the city planner to identify the zoning code and the zoning map and
identify the zoneable locations that will also comply with our RF design criteria. Once we do
this we'll drive test various locations that may meet our objectives and all the locations that we
have tested that do not meet the objective we would disqualify these sites. Then we would try to
identify sites that meet the RF design criteria that also complies with the zoning code. And after
that we would try and meet with the planners to again discuss the locations that we've looked at
that meet our objective as well as in compliance with the zoning code. Once we've identified a
location that we feel will meet all these criteria we will pursue a lease for the ground space with
the landlord for the site that fits the criteria. Then we would proceed with the location and we
had determined that the Holy Cross was the preferred location and once we had done that we
completed an agreement with the landowner and we identified several locations on that premises.
We first located a site to the northwest that was the furthest away that was in some wooded area
just located south of Highway 7. Unfortunately that was a complicated location due to many
construction issues and the fact that there was not access available ITom State Highway 7. Thus
causing us to have to do an access road parallel to Highway 7 and remove several trees, and we
don't feel that it's in the community's best interest to remove a lot of trees if we can avoid that in
a different location that the landowner would be willing to accept. The second location was just
northwest of the church but there was a sewer run that was in conflict with the location so that
did not work as well. The next location that we looked at was a location that the church
recommended to the southwest comer. And they felt that this would be the least impact on the
neighbors and the future sanctuary plans that they had and avoid conflict with the sewer line
again. After that we had had a neighborhood meet to address any concerns or questions of the
community and asked them about the location. They gave some comment and feedback that they
would prefer to have the location as I have depicted on the easel, behind the church so that it
would be screened. At least the base of the tower would be screened. So to appease the concerns
of the community we decided to move the location and put it behind the church for those reasons.
This parcel is 8 Y. acres and it provides the largest parcel indicated in the search area. It's
atypical ITom other parcels in the residential district and we felt due to the fact that it does
comply with the setbacks and has the least impact within the search area, and the fact that we
have a ground lease with the landlord, that this would best meet our objective and be the most
suitable site for US West in this search area. r d like to thank the city staff for all their help.
ij¡
i'
:~
10
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
This has been an ongoing process for a while and just want to thank for all your help and we'd be
more than happy to answer any questions.
Peterson: Questions of the applicant?
Dave Fischer: And what I would like to do is in greater detail pass this along to my RF engineer
who can greater explain our design to give you more of an idea ITom an RF perspective of how
we came about this site. I'm not an RF engineer myself so I'd kind oflike to hand it over to
Scott Hines with US West. Thank you.
Scott Hines: Good evening Chairman, staff, commissioners. I'd lik~ to thank you for your time
and patience with us tonight. I'd like to kind of show, I met with Sharmin the other day and kind
of explained to her how we came about this site and why this site is crucial to our network
design. So I've brought a map and I think Sharmin has also distributed that to you so if you may.
Kind: We have it but they don't.
Scott Hines: I made copies for the commission but I don't know.
AI-Jaff: I can run.
Scott Hines: Should I continue while we're going? Okay. I'd like to point out that the first thing
that US West has co-located on several sites surrounding this search area. 'We do make it a point
to try to co-locate on structures, existing structures. We have co-located on the Tonka Bay water
tower site, which is located at 24200 Smithtown Road. We have co-located on a site at
Merrywood Lane. There currently is no other carriers on that site but there is tentative
agreements for additional carriers to locate on that site. We have co-located on a self support
lattice tower on Chaska located at 141 Jonathan Boulevard North. And we have located on a site
in Chanhassen at 1455 Park Road. So we do take this very seriously that we try to find an
additional site or structure that we can co-locate on. So make that evident that we're not trying to
stick a tower in just in a residential neighborhood. We're trying to fmd additional areas and then
we pursue a ground built. But I'd like to start, sorry to the community that we haven't provided
them with the map here and obviously I expected this to work. The Tonka Bay water tower
here... very dense and wooded with mature trees. . .pursue an additional site and we don't feel
that's in the best interest of the residents to pursue two sites when we may use one. Ifwe were to
move this site east say to the Chanhassen Fire Station, you'd have a gap further west on Highway
7 and not provide continuous coverage along Highway 7 to make the connection with our site. , ,
Ifwe were to move the site north, it's going to provide even worse coverage along Highway 7 to
the west due to the fact that... To the south there's more terrain... Ifwe move the site too far to
the west we're going to.. . coverage gaps to the east on Highway 7 so it's very difficult being an
engineer to place...right location, as well as to get a zoneable location... We feel that the Holy
Cross Lutheran Church we feel is a site that's in the best interest of the community as a whole to
place a tower. It's not always the best to place a tower but there are no feasible co-locatable
Structures. No parcels in this area that we can place a tower so. We did pursue drive tests on the
Chanhassen Fire Station. The results of those drive tests showed that it did not meet coverage
11
P1anning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
objectives. RF coverage objectives which is why we need the site further to the west, so. We've
also evaluated additional sites with concern ITom the community. We've evaluated sites outside
of our search area, one being Shorewood water tower which is a mile and a half outside of our
search area. Approximately. Mile and a half is a significant distance away for our ITequency and
our base station equipment. Our typical sites, I'm expecting the coverage area of this site to be
approximately a half mile radius so you can see that a mile and a half away just isn't going to cut
it for us. It's going to provide significant gaps in coverage that we'll need additional sites. We
also looked at several parks surrounding the area. These parks we disqualified as well. The
parks, one of them being Round House Park is obviously surrounded by residential community.
Felt that it was not a good choice. It also has terrain issues that will prevent it ITom providing the
coverage that we need. We've looked at Cathcart Park. It has the same issues that Chanhassen
Fire Station does. Where it's too far to the east. It's going to cause coverage gaps to the west
and it's also going to cause interference to our site on Tonka Bay water tower. So we have
evaluated several options and we think this is the best location to place a site to provide optimal
coverage for us and not have to.. . another tower so with that, on behalf of US West Wireless I'd
like to thank the city staff for their help and Planning Commission for taking time to listen to us.
We'll be available to answer further questions of the Planning Commission and staff and the city
as well. Thank you.
Peterson: Other questions of the applicant now?
Burton: I have a question Mr. Chairman. When you were talking about trying to put the tower
on the fire station you stated that it did not meet your coverage objectives. I'm wondering if that
means that the signal, I don't know if there's a signal or how the technology works but does that
mean that it's not as, I guess as good a signal throughout the area as you'd like or that you'd lose,
you'd have a gap in coverage.
Scott Hines: That will mean we'll have a gap in coverage which we'll need to, we would need
an additional site to provide coverage. Also the fire station did, we would need to apply with
three variances for the fire station. Tbe fire station is in a residentially zoned area. We would
have to apply for a variance between a principal structure and right-of-way and also a variance on
setback requirements for the fire station. So the church we are applying with two variances. The
fire station we need to apply with three variances, as well as it would not meet our RF objectives,
Coverage objectives.
Burton: When you say that there's a coverage gap, does that mean if you're driving say west on
7 that you would, and you're using your cellular phone that you would just lose your connection
and be cut oft?
Scott Hines: You would lose the call, yes. You'd drop a call and have to wait until you made it
around the bend here to initiate another call when you were able to pick up a signal ITom our site
on Merrywood Lane.
Burton: And one last question. I assume that you guys reviewed the city ordinances in applying
for your variance and I mean it seems pretty clear that you're required to put it in the church
12
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
structure and I'm wondering if you explored doing that and if you did, why you're not pursuing
that?
Scott Hines: I don't think it is feasible to put a structure of this sort on the church. We would
have to, in order to maintain the structure, the structural integrity of the church, we would have to
redo the foundation essentially to maintain the structural integrity of the church to support such a
tall structure so. We did look at that but we don't think it would also fit with the premise of the
church.
Aanenson: There are two sections of the code that address that too. Our ordinance only allows
15 to 25 feet above the principal structure for an antenna. It's always anticipated these would be
tall and churches that have existing steeples such as St. Hubert's, so it would require another
variance. 15 to 20 feet. That's Section 20-1504 and that's addressed again in Section 1515
where it talks about maximum height above the building roof. Again 15 feet so there's two areas
where we did address that when we anticipated this ordinance.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have a couple questions. Could you explain to me a little bit more
about your search area. What, how do you define search area?
Scott Hines: Search area is defmed, in this case, this was a planned expansion site so this is
defined by market analysis and where we would like to provide coverage to our customers. We
go through a strict process of defining where the search area needs to be. Particularly we need to
take into account where our existing network is. Where we're trying to go and in this case our
existing network ended at Tonka Bay water tower. We were trying to provide coverage to along
Highway 7 to the surrounding communities and make the connection to a site at Merrywood
Lane. Initially we have some flexibility because our sites aren't set in stone. Due to the time
length in this site, we did acquire additional sites, two additional sites surrounding this which
allows us, forces this site to be less flexible as to the location of where we need it to provide
coverage without having the absent coverage.
Blackowiak: Based on the search area you have right now, you've defined there, are you saying
that this is the only location you can be at or it's the optimum? I mean how would you define
this location?
Scott Hines: This location would be the only location we could be at without adding additional
sites.
Blackowiak: So you couldn't for example be across the road without.
Scott Hines: This search.
Blackowiak: I mean that specific? You couldn't move 100 feet this way or 100 feet that way.
You have to be.
13
Blackowiak: Could you move like 500 feet or 1,000 feet? I mean.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
Scott Hines: 100 feet that way doesn't matter but within the search area we need to be,
depending upon what we have with other sites and our drive test results. We do provide drive
test results to see if thi& will work for us. We can move 100 feet here and there. But if you start
talking a half mile here and there, no. We can't do that.
Scott Hines: That depends on the foliage. As you know this area has varying terrain. Ifwe
move, even moving the 150 feet, we've lost 5 feet in terrain. Ifwe moved another 25 feet, we're
going to lose another probably 10 or 15 feet in terrain which means that we're going to need a
taller structure to provide adequate coverage.
Blackowiak: Okay. In our packet we were provided with US West sites which showed all the
existing US West Wireless sites. A couple of future wireless sites and I'm curious where the
other providers such as Spring or you know, where they fall in.
Scott Hines: I can't speak for the other providers. I'm not an engineer for their companies and I
don't know their network. That's typically proprietary information. We don't typically supply
this information. It is proprietary to our company.
Blackowiak: But I mean if you went out and drove around you could certainly find the towers. I
mean they're not, you're not hiding them or anything.
Scott Hines: No, we're not hiding them by any means but I'm saying, I'm not an engineer for
Sprint. I can't speak for where their network is and how their network is designed. They use
completely different equipment than us.
Blackowiak: Because at this point you show seven existing and one future site on the map that
you provided and I'm curious if different companies would have a similar number of sites in the
same area.
Scott Hines: Another PCS provider at our ITequency, similar to ours would. A cellular provider
at, in the 800 or 900 megahertz range would not need as many sites. They would need, we need
about 2 to 3 times the amount of sites that say a cellular provider in the 800 to 900 megahertz
range. Companies such as Sprint would need probably a similar amount but I can't speak on
their behalf. They do use a different equipment manufacturer. A different output power than us
altogether.
Blackowiak: I guess I'm just curious as to what their future sites are and if there are any
opportunities for co-location and if you've explored that at all.
Scott Hines: Weare building this tower as a co-locatable tower so that if another carrier needs
coverage in this area, they can co-locate on this tower.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
Blackowiak: Well I'mjust curious if you've called the other carriers and asked them if they've
got plans in this area so you could co-locate.
Scott Hines: They typically approach us.
Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, and then finally you talked about the structure of the church and you
said that it wasn't structurally feasible to add a tower. Is that just, is it your opinion or have you
talked to a structural engineer and you know for a fact that it's not?
Scott Hines: Our structural engineering department believes, I mean they haven't done a
structural analysis but they do deal with this so they believe that it wouldn't be.
Blackowiak: So it's a guess at this point in time then?
Scott Hines: Without doing structural analysis, they couldn't say defInitely but they do
structural, you know we did speak with a structural engineer and you know he said off the top of
his head, and he is a professional engineer. This wouldn't be feasible to do this.
Blackowiak: Okay. That's his opinion. Okay, great. Thank you.
Peterson: Other questions?
Kind: Chairman I have a question. .. .located on churches, church steeples in other locations?
Because it seems like...
Scott Hines: We have located on several, at least a few other church steeples, yes. Much taller
than one that would be say 30 feet on, or 45 feet on this one. We've located on several that are
closer to 75-80 feet tall.
Kind: Were structural measures taken to?
Scott Hines: These were steeples that were already existing and typically had a stairway going
up so it wasn't the issue of building a steeple on top of them. But we do a structural analysis.
We typically do a structural analysis on every site that we're going to build.
Peterson: Other questions?
Joyce: I have a couple questions. If you had not come to an agreement with Holy Cross
Lutheran Church, would you be looking at some other location in this, be looking more seriously
at the Chanhassen Fire Station? You're talking about optimum coverage and obviously if they
didn't allow you to be on that location, you'd have to look at the optimum coverage because you
wouldn't have that option.
Scott Hines: We would pursue other landowners to fmd another location within our search area,
yes.
15
Joyce: We have a rendition of what this thing is going to look like. Is this what it will look like
with the co-location on it or would there be a difference in appearance?
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
Scott Hines: That is a rendering of what it would look like for only our equipment. We can't say
what it's going to look like for another provider's equipment.
Joyce: Is it going to have more antennas?
Scott Hines: They would obviously need additional antennas. They can't utilize our antennas to
provide service.
Joyce: So what we're showing here is, we're discussing a co-location and if that is successful,
this is going to look a little different than what we have here.
Scott Hines: We're building a co-locatable site yes. If another company needs to co-locate on
this site, it wil1look different.
Joyce: I had one other question and I, oh. I know what it was. As far as the Chanhassen Fire
Station, was the structure tal1 enough to put an antenna on it? I'm not familiar with the location.
Scott Hines: Their structure was not tall enough. We would have had to do a ground build at
that site as wel1.
Joyce: So that would have been a ground build as well?
Scott Hines: Yes. There were no sites in this search area that could be co-located on. We would
have pursued that first.
Joyce: Okay, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: Mr. Chair. Just to back up, you're talking about RF test, drive test. Could you just
briefly explain the process of conducting these tests and how do you extrapolate from your test to
the need for a 102 foot? Do you actually erect?
Scott Hines: We do. We go out to a site that we have a tentative agreement, or a willing
landlord and we either take a crane or we have towers that we can erect and hoist up an antenna
and then we go around and col1ect data on this antenna transmitting to see, just to get an idea of
what we can expect from this. This gives us a very good idea of what height we need in this
area. And each area is different. There's different terrain and foliage and what not so that's.
Sidney: On this site...
16
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
Scott Hines: Yes.
Sidney: And you would not need to build any additional towers?
Scott Hines: We would not be, in this area, no.
Peterson: Other questions?
Burton: Mr. Chairman. Now suppose you did not have a willing landlord here or the site was
otherwise unavailable, you'd still try your best to provide service to that corridor without a gap in
coverage, right?
Scott Hines: We would try to pursue some other means of additional towers or what not to
provide service in this area. Ifwe can't get a tower in this area, unfortunately our customers
would have to suffer...ifwe could but without a tower in this area.
Burton: Well you could put two towers in different places then you'd cover the whole area.
Scott Hines: Yes. But we'd have to...two towers in stead of one.
Burton: Without this site you could provide coverage to the corridor. You'd just have to do it a
different way.
Scott Hines: We would have to build two towers in this area to provide coverage to the corridor.
Peterson: And of similar height in all probability or not?
Scott Hines: Most likely at different heights. It depends on where we would be able to obtain
willing landlords and zoneable areas.
Peterson: Any other questions? Thank you.
Scott Hines: Thank you.
Peterson: May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing please.
Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Kent Kollodge: Good evening. I'm Kent Kollodge. My address is 6730 Country Oaks Road.
My house would abut, or one property over, one yard over abutting this church property. So this
tower would essentially be in my back yard. I strongly oppose this tower and don't support it at
aiL And I can best sum it up by asking who would want this tower, 102 foot tower in their back
17
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
yard. I heard the terminology search area. Well I have a term too that I call a play area. A
family area that, this neighborhood is loaded with kids. We play outside. We're outside all the
time and to look at this tower in our back yard is unreasonable. Heard talk about this being the
ideal area or the search area and again I don't know that the communications act and the law
regarding this but I don't think there's any obligation here to provide the ideal area, and it sounds
like there are other options available and I've heard no talk tonight about what those options are
and they sound like there are several that we haven't heard any study about or any tests about and
I have to believe there are other options. We talked about appeasing the community. A meeting
held at the church. Obviously it appeasing the community would be move it somewhere else.
I've heard of no really severe hardships that would be placed on US West to looking at other
options and moving to other sites. And we have variances for this very reason. I bought a house
in this neighborhood knowing that homes would be built, families would be around, and we have
variances to disallow this very kind of thing. Building big towers in neighborhoods, we said
that's a bad thing so we made laws and we passed ordinances and we said, this isn't what we're
going to do. This isn't what we're about. This is how we are going to govern ourselves. And
now we're asking for variances and what's the point of having variance laws if we just push them
aside and say well it's inconvenient for this company to put it somewhere else. This is optimal.
This is most convenient. Let's put it here. Well it gives our variances, our ordinances, our laws
a very little substance if we're that willing to put them aside. That's all I have to say for now.
Again, I ask that you not approve this and voice again my strong non-support for this request a
variance. Thanks.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mike Dalton: Good evening. My name is Mike Dalton. I live on 4153 Hallgren Lane and as
some of my neighbors who I have not met. I've just moved in several weeks ago and little
disheartening to find that, you know I've heard about it and I've been told that maybe the thing
isn't going to come together. Now it's closer and closer to being a reality but as I sit here tonight
I'm a little more concerned that we may erect this pole which, you know in the big scheme of
metal towers, isn't really all that offensive. But as we co-locate so to speak, they're going to
attach who knows what onto this thing and it just gets uglier and uglier and uglier so. Obviously
I don't want it in my back yard, and it really is in my back yard. I have an idea where this
gentleman lives but I can tell you where I, I mean I could tie a clothes line to this thing but I think
there's a variance for that so. I wouldn't want to have to get into that but the laws are in place to
keep communities looking like communities and not letting big business roll over us and I guess
I don't know the law. I'm not going to pretend to know it but I certainly don't want it in my back
yard. Who does? I don't know how many of you have a pole in your back yard but I'd guess a
percentage is very few, ifnot zero. And I just want to make sure that, you know they've explored
other sites because it doesn't really sound like, you know I guess I would have several questions
for the engineer. You've got a search location so to me a search location means that any spot in
that search location would be an acceptable area. But yet the, you know when they draw these
lines it all seems to meet on the church but I find that doesn't make any sense to me. Why would
you have a search area if the areas located in there were not optimal? Or not even functional.
You know the church steeple, you know if the thing has to go there and that's the direction it's
going, I think there ought to be a more scientific analysis as to can a church withstand it? Does
.¡.~
,,,.
.
~
~
~
!if
~~
18
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
the church want it? Can it be made to increase the beauty of the church? I mean you know if this
thing's going to, if in fact nothing else matters and this thing's going to go there, have we looked
at that option? Have we looked at options further west in the woods? I know that there is a DNR
snowmobile trail there. I don't know what kind of access you need. I don't know how often you
have to be back there. I mean the thing should be self sufficient, I would guess. You know hide
it in the trees somewhere. There just seems like lots of other options other than just sticking it
where there's no trees. It's a, the church is a nice enough building. There's a playground there
but to put this pole there is, goes against every landscaping concept in the book. So I guess I
won't take a lot more time but I certainly wouldn't want it to go in my back yard. I would just
want to make sure that as you folks sit there and decide on this matter that you're thinking of that
but also that you're thinking down the road where this is going to lead and the co-location
worries me even more so I guess I'm glad I came but I'm sort of wish I hadn't because I don't
want to know how it can get any worst. I thought it really couldn't, but it sounds like it could.
But I just think that all options needs to be exhausted before we go ahead and let this thing come
up because I think I haven't heard a good clear argument as to that this is the only place that it
can go. Yet optimal seems to be the word. There's never, it will not work. I don't know, you
know does it happen every time when somebody drives down the road, do you lose coverage
right on that spot? How can 200 feet make a difference? 300 feet. As it consumer who has
several cell phones you know, they go out. Big deal. But that doesn't, you know I don't want a
tower in my yard for it. I can just redial so that's about all I have. I appreciate your time.
Peterson: Anyone else?
Deb Reiff: My name is Deb Reiff. I was here at the original meeting regarding this and I live at
6750 Country Oaks Road which is truly in the back yard of this tower. We would be out on our
deck and be looking at this tall pole ITom our deck which as the other two gentlemen have said,
who wants to go outside and have to look at that. One issue that hasn't been brought up here yet
tonight and I feel is a driving force behind everybody's motive in being here, and that is the
money portion of it. The church is doing it to gain money. US West is doing it to gain in their
customer base and we are here because we don't want to potentially lose money in our property
values. And in doing so I guess my question is, in the search area I have noticed that all locations
that they are talking about as other potential sites are public owned locations and there again I
would like to know what the cost factor is putting it on public property versus the church's
property. If they would have to pay substantially more by erecting this tower on public property
versus the church's property? Does anyone have that answer?
Peterson: No. We don't have the answer for you tonight.
Deb Reiff: You do not have that answer? Because I myself, going past that fire station every day
cannot understand why that would not be a feasible location. And right now we are just putting
our trust in US West as to saying that that is not a good location and I would like a non-partial
party to tell us that that is not a good location because it's so close by. It's right on Highway 7. I
cannot understand how that could be any worse than erecting it in the Holy Cross lot. And the
other thing, money motivated too, is I am somewhat disappointed in this variance process. I
agree with Mr. Kollodge is we have these ordinances for a reason and if, I don't know if it could
19
potentially create a lawsuit for the City of Chanhassen but it kind of throws out the purpose of
having those ordinances in the first place is my feeling if they can do variances out of fear of
paying for it financially because of discrimination and I.would like to know where our rights as
the landowners and people that live in that area are. And so I respectfully request that this not be
passed because it will not be built within the structure of the church. It's a very, very short
church in height, 30 feet, and no matter where they put that pole it's going to stick out like a sore
thumb. Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
Peterson: Anyone else?
Mary Blue: Hi. My name is Mary Blue. I live at 6770 Country Oaks Road. My back yard is in
direct view of the al1eged pole that may be going up and I too wonder why we have ordinances to
maintain the intactness of the neighborhood when in the eyes of asking for a variance it can be
cast aside. Where I see the church gains financial bit out of this, as wel1 as of course US West
does. And for those people who may be driving down Highway 7 using the US West service,
they gain. The rest of us who are there day in, day out, 27 hours a day, who live in the
community. Who moved into the community because of the neighborhood, are put at a
disadvantage because what are our rights? And I don't see that anything has been discussed in
favor of the intactness of the neighborhood and what our rights are there. And I do support the
intactness of the ordinance and would kindly ask that the variance is not approved.
Pete Kel1er: Good evening. My name's Pete Kel1er and I live at 6760 Country Oaks. Right
between Mary and Deb, the last two speakers. I was pleased on September I st when we
unanimously denied the application. It's very obviously that it doesn't meet the ordinance and
when you look at the variance ordinance that they're, the criteria that you have to meet to get
through the ordinance, it doesn't meet that at al1. The main biggest item would be that third
criteria that we're granting it strictly for the income producing pleasure of the landowner. And a
point that I found kind of interesting, and Deb had brought up an interesting point where we need
to look, we should probably look at, before we make any precedent setting moves here, is to
real1y seek the advice of an outside of this circle expert. I'm sure that generally, and I'm not
involved in your affairs of this commission but I'm sure generally it's pretty easy to take an
applicant's word on an issue and be able to look at it and see whether it's going to make common
sense or it's reasonable. Something like this, I'm sure we're al1 the first to admit we're not RF
experts. We don't real1y know every single landlord there. Land owner in that search area and
their opinions on these types of things and it's my belief in the short time that I've been involved
looking into this, I've run across two other areas that, two other landowners. One is in the search
area that of course variances would need to be granted, and others just out of the search area. I
hope they speak up this evening. That are interested in having the tower. If it comes to the
conclusion that after a third party's looked at this, an expert, that truly there is, their search area
is accurate. Holy Cross really is the very best place, I think the only thing that would be
reasonable to do is to locate it in the trees. It's a heavily wooded lot. .. .I've walked through this
many times. It's very...it's comparable elevation. It's very accessible. The DNR spends a good
amount of time and money maintaining a wide trail. It's very derivable. You're going to smack
a few branches as you go in and without a doubt some trees would have to be removed. I have
pictures and I have them with me. I'd be happy to show you of other sites that have very similar
20
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
towers. They take up very, very little space. I'm sure we need a few trees around it removed but
I think they said something like 20 x 30 is what they're looking for and that seems more than
twice the amount of space that needs to be taken out. So I would very much, should we, I don't
want to see it at all and I would love to see if we're going to grant variances, we should do it on
property like at the fire station. That's far more appropriate for this kind of a structure before we
start granting them in a residential community at the church. But should our expert outside of
this realm say that actually, truly that is the only space, we need to do it in the trees. I'm glad that
staffhas asked for the 150 foot setback at least to hide it. We're, the three of us back, we're all
right along here. ..and I think that's the absolute, very, very bare minimum that should be done.
As you are considering this, and I'm sure Roger has briefed you on the Delafield suit, or Scott at
least has given you some information on it. But there was one part that just kept sticking out and
it appears that one of our dilemmas on this is that we feel, that it appears that the City feels
obligated to comply. We don't have an appropriate piece ofIand in the search area that's going
to work with a variance. However their saying that it has to be there. When you look at what
that suit was, the Delafield suit was Air Page was looking to get a tower and the City was saying
no. And on page 6 of that brief it says, and I'll just quickly quote, that this may not mean
however that every municipality must have towers wherever anyone wants to put them. In many
areas, in small communities, I'll just paraphrase a little bit. Small communities that are closely
together, that municipalities abut one another geographically and in many instances they share
public resources. We do not need to decide here how broad the duty is, the duty of any given
municipality entity to ensure the wireless service remains available. Air Page, and we could for
the sake of conversation substitute US West, concedes that it, and it's competitors will be able to
continue providing us service with the existing service network. Again, a paraphrase, albeit
somewhat inferior service compared with what the proposed tower would make possible. And
the City of Del afield's decision to deny the tower doesn't mean that it's an end ofPCS
communications in the Chanhassen area. We therefore do not need to decide whether Delafield,
or Chanhassen, has a duty in it's area to ensure that such a result does not come about. I don't
think we need to, you know we shouldn't feel overly pressured just because they say we have to
do it. There are other options and pieces ofland that are out there that we need to look at before
we just sort of succumb to it but any questions of me? Okay, thank you very much for your time.
Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, is there a. Go ahead.
JoAnn Hallgren: I haven't been to a meeting before on this but I have received the notices
because my name is JoAnn Hallgren. I'm representing myself and Barbara Headla. We own a
piece of land right on Highway 7 that I contacted Mr. Fischer about thinking that, since there was
so much opposition, that it might be a feasible area for this tower. But he says it is not. But I
believe it is in the search area. I'm not real familiar with the boundaries of it but if you know
where the trail is that crosses Highway 7. The property abuts to the west the trail. And it's, the
total property is an acre and a half or so but the useable piece is about 15,000 square feet because
of trail and highway easements. The other thing was that it's wooded. It's not an easy place. It
would have to require a lot of work probably to take down some trees or whatever. I don't know
the elevation but I know I have it at home. I was just wanted to let you know that there are other
areas and Bobbie and I have owned this little piece for many, many years. It was just a cut off
21
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
Peterson: Commissioners, we have a delicate and a.. .issue in front of us that we'll have a hard
time deciding on I assume. Comments. Anybody?
from another larger piece that we had split and we jnst thought it might be a feasible site for
whatever. So anybody have any questions for me? Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Motion and a second to close the public hearing.
Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Burton: I'll take a crack at it. Well I guess the first thing I would do is apply the variance
standards, and I don't think that the applicant meets our variance standards. There are a number
of issues that we look at and one of them is the undue hardship issue. And the focus there is on a
reasonable use and in this area, a church and residences are reasonable uses and the test in my
opinion is not whether a tower can be placed within 500 feet. There's no right to a tower. It's
whether a reasonable use can be made ofthe property and here it clearly can be made, a
reasonable use can be made of the property so there is no undue hardship. The second is the
income potential of the land and as some of the neighbors have mentioned, and I agree with
them, that here the owner is the church, in my opinion is that the purpose of this variance is to
generate income for the church and. .. the focus is on US West. I also agree that the result is the
same. The intent is to increase income for US West. Another factor you look at is the detriment
to the public welfare. And I take the neighbor's comments to heart there. I agree that there's
hardship on the neighbors and in my opinion I guess I agree with them that it's injurious to the
neighborhood and that probably would decrease property values and their use and enjoyment of
their property. Then we also have the Telecommunications Act hanging out there and I guess
there's three real areas of focus there. The first is that we can still apply our own standards, and
as I stated I guess, I don't believe they've met our standards. They're not entitled to a variance.
Another issue is that we can't discriminate and there's no evidence that's been presented to us
that we're discriminating. I don't believe that there are similar situations that exist so, and ITom
what I can tell ITom the record there is no discrimination if we were to deny this application.
And then there's the issue that we cannot deny the utility's ability to provide coverage, and I
don't think we are. If we deny this. There are, they could use other towers. I asked questions of
the applicant directly towards that. They could find other towers. They could use two towers.
They could be shorter towers but they could get the job done with that. So there are other
arrangements which could suffice and I was looking through the ordinance here with Alison and
she pointed out, it seems to be the intention of our ordinance 20-1510 that the applicant should
be required to co-locate wherever possible. And there is no evidence that the applicant here even
tried to co-locate. They seemed to reference that you know the other providers typically call
them. Well, I know there are other providers out there and there may be other towers that they
could use but I don't know that and it didn't seem to me like they made a case that they've tried
to co-locate. So I guess ITom the end here, ifI look at it, if they were applying to be in the church
structure itself and complying with our ordinance I don't think we'd have a choice but to approve
it. But they're not, and I don't, again I don't believe we're denying coverage. Other options may
22
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
be more costly and be more work but that's not a basis by itself to grant the request so I'd be
against it.
Peterson: Thank you. Other comments?
Joyce: Well I guess I could really just echoing what Matt said because that's exactly how I
looked at this process. We've gone through this already with looking at the ordinance. It doesn't
qualifY for our ordinance so I looked at the variance and I don't think they've met those criteria
either as far as, to have a reasonable variance. Then I did exactly what Matt said, looking at the
Telecommunications Act because I think it's kind of a three pronged idea here. And my concern
is, I'm trying to interpret and Roger said to judge it the way, like judges. The way I'm judging it
is that the tower that we had there in 1990 really doesn't qualifY in my eyes as a tower that would
be prejudicial towards having this other tower here. It was before the Telecommunications Act.
It was before our ordinance. The ordinance that we set up as a response to the
Telecommunication Act. So I guess my biggest concern about this is really precedent setting. Is
that if we were to allow this on this piece parcel of land without a structure, then Sprint or
whomever else is out there comes to us and says well, you did it here. We want something now
on this piece of property. So I think this IS a bigger issue really because if we do approve this, it
will come back in our face. That's my feeling. I don't think we're denying them coverage. I
think what they're looking for is optimum, optimal, optimum coverage and I don't think they
have a right to that. I mean they surely have a right to do business but I don't think it's our
position here that we need to make sure that they have absolute coverage for their product. And
if it doesn't meet our ordinances and it doesn't fall under our variance schedule, Ijust don't see
how this can fly. So I'd be against it.
Peterson: Other thoughts or comments.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I'll jump in here. I agree with what the commissioners said before me.
And bottom line in my mind, it does not comply with the ordinance and that's, I have not heard
any compelling reason to grant a variance. I asked specifically about other co-location
opportunities and whether or not they had sought out other carriers and they said well they hadn't
been contacted by those carriers. And to me simply because you haven't been contacted by a
carrier doesn't mean that there aren't either existing or future possible sites that would be
acceptable. So they haven't shown me that they've exhausted all their opportunities.
Specifically Section 20-1510 talks about co-location requirements. Matt brought that up too. I
don't think they've shown that they have gone through and checked through their one-halfrnile
search radius for co-location opportunities and I can't believe just because somebody didn't call
them they can convince me that they've done their due diligence. I also. . . their interested and
have a site available and I think that there are other opportunities that can be explored. They may
require more variances but again that might be just a palatable location for all people concerned.
I don 't think strictly number of variances should be the determining criteria for which location
you choose, Well let's choose the church site. They only have two variances. The fire station
would have three. Doesn't fly with me. I need to hear that it's going to be in a location that
works for a lot of people and I want to hear from US West specifically that they have checked out
23
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20,1999
an other co-location requirements or co-location opportunities and I haven't heard that tonight so
I would be inclined to deny this because it does not comply with our ordinance.
Aanenson: Can I just get a clarification? Are you asking have they tried to fmd someone else to
go with them or have they looked to go on somebody else's. I'm not sure what you're saying.
Blackowiak: If they looked to go on somebodyelse's. I asked specificany with in the map that
they had shown us, if they had sought out the other people in this area, specifically asking if there
were any existing or future sites and they said wen no. That that was proprietary information and
the other companies probably wouldn't just give a map out. My argument is, they should be
calling them and saying do you have an existing or future site planned and they have not
convinced me that they have done that.
Peterson: Kate can I assume you guys have done that?
Aanenson: Yes. Absolutely. That's the number one you do. The first thing. First you check
zoning and you look for co-locations. Absolutely they did that. That's why I'm so confused.
Peterson: But it's not necessarily them but you helped them do that so.
Aanenson: Of course. The map he's showing you is proposed locations. They don't disclose
what other sites they're looking for. That's why I was so confused as to where you were going
with that. Also they, we would never know exactly what the other use is going to be but as soon
as one gets up, it's out on the market. People know that there's an opportunity out there for
another site. Do we know exactly how long and what shape they're going to be? No. We don't
know who the user's going to be but absolutely, they looked for a co-location site.
Blackowiak: Wen I asked the question and he.
Aanenson: I didn't understand the way you asked that and I don't think they did either. What I
heard you say is can you show me where the future sites are. That's the way I heard the question
and he said we don't disclose other sites of what other people are looking for because that's
proprietary. That's the way I heard it too.
Blackowiak: Okay, no. I was asking on the existing and future sites that US West is showing,
do you have comparable information for other carriers?
Aanenson: That are in that area, yes.
ßlackowiak: I did not hear that answer, but that still doesn't change my feeling that they don't
meet our ordinance requirements so.
Peterson: Other questions, comments?
24
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I'll echo fellow commissioners. I agree with everything they said before
and I would add that I would really like to see the applicant, more of the option of camouflaging
this in the structure somehow. Either a bell tower or... In fact I talked with Pastor Bob earlier
today and he likes the idea of, in fact Pastor Bob's here. I see him waving. He likes the idea of a
steeple so I'd like to see that.
Peterson: I guess you're the only one left.
Sidney: Yeah I've been waiting here and thinking because actually I have a different opinion
about this application and I'd first like to thank the neighbors for their comments. Your
participation and input is really important and indeed you get to know your neighbors when you
come to things like this. It's kind of an off shoot of the process. But since the Planning
Commission first reviewed this application I think Roger mentioned that pieces of information
came to light about the Federal mandate for wireless telecommunication systems and although
we've set really high standards I think for types of towers, I'm not sure based on federal act
whether or not as a city can take actions that can impose restrictions on the towers like we're
talking about. And I think based on our ordinances, I'll try and the best job we can with the fed
ex and location of structures and sites. But it really depends on availability of land and the land
uses surrounding towers. And I was listening here and I think part of the problem is maybe the
presentation. I was hoping for a technical proof in terms of data collected and locations and that
type of thing and I do believe US West has done their due diligence in terms of making sure they
selected the best site possible. And I think maybe it was partly maybe a problem that way. So I
think what I'm trying to say is that you now obviously we have a conflict between the city
ordinances and a scheduled mandate which I really don't know too much about but I do believe
and I do think Roger and staff have done a good job on this application and I would follow the
staff's recommendation on this application. I also can appreciate the existence of two towers in
Chanhassen can set a precedence. In fact I do look over a tower myself at Stone Creek. It's not
exactly my back yard but it seems like a necessary part of the community as we grow, though it
may not be as aesthetic. So in summary I guess I reluctantly agree with staff's recommendation
on the process and I hope staff and US West will do the best job possible in screening the tower
and impact to the tower and any future similar structures.
Peterson: Thank you. Tough one. Clearly nobody would want to have a tower in their back
yard. Unfortunately our federal officials have, must have better wisdom than perhaps us here
tonight that says that they can go in. In reality they need to go in. Whether that's progress or not,
I don't know. But we will, if we change sites, there will be other neighbors that will be in raising
the same issues. We face the same thing. Somebody is inevitably going to have that in their
back yard. The only question that I have tonight is have we exhausted the fact that there are no
areas within that zone that have less of a residential impact and I don't have a good feeling about
that tonight. That's my only concern of not approving this. To that end I'm somewhat biased to
get more information to be sure that if we put in two sites versus one, that those towers be lower.
They'd be located in more of an area that's conducive for towers versus the church. I don't like
where it is. The question is, is there a better alternative and that's what I don't know tonight. I
heard US West say that they've looked but I didn't hear a real compelling thing that they've
exhausted all the alternatives and presented alternatives for a secondary or third choice so my
25
concern is that we as a community have to own up to the fact that they will be in our community.
Have to be in somebody's back yard. Those are the tough decisions we have to make too. With
that, is there a motion?
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission deny approval of Variance #99-
17 to allow a ITee standing monopole tower to be located on a church site between the main
structure and public right-of-way to construct a monopole wireless communication facility for
US West.
Joyce: I'll second that.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? My only discussion point to that, I
think if, as I vote to approve that motion.. .approval for that denial on the basis that I'd like to see
other alternatives.
Burton moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission deny approval of Variance
#99-17 to aUow a free standing monopole tower to be located on a church site between the
main structure and public right-of-way to construct a monopole wireless communication
facility for US West Wireless, AU voted in favor, except Sidney who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
Peterson: Comment vote that would be?
Sidney: As stated before. I think staff has done a good study of what's needed.
Peterson: Thank you. Thank you all for coming. .. .Any other things we have to discuss?
Aanenson: We do have one item...we will have one item on the next.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Peterson: May I have a notation of the Minutes of the previous meeting please.
Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 18, 1999
as presented,
B
0;
Kind: Mr. Chairman, do we need to note the Minutes ITom September 15th meeting still? Have
we seen those?
)~
,
Peterson: Don't know. Can't note them if we haven't seen them. Make a note of that.
Kind: Kate?
Aanenson: Yes.
26
. .1 j < ,!
-11.1,· .-..,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
Cß; Ò/MV «..), h~
JIPP1.ICANT: á"s Wt!'5f bA/¿hs ¿f.e. OWNER: 41 ¿~5,¿~;<./t1q,f
ADDRESS: /7¡c, ¡(/ m///A.,w 4.: 'l/H ~I ADDRESS: #57 ø",,¿,¿v1' 7
,/
67--?,.,.J, /14/1/ ??/oS- £XCt?!S¡ðil. ~~53B/
7E1.EPHONE(Daytime) V.,/-C.<;/t.-(...?9~"£/Z~;' I'lW TELEPHONE: ("I 2..- ~?t.r-9Z-¥z.
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit
...2S:.. Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROW1Easements
- InterIm Use Permit - Variance
_ Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit
_ PJanned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Sign Permits .
_ Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign
_ Site PJan Review' ...x.. Escrow for Filing Fees! Attorney Cost" '.
($50 CUP1SPRlVACNARfWAPIMetes \
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
_ Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ ¿¡50 '\
A 1151 ofal1 ro ert owners within 500 f e of the ndarles of h ro ert must be Included with t~
p p y
application.
e t
bou
t ep p y
Buildin,g material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
~wen1y-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, In~luding an 8y." X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
-, Escmw wj]J be required for other applications through the development contract
NDlE - When muhipIe applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
· NOTE - When muttiple applications are processed. the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME ~.ú~ d-I'/r!JksS ¿t..e.
LOCATION
tEGAtDESCRIPTION eM/101- A f j)/o /.ol-~ B/¿. -5"
1-'7J -fay {} "" ".{WÆ ¿""~A/ l)-4/A/A!!1 ,¿ A- &0'
Ñtv/f' ~o-. 55/ y.!,;,,, Ý ÚJ/ d 8/):, ,5"
?;:t::D þ /l2-<)(pj..,ö~ .
PRESENT ZONING ;¡¿St= (~1Jk km/f 2~'¿'1,tH4/ )
REQUESTED ZONING % ;;//oW í)),u'm-Þ j} '" /ó¿>Í"-·.œk ).<U,f'~l'_..I.,.;/"L.
I 7/ ~" '7
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION 'l~ r: .
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 12~F
.'
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and mJst be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer wnh the
Planning Department to determine the specffic ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
'This is to certffy that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements wnh regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party
'whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy ot proof of
ownership (enher copy of Owner's Duplicate Certfficate of Tnle, Abstract of Tnle or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 wID keep myself informed of the deadlines tor submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consutting fees, feasibilny studies, etc. wtth an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed wnh the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
1 a1so understand that after the approval or granting of the permtt, such permns shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property tor which the approvaVpermn is granfed wtthin 120 days wtth the Carver COunty Recorder's
Office and the origin ocument retumed to Cny Hall Records.
,0'>,
g;
~,
~
o
f¡
!i
7/2-I/QC¡
I Date'
\
Signature of Applicant
/~.~~
Signature of Fee Owne
7-:2/-9r
Date
Application Received on
Fee PakI
Receipt No.
, The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff repen Which will be available on Frfday prior to the
lIeellna. If not contacted, a coov ot the rBDOn will bê mAIIÞlI In Ihl> .."""....."'.. ..""..... .
U,S. West Wireless L.L.C. will be holding an Open House
on Wednesday, August 25,1999 from 6:30 to 7:30 p,m.
at Holy Cross Lutheran Church located at
4151 Hwy. 7, Excelsior, MN
The Open House is being held to answer any questions or concerns of the
Chanhassen community regarding the proposed US West Wireless
Communications facility to be located at the Holy Cross Lutheran Church.
We look forward to seeing you there!
David W. Fischer
Real Estate Consultant
US West Wireless L.L.C.
(H) 651-642-6291
PCS 612-998-4784
Smooth Feed Sheets™
Use template for 5160~
',.Y CROSS LUTH CHURCH
:1 HIGHWAY 7
ÞElSIOR, MN 55331
PETE KELLER
6760 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JEROME JOHNSON
3940 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
.ClA ANDERSON
b COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
:EiSIOR, MN 55331
ROBERT & MARY BLUE
6770 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
RICHARD F ST ANGELO
4000 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
'JCE & JENNIfER LINN
1 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
;ELSIOR, MN 55331
PAUL & JACQUELINE BACH
6771 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ROGER KNIGHT
4001 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
'.1 FREEMAN
) COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
,ELSIOR, MN 55331
STEVEN GEMLO
6780 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
GARY R. VOIGT
4010 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
D & FRANCINE BOYCE
COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
ELSIOR, MN 55331
PAUL QUARBERG
6781 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
PATRICK & PATRICIA FAUTH
4011 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
RY & BRIGlD GRATHEN
: COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
ELSIOR, MN 55331
STEPHEN & MARY ALDRITT
3946 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
SCOTT GREFE
4020 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
T KOLLODGE
COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
ELSIOR, MN 55331
MICHAEL KAMMERER
4000 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
PAM & TROY PRINSEN
4040 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
DY BREHMER
COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
ËlSIOR, MN 55331
DAN AMENT
4010 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
LOREN W. WITTE
4101 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
fEN EHLERS
COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
:LSIOR, MN 55331
LANCE RONN
4011 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
DANIEL & BARBARA WISNIEWSKI
4017 HALLGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
~S REIFF
COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
'2lSIOR, MN 55331
JON WITT
3931 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
GARY J. STAFFANSON
4028 HALLGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
Smooth Feed Sheets™
MICHAel & BARBARA ECKERT
4029 HAllGREN COURT
.EXCElSIOR, MN 55331
ZSOlT MULlER
4050 HALLGREN COURT
EXCElSIOR, MN 55331
GEORGE HANKEY
4051 HALLGREN COURT
.EXCElSIOR, MN 55331
ANNE HUEMME
4070 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ROBERT & JILL SCHULZ
4075 HALLGREN LANE
EXCElSIOR, MN 55331
CORRINA & MARK BARTIKOSKI
4099 HALLGREN LANE
EXCElSIOR, MN 55331
FOUR HAHN PROPERTIES LLC
18500 CO RD 6
PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
KATHERINE M. BERGENTHAL
4111 HALLGREN LANE
EXCElSIOR, MN 55331
ESTER & CHRISTOPHER CLANTON
4114. HALLGREN LANE
EXCElSIOR, MN 55331
JO ANN HALLGREN
3921 MAPLE SHORES DRIVE
EXCElSIOR, MN 55331
LISA COLOMINA
4128 HALLGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
WENDY J. HAAS HAMMOND
353 HORNBEAM DR
LONGWOOD, FL 32779
JASON & MIMI HAHN
4142 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
MICHAEL DALTON
4153 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
PATRICK & MARY YANTES
4156 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
WILLIAM F. SLOTT/LORNA L. SLOTT
4167 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
BARRY MATSUI
4170 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JUDITH & GREG HAHN
18500 COUNTY ROAD 6
PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
PAUL & MARY JOHNSTON
4184 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
CATHY & BRENT DAVIS
4010 LESLEE CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
Use template for 51608
BETTY ANN CARLSON
4020 LESLEE CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
VERN ISHAM
4030 LESLEE CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
SCOTT PAULSON
4031 LESLEE CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JODY CARLSON
4041 LESLEE CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
RICHARD JACKSON
4051 LESLEE CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ELIZABETH RAMSEY
4111 PADDOCK LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JAMES HARDY
6600 PIPEWOOD CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
BRUCE HARRIER
6601 PIPEWOOD CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ROY HELLER
6610 PIPEWOOD CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
CHAD & KRIS CHRISTIANS
6611 PIPEWOOD CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
,th Feed Sheets™
"Co 'f & K. FAZIO
'WOOD CURVE
)R, MN 55331
, OSMAN
. '')00 CURVE
---,I" ,,;;J 55331
'.~ARCV
èWOOO CURVE
~. MN 55331
JERG
''''')00 CURVE
,,',:J 55331
'ERSON
JJ CURVE
,¡.~r'J 55331
.~::; ;:¡VORAK
E OAI, LANE
'. IJ,N 55331
~". ::LOPMENT OF MN, INC.
'OUNTY ROAD 0
. lA. MN 55117
..'=S
, VENUE
-'0''13
,>':"'1.':'
,)f,K LANE
. 'I~N 55317
.30N HOMES, INC.
"NE LANE
. 55337
Use template for 5160f)
CHRIS & VAL CARNEY
4149 WHITE OAK LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CRAIG & BETH HALLETT
4165 WHITE OAK LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JAY & SHEILA JOHNSTON
4181 WHITE OAK LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN, INC.
450 EAST COUNTY ROAD D
LITTLE CANADA, MN 55117
,
:~
OCT. 11. 1999 4:11PM US WEST WIRELESS STP
1Ø1Ø?/!P.;J 14:35:8£, 612-937-5739-> 612 642 6942
NO. 733 P.6/7
Pqe 8Ø2
CITY Oil CHANHuII!N
... Cow.TIIt DRIVI
CHANItA....,. "'11
("" 11''''_
DI!IIE~OPMI5NT REVIew APPI.ICATION
APPUCANr:.J<-s ~)es\ \,.)tr~ ~
ADDReSs: 4v... N ';¡::::A«II~-...) 4~1
,Sr: ;p~O. J1.'IN 7>'/0,'-
,
TII.EPHoN&(DlyIlrne)_ t-r/- v"f2...-t, z...,(
0VtWSR: ~.f éJ.Þ$3 L~.øl"'-L
ADDRESS: ~'Y / ¥'o/ 7
£.I"'uÆx..n .M/V 5'S'8ð1
TELEPHONE: I,d 2. - '17'1 -.., 0/ z-
- ~PI,lllArnenclmenl _ TlIIIpo/IIry 8IIet Parmlt
J
..A Condlllollll Ut. ~CHm~ _ VlClllIon or ROW1EInmenle
_ InIItrIm U,,'eniIIt .K V"'I_
I
- Naft.confotmlnD title Pellllll _ Wefllnd AIIIrIUon Pennft
,. ¡
.
_ Planned u~~Þt~/opInøn " _ Zoning AppIeI
, ,
_Atzonlft; - ZonIng OrdInI!lCe Amendm.nt
_ 81 n Ptrmlte
_ 811" PIIIn "-vIeW _ NOIIbIJon Sign
_ Slit P!.n R8'iltw" -L EIICI'CW rot AJne FtlllAllømey eaaro
(110 CUP/BPIWACNARMIAMAllla
III/J BoundI. MOO MIr10r SUB)
~ 8ubcllvlllon' TOTAL FEE' 7$" "
A '''' of In Pl'OlItrlr 011IIII11 ....111100 flat of the bouncfartø or ".. I~ mllll be lneludld WIth thl
~~. . , .
8ullcllllg mMtrllllllmpl.1 mutt be lubmlttecl WIth lite plan n¥IIWI.
"rw.IIIr_ fun lire faIdø 00'" oflll. plln. mUll be lubmltttd,lncIUdIn 11\ .~. X ".. rtduCld COW or
ttln"""$Y'fot,1I1Ch p!aftllMlt. "
.. . .
.. Eaotow WIll... rI_qu'lId tor OIlIer eppllClUon, tllnlugh III. develoPment oonlrlcl
NOTE ·lMIen mu. 'PPIIi:ationl Ire Procetlled.1he Ipprapr 818 fee 'l'1III be chII' td ~ 8ICh IIPJIIIcatlOll.
...........'"--'. ...... .... _~, j.", II.. ."
OCT. 11. 1999 4:11PM US WEST WIRELESS STP
'/87/99 14:35:23 &12-931-5?39-> 612 &4Z f84Z
NO. 733 P.S/7
pa,ge 883
, .
PROJECTNAMI!~~N ~c... ~~ c.~ l......~ ~
LOCATION ,4/., ¿",.Þ5S L .. ¡o,v e4-rrvt-
I.EGAL DEBCRlPT10N I ...,4.. ~ Go ~ ~
:¿; IJ -I- :l m. "(,
TOTALACREAO! 'f!fIl>Y "7/k./¿.>.
YÐLANDB PREtØNT YES ~NO
PRE8ENTZONINQ_{2~~.., I 61..."k. ~\), )
ReQW8TlDZONIHQ \J M~ ...",tJ¿. ~ e.::lA. ~ ~ I.a 1A..r..~le",.
PR&SENTLANDúSEO,EBIGNA110N .. ~~h"," 16t,..,; :P"J,/.'t,..
REQUESTeD wJDIUB~oe810NAT1ON . - . YJ.A...L,I~~ I 4 _ '; '?...J.J~..
R&ASONFORTHfS:REbIJEST kL lA~1iJe.5'" W~$ Lilt ~ Jt> '
W r.(..\l.$~ &..... ~"""'\:,,_ ~jj... wilt k ,,_~ ~Y.1(.....d...~d..J...
Thte IIPPIIcaIion rmIIt ~~~~ kI fullllld be typøWltbn or Glea~ p/IntId IIId ftIUIl b. _lIIpIInltd by IllrIfarmltIon
Ind plan. lICIulrtd ÞY I IpIØ1b18 C~ Ordlnenc:e provIIlon., BeI'OII ftIIn~ 1l1li app/lcltIon, you lhouII:I DOnIer wllh \1111 Pllnnl",
08P1ftm11111O dll8~·II'. lpeclftc ordlnancallld pnIQIdul'Il requlNmenlllPPllolbll to YOlnppllol\to!l.
, I
A detel'llllnllØall of _,,,.... or ilia appUcIIJOn -'1111 be IIIIda within I8n bulln_ lIlY. of appIICIIIon luÞml\tlI. A WI1I\tn
nollCl of I IpIIoItIon dlftclanoll. .hlll be IIII1ItId 10 ilia appIlcent wIIhIn IIn bUIInIII diy' of IÞPRcaIIOn.
. , .
1111111 10 0!I11Itt ~ I am: mlldllll IppIIoIIfon fell' thl dncrlbld IGIIon ~ thl CIty IIId thaI , 1m rtlpDn.IÞII for ~1n8 willi
all CIty '*IUIIHWIn" WIllI, "I IIII ) 1h1l1'll Ul1I. 11111 appIIcIIIoft lhoUId III prooautd In !II)' 111mB Inclllm \hi IIIty whom
thl C~ lhoUIcIæ' .,. IIdIng Iny I!IIIW' Plrtllnlnø IØ "'II IppllCltfor¡. I hIVe atIIahtd I COW of proof of ownll'lhlp
(11thIr copy of ... ÐuPUCIII Clrtlftcelt of TItIt, AbIIlIct of TNe or putdllll 1111_1). or lamlhe 1Ulh0lll1d ItI'tCIJI
to..ø thIIlpp I/I~I !hi fee own.f.... 1110 IIgnId 1111. Ippllcatlon.
I will køp myII1f InJomled or th8 dlldlllll, fell' 1IIbmI..lon of mlllr\ll ind the ~".. of 11111 IppllCllIon. I fUrth.r
undlllWld IhIt ICIdIdoni' ,.. may III chIJVIICI fat OIIIIIIIlUnll fill. ..... .ludlll, lie. wIIh In ...... PIIor 10 lIlY
IUthorIraIIOn to proClHd with Ihll\Udy. TIll documIlllllIId Informlll1øn I hav....... 1..INIIncI'COI1'ICIIO" blat or
!II)' kftewtl. .
TIll ~ IIeI'Ibt not IIea tho IppIICInt It1It dlVllo lll\lllt I'IvIIw DIIInOl III eomplllld within eo dayt dll. 10 pIMe helrIn~
l1IC ulnlllltntlllld ""'C'/ I'IVIIW. TI1erIt'oI't, the ~ \I noII~ Iht IppllClnt Ih8I the cI\Y 'IC IftI In 1IIIIIII1I110 eo day
lldenllon tor '. NVIIW. DevIIopmInt I8VIIW Ih.. III DD~d wIII1IrI t20 If.,. l1li111. 1ddIIID,,1' revllw
10"'''' I by 1111 Ippllcant.
~
-Ie... Cc.e.1
~41104 NwI'1
~.... Se\.1(
\,..... I(l Lrt
..2. I B"I~~.
,
.-!,
~
01",
St¡ nltul'l or f.. own...
0lIl
AppI oItIon AlCllVld OÌI..;. F.. Plld Røpl No.
1111 Ippl/olnt Ihoulcl con,:IICt ItIff for I copy of the IWI report whlDh wi. bllVelt.bIa on Prldq lftor to UlIma'"
If nat contIctld,l copy ii' till ..po" will bl mallld to UIIapplIOl'f' ~d""',
. :
'.
. .j .,4'11 ",I'. ¡I II. i '. i
" ~.t.
."'.ENþ""t:.
OCT. 7.1999 4:24PM
JB/&rr:l';l li:~:86
us WEST WIRElESS STP
612-937-5?39-> 612 642 6942
NO. 677
P.4/S
_...
,
Pare IIIZ
cnvOPCIWIH.~._
110 COUI.'IU MW
ClWWIUN,.. _,
(1tJ) _MIOI
,
DI¥I5LOfIIII!NT REvœw APPUCA11aN
APPucÞ.Nr--Ú.S Ùesï Dt(~~ ewe ""I ð.SJ L~4?~k,,¿
"f'It&8S:~ N ~~iI¡~ ~:!1 ~E8S: ~5"/ ~,,., 7
.!>r:. :;>~¡ /l'fN s--s-~() ~ _ é',JI'~&n Â1,v 55"3.31
'lBLlPHONefDl1_LvS"'/- v"ILt~ z.." TlI.EPHOHs: IÐ/~- yw -ø:¡ YZ-
-'-
- ean,p,.nen.. PIIn AIMndment ,
I - T~...Pwm/
.L
A ConcøIIanIl u..,.",. _ \fICIIIanot~
_ ".".,.. u..,. .ìS.. VIIfInae
' .
- NonoconaI.~ftIrmb - INIIIMII AIfnIan PIrmrt
I
_ PllnnMUIjI~... - ZAI'*'8 ApJIII/
' ,
_ RtzoIIIn8 , - lcIq 0IdnIn0I MlMdIlllnt
_ 8Iøn PIIIIIIII
- 8IJn PIIn RIVIIw - No8ftcdOII8IJn
,
_ ...".. R....,. .JL EIonIw~~eor
(lID ~MMIA."''''''II'
, IIIcf BaII!dI, ICØII MInor 8UB)
-- -....."..
SUlldIvlllon- TOTALFI!I' Z§" .'
~
I
.l
A lilt oIla """"", ...... wIIIIIa 100,.., oIthe IIOIrIMIlrtø of ChI PNP_ mUll ..'nDlu.... with the
",,1'-1Ion. : . , .
i
luNIng mifllllllllllllllllllUlt.. llIIIniIIIN willi I" -1IVIIuiI.
¡
.,........ ,.,8.... _..... DfUlt/JI/InI mUll" IIIbmIIId, /nDIUCIIn III'''· X 11· fllll.c..cllO If Of
-........·for...... ..l1li...... '.
.. ....... WIll........ tor__rci-aon. &IIrougI¡ lilt d.VI~1&1IIIIIIOI
NOTI· WIDn mump e ~Oft'11II proc:'hed, tbe IPP/OPrIIIt fH ~ lItelqad .forlllll....1Ion.
................-+ .....~.... -~I".,J..1..II' .
, OCT. 7.1999 4: 24PM US WEST WIREU:S5 STP
)18I1:f(/~~ 14:35:21 61Z-93?-5739-> 612 64Z 694Z
f'IO.677 P.2/5
Pase ØØ3
PROJECTNAUB: ~N ~c.ø ~ Cr~~ Ø-- rr..L
LOCATION . 4ìy b~$ L_ --., ~
............. ~~~ ~ ~~ A'-~~,.."-- = '
. t11A;¿I-A ~ø ~J..2. 3. S-. -rgi1/,;."i¡A_ ....."'~~:I~
TOTAl.ACR!AGe ","'" 7 /k.~e> .. ~- I.~
\~- "J......
WETlAND8PR!81!NT vee ~NO ~, B"I~
Pft!8ENTZONINca_~~~"\. I .cS¡"JIL ~\}, ) .
REQUesTIDZONItG \J M t ... 'f\c.J¿ ~ ~V\. '1=' ~ .l& IA.....k.1.e...
PRESENTLANDWsq;&toNATION . . <. !)~,~~...; ';p.,..b/.'t.-
REQUEBTlDwJo'. DESIGNATION _ . - . ?1.A..b1~c.. I 4_,; ?..bh <-
REASON FORTHlS:REQIJEST,.J::L IA.~ '1/IÀ.ST" 1.J~.5 LLi1. ~..J ~ '
W (~~~ ~ ~\:--I_~i.k "IlIt - "......~U.1G-""'l:,.oN-.&Li
/ .
Thlll lpI-'1k>o. nuIIt ~~1'OI\'IPIIIId In fuIIllICI be ~ or ar_ prIn Id Ind nut IllIOCOIftPIIIIId ~ II WormIIIDn
II1II pIInI"" Þ'i .....~ CIIt OnIInInce JIfOllllonI. ........~ rou IIIDUId oonflr. lie 1"1In.",.
DtpI/ImI/It 10 dItIiriIIne'the'" ordInIncIlIId llGCldu1ll1lQUlrllMnla I 1 111Q1Þ11IO your I I IØCltIOo..
1 i
A cItWrmInIIIaII 01..... of the ~ IhIII be I!IIdI WIthIn l1li buIInIIt" of '''--M'an IUbmIIIaL A WllIII/I
n. of 1 IpIIaIIIoIt cllIaImcJIa IhIIIIllIIIIIIId to the tpp/IcInt wIhIn l1liII1II111..1 dIy. 0I1 I I1IaIIIan.
. , .
1111111 to,-" 11IIII'1IIIIcq ~IJ\Ion farlhlll..crlll.d ICI\an ~ III Clltllllllllt 1l1li.......II1II far ~Inø ..
III ~ rtqU\IImIIII I WIllI ,......10.. rII UIIt. 1II1I1P\IIICIIIDII1IIDUId III InIc'.lId In rIff""- M>1III1IIItr wIIom
\hi CÞv IhoIIId CICIIttCt ~ " ftIIIIIr ,......1In 10 \till .,pl .. . I..... I\IIIIhId I eapr 01 InIoI of 0WIIII'IIIIp
CI\IIIIr caøv of ~ ~j¡IcItI CIrJftCItt oITIdI, AÞIncI oITIIII or IUIåIIII1 III/IIIIII). or 11/11 the.\IIhaII&td Il1IIOII
/0 mIIra IIdI'P~'l..CI" IIId l1li_ OWIIII' Nt Il1o I/ nad IIIlIappIIoIlIoII.
I wIIlcHp ftIPIIf InfamIed of !he CIIIdIInII far IIIIImiIIIan of 1IIIIIrIIII/ICI\hI prognIR of 1hII çpI'·'rD>\. 1 fuIIhIr
IIIIdIIItInd ... lIICI'danll ,.. ... .. cMged \Dr ODIIIuIUn\I ,.., ".. IIff IIudIH, lID. wIIh III IItImå ll1or 10 .ny
lUIIIutlzlI~ /0 pIDMid wij¡ \he", 'TIll dOC1V'1P11 Md InfannaUon 1 hIVt IU\IrnIIIId _1M MC\'canwct 10... belt of
II¥ 1alW1'" .
The OIlY ,....... nal ftll1II' ..-raeM \\III CI.-··~.118ßt IIV/ew __ III OIIIqI'II.. wIIhIn eo .. clue \0 pubIIo hHl1n8
~ IIId IGIIICY /'1IIIItw. TtIMIn,.. ~ II nollfilnl \hi 'PlllolIIt \hit III .. ........ I" IUIIIIIIIIIa 10 _
IIUnIIaII \Dr ..... ...... 0.. !la~n.1I ..".. I11III111 CIO/IqIIIIICI WINII 120 .. unIIu IIIdIBonII IIVIIW
... WIhIIP IIIcant.
,
_4:i
,
f:
~
. DIll· .
J o,!Jj'l't .
IfpIIGItIon ReoIIved on
.... PIId
--*
TIIII I I\JcI/lt IhOII/cI oolltnt.... rw. ." or lM.taI..... whIDh WIll III ........ IN! PrkÞt prior to the IIIIttIIIf.
If not COIItICt8d, I...., itf lie NPOJt wUlllllUIIId to "" ,ppI\~ ~d"""
, .
'.
.....-
.¡ ...~ .'1. .1111 i ..1 . ..,a
..*END....
,
~~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Request for a Variance
for a 100' Monopole Tower
APPLICANT: U. S. West Wireless
LOCATION: 4151 Hwy. 7
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicants, U.S. West Wireless, in conjunction with Holy Cross Lutheran Church, are requesting
a variance to construct a 100 foot tall monopole tower wireless communication
facility on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 4151 Highway 7.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following st!lPs:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project.
Questions and Comments: If you wanllo see Ihe plans before the meeling, please slop by Cily
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. 10 4:30 p.m., Monday Ihrough Friday. "f you wish 10 lalk 10
someone aboul this project, please contacl Sharmin al937-1900 ex!. 120. If you choose 10
submil written comments, il is helpful 10 have one copy to Ihe departmenl in advance of Ihe meeling.
Staff will provide copies 10 Ihe Commission.
Notice of Ihis public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on Oclober 14, 1999.
figs Roadl I j ~
Smooth Feed Sheets™
Use template for 5160®
fLY CROSS LUTH CHURCH
51 HIGHWAY 7
!CELSIOR, MN 55331
PETE KELLER
6760 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JEROME JOHNSON
3940 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
'ACIA ANDERSON
þo COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
'CELSIOR. MN 55331
ROBERT & MARY BLUE
6770 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
RICHARD F ST ANGELO
4000 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
:UCE & JENNIFER LINN
!J1 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
CELSIOR. MN 55331
PAUL & JACQUELINE BACH
6771 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ROGER KNIGHT
4001 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
1'\1 FREEMAN
j 0 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
'CELSIOR. MN 55331
STEVEN GEMLO
6780 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
GARY R. VOIGT
4010 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
DD & FRANCINE BOYCE
11 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
CELSIOR. MN 55331
PAUL QUARBERG
6781 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331
PATRICK & PATRICIA FAUTH
4011 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
RRY & BRIGID GRATHEN
eo COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
CELSIOR, MN 55331
STEPHEN & MARY ALDRITT
3946 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331
SCOTT GREFE
4020 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
NT KOLLODGE
10 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
:::ELSIOR. MN 55331
MICHAEL KAMMERER
4000 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
PAM & TROY PRINSEN
4040 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
;r
NDY BREHMER
\0 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
:::ELSIOR. MN 55331
DAN AMENT
4010 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
LOREN W. WITTE
4101 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
:oVEN EHLERS
11 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
:::ELSIOR, MN 55331
LANCE RONN
4011 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
DANIEL & BARBARA WISNIEWSKI
4017 HALLGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
w1ES REIFF
¡O COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
~ELSlOR. MN 55331
JON WITT
3931 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
GARY J. STAFFANSON
4028 HALLGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
. =
--
. I. I ~
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
MICHAEl & BARBARA ECKERT
4029 HAlLGREN COURT
EXCElSIOR, MN 55331
ZSOL T MULLER
4050 HALLGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
GEORGE HANKEY
4051 HALLGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ANNE HUEMME
4070 HALLGREN LANE
EXCElSIOR, MN 55331
ROBERT & JILL SCHULZ
4075 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
CORRINA & MARK BARTIKOSKI
4099 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
FOUR HAHN PROPERTIES LLC
18500 CO RD 6
PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
KATHERINE M. BERGENTHAL
4111 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ESTER & CHRISTOPHER CLANTON
4114 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331
JO ANN HALLGREN
3921 MAPLE SHORES DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN .55331
~ ,., ,r-_..,A'I
II.JJ____ ,_,. .,_
LISA COLOMINA
4128 HALLGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
WENDY J. HAAS HAMMOND
353 HORNBEAM DR
LONGWOOD. FL 32779
JASON & MIMI HAHN
4142 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
MICHAEL DALTON
4153 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
PATRICK & MARY YANTES
4156 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
WILLIAM F. SLOTT/LORNA L. SLOTT
4167 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
BARRY MATSUI
4170 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JUDITH & GREG HAHN
18500 COUNTY ROAD 6
PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
PAUL & MARY JOHNSTON
4184 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
CATHY & BRENT DAVIS
4010 LESLEE CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
Use template for 5160@
BETTY ANN CARLSON
4020 LESLEE CURVE
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331
VERN ISHAM
4030 LESLEE CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
SCOTT PAULSON
4031 LESLEE CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JODY CARLSON
4041 LESLEE CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
RICHARD JACKSON
4051 LESLEE CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ELIZABETH RAMSEY
4111 PADDOCK LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JAMES HARDY
6600 PIPEWOOD CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
BRUCE HARRIER
6601 PIPEWOOD CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ROY HELLER
6610 PIPEWOOD CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
CHAD & KRIS CHRISTIANS
6611 PIPEWOOD CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
Smooth Feed Sheets™
!~AHONEY & K. FAZIO
121 PIPEWOOD CURVE
~CELSIOR, MN 55331 .
IlL & JILL OSMAN
.130 PIPEWOOD CURVE
lCELSIOR, MN 55331
Jo. NE 1. MARCY
ß1 PIPEWOOD CURVE
'CELSIOR, MN 55331
"UAM BERG
~o PIPEWOOD CURVE
!CELSIOR, MN 55331
~HARD G ANDERSON
~1 PIPEWOOD CURVE
CELSIOR, MN 55331
¡Y & RONALD DVORAK
31 WHITE OAK LANE
CELSIOR, MN 55331
RITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN, INC.
) EAST COUNTY ROAD D
TLE CANADA, MN 55117
GENCY HOMES
)3 5TH AVENUE
OKA, MN 55303
;HARD STEIN
17 WHITE OAK LANE
ANHASSEN, MN 55317
ANDUANDERSON HOMES. INC.
\ COBBLESTONE LANE
RNSVILLE, MN 55337
-
Use template for 5160@
CHRIS & VAL CARNEY
4149 WHITE OAK LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CRAIG & BETH HALLETT
4165 WHITE OAK LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JAY & SHEILA JOHNSTON
4181 WHITE OAK LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN, INC.
450 EAST COUNTY ROAD D
UTTLE CANADA, MN 55117
,)~,
F:"e't. er J.. Ke I I er
612 470 3951
P..02
Pe"t:", ël1îd ~ary RelJ.er
G?t50 <:.::oun.try C>ct.ks Road
EXcelsior. MN 553311.
( 61_2) 470-395:1..
':)ctober 9, 1999
Citv Counc¡l and
Planninc¡ Commission
City Of C!1anhassen
690 City Center DrNe
Cl1anhassen, MN 55317
l1v Fdlow Residents.
IJS West Wir.;,jess and H0lv C!.'oss Luther·'n Chur.:'¡ have appheti f('r" a
'-'ana:)ce from S'i!cbon 20-1506 irom the city code. The vanance 15
needed bv US West Wireless t(, erect a 100 foot meta! towel:' C'11 the
pro'Penv ':,wnec1 bv Roly Cross Lutheran C!¡UrcrL Ti¡E! propeny l~
,;oned RSF. reSidel~1:i"J t'll'lc>le family and tl¡(, land \'Sf.' is ?Ubb::-S",n¡_
Pub]¡c, I an, ;¡ l!eiqJ¡bc'r co£ tHe propertv to t!le "'ast.
~-JÌ>.? oriC¡H1èIl dDDlica[jon of July 21 was recommended bv FJaHj'¡jna Staff
to !)" d",med and at th", September 1 meetinq è'T the Plal¡mn (¡
(:'~i!'¡m¡SsJOL" and iT was d€·I'ied. The variance appJication was rec"lveci
October 7 and is scheduled for YOUr bodles on O(:toner 20 and
November 8 respectively"
3€'ctiOlJ 20"1506 deals with towers in residennailv 2onE!d dlstric.ts. Pan
two of that section. SUbDart a. sayS If they meet aE othel' cr1tena th8V
ar'? allowec' In "Church Site9. when camollr1aÇled as an -3.rcn:t8cnlraJ
feat.lll"8 s U'~¡1 as steeples or bell towers." This ordinance is wntten
Ò"'~allse these ire", stancJinç¡ t'~wers are €-:{ce'otlOnallv 11n¿,ttTacf1'/", to
":'0,", at and are not all compat.J.ble wlth r8s1del1t131 property. Imacnl1e a
.l0C; foot. Tall Iceta] tower In full 'Ilew on '{<Hlr ne:C¡!lbe,rs pre'Dertv.
.3ectlo!) 2C'''5::: of )ur C1tv Code e':wers geneL';J condirions for qral1tinc ."
v"nan"~" I' ."tates that a vi;riance may be ((.ranted onlv if an 5i>:
:,rite"'ia ar·, n:E>t. ThE> flrST. S€,Cond and si"th c:-itena r",ally do not
'rp!.)lv t,:· t!:is aDµlwatioi! 3nd WOt!ld be m",t. The tlllrd cn'c,'r!,' stc\t.:,~
"That th", purp':>,'.8 of tUe variance 1ô not based l!Pc.n a desire te.
ÜhT8ase U',e vall1"! or income pc'tentlal cf the parcel of lalhi. ,. .;; tL!';-i1~d
t:> tills lHter 15 a copv of a letter from Pastor Robert D. 301111son >:>f
Ec-lv Cross Lutheran Church. Many cop~es uf the Jetr.(,r wert' ldt C'l¡r
tç, be picked UP bv al1Von", att",n din ,r the 0P>;oll house US W",St Wlrelc's~
,me! Ho;" Cro".s i.lltheran church ptlt or;¡ at The church ':-:1 August ~5.
1'11", letter verv clearlv mdlCates that th", 0111V rease-Ii tlJis vanance IS
neE!ded '5 " d'2sire to mcrease the mCOffi¡; t)ote¡~tial of rhe parcel of
ii111d. ThE- 'C011C·€!JJt of E. V;¡nance for a commercial ¡¡¡come producJ1Jcr
"","'lice '11 a H'siàential dis1:rlct needs to be ccnsider'ed as wen. 1'h~
"'lrcl ('1'1t"·:I·a 15 not met se' ~ variance should not be (¡ranted.
Page i of 3
Pe<t.e.... J. Kelle....
612 470 3'951
P.03
T ne faun}, crIteria states "T11at the alleaed diffictlltv or J1a1'dsl1i'o is not
'" seH-crea1ed l1ardshlP." The need for "chis tower 11as b",en entirelY
created bv US West wirelebs. It lS onlv US West wjr:eless that believes
a need exists. The onlY twc' other entities that have qone on record on
U,e malter: are Holy Cross Lutheran Church and it's neiqhbors.
Throuqh the attached letter and preVlOUS teshmony at the Planninc¡
cof(tnussion on SB-pternber 1. neIther one bl:?lieves a need for. thl;: sl2Tvice
,,;Üsts. The fourth criteria lS not met so a variance should not. b8
granted.
The fifth criteria states "That t11e granting of ~he variance will not b8
d,,,trimental to the public welfare or iniunous to other land or
improvements in the neie¡hbc,rhood in which the parcel ç¡f land is
Ic-cated." There ar.. many studies that c'Jnclude that a tower Lke this
is det'rhnental to nele¡hborina Droperty valu""s, I have even he<o1'6 a
rumor of one studv that concluded a tower Uk", this will increase or not
change nei'..rhborinq propertv values. CQmmon sense needs t.o prevail.
The area wi,ere the towa" lS ]Ot'oµosed 13 curr'ently wild Cfrass and
f¡owers backed UP by SO foot trees. Clearly. a 100 foot ¡netal tow",r
and the rnE,tai eqlllpmen'C b'ôxes all ii, fun. lmscreened view of the
neighbors IS not. as desirable. Reµresentatives' from both US West
Wireless and Holy Cross Lt:therall Churdl have admitted it is "uglv"
and that it might haem pruµ¿,rty values. The fifth criteria is lK't. m8t
so a variance: s110uld not be Çlranted.
On i)e1,alf ,)f manY neiqhbors who mav not have the ability to drop thele
entir8 hi8 ~nd tr:v tc, become :"nowledCfe~ble on completdv foreion
matt.ers Ilk8 this, I ~sk VOlll: telp in keepina our wonderful neiqhbor:
nood i·ùst. that. wond8rful. please do not errant tins vanance for the
man v reasons st.ated above.
I am a st.av at home dad a'ld also opel'ate a ',¡et'v limited day car8
EBrvice for çJther children.. The:cefore. I am bv nature a patient n1ê\I'l
and a ?rl~blem solver "il'¡hü~ empathizes with us \'vest wireless's percieved
Iì8ed. Should US West Wit'eless. in tlle future. demonstr'ate that thev
need a tower fc-r their cOllUU8rclal servlc8. th.;>t'e are ample oth8r sites
well wit.hin the one mile radius of Holv CrOSS Lutheran Church that th"
Se¡)t"'laber 1 Staff Report calls fot'. some of them include the fire
sLation. the sewer lift station, Cathcart park hockey rink ¡¡qht towen
dnd cÙ", w?ter tow8r at Minnewashta Elementary school. Holy CrOSS
¡.ut!1eran Church 15 not t.he only site that couid meet us West WireJ8ss
F. F obiective. it is lust the site th8v mlsï:akenly tllOuerht be th8 eaSlest
t,) acquire. The tower and antenna sections of the city code 8ncc>uraQe
tIus type (,£ structure away from residential areas and to rather locate
then1 on public or commercial land. should a variance still be needed,
it would tlien b8 m a r:.on-residential area and have siçnüflcantlv less of
C! n",qaUve i1tipact on that site's surrounding neighborhood.
:t 1ll>C111t 0'" t.im8 'to be a little more pro-active in helpinCf US W..st
Wireless retam a sitE: on t;.,e all1ple µublic land that is available"
Tl1an);s for yotlt' tlJne and conslderation. From son~eone who has served
.)n é\ city commission, I know the iob is lone¡ and often not than "ed. S('
t11ank vou fvr your dedication to your comnnl1llty. please do not
page? of 3
·3
Pet eo... J. Keo I Ie...
612 470 3951
P.04
hesitate to contact me jf I can be of any fUrther assistance wIth tbis
Important matter.
ÏiÞ/Æ
Pet",r Keller
Attachment
cc: Sharmin AI-Jaff
Page 3 of 3
Pet er J.. K_ I I er
612 470 3951
P.05
. tõ{Vi' ~f+9
Friends &. Nal¡hbors olHol)' Croll Lulh«an
41S1 HI¡hwa)' 1/7
Exealslor, MN "331
Oaar Friands,
As you coma to tha cburch tonig lt to hava a mRtlng wilh rapruenlalives of US WEST, wa would llka to
have you understalld our position.
Or1¡1aaU)', l1S WEST came to III with a request to buUd a commualcatlonl tower to Improve
ceUular phona ..rvlea for aU ollis. We, the Church COuncil of Holy Croll. Ilstenad to thalr proposal
and agROd to have them move ahead with uamJnIDg the possibility of this proposal baing dona, a part of
which Is the public hearing )'ou are 1IItImdIns. this evcnIn&.
Advantages to Holy Cross conaregatlon'l Actuallv the.... I. ontv one and that I. the financial navmant we
will receive ,from US West .hðutd the tower to builL
Such flnancea would help US iJDprove the property (Soma of which we have already done by providing
play ground equipmw. ratùrblsbing tha T~ I..ean1Ing Facility, building a playlplcnic orca In tha
rear of the church (presently In progress), kacplng tho prÎ1perty mowed, and RCOJlJltrllCtlng tho play......
Il1UDC:diatoly outsido of the Tunaraok lAuDing Center). At th1s point thoso repairs and the upgrading oftha
proparty have cost UI In excess of $10,000.
Wa wish to ba good neighbors to you., and have tried to reach out to you the community, m8ltlng the
property usabla for all, members Holy Cross and commWlÌty members, who not members. .
US ~T desires to 'provlda III all bettef ceilUiar phone service. Technology, as we unilerstand It,
requires thosa towus to ba placad somewhere. If you as noIgIIbors are wUllD¡. we have tho $p&CO to do
that. ¡fyou ballave that this tower, which will ba explained to you tonlg lt, Î$lomathing you can't live
with, than neither are \Va willing to have tha towar buDt on tha property of Holy Cross Lutheran Church.
Pete Kaller, one of our nelpbon called me, Pastor Øob, to inquire ahout the possibility of our
Involvement In the Nel&bborhood Watch Program·yolI are begiDIIlDg In the nalghborhood. 'Wa have
oftan called tha Sheriff'1 [)apartment ragardlng the imsponslble use of our property by snowmobilers, two
wheelers, four wheelers, and evan unauthori7<ed çan,. driving on the property. We have had to put up
snow fencea naar the Tunarack play orca so that snowmobiles would not crash Into the little ones attanding
the Tamarack School, whUe they were playiD& In the snow.
i~
<;;
¡fi
We would assure you that in any way we can, we would join the Neighborhood Watch Program and help
as we are able. 1 un good tiiands with one of the CaptaidoftheSheriff'1 [)apartment for Carver County,
and would be happy to work with tha nais/lbOrhood In nWdng certain IrrespOnslbla use of the property
does not happeD. Please don't hesitato call1De Pastor Bob at 474-9242 If you have thought about our
Involvemant with tha propolad Neighborhood Watch Program.
-.:,;;
OCT-20-99 03:35 AM
P~01
Del Hammond
Wendy Hammond
1870 Troø/c PIT~ 0...
Ilnford. 1'1011.1 :12773
(407) 321·71"
October 19. 1999
Chanhassen Planning & Zoning Commiaalon
690 CltyCenlBr Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota
RE: U.S. Welt WIntr_
Request for Variance
For a 100' Monopole Tower
Attention: Members of the Planning Commission
Please be aclvised Ihat we sI1enuously object to the Commission glëlnuns U.S, West Wireless 1he
above-reftnnced var1ance.
We purchased Lot 5, Block 1 in Osk Ridgs of Leks Minneweahta In 199B with the Inlent to
buUd and relocate our femily from Fronda to Minnesota In the yesr 2000.
If the referenced vanance Is glëlnteCI and a lower constructed. it will decrease property values
considerably not to menllon the hazardous risks inherent In lowers of thia type.
If permission Is grantecl, we wish to alate for the record that we will not be building our new
home and will seek al/ legel remedIes available to us to overtum the vaI1ance and to oblein any and al/
damaglS incUrred.
~\-\;~
~-:~~~~
Wendy Hammond
Oak RIdge Lot 5. Block 1 Lake Mlnnewashta
_ ~31/1r ~IVED
~~~. S?f"011999
r~' -, - --, ¡r- ~'-, CITY OF CH"',~HASSEN
~,.e.u..~1?t/~ ~ ~
~~Mz.. ~¿tr.&~. ..,¡ ~
~~~~~~ð¿iZM.1
;¡;:h ~ ~ ~ t:U-' /)td- ~ tJ1 ~
~,~~Z:/M~~~
;ti~~ ~.M-~aM~
;¡¡ ~~,ztJ. AU4ff~. ..(~ ~
nr-¿1-~ ~Ý"'~~~~
~ .j ~;t,~ ~ 4rl1 Á.:t4e
~ ~b() ~
dtfU?t~~~~~
~ Á~",.1JJ 16 ~.v -.
~~~~~~a.~
~.
..t~~~~~~
.t:::kt ~ X ~ .t<r;t:/t.R. ~, tL.;'. ~
w...:u.lp-<.I- ~ ,u4/ 44-- ~ .
";'.þd~~~b-~~
~~~ø~~~:t:lû.
~ .:.....- ~ ~ .¿~ rr.~. '=1-~...:-.v
;t;/t¿ ~ ~/>I.¡u-t Ä ~ ~ .L ~
~Ml/~~~ð1,th~~
~~. -;Oú-P~+4J-
a--~~44Ø~r~
~~. .:t~ ~ ~ uJ1.<.¡ ;Z;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,k44<-..-jð-~
;t> ~ tW ~ ~~. J~) ¿U.-
a.. ~ ~ I :th a ~ ú. J.. wø Á..-
~AA~-;£;4 .. ~
~~ÀIÞ .
~. .Jé ~ tV ~l'llJa.,. ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D/ 'Mh'JJ'1.ð.V:'
~j
r."
~ ~.:J4 ;./orjAl .MV þAU:. y'~D !
44. tQUl..u- ~ ~ ~
aLe... 4Hu. ~ "¿'_Ul.fI.-- ~ ~ ~ ~
~.
d~1~~~~~
aJ:l;i.uj ~~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~. W..L a4.L.. """ ~
~...A.i.u. ~~ 4 ~~
~ålIß......~~. 'U'.e.- dç ~
~ ¿t...-~ ~;aa~ ~~Iun
~~(ð(:. &ç~~;t¡~~
~~~':'-""Jk~1-
~~,l:k.~, .;t~;-.- ~ ~
~µv~~;tj~~
~ ~ ~ ~.4~f~ ~ ZÆ4~_
~~, ¿L:;;.vJ~ ~;tb/lClUtl.~
~1t~,4~~~)~
~~~~;t;~~
~ 1 ;z;ú ~ ~ iL, 5.1./J¿.¿f vJ~ ~
~/ttd~ zit¿ ~ ~ ~ M..
,41;p ~~~~.Að~;J/~,
W-Æ-a4-' ~~~~~
~~~~~
~ W..tL-~~z~~
~P/~~~~..4
~~~,l-()¿~~
AAU€ ~ ~.b,dA4. ;t:M ~ ~,.4/llbð<..iz.t
ðf~t.V~~~dc9~
--</fed, ~/~ ~ 'p-/~~. ~
~~H¿ ðtU/~.
.../¡~åA.-~ ~~f1¿<ßL~
~ ~, ,Zh~~fflM.e.
~A-?UI~~
~. ~
Q
Q)
)bu-~ .¿ ~ ~ fl.c- ~
~t ,/~uþ~~~
~Zh~/~-J~
;tk ~ a::t p;.;.. ~ .
~rf91~~
~ ;ti ~ d~T ./4 &i ~ i,t1e.D !
~~
,".);i
!!!pelhardt. Karen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Engelhardt, Karen
Thursday, December 16, 19993:55 PM
'bills@chartie.sfmic.com'
RE: US West communications tower
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Slott: Thank you for your email. I am forwarding your
conunents to Kate Aanenson, our Community Development Director. She is
off today, but will be back tomorrow. Typically all comments received
are included in the report packet that is submitted to the Planning
Commission and/or Council.
Karen Engelhardt
Office Manager
-----Original Message--___
From: bills@charlie.sfmic.com Cmailto:bills@charlie.sfmic.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 8:13 AM
To: choffmgr@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Subject: US West communications tower
We are sending this message to voice our concerns over the
conununications
tower which US West seeks to locate on the Holy Cross Lutheran Church
property in Excelsior. We are Bill and Lorna Slott and live at 4167
Hallgren
Lane. Our property borders the church's property on the southwest
corner.
We've been watching these proceedings closely and are concerned about
the
proposed communications tower for many reasons. We chose the Oak Ridge
development for our new home because it offered a secluded, wooded and
natural setting. A setting that is difficult to find these days as the
suburbs expand. We liked the idea of being in the Excelsior and
Chanhassen
areas which offer a small-town feel but are near the city. We feel now
that
all of this and'much more is being threatened by US West's attempts to
erect
this communications tower.
Ironically, we looked at our lot and, seeing it was behind a church,
thought
it was an ideal location. We realized the church could expand someday
but we
thought we wouldn't have to worry about other development that could
threaten
the beauty of the natural wooded area behind Our home and impact the
value of
our property. Now, we find ourselves worrying about that very thing.
We know that all US West proposals to date have been rejected by the
Planning
Commission and we applaud the Commission's decisions on this issue. We
also
understand that US West and Holy Cross Church have submitted a new
proposal
involving erecting a steel steeple to conceal or camouflage the
communications
tower. We see this most recent proposal as just a desperate attempt to
get
1
~
/~/
'~v0 ~~~
¡vV ¡)J\i
Ü-0
jyv~
around a city ordinance that explicitly prohibits such a structure.
please
consider what might have been discussed if the church had come to the
city on
it'S own and asked to build a ~OO foot steeple. When we picture this
small,
quaint little church with a ~OO foot steeple and it seems a bit
ridiculous.
We are obviously not in support of the tower and this new proposal is
even
less appealing.
We would ask that the city Council consider two other things at the
January ~O,
2000 meeting. First, from the beginning Holy Cross Church has said that
if
they heard that their neighbors were opposed to this they would drop the
issue.
Well, several of these property owners and others in the neighborhood
have
openly voiced their opposition at different meetings and with letters to
the
church. And yet, here we are still discussing the issue. We question
whether
the church's interests have shifted from what's good for the
neighborhood to
one of financial gain. Second, US West admitted in the first planning
meeting
that they have approval for a tower in St. Bonifacious. We question
whether
the Holy CrosS site is ideal only because the St. Boni site depends on
it.
Were it not for the site further west, we believe US West could be
considering
other sites in the area besides the Holy Cross site.
We sincerly thank you for reading this message and appreciate the City'
Council's time and effort on this matter.
Thank you,
Bill and Lorna Slott
2
-.-.~--.-...
""
OWL ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC.
C8IISII.11INI caIlMIIIIICATIfIIS__
- tm U8OIIAT8IIIES
I1899If1111aþ II. u~·- I 1Iu.......
I11 7IW115 . f. /112171&41
1"717-133
February 24, 2000
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Reference: US West PCS Study
Dear Ms. Kate Aanenson
I have completed the coverage study for the proposed US West communications
tower located in Chanhassen. The first step in the study was to evaluate the present
Coverage of the US West PCS communications as it presently is today. Figure I shows
that there is a "poor COverage area" located within the City of Chanhassen.
I then recalculated the coverage area using the proposed PCS tower at a height of
105 feet. Figure 2 shows that this tower, as proposed, would eliminate the poor coverage
area in Chanhassen. This site is intended to cover Highway 7 and in paiticular the bend in
the road located to the west of the proposed tower.
The next step in the study Was to locate the PCS tower on the tire station property
with a height of 40 feet. Figure 3 . shows the êoverage predictions using this tOWer
location. As Can be seen in this map the area on Highway 7 near the bend in the road is
predicted to get less than optimum reception.
I then reduced the tower height at the proposed site to 40 feet and recalculated the
coverage area. Figure 4 shows the results of the analysis. As can be Seen fÌ'Om this figure
the coverage area of the system is severely reduced.
Based on my analysis of the US West proposal it is my opinion that using a 40-
foot tower at the proposed site would not provide the coverage area required. If the site of
the tower were located at the tire station with a tower height of 40 feet it is predicted that
the signa] coverage would not be adequate to provide coverage along Highway 7 to the
west of the site.
Sincerely,
A~
Garrett G. Lysiak, P.E.