4 Monopole Tower/Church Site
-
'?
::(
,)
J
1-
L
~
:(
-
~
tJ
-
-
f)
P.C. DATE: 10-20-99
Lt
CITY OF
CHANHASSEH
-
C.C. DATE: 1-10-00
CASE: 99-3 CUP
BY: Al-Jaff
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
A Condition Use Permit to allow a -ftee standing '~cross designed" monopole
tower to be located on a churèh áñá Site Plán to construct a 105 foot tall
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 LutherdIl 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
·
I 9s Road
f"Tor-.-.r-..
u S West Wireless
Janua¡y 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.
 PPT ,TrA RT.F. RF.~'TT ,,4 TTON~
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: C'hnr"h .ile. when "~mnl1fl~gt'cI ~. ~n ~r"h;le"ll1r~1 fe~ll1re
~l1~h ~H~ ~tP-f'I'.p1p,!':. or},pH tnwp.r!':.;"
A N A LVSIS
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
will be 1.6 feet in diameter. The base of the 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.
u S West Wireless
Janua¡y 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 thé 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 from 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.
CTENFRAT. rONnTnONAT. TTSE PERMIT ANn SITE PI 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 government, school, utility and institutional site. However, the ordinance requires
antennas on church sites to be tt,¡mnnt1ßgpd ß~ An ßr~hitp.C"hlrßI fp.9tnrp. ~1IC"h 9~ ctppplp.c 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.
CONDITION Â I, TTSF, PRRMIT
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:
1. 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.
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
Janua¡y 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.
11. 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 of Chanhassen finds it necessa¡y 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
u S West Wireless
January 10, 2000
Page 6
the use and enjoyment of surrounding property or substantially diminish property
values, as the proposed tower is over 380 feet from the residential neighborhood
to the east and at least 105 feet from 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. . - - -
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 of towers in the city are to be kept to a
minimum.
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.
PARKTNO/TNTERTOR C'TRC'TTT AnON
U S West Wireless
January 10,2000
Page 7
Parlång lot cir_I_':"'M is strai&bt mrward. The existing parking will be used. No additional
parlång is proposedaod non are l"'1";"çd by ordinance.
A rrESS
The existing driveway will be used tD~ the aøw.er ~ equipment. _
LANnSC-APTNCT ANn TREE PRESERVATION
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 away from 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.
I JCTHTTNCT
Lighting is not shown on the site plan. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and
shall not display stròbe 1ights unless the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state
anthority for a parñtnlartowerspecificà11y requires such lighting.
STCTNACTE
The applicant has not shown any signage plans. No signage, advertising or identification of any
kind intended to be visible from 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.
CTR A nTNGffiR ATN AC1F.
Minimum gradingjsproP'".... amsisting of clr-"ñng some brush to locate the tower and
accessory eqn~...=... 'Ihe.g¡:adingjs insigroHi",-"nt
COMPLIANCE TABLE - RSF DISTRICT
Ordinance
Proposed
U S West Wireless
January 10,2000
Page 8
Tower Height
125 feet
105 feet
Tower Setback
N-I05' E-WS'
S-105' W-IOS'
N-400' E-380'
S-105' W-300'
PI. NNTN~ COMM1S~TON ,¡PD. orE
-
This application appeared before tbe Planning Commission on September I, 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 tranSJate intQ 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 bas not demonstrated compellingrea<:Qns why they can not colocate on an
existing structure.
,
· There are other options that CQuld provide ..nv...."v The applicant desires to provide
nptimum ~nVp.rAgp.
r
t
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.
STAFF RRCOMMRNDATTON
-
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 accommodatéd 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 AC'HMFNTS
1. Letter from 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.
US West W11'eless
January 10,2000
Page 10
4. SeaJclJ. 8I'e8..
5. Antenna design.
6. phnming Commission minutes dated September I and October 20,1999.
7. Application.
8. Public hearing notice.
9. Letter from Pete and Mary Keller dated October 9, 1999.
10. Letterftom Del and Wemy Hammond dated Octöber 19, 1999.:
II. Letter from Gregory Hahn dated August 31, 1999.
12. Letter from Bill and Lorna Slott dated December 16, 1999.
13. Computer simulated views from surrounding area.
14. Site Plan dated received December 29,1999.
U 5 WEST W~.I..., L.L.c.
426 North Fairview Avenue Room 101
SI. Paul. MN 55104
l~J~fifESJ1a
lile"s bener here" 411
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 PerDÚt for US weSt Wir~leSs L.L.C. t~ construct a 105' cross design
monopole located at the Holy Cross Lutheran church to provide Personal Communication Services to
the Chanhassen Community.
Brief Overview of US West Wireless Backeround
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 Soecific Reauest is to construct the followim"
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 lOS'
AGL. Each acCellerator tube is 1'7" 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 I'T
in diameter at the top of the pole. The horizontal cross members will be 1'6" 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 Acauisition Process for the soecified site:
· Issuance of 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 Tanka 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 \I, mile long. )
U S Ais criteria is based upon the terrain, existing sites, the coverage objective and community objective
O~O
~¡ ¡p.'!!."!!!-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 determiDed 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 ISO' US West
is proposing to construct a lOS' 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, It is approximately I 1-2 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 determined
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 disquaTified this site.
· US West disqualified the foDowing 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 tearn determined 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 performed 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
Min28S-12-28-99 Narrative
2
property was most compliant site with the zoning code located in the search area.
· Once US West idemified that the site met aU of the zoning code requirements and RF design Criteria, US
West obtahoed....... from the landlord.
· When meeting willi the pTanner April 28, 1999, US West discussed preferred locations with the City of
Chanhassea to determine the most desired location within the search area.
· Once US West aud the City of Chanbassen detennined 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 proœeded to zone this location.
The following is a list of disqualified locations within the Holy Cross Lutheran Church 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 Church 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 RFu:quirements. 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 Desio Obiective & Overview:
· The Holy Cross Lutheran Church 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 coDlinuous coverage along Highway 7 from US West's collocated site on the Tanka Bay Water
Tower to US West's collocated sile in Minnetrista and to provide coverage to the surrounding communities.
This location is aucial to obtain tbc RF design objective.
· US West has ........... _ four strudlln!s in the Chanhassen area:
The Tonka Bay Water Tower loc~ at; .24200 Smithtown Road.
A monopole locaœd at 4700 Menywund Lane.
A self support Tattice tower in Cbaska located at 141 Jonathon Boulevard.
A monopole located at 1455 ParkRd. Cbanhassen.
· Why US West's choices a very lioúted in this search area änd~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 sile must provide coverage West around the bend on Highway 7 in order to connect to US West's site
located in Minnetrista along Menywood Lane, while providing coverage to US West's Tanka 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 p..f".~td a drive test on the Fire Station, which failed.
A drive test was performed 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 leas! 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
requestin& 1ba11he City of Chanhassen approve US West's application to construct a 105' co-locatable architectural feature designed JIS a Cross at the Holy Cross Lutheran Church. We look forward to providing
wireless COIJJI""ftÓr"'h'}D services tothe community of Chanhassen.
Min286'12-28-99 Narrative
4
On behalf of US West Wireless L.L.C.. I would lik.ew thank.c;ty Staff for thier help with this site.
David W. Fischer
US West WireI£ss.LL.C.
Real Estate COIISII!tant
Min286-12-28-99_
5
U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C.
426 North Fairview Avenue, Room 101
St. Paul, MN 55104
LI,.WEST
December 27,1999
Ms. Sharmin AI-Jilt, 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,
1 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,
Ûß-- æ~
Dale R. Thorne, P.E.
Structural Engineer
Minnesota Registration No. 17205
Access2 TM Advanced PCS TM
Paging Services
L:J~
~,
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
SI. 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 corner of the church property (the original location depicted on the lease
agreement.
Pastor: Rev. Robert D. Johnson
Home: 612-470-6253
..
..
..
u
.. u
S <
"õ:' ... 0 "
.!! 0 a: .!
15 i CD _..CD >.:ê
u ~ c ~ e ~ c ~
!!.. ca g s (ñ ~ Gi ~ c:
o £orr.~"51;"{E. ð
o ø ... CD ca _ ~ ë ë - " ¡ ~
~ 8 ~ Š ~ ë ø S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
~.; .....::.':E0o..t-:>..5Wa:ø ã:
i~ ~ 1111i~ Dt·
~---s'T'¡jQff-l'-~ U fJ/J f" ~ "..J ~ ç:: r-W ;J:ð-'r;srv"f
;z¡; ";f ';</ :g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~h l\r-1r Ij (1,.. >[§0 ~ ~ ~ ~ iV r '"1 tJ7 _
- Æ!' /? bI) ;¡: ~~... c:?-)1 1':.' ¥!' '(\ ~ L ~ I rhI ~ J ,~I"í\ ~
.~ = "~~fI~r; ~~~µ<X#".~ '/ ~~;i] i
"' . U LV M ~ ~ -~.l ~ ')
~
--¡ '^
Q) ~A -/ ,~ bl':- '""X \\ ~
.<;:: ~J h "W1r1 ~ 9 c+- J=i '"
~ I'"'
1:x ~ ~/l\ :g~/ Þ ~ r,.
rn ,:..-~ bI) "" ~ lIT f{~ "' ~'
µ.. ;:J ) ( .§ ~ rn ~ r' 2 - <., ~ L'>-"
~ ·r ..ij .~tg~~-5Î'---. ~~~ r;; "' l.{§r/) ....,.
18 ¡;- JH ~~ ~rn 3 \ :~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ':1 r
j"Q) m -'--', ,. "'""' rn >< .;, "\ t<:I rn 1 "
:.-4 h..;;¡___ .s 2 ~ U \ ~ -' ;:J ;;: ~ ~ .::.:
~ I .~W ~ r;; t ,.. !":J gf I <. /
o I\.E_ C Q) I '::J - '-','"'
~ :æ 1;j ~ ~ I .~ 2 M f
'" > ~~ " ìÞ" .:r.1"''' ~ ..f y.. '- · i< ~ 0 ' . ~~
; ~ '" r;; ~ gf ~ J ,,\: ¥ ~ . ~ b2\ \ ¡?r~
fE ~ ~ ~.vI: -- :~ i tt ] ~ y ~ ~ ~'\~ ~
E> J¡r-:g ~ ~ E-< .....,¡ .ê ~ ll..... E '\ < \ \ ~
~ ~7\. gf'( \-~ ~ \- I -- \ æ / ( .... d
~ -' ,h .~ --.:u ~ ~ ~ Jþ .-dÄ 'NJ
~ 1- 'þ( ....:I j: "" 1-....>/
~ <o~ ~. I
~ ~ -5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 7\
! -- rn ::I:: ~ 10<" C. '""'"T-
..c: .
r~/ 2 ~,
.- ~ ~
~ '" rn n ~ ._t ~ ~. .r
I -11 ¡; -, ~)
-= i \ ~,v p}, _
-<
'"
"
~
'"
-<
M
'"
1
1
(. Ll 5 VJE5I
,-
, -
I
~,,~~ ,,1$\
A
II !! § 11
. . . ft
.....
.,.,
....
-
-
....
-
.....
""'"
.--...........--.-.---.--.-
B
I
C
!~~!1111!88~
I ft i ï
-
"'"
..
-c
J!IOD
"'"
rn>o
....
"'"
II -
....
-~
"
I
-~ I
I .... I I
II -~
11 I
ii I
l' "'" I
¡ 8 ~
!
i
iL
~~2:
"'Ò~J ~.
~~._.m
L.. ;, -<
2: ..=
~~-' iL~1 ~
f ---;¡,ç~. .Qi ,> ; I <>
......,.. r, '''9;<>:.' CI:)
\ '-< ~ I
^n'¡'¡ft1q~ I
-\?~ r 11pe I
~~~,
is ~O~-, :
'i I
..,,!
I
I
I
~ I _
~ I ~
.!!!
g¡
-.9
~
3:1>
~ ,íf).
~. ,
'? .
""
~,
,
~~
·-~·'M;ì¡{.·t,I.,.". '.
,-1: \"
.g OiAAl~TON
\ Õ4'~
'~
\.~ lAKE
,,§.3 ~/
. 8 t· 3,
c:::
~
c
'~"'-._-
""
.3
~
~
"E
~
~"-'-~~-...~
~~
~., "~,
,i!
"i
on
/;
E
~
j
on
~~~
&, ij:) &" I/:>
. "Ij~""
I on
\
'0
c:
III
]1j
Q
c:
I!!
01>
'6>
III
WI>
~
...,
~
"
~
ì~-
'<3', ,--
J';
Il/
0>,
I'!
..,
e
..;¡
~
-...r
.J~eM5W1RELESS
..
~
I
19" AcCELLerator™
4IÞ
4IÞ
~
~
Sector 10 Sector Isolation
,\tnper Cat· ~ Connectors
If1Ining = 'ction
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)
Raled Wind Velocity 100 mph (161 kph)
Side Wind Load @100 mph 190 Ibs (845 N)
Weight 150 ibs (68 kg)
Mounting Hardware '4 ea. % -10 Bolts
on 12 inch bolt circle
Stacked
144 inches (365,8 em)
19 inches (41 em)
100 mph (161 kph)
380 Ibs (1690 N)
300 Ibs (136 kg)
4 ea. % -10 Boits
on 12 inch bolt circle
-...----..--------------.----------- -------- -. - - -- ----
III an other electrical performance specifications including radiation
lItem data. piease refer 10 the individual antenna data sheel
::: ACCESSORIES
Model ~1-¡mber
IPK-I
Description Comments
Nr Terminal Lightning protection kil including 24 in. Nr terminai and 20 ft. #4 AWG
. ----.----------.---..-----_, _.________..__ç9ppe!J'ig~[,_________________n.__
Amplifier Housing 16 inch, D.D. x 24 inch tail canister for housing receive low noise
amplifiers. Can be supplied from the factory with LNAs pre~nstailed
and tested.
MOdel Number
(G-AOQ-02
. Mounting Plate
~1D-02
16 inch dia. Steel plate with mating hoie patterns for AcCELLerator"'
series antennas. Use to make your own custom mount or monopole
,- - - ------ n --. __h_. -.. __. _.... _.. ________ ~~~:~. __ m_ __. _ ___ _ __ _m ____n____n__. __mn.h___._
Mounting Mast 10 ft. x 4 Y, in. D.D. Galvanized steel pipe with welded anlenna
... __·__m___ - .---____ __.. h _ _.. __ n ._nmn~~~~~!:![p~~I~:_.___m__ nn________h m_ hno. ... ____ m_.n
10 ft. Mounting masl plus brackets for wail attachmenl
-
Palent Pending and US Palent number 5,757,246.
-::; representative and variations may occur, $pecifications may change without notice due to continuous product enhancements. Digitized pattern
-: ;actory or via the web site www.ems'....ireless.com and reflect all updates.
-----..._--
EMS Wireless
+1 (770) 582-0555
Fax +1(770) 729-0036
263
·"\."'1.
~
:
·OeM5WIRELESS
./
_-1
~
19" AcCELLeratot~
-
~."
\-~-~
..œ -
112, CABLE OPENING DFTAIL
~
0:.75-1Q
UNC-æ
MountinQ Interface
SECTOR
CONFIGURATION
Top View
264
EMS Wireless
.1 (77'" .c::O"J rH::r::c
144"
72"
í
í
j
19"
Side View
Lower Module
19"
Side View
Stacked Moduloi
1( Air Terminor
--4--- 19" AcCELLerotot'"
-^-
. ""2h
PIa:nniDg Commission Meeting - September I, 1999
Department. Cross-access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over
the lot
IS. Mylar as-builtw.-.I .... tion pIaI¡s of the utility improvements will be required by the City
upon completioo of_site improvements.
16. A building permit sbllll.uot be issued until the access driveway meets fire code
requirements. Theäveway may be constructed with a bituminous and/or Class 5 gravel
section, 20 feet widcwJ.úch meets a 7 ton per axle design.
17. Staff recommends the applicant consider raising thë 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 from 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 tbe tIIOÔOD carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 100 FOOT TALL
MONOPOLE TOWER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 4151 HIGHWAY
7. U.S. WEST'WIRELESS IN-CONJUNCTION WITH HOLYCROSS LUTHERAN
CHURCH.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Dave Fischer
Peter Keller
Deb Reiff
Robert & Ma¡y 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
Sharmin AI-Jaffpresented 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 ëan'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
101, 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 ofthe quick A to Z if! 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 Smithtown 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 from 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 from 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
&om the right-of-way. Being that this was the issue and we could npt 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 from the community
14
Planning Commissien 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 defmed 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 contra¡y, US
West had proceeded with the proposed site at the church under Section 20-1506. Towers in
residentially zoned.dÌstricts, 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 dle proposed property to address the föllõwìng 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 from 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 from the tower. Therefore it is our conclusion that communication towers
do not have a measurable or identifiable impact on residential values, unquote from Scott Rupert,
MAl JD 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)(l) and 1504, Subsection (I), 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: Y 011 bet.
Kind moved, Sid_y 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 CO..·...iuinn Meeâøg- September 1. 1999
I gness I'll volunteer to go first. Good evening. My name's Pete Keller and I live at 6760
Country Oaks Road. I've aJso.ielVed on a rnm.......io'l, local commission and I know it's a long
and huge and oaen '.ntbanlr....djob so I app1'CCiateyour dedication to the community. I'm a stay at
home dad. I do cho,y........ Ha\I'e a home based ~'C business and look directly at the church's
property. This is the primary view from my back yard. I find it wonderful that Dave's had the
time to read the,o"fulailœ. I can't agree more with Shannin's conclusions that the tower does
not comply with 20-1506, mJlIlh...- 2, section (a) dllltit quite clearly says that a church site, that it
has to be camouflaged within1hcsteeple orthehellmwer. 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 sticlçwith. 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 ofIooking at a variance
request from 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 from approving a 150 foot tower that's actually less than 2 miles away from
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. I 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 from 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 ¡bought that lot in thcfirst 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 1,1999
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 financial 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 iIi 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 from 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.
Al-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 1, 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 constructi0!l oJ a 100foo~ tall monopole tower
wireless communication facility for US West Wireless bãsed 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 front of City Council September 27th. Thank you all for
COmIng.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 50 FOOT SETBACK
REOUIREMENT 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
DottÌ Shay
4749 Diane Drive
33 II East 51 st Street
7230 Frontier Trail
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Any questions of staff? 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 staff has 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, Jf1Yœ seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Closed. Cnmmi"sioners, 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 tbafd be.neat. As far as, as long as they're complying with State
regulations. I was sUIprised 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 staffs
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.
B1ackowiak: 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 71h Addition
as shown on the plaRS 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
RlGHT-OF-W AV. 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 Gernlo
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-0aks Road
6780 Country oãks Roãd
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...
Al-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.
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 from the 7th
Circuit which had been referred to me by the City Manager and I was wondering about, in that
6
Planning Commission MeetiUS- October 20, 1999
case it says nothing in the Telecommunications Act forbids local authorities from applying
general and non-discriminating standards in making these decisions. I'm just wondering, that
was the 7th Circuit case. I'm WODdering if there's anything different here. In the 8th 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. Butjust10 speak to the subject generally. I mean Telecom Acts require
two things. First, you .'(It uøæasooably discriminate amongst providers a function to provide
services. And your a~yourn:gulations cannot have the affect of prohibiting the provision of
wireless service. So if_ ......~ they need this locatioR and they can;show you that they need
this location, then they'œ entitled to go with this locatioñ ifiri 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 of fact as to
whether you've allowed the competitors at locations which you would prohibit them from
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?
Al-Jaff: We have a cODditional 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 Ú1ñont of 118?
Al-Jaff: Yes. Howeverthat was, the application was submitted in 1990 and the tower went up
in '91. So it wasn't this planning commission.
BJackowiak: Let me ask you something Sharmin, not only not this planning commission but
prior to Telecommunications ActßO that didn't even apply so that's kind ofa moot point.
Joyce: What I'm und"...æng the City Attorney saying, I mean I don't want to get into a
dialogue here but I'mj~uking. Are you saying that we can't discriminate against US West if
we already have one oftbcsc 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
tell you what the law is. "
Joyce: That's what I'm ti1ång really.
Roger Knutson: Ifyou'.allawed a competitor in in residentially zoned property under similar
circumstances. somewhatsimilac 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 dilfe~nt in 1990.1 '
Blackowiak: We didn't have one, did we?
Roger Knutson: We had ordinances on towers, sure.
Aanenson: Sure we did.
AI-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 flfSt. 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 from 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 structuraIly
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 yopr !lame ~d 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 briefsumma¡y 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 Y2 months. Typically the
time frame that a search ring is issued to the time frame it is completed and zoning and a permit
is approved is typically 4 to 6 months. And obviously being that we're II Y2 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 will 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 151 '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
frequency 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 from 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
pl~nning 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. {)nce 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 watec tower but it is a mile and a half outside of our search ring. This would not
work fur two rea~"" 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:I0cated on the:Tonka Bay water tower.
Thus disallowing us to achieve our objective. Once we've ídèntifi~ that there's no structures
available, what we will do is determine that the ground build would be the next necessa¡y 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 from 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. A1least 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 ~ acres and it provides the largest parcel indicated in the search area. It's
atypical from other pareels 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. I'd like to thank the city staff for all their help.
10
Planning Co,,~on Me I:.... ~ OcllOber 20, 1999
This has been an ongoing prooess for a while and just want to thank for all your help and we'd be
more than happy to answerauy.q¡¡estîOllS.
Peterson: QI-ti.AmDf·1 .,v'icant?
Dave Fischer: And ~ WIIIUld like tødo is in greater detail pass this along to my RF engineer
who can 5'........ explaiA.our ~'togive you more of an idea from an RF perspective of how
we came ahøuUhis site. :I'm·11OUIB RF engineer myself so I'd kind of like to hand it over to
Scott Hines with US West. Thank you.
Scott Hines: Good eveoing Chairman, staff, commissioners. I'd like 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.
Al-Jaff: I can run.
Scott Hines: Should I continue wbite 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 Oß-stnIOO~~, 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. 'J'heø: currently is DO other carriers on that site but there is tentative
agreements for additieoaI carriers to locate on that site. We have co-located on a self support
lattice tower onD1aska]OC"tpil.áf 1'41 Jonathan Boulevard North. And we have located on a site
in Chanhassen"1lt'l.455PmrR:oad. -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 wiJh 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. If we were to
move this siteœstsay,toae ClvlnbAA.",n Fire Station, you'd have a gap further west on Highway
7 and not prov1t1econfinnnn" ~ge along Highway 7 to make the connection with our site. ..
Ifwe were to move the siZ'øorfll. it's going to provide even worse coverage along Highway 7 to
the west due to the fact..... To the south there's more terrain... If we move the site too far to
the west we're goingto.uloverøge gaps to the east on Highway 7 so it's very difficult being an
engineer to plaœ...rigbtkation, 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 al_ys the best to place a tower but there are no feasible co-locatable
structures. No parcels iŒthis 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
Planning 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 from 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 halfis a significant distance away for our frequency 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 issu!'S that will pre.vent it from providing the
coverage that we need. We've looked at Cathcart Park. It lias the sàme 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. The 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 off?
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 from 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 ad4reªs 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
Planning Commission Meeting - Oct<iJer W, 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 oilier sita aDd our dñve test results. We do provide drive
test results to see if this will work for1lS. WC'1::3I1IDOVe 100 feet here and there. But if you start
talking a haIfmile here aDd there, no. We can't do that.
Blackowiak: Could you move like 500 feet« 1,000 feet? I mean.
Scott Hines: That depends on the foliage. As you know this area has va¡ying terrain. If we
move, even moving the 150 feet, we've lost 5 feet in ~~.- Ifwe mov.êd 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 fur 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 frequency, 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 ofsites 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 justcuñouSJIs to what their future sites are and if there are any
opportunitiesforco-Jnr.mmnRnd if'you've explored that at all.
Scott Hines: We are bUl1ding 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
Plarming Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
Blackowiak: Well I'm just 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.
BJackowiak: 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 jnst, 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 beli~es, I me~ they haven't done a
structural analysis but they do deal with this so they believe-that it wouldn't be.
BJackowiak: 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 find another location within our search area,
yes.
15
]>Ismnil\g Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
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?
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 ante~s. They cafi'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 will look 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 tall 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 well.
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 }fmes: 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 collect 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 providl?:service to thar 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.
i-
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
all. 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 pll!Ced on US We-st 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
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 0!1 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 ëo-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 a 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 aliI 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 from 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 ifit could
19
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
potentially create a lawsuit for the City of Chanh~$sen but it kind of throws out the purpose of
having those ordinances in the first place is my f'pp.Til1g if they am do variances out offear of
paying for it fmancially because of discrimin8lion and I would like to know where our rights as
the landowners and peopJe that live in that area are. And so I respectfully request that this not be
passed because it will not be built within the Slructure 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.
Peterson: Anyone else?
Ma¡y Blue: Hi. My name is Mary Blue. I live at 6770 CouÏ1try oãks Road. My back yard is in
direct view of the alleged 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 well 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 Keller: Good evening. My name's Pete Keller and I live at 6760 Country Oaks. Right
between Mary and Deb, the last two speakers. I was pleased on September I" 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 ormn!l1tCe, it doesn't meet that at all. 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 ofinteresting, and Deb bad 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
really 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 all the first to admit we're not RF
experts. We don't really know every single landlord there. Land owner in that search area and
their opinions 00 tbese 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 cmm;e yañ""'""'i would need to be gnmted, and others just out of the search area. I
hope they speak up this evening. That are intecestcd in baving the tower. If it comes to the
conclusion that.a:ftera 1hird party's Jooked at dÌis, an expert, that truly there is, their search area
is accurate. Holy Cross really is the very bestphœ, I think the only thing that would be
reasonable to do is to locate itm·aae trees. It's a heavily wooded lot. .. .I've walked through this
many times. It's very.. ;it'soomparable elevation. It's very accessible. The DNR spends a good
amount of time andmoney.maimaining 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. IE sure we need a few trees around it removed but
I think they said mmethmglike 20 x 30 is what they're looking for and that seems more than
twice the amount of space dultnceds 10 be taba out. So I would very much, should we, I don't
want to see it at aIl8Rd I .. _ àd Jove to see-if_'œ.øoing;1o grant variances, we should do it on
property like at theme statiw.; ..-w's far morc ,,"",opriate for this kind of a structure before we
start granting them in a ~ community.. the church. But should our expert outside of
this realm say"-~.1Rdy-lllat-is the on1y;spaœ. welleed to do it in the trees. I'm glad that
staff has asked b the 1.S0fuat~1< at 1east1ohideit. We're, the three of us back, we're all
right along here.. .and I tbink1lllt's the absolute, way, very bare minimum that should be done.
As you are considering this, aad I'm sure Roger has hrie(ed.you on the Delafield suit, or Scott at
least has given you some infŒmation on it. But there was õné 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 ofthatbñefit says, and I'Iljustquicldy quote, that this may not mean
however that every m"";. ij ali'Ymust have towers wherever anyone wants to put them. In many
areas, in small çommunities, 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~ 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 Delafield's decision to deny the tower doesn't mean that it's an end ofPCS
communications in the Chanhassen area. We 1herefore do not need to decide whether Delafield,
or Chanhassen, has aduty iu it's area to ensureJhat SlH:h a.result does not come about. I don't
think we neetho;youtnow"\W:Sbotttdn"tfeel ovedy pressured just because they say we have to
do it. There aremhereptionsand pieces,oflaDd 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 OIl 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 1m Highway 7 that I contacted Mr. Fischer about thinking that, since there was
so much oppositioo, that it-.i¡bt be a feasible area for this tower. But he says it is not. But I
believe it is in the search aa:a.. I'm 110t red famiJiarwi1h the boundaries ofit but if you know
where the trailis tbataosses'Hi&b\Wf 7. The pmperty abuts to the west the trail. And it's, the
total property is aa_ .anda'i>..Tt'or so butthe ueab1e piece is about 15,000 square feet because
of trail and highway easements. The oth«thing<was that it's wooded. It's not an easy place. It
would have to require a lot ofwork probably totake down some trees or whatever. 1 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
11
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999
from another larger piece that we had split and we just 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.
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?
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 of the 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 from
what I can tell from 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. Ifwe 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 from 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 prongC?d 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 ofland 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 Ís 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, I just don't see
how this can fly. So I'd be against it.
Peterson: Other thoughts or comments.
BJackowiak: 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-half mile
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 concemed.
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
all other co-location req\IÍrernPnr. or co-location opportunities and I haven't heard that tonight so
I would be inclined to dœy this because it does not comply with our ordinance.
.Amenson: Caø. I just get a dañfication? Are you asking have they tried to find someone else to
go with them or bave they looked to go on somebody else's. I'm not sure what you're saying.
Blackowiak: If they looIœd to go on somebody else's. I asked specifically with in the map that
they had shown us, if they bad sought out the other people in this area, specifically asking if there
were any existing or future sites and they said well no. That that was proprietary information and
the other companies probably wouldn't just give a map O!lt. -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: Well I asked tire 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 intOrmation for other carriers?
Aanenson: That are in that area, yes.
Blackowiak: I did not hear that answer, but that still doesn't change my feeling that they don't
meet our ordinance requin:ments 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: YeahI've been waiting here and thinking because actually I have a different opinion
about this application and I'd first like to thank the neighpors for their cnmments. Your
participation and input is really important and indeed you gët to know your neighbors when you
come to things like this. It's kind of an offshoot 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 summa¡y 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
2S
,
Planning Commi..ánn Meeting - October 20, 1999
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 yad. 'Those are the tough decisions we have to make too. With
that, is there a mnrinn?
Burton: Mr. Chainnan, I'll move that the Planning Commission deny approval of Variance #99-
17 to allow 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
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 allow 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 I.
Peterson: Comment vote that woutd 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.
Kind: Mr. Chainnan, do we need to note the Minutes from September 15th meeting still? Have
we seen those?
Peterson: Dou·tltnow. Can't note them if we haven't seen them. Make a note of that.
Kind: Kate?
Aanenson: Yes.
26
'11,: ",
-! l' .
,'I j'. 1
i
aTY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937·1900
ÐEV.ELOPtAENT REVIEW APPLICATION
c/f>; Òfrflv á,), m L-~
1Iß'!,1CANT: 11'5 Wðf iŽI:",k L.¿e. OWNER: 41 /f~'?k,l£lWtJ/øti
.ADDRESS: /TIc, N m;/tA-- /I~ fA,1,/ ADDR.ES_S: Ø57~"'{¿u'7 7
6T-.?~ ,M/V-5"?/ðS'"' £rt:(?ß¡lJil, k,.{/,..)<:;;;"5"3B/
"1E..EPHONE (Daytime) v5"'/-t. ~z "('29~~;'Y7W TELEPHONE: (,1 z.. - ¥7t..r- '7 Z-¥2
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit
-K.. Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROW/Easements
- 1nterim Use Permit - Variance
_ Non-conforming Use Pemlit - Wetland Alteration Permit
_ Planned Unit Development" _ Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Si911 Permits ,
_ Si9n Plan Review _ Notification Sign
-
- Site Plan Review" ~ Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" .. .
($50 CUP/SPRlVACNARlWAP/Metes \
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
_ Subdivision" TOTAL FEE $ t/50 \
AI f 11 ro m st be Included with t~
115\ 0 a p petty.owners with n SOD feet of the boundaries ofthe property u
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
~wenty-sixfull size folded copies of the plans musl be submitted, in~iUding an BV," X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheeL
- Escrow wlU be required for other apPlications through the development contract
roTE _ When muhip1e appflCalions are-processed. the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
· NOTE - When ....1IIipIA .applications are processed. the appropriate fee shal be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME á'7 ¿~ ~"¿kÇS ¿t.e.
LOCATION
LEGA1.DESCRIPTlON CUl-lol- A ~ 7>/0 kf~ B/¿ -5"
1", -4qy f} # hW6 ¿~IV )'j)~"A/,éI_ ~ <If ~'
Ñtv/t':;;'-""" £e/r/;,"'1 ÚJ/ d )f/.l:.S
mk 12- 2-5'(é>I"'Ò~ .
PRESENT ZONING ~ (~r;k hm/f 2~,d."b/ .\
REQUESTED ZONING 1: A//<wJ /),tt,mJ 1 '" /Ô~~~p04)M"~~_",.;f,,.;/,7.
PRESENT lAND USE DESIGNATION Zs ¡:
REQUESTED lAND USE DESIGNATION /2~F
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and rrust be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer whh the
PJanrung Department to determine the specnic ordinance and procedural requIrements applicable to your application.
This is 10 certHy that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with 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 of proof of
Qwnership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certnicate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I win keep myself informed of the deadlines for submissIon of material and the progress of this application. I further
tmderstand that additional fees may be charged for consufting fees. feasibirny studies, etc. whh an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed wfth the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
, aTso understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permtts shall be Invalid unless they are recorded
against the thle to the property for which the approvaVpermit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the origin ocument retumed to City Hall Records.
7/2-I/QCJ
I Date'
\
Signature of Applicant
.tZ~~
S~nature of Fee Owne
7';?/-9r
Date
~litatÌDn Received on
Fee Paid
Receipt No.
'ihe 8ppllcant shouTd œntaCl staff for a copy of the staff report which wfll be available on Friday prior to the
'T\ÞoÞ,ln" .f PI..... ..............._...... ._ ...__.. _. ...._ ____.... ...... __ _ _ .. " " ..... .
U.s. West Wireless 1.1.C. will be holding an Open House
on Wednesday. August 25, 1999 from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m.
8tHotyCross Lutheran Church located at
4151 Hwy. 7, Excels~or, 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
c'
Smooth Feed Sheets™
Use template for 5160(Ð
'I CROSS LUTH CHURCH
HIGHWAY 7
ElSIOR. MN 55331
PETE KELLER
6760 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JEROME JOHNSON
3940 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
;IA ANDERSON
COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
=t.SIOR, MN 55331
ROBERT & MARY BLUE
6770 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
RICHARD F ST ANGELO
4000 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
GE & JENNIFER LINN
COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
=t.SIOR, MN 55331
PAUL & JACQUELINE BACH
6771 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ROGER KNIGHT
4001 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
FREEMAN
COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
'l510R, MN 55331
STEVEN GEMLO
6780 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
GARY R. VOIGT
4010 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
) & FRANCINE BOYCE
COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
:LSIOR. MN 55331
PAUL QUARBERG
6781 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
PATRICK & PATRICIA FAUTH
4011 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331
IY & BRIGID GRATHEN
COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
:LSIOR, MN 55331
STEPHEN & MARY ALDRITT
3946 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
SCOTT GREFE
4020 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
. KOLLODGE
COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
'LSIOR. MN 55331
MICHAEL KAMMERER
4000 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
PAM & TROY PRINSEN
4040 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JY BREHMER
COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
l.SIOR, MN 55331
DAN AMENT
4010 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
LOREN W. WITTE
4101 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
EN EHLERS
GOUNTRY OAKS ROAD
LSIOR, MN 55331
LANCE RONN
4011 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
DANIEL & BARBARA WISNIEWSKI
4017 HALLGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
S REIFF
GOUNTRY OAKS ROAD
LSIOR, MN 55331
JON WITT
3931 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
GARY J. STAFFANSON
4028 HALLGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
Smooth Feed Sheets™
1AICHJ\El & BARBARA ECKERT
4029 HAUGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR. MIll 55331
LISA COLOMINA
4128 HAllGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ZSOLT MULtER
4050 HAU.GREN COURT
EXCELSIOR. UN 55331
WENDY J. HAAS HAMMOND
353 HORNBEAM DR
LONGWOOD, FL 32779
GEORGE HANKEY
4051 HALLGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR. MIll 55331
JASON & MIMI HAHN
4142 HAllGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ANNE HUEMME
4070 HAllGREN lANE
EXCElSIOR. MIll 55331
MICHAEL DALTON
4153 HAllGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ROBERT & Jill SCHULZ
4075 HAllGREN LANE
EXCElSIOR. MN 55331
PATRICK & MARY YANTES
4156 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
CORRINA & MARK BARTIKOSKI
4099 .....ALlGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
WILLIAM F. SLOTT/LORNA L. SLOTT
4167 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
FOUR HAHN PROPERTIES LlC
18500 CO RD6
PLYMOUTH, MIll 55447
BARRY MATSUI
4170 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
KATHERINE M. BERGENTHAL
4111 HAllGREN LANE
EXCEI..SIOR. MN 55331
JUDITH & GREG HAHN
18500 COUNTY ROAD 6
PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
ESTER & CHRISTOPHER CLANTON
4114 HALlGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331
PAUL & MARY JOHNSTON
4184 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JO ANN HAllGREN
3921 MAPLE SHORES DRIVE
EXCELSIOR. MIll 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
.
r led SheetsYM
:.HONEY & 1<. FAZIO
PlPEWOOD CURVE
u¡¡QR,JoIIII S5331
&.11.1. OSMAN
PIPEWOOO CURVE
1.SIOR. UN 55331
E t \IARCY
PlPEWOOD CURVE
lSJOR. MN 55331
AM BERG
?lPEWOOD CURVE
LSlOR. MN 55331
\RD G ANDERSON
>JPEWOOD CURVE
iSIOR. MN 55331
~ RONAlD DVORAK
:oIH1TE OAK LANE
LSlOR. UN 5533
-AGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN. INC.
a.sT COUNlY ROAD D
E CANADA, MN 55117
NCY HOMES
mtAVENUE
A. MN 55303
\AD STE1II1
NHTTE OAK lANE
HASSEN. UN 55317
DI1ANDERSON HOMES, INC.
:>BBLESTONE LANE
SVJI.lE.MN ·55331
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 COUNlY ROAD D
LITTLE CANADA, MN 55117
,
"
-"'~,';;-
OCT. 11. 1999 4:11PM US WEST WIRELESS STP
1BIB1J9!1 14:35:116 612-937-5739-> 612 642 6942
NO. 733 P.6/7
Pap ÐB2
CltYOP CIMNHAn!N
'10 COULTIR DRIVI
CHANNA.... MIl 1Q1'
(ItlJ .-'1'"
Dt!VEI.OPMSNT RIVJIW APPUCATION
APPUCANr:ß-'S tJ~ \jtre.¡~
ADDRESs: 41J.,. No ~AAN~-..j Aw.-44ß,
~r:'¡~ }1IIN 7>1().~
.
'T!I.ePH0NI!(0Iy....) ¡'r/- ¿'~-t, '1,"( .
0VttœR: Þtj 6t>S3 j",/kA1111ud....
AODRSSS: ~5"/ ~'Y 7
~;.rU&f2 AM/5'S8B1
Tet.EPHOÑÉ: (,,"¡ ~ - '77'1 -Ifj o/z-
- ~PI.lllAmlncltnøn _ Tempo~ry 8aIet Parmll
-'
...ð.. OondllJc!llll ÚI.~. _ \'mItIon 01 ROWlEuem.nll
_ Interim u.. pl/rillt .J5.. Vall.nœ
. I
_ NonoconrofmlniJ Uuo Pellllll _ WIIIIncI AItarIUon Permft
, . ;
.
_ Plllnn.d u~~",~,:Jøp1llllAl' _ Zonln¡¡ Appul
. . .
_Rtzonlrlg _ ZOnIng OrdInInce Amendment
_ SIQn P.rmlla
_ Sian P/III Rovltlw _ N01ftIçat on Sign
_ Bile Plan RtWlew" ...L EIORIW fOr FhIg F""~ CoIt""
(HOCUPIBPRtVA~ ~MI"
IIUI BoIInde.l400 MInor SUB)
~ Subdlvl,Jon" TOTAL FEE' 7S' "
A ., of an ptoper" OWN" wIIIIln 100 fMt of the boandlll.. of lilt PIII~ mU'11Ie lnelud.d with he
W~~ . . .
8ußcllng m'tIIteI tampIø mutt be 8ubmlltad wJI/I... pI.n fIVIIWI.
·1'Mn".... 'lih.. fIIIId...... ofilia lllalll macbl .ubmltlild, Inc!udlnt In 1%" x !tH !'Iduetl! copy of
tt.naPlNII4V·~"""''''''
I. . .
.. Eaoraw1A8 IIIflQuhd ior OIlIlUppllclllon'....h the dmloPIftlM oonltlct
NOTE -lMIen mullfpltappJIi:IUone ... proce.øed. the .p IftIpI1IIII I.. '(1l1li be chargad ~ eto1\ .ppllcaUon.
.......0;..--.+ ....~ .... -~. j.., II.~...
OCT. 11. 1999 4'11PM us WEST WIRELESS STP
Illlli'I99 14:35:23 1>~> 1)12 &42 £.942
NO. 733 P.S/7
Page BB3
PROJSOTNAMB" ~ ~c.s. ~l Cr~ l..-~ ~
LOCA11ON 4.1", t're5S ~... -., e4..~
(
LEGAL ÞE8CRIPrIaN _ ¡f ^' Go ----- .j), -Ad
~ /oJ -I-:¿
TOTAL ACREAGe 7~l'e~
-
WE'I'LAND8 PFØeNT 'lEI ~NO
PRE8ENTZONINQ_~øs.:~- Jrt..;.., I 61..."k. ~\}r ) .
REQUe8T!DZONtNo_ \!Mt",.,.~ 2. ~l,.\.",? ~ rQ!.. ,^,,^.~le... .
PRE8ENTLAND08EdE'IIIONA"ON '" :V..J?IIo:- /~e"",; ':P.J,/"t"
, I l
REQUE8Tl!D wJDIUS~ÐEStGNATION . - . YLl.kÞ.. 4 _ '; ?....Yi Co
REASONFORTHfS:REQIJEST t:L ,^~~T' W~.5 llc3. ~ It> {
w¡r<.\á~ ~.."... ~\:y_ ~~d... w~/t ~ ð~~ ~ y'~c,.rJJ.lJ....""'-&L..t>
Thll ."ncatlol\ mIIlt be'C~~d III full IIId be IypelVl'tÞtl Dr cre.rI)1 llln ad and mull bl eocompanlecl by.llIIfDrmatIon
Ind pJen. tlqul,*, ÞY ïÞÞiOeble City 0nIInanc:e proYlalonl, BerorI ftnnQ 1h118 IpI1oIIIon, you lhould oonfer With the Pllnnlll
o.PlrImiIIIl 10 delll¡m¡.,¡,·",.1peoJ Io ordInence IIId proçedurell'llqUlr8mentlll lplloaÞle to your Ipplloltlon.
, 1
A delllrmlnellon 0' ~I~te"'" or the Ip IIIcadon aheU be macla wHhln till bulln..1 cllYl of eppØoellan luÞmltleI. A wrIItan
nDUos of IPPlIoItIon tllflcllnoIn Ihlll'" mIhd 10 the eppllcenl wIIh p Itn ÞuaInNa claYI of IÞpDcetlon,
., I .
Thllll to e,IIIft that 1l1l'i' n111d1\ø IppIoaIkm før the efllCrlbecl mJon by,,, city IIIId thell 1m rel lClnllbll lor ~Ing WIllI
all CIIy IWCIUIllmen.. WIth, nllG8llllo 1hII requut. TIIII.,.pßcIdon lhoulcl be ProcelUd In my "'me Ind I 1m the PlIIy whom
!hi City .houkt æ r;clllllllv any metIar pø"'lnln8 IÞ thll IpplfClltton. I hlV' ltIIIohecl I copy of PIDO' 0' owner.hlp
(lither CIIfIY 0' ØlipllClla CdcatI 01 TIle, AÞìtrlot of Title or putehJle Igrnment , or em lIIe eulllorlzecl parten
10 meke thIIlpp ~I 1M ... _ hll &110 IIgned thll applIOIIIon,
T will kelp "'Y'e" Intmled of the ~-~ far submllllon Dr m.tIrIIl Ind lIIe proo"la 0' thll IppllClldon, I fljrlhar
under.te/ld that ICIdlllontllreea m.y III chI/ged for eontulUng len, faall~ .ludill, tiel. with In IIIImeIe prior 10 IIIIY
aulhllllzalbn tø proaeid wllh the study. TIll documenll and information I hive eubmllItd I" "'" Inc 'conect to the Nat of
~ kftowlldge. .
,...Cot,'
.rf411..1 NWI'1
'fA.... S'a.'t'
\t......1 L..~
~IB[~s-.
The ;II)' hll8by nol lllt Ihu "I';·cant.. deYelopmtllt revtew cennot be eompletlltl within 80 dlY' dIIa to P\IIIk heeling
nlt ulnllnenllllld ~"'II'IYIaw. ~, the ~ II notI~ /he epp lclnt that the ~ lllquIru In liItoInI!Io liD lilY
otan.lon for '.~. DevaIopn1Ift( lWIew .h.. be eomplelld WIII1In 120 deyl unllll ecIdItIonl' I1VJew
10", are I ~ IhIlppllctllll
.~ ~
Ollie,
.
8I¡ n8lUN0'F"~ 0IIt
Appbllon ReOlIvtd oft..;., FM Pard ReOllpt No.
'I1Ia Ippl/clnt IhollÌd ~*,I~"'" 00pf ar... etaft ..port whIoh Win be avell,bIe on PrleflY prior to the mila""
It nat contllcllld, I~" of lI1e NjIortMl bl mellecl to the app"o.~ ~_,
, :
'.
. ..... '.. . .& ..411 ...Ia. 11111 i '. i
.. .'1'
*+*EHþ"lI+nfl
OCT. 7.1999 4:24PM US WEST WIRELESS STP
lØ/Iil'J':I';I li:::e.:B6 61Z-937-5739-> 61Z 642 6942
NO.677 P.4/S
_. ..-
Pqe IIBZ
,
APPLJCANro,ßs We.s-\ \,}r~l~ tJl:
I
ADÞRE8S:~v.. N ~AW\I:...,)I.c..".,~&
~r; .¡~ . þ/~ S--S-i (),ø>__
# I
TlLEPHON!(DI)'Ime) Vr/- v.lfZ,.t~ z..",
crrv OIl CHAI4HAIIIN
. IIOcouc.1WRDIWI
CtIANHAIIIN,.. IA1r
(t1J) '1701I0Il
o
D!¥aOfIIENT ItIVIIW APPLlCA'hON
OYMma: 41 ð.~J L¿M~k,,¿
..~SS: /#5'/ ~'"Y 7
tY¿,¡f&n M/'V 9s3S1
TELEPHoH!: (,. i~ - Y'W-4j Y2-
,
- Compt......... PfIn AmIndment ,
- TlIIIpOIIiy 8IItI Permft
A Collenll U. PIIIIIIt _ VICIIIaft or ROWIEIun.nIe
I
_ IIÜItm u., PItriIIt .K Vartwe
. .
- NonoconfoØn!nO U¡MI PIrIIIIt _ WIIIlftd AIIn/on PermIt
.' ¡
_ PIInllld UI ltÞt~lopmen¡o - ZØnInø ApJIIII
. ,
_ RtzoII/n; 0 - z.o...q OIdnanol AmMdIlllllt
_ SIgn PIIIIIIII
_ 81øn PIIn RIvIIw _ NoIfftcaIoft...
0
_ SlIt PIIn RI\IIIW" ..x. &IORIW _::, FøIIAtIDmIy CIIII'"
(IID~ PlWN:N~
, IlNlBoundI." MIMI' IUB)
. ---r- TOTALFEI~ . .'
~ 8uIIdIIIIIIon"
I
J
A 1111 of IU ~"'....... ......100 ftIC of the bouncIlIIII of ChI fINII'''' mtllt llelnoludlcr wIIh tII,
Wf4MÞon. : . , .
laIIdIng IIIitIIIlllllm l'u nwR III'~ WftIJ llIe plan NVWI.
i
"TWIII\HIX ftllI.",.. 00/IIII Oftll~p_ mUd llelllbmllÞd.lnDludIn .n IK" X 11" NllllC8ClooW Of
ÞlftI/IIIMW·'or... 111ft IIIIIL '.
.. 110_ will III ilclUlNd ior-I I II/~lIoftllhrouah the ~1CIIIIIIoI
NOTE . WIon mulllplt 'PIÌIIClillOII' III ProœelOd. ale IJIPIOPrlslt ,.. 'F" be chIrgtd ,for IIOh "aellon..
....~-. ..s.å4 ""& -~..,.,J."'.I.t .
OCT. 7.1999 4:24PM
J81~t.I~ 14:35:23
us WEST J41"I'1 ~ STP
612-93'r5?39-> 612 ó42 694Z
1'10.677
P.2/S
PiIfC 8B3
. .
PROJECTIWIB : ~N ~c... ~ 1.._Cc-~~ Ø-- .J...
LOCATION :4'/". L'-.sS ¿ ~¡¿;-., _ ~
&.!GALDESCRlPTIoH ( ^'" ~ -?~
~ A.J..2. k.~
fOTALACR!Aœ ~)t' "7/hM,..
WE'rL\NOa PRI!8I!NI" _ \'Ei& .JLNO
P_ENTZONINGJøs:~""'- I ~¡~fc. ~\},
ReQUESTID ZONIfJQ /lit( t ... '" ~ e;. ~ ~ - le...
PRESENTLANDó8eqE8lONA'T1ON---: tJv.b.~.....; Po ¡"c..
-wJo'uair__ . y,,¡,~_, '¡>...bI,.
REASONFORTHfS:REaUeaT,J:;'tt,.. Ù~ Ws.sT" WM.\e-,5 ~. _. ------,"«9 I~ '
w '.(.Ia~ t..___ ~'?'_ ~i_k !.Ill! __ J~LÃ~ M:¡I(.. u.~G-m..¿"#.N-&Li.
ThI·lPplQIIIon mll.t ~~øomp IIad In fun 1l1li be ~ or ar_ pr rUd Ind liliiii Þe IOCGmpInIId ~ "/nIonnItIon
and p/Ina _reel þy ~1ICiIbID ~ 0nIInInce~. BIftn., II1II ~1!; I'1n, you IIIOufd conferWII/I1ha I"lInnl.
DepaJt nw ID ~·the I IICØ C ordInne ItICI pracldurtl",*",,*,tt I IpIIcU1e to your IPpllClIIof..
, I
A det1lC'mlnlUan of $anpt;...... of the I IpUcIIfon lhIIIiIt.... II4IhIn ten buaIne.. ~ of IPPIaI1Ion IYbmIIIaJ. Å wrfllM
lIOIIae Of Ippl QllIQr d.1IcIIJncII11/IeII Þe IIIIIIdID thllJIpIIcwwllhln.n buIInII. diy, of IppnClUon.
..~ l..1:I'
-,'ti!.l NWI..,
f.ca- Se;\.~
\t"", 1 L.'t'
~, B I~S
. I . .
ThllIa ID c,IIIft IhI l1li' IIIIIdIv IPPI"'IICIoIlI'ar 1hI_~ - IIf ICI/on by 01. CIIr II1II thIt 1l1li IIIIPO/IllbII Ibr ~Ing willi
III ~ IIC \IItIIIIen.. WIll NØMI 10 IhIIIIC U8It. TllII It-J 11 If ,1IIouIIf Þe ll'Cl1II1..rJ In my liliiiiII1II1 1m the I~ WIIom
the CIIv .houId 00If* IiNiñøñIlIlllY 1111118r.......1II _... .,~. rlo,~ I.... IIIIahI4 I COW of IftIOI or ownelllllp
(1I!IIerOO'V of~~ c.-'. '''It'''' A ¡IJI Dlof'TllllarPI/ICIIUI....IIIIIIt). 01'1 1m the llIIIIortztd fIIIIOn
Iollllka filii r~~rl...... ....1IIIt'ee _ilia -1IgnIII1IIII1 I~.-IIor.
I \VII kHp l1'l)'I'" hIM.., 01' the .."",. tar II1II-- I:, of IMIIrIeIIIICI the II/OQIIIt of 0I1a I l lllclIIon. funhIr
&IndItItIncI1hII _Il101111 .. !lIlY tie dWIIIS Ibr ~ -. 1'eUIIII~ 1IIidIII. lID. wIrh IllIItItnIII prtor ID Iny
euthorIzIUon ID p~ ~h 01. IIWIr. 'TIll CItIcumIIú.. WannaIIon IItIVlIllbmIIlld ntru.lJIC ·conwct 10 III' Þelt of
II¥ 1a!!1II1'II¡.. .
The o~ ItINIIy not/ftII.. ~1cInI1h1t dI\fWII...1IIiIIw caftOt be 00IIIJIII1Ic ~ 10 _ 1Iu~ to pub!Io IIoIIIIne
~ And II IIqt NVitW. ~... ~ " ftOIIf;In; 1hI1PP/IOIn11/llt ... .. __ In IUtOIIIItIo eo .
....I0Il Ibr --. Da1.IIoPft*lt...,. IhIII lie OO/II IIIIH WIIhIII 120 .. IIIIIIII "nel IIVItW
ronu" tir1h..w..~
--'ili1n
. 0lIl. .
Ic;/j/'fi_ .
AppIlGltJon JtlcllWId on
Fa PIIit
~No.
11tI1 IpII0IIIt IIIOuIcI oOI"..........u.".....tIIt... whlalt dIM¡ II/IIIMII on Prlclq prIOr 10 lit. mMlln,.
IlnotcOII&leted,. OO!IYÌIf............Io......a-r ~.......
. ,
'.
.....'10.. .... 1M .1.. ¡lilt i .j ¡ .. ..,.
··*EHD...
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: 4161 Hwy. 7
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing aboùt a propos'alin 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 steps:
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 want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. -If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 14. 1999.
~ ~
Smooth Feed Sheets™
Use template for 5160®
)I.. Y CROSS lUTH CHURCH
51 HIGHWAY 7
,CB.SIOR, MN 55331
PETE KElLER
6760 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JEROME JOHNSON
3940 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ACIA ANDERSON
i )0 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
CasIOR. 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
}1 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
CaslOR, MN 55331
PAUL & JACQUELINE BACH·
~1COUNTRYOAKSROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ROGER KNIGHT
4001 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
RI FREEMAN
10 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
: 1 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
CaslOR, MN 55331
PAUL QUARBERG
6781 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
PATRICK & PATRICIA FAUTH
4011 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
'RY & BRIGID GRATHEN
!O COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
CasIOR. MN 55331
STEPHEN & MARY ALDRtTT
3946 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
SCOTT GREFE
4020 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331
'IT KOLLODGE
10 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
CELSIOR, MN 55331
MICHAEL KAMMERER
4000 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
PAM & TROY PRINSEN
4040 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
NDY BREHMER
:0 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
CasIOR. MN 55331
DAN AMENT
4010 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
LOREN W. WITTE
4101 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
::VEN EHLERS
,1 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
CELSIOR, MN 55331
LANCE RONN
4011 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
DANIEL & BARBARA WISNIEWSKI
4017 HALLGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
AES REIFF
.0 COUNTRY OAKS ROAD
~asIOR. MN 55331
JON WITT
3931 GLENDALE DRIVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
GARYJ.STAFFANSON
4028 HALLGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
-
So. 1" feed Sheets™
MtCHAB. & BARBARA ECKERT
<1029 HAlLGREN COURT
E)t~ !':InR, UN 55331
ZSOLT MUlLER
4050 HALLGREN COURT
EXCB.SIOR. MN 55331
GEORGE HANKEY
-4051 HALLGREN COURT
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331
ANNE HUEMME
4070 HALLGREN LANE
EXCElSIOR. MN 55331
ROBERT & JILL SCHULZ
4075 HALLGREN LANE
EXCEl..SIOR. MN 55331
CORRINA & MARK BARTlKOSKI
4099 HALLGREN LANE
EXCElSIOR. MN 55331
FOUR HAHN PROPERTIES LLC
18500 CO RD 6
PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
, KATl-lERINE M. BERGENTHAL
4111 HAlLGREN LANE
: _.EXC8.SIDR. UN 55331
I, ESlER & CHRISTOPHER CLANTON
-4114HAlLGRENLANE
FYOJ'f !W1&I. MN 55331
JO ANN HALLGREN
3921 MAPLE SHORES DRIVE
,EXCElSIOR, UN 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.SLOlT/LORNA L. SLOlT
4167 HALLGREN LANE
EXCElSIOR, MN 55331
BARRY MATSUI
4170 HALLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JUDITH & GREG HAHN
18500 COUNTY ROAD 6
PL'I!MOUTH, MN 55447
PAUL &MARV JOHNSTON
4184 HAlLGREN LANE
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331
CATHY & BRENT DAVIS
4010LESLEE CURVE
EXCB..SIOR, MN 55331
Use template for 5160®
BETTY ANN CARLSON
4020 LESLEE CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
VERNISHAM
4030 LESLEE CURVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
SCOlT 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™
MAHONEY & K. FAZIO
21 PIPEWOOD CURVE
:CElSIOR, MN 55331
III & JILL OSMAN
30 PIPEWOOD CURVE
,CElSIOR, MN 55331
NNE 1. MARCY
31 PIPEWOOD CURVE
CELSIOR. MN 55331
lllAM BERG
40 PIPEWOOD CURVE
,CELSIOR, MN 55331
~HARD G ANDERSON
41 PIPEWOOD CURVE
CELSIOR, MN 55331
IY & RONALD DVORAK
31 WHITE OAK LANE
CELSIOR, MN 55331
HITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN, INC.
) EAST COUNTY ROAD D
TLECANADA, MN 55117
:GENCY HOMES
33 5TH AVENUE
¡OKA. MN 55303
~HARD STEIN
17 WHITE OAK LANE
1ANHASSEN, MN 55317
:ANDUANDERSON HOMES, INC.
3 COBBLESTONE LANE
IRNSVIllE, 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
LITTLE CANADA, MN 55117
~e-1;. er J. Ke I I er
612 470 3951
P.02
Pete é'lrl.d J:v1:ary Keller
6760 Cou=try OclKS Road
8:x:celsior. :rvIN 5533:t.
( 61_2) 470-395~
';)ctober 9. .1999
City Councll and
plal1ll1nÇl Commission
City Of Cnanhassen
690 City Center Dr¡-"e
CJ1anhassen, MN 55317
HV <,,,How EesidEmts.
tJS West WirBless and Hç,lv C!'OSS Luth.;r,òn chul":i, have apph.;å für "
var1an<:e fronl 5e,::t..~on 20-1506 irom t~je city :od~, Th~ varlance IS
neeõ.~è bv US West Wireless t() erect a ] 00 foot metal towel:' C'l~ the
D!.~0Dertv ':lwnec1 by HolyCross !.uther211 Churctl, T!ìe propel-tv 1<:
::ol1ed RSF. resider:Üç¡] ~lnqle family and. t11(~ land '.!5e is PUbJ~c-S.~;n~-
Pubhc. ! ¿Œi: ~ r~eiqhb::'r :::£ tHe property ro tEe east,
~~}Ìi.:O or:iqH1ñl aODlica:::ion of July 21 was r8commended bv ?lanninC! Staff
to lJ~ c1enl~d and ,~t thB S~ptembeI- 1 me~tinC( c'r the Flanlll119
Ccmn~~ssjOl:, ãlld it'. was (lE~l;.ied, The variancE! apµJicðti.on was l"eC.¿.lveÖ.
(Jctober 7 and is schedul~d for your boà18:=. on O:;toD8r 2:) 3ncl
November 8 respect.ively.
::ectien 20,·,1506 deals with tDwers in residE?lH_laJJ.~" 20H8à districts. Pflr-t
two of thaLs~ction. subDart a. says :f they In.;et aE other crit¿;na tbev
are ~llowe(! in "Church :~;ite9. when camoHr""laqE:cl as an ò.l~cn:t8crur2.1
featurE: S:U~ as ste9ples or bell towers.:! This ordinance is t'\111tren
~)e':-3.\.1se thesE: fret~ stanc1inq t':),\''iers are e~{ce·ptl011ally '!.llV.tttr."òctl'/t? ·i:o
l·,:,üJ.\. at and ar~ not éI.ll compatlble wIth re.sider~tlal propertv. Ima(Tlll02 ct
JOO foot. ~ali lcetal tower In fulì ~liew ün '{lJlU· ne:ghbors P!·{'U8rt~".
~
,
.SeC'ti'.)!3 :U-5~; of )ur CltV Code C'j'./er:: ÿf2l1er.=Ü conditiolls for çlrctlHin(:. .;1
Vên¿lJiC~, !'t ..~tat8s t.hat a \Ié',rjð.llC~ l11fiV be granted only if c1H sÜ:
:~'rit"::l:"ia ar': n:~t, Pi"'he fIrST. sE~cond and sixth c::.-iterla reallY de: not
'ì1)ulv 't·:· t..!âs ëlP:p~lCëÜio:n an,j wot!ld b8 m-::t, T hB tJllrd crJ:t'.~r.!.é: ~tdt.e::'
"That the- DUrp(IE.-E: çlf tne variance !E not based tlDCln a desire t1:'
jn...:r~asd tJ-¡e v~.lu~ or incomE' Dc'tentlal çf the parc~l of lan{;." .i"\tL!.::i·¡~d
t,~ this letter is a COPy (If a lëtter from Past,:)r Rob¿rt jj. J011Hson ,=,f
Edv Cross Lutheran Church. ¡"!any cop~es of the letwr wen, ]dt ~'Er
to be picked UP by al1VQne att.;ndinç¡ the Op"11 hQ\lS8 US Wes¡: Wlrdes~
¿-Ind Ho.ii/ CrO&5 Lutheran Ç:hnrch put on. at the c!1urch ·):1 Augt!st ~S,
The 1ett~r 'Very dearly mdlCa¡:es t.hat th~, on!v r';dSQ!1 tJ1is vananc" 15
needr:d ~s --iæ5ire to ·lllcrease the ll~COmE: "Ç)Qt.er:tial of t,hê parcE!! of
land. Th~ !;ç·llceìJt of êt varlance. for a commerçial ~ncomB prOdUCl1j9
ser:vice 11:: a r,esidential djST.t'lct needs to be ccnsidered as wBI1. The
---;11rcl cr!t'=·:l·~ 2.5 not met SC' :t variance should net b<2 ( raljt~d,
Page 1 of 3
¡
Peot er J. Ke- I I er
612 470 3951
P.03
T ne fourth cnteria states "That the alleged clifficulrv or hardsl1j'o is not
i! self-created hardshIp." The need for ,his tower has b""'11 entir..lv
created by US West Wireless. It 1S onlY us West Wjreless that believes
a need exists. The only two ot11e.r entities that have. gone on record on
U,e matter are Holy Cross Lutheran Church and it's neighbor.;;.
Throuqh the attached lett",r and preylOUS testimony at the PlanninCl
Comnnss1on on St?1?tember 1. ne1ther one b€'.lieves a need for th~ s~~rvìce
",;-:ists. The fourth cdteri·" 15 not Eìet so a variance sl1011ld not be
Clr.anted.
The fifth criteria states "That the granting of ~he variance wm not be
d,,,trimental to the public w;,lfar.e or 111iunous to other" land or
improvements 111 the neighbc.rhood in which-the parcel ()f land is
lc,cated." There are. many studies that c.)nclude that a tower 12k" this
is detrimental to nelghborina property valul'.'> _ I have even h"iin) a
rumor of one study that concluded a tower like this will increase or nút
clìanqe neiuhborinq pro1?ertv values. Common .sense needs to prevail.
The <'Irea W,1ere the tow¿,r IS proposed 13 currently wild ç'rass and
flowers backed UP by SO bot tre"s. Clearly. a 100 foot metal tow'.!'
and the metai equlpmem: )),)x,,"s aU iI, fulJ. l1l-,screened view of the
neighbors !S not as desira))le. Representatives from both us West
wireless and Holy Cross Ll:ti1eran Church have <'IdmittE.d it is "ugl""
and that it might harm prop"ny values. The fifth criteria is not met
so a var1ftr:ce should not be granted.
':;n j)ehalf ,A man v lle:iqhborE> who may not have the ability to drop tl1"I1'
en11r8 hfe "nel try to become" knowledq¡,able: ",n completelv forei(111
matt.EŒS hk" this, I ask 'lour help in keeDina our wonderful neiql1bor
nood iust that. wonderful. Pl¿,ase do not arant thIS yanance for the
mallY re<'lsons st<'ltecl above.
I am a stav at home dad and also opel'ate a ·.¡e.rv limited day cart:~
E..:,~rvice for '.':Jther children. Therefore. I am b" nature a pati¡::.nt mi\n
and a problem solver V'il1cl~ ernpathizes with US West Wir81ess's percieved
need. Shoulè US West WÜ-"less. in tlle futur.e. demollstl"ate that the v
need ã tower for the¡r COll"~lUerClal serVlce. tl-J'2.:re are ample other sites
well within the one miie radius of Holv Cross Lutheran Church that the
Se))telober 1 Staff Report calls f01-. Some of them include the fin,
scation. the sewer lift staUon. Cathc<'Irt P<'Irk hockey rink liqht towers
and Ü¡e water tow",r at Minne,."ashta Elementary school. Holy Cross
¡,ut!ìeran Church 15 not t1,e Qnly site that couìd meet us West Wirel(,ss
RF obiectiye. it is luSt the site they ßns-cakenlv thouaht be tlw eaSlest
1<) a('quin~. The tower and antenna sections of the City Code encCoClrage
tins type (,f structure awav from residential areas and to rather locate
them on public or commercial land. should a variance still be needed.
it would tlien be 111 a ¡lon-residenti<'ll area and have significantlv less of
èt no;,qative iJnpact on that site's surroundIng neiqhborhood.
:t 1\\1C111t bo;, time to be a little 1110r8 pro-active in helµinCl US WE!st
Wireless retam a site on t',1e ~mple p,¡blic l1\nd that is <'Ivail1tble.
Thanks fOl- your tune and c')nsldel~atioE. From son~eone. who has served
'In ¡;~ city commisston" I know the iob is long and often not thall_~ed. sc·
thank vou for your. dedication to 'lour commUl11ty. please do not
Page /. of 3
Pe1;.er- J. Keller-
612 470 3951
P.04
hesitate to contact me if I can he of any further assistance wlth this
lmportant matter.
Ü/Æ
Peter Keller
Attachment
cc: Shannil1 AI-Jaff
Page 3 of 3
Pet er J. Ke I I &or
612 470 3951
P.05
. ~/'lli' .-tf+9
Friends '" Nel¡hbors ofHol)' Cross Lutheran
41$1 HI¡hwa)' 1/7
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dear Friends,
AJ. you come 10 the church 10nighllO have a meeting wilh representatives of US WEST, we would like 10
have )'Ou understand our posJt.ion.
Orl¡lJlaU)'. US WEST came 10 us with a reqllelt 10 buUd Ii colÎlmunlcatlons tower to Improve
cellular phone service for aU ofut. We, the Church COuncll ofHõly Cross, listened 10 their proposal
and agreed 10 have them move ahead with cxamInIng t1ie possibility of this proposal being done, a part of
which Is the public hearing YOII are attending, this evenlag.
Advantages 10 Holy Cross con¡regalion? Actuallv there Is onlv one and that i. Ihe financial oayment we
will receive from US West should the towarm built.
Such fTnancea would help us improve the property (Some of which we have aTrcady done by providing
play ground equipment, refurbishing the TIOW'ICk LearniDg Facility, building a playlplcnic area in the
rear of the church (presenll)' in progress), keeping the prqperty mowed, and reconsttucting the play area
Immediately outside of the Tamarack Learning Center). AI this point these repairs and the upgrading of the
property have cosl us in excess of $10,000.
We wish to be good neighbors to you" and have tried to reach oullo you the community, making the
property usable for all, members Holy Cross and community members, who not members. .
US WEST desires 10 'provlde us all botIei ceilular phone service. Technology, as we unClerstand It,
requires these lowers 10 be placed somewhere. If)'Ou as nel¡hbors are willing, we have the space to do
that. If you believe that this tower, which wl11 be explained to)'Ou tonight, Is something you can't live
with, then neither are we willing to have the tower built 00 the property of Holy Cross Lutheran Church.
Pete Keller, ooe of our nel¡bbon called me, Pastor SOb, to loqulre about the possibility of our
lovolvement 10 the Nelcbborhood Watch Program you are begloohlg In the nelgbborhood. 'We bave
often called the Sheriff's Departmenl regarding the Irresponsible use ofoue property by snowmobilcn,lWo
wheelers, four wheelers, and even uuauthoriæd cars" driving on the property. We have had to put up
snow fences near the Tamarack play area so that snowmobiles would nol crasb inlO the little ooes attending
the Tamarack School, wblle they wore plaYing In the snow.
We would assure you that in any way we can, we would join the Neighborhood Watch Program and help
as we are able. 1 am good liionds with one of the Captaidofthe Sberiff's Department for Carver County,
and would be happy 10 work with the neighborhood in making certain IrresponslbTe use oflbe property
does not happen. Please don't hesitate calling Pastor Bob at 474-9242 if you have thought about our
Involvement with the proposed Nei¡hborhood Watch Program.
OCT-20-99 03:35 AM
P.01
Del Hè....¡,au..d
1070 Tn>ølc Pork On",
.._. FIctI.. 3277.
(407) aJlO-7."
WendyHBmmond
October 19.1999
Chanhassen PIII...'IÌIIg & ZonqJc......J 1IIr:..,
e90CJtyCetWDœa .
Chanhassen, MinnescIa
RE: U.S. Weat wi,.I"'-
Request forVellenee
For. 100' Monopole Tower
Attention: Membens of the PlannIng Commission
Please be acMsecI that we sbIInuousIyobject to the Commission granUng U.S, West WIreless the
above-Æfaranoed ~18IW1Oe.
We purch8S8cl La! 5. Block 1 in Oek Ridge of Lake Minnewashta In 1998 with the Intent to
buUd and relocate DLrfllmily from FIor1da 10 Minnesota in the year 2000.
If the IIIiIf_rencedvar1ance Is gr.mled and a tower constructed, It will decrease property values
considerably not to mention the hazan:lou6 risks inherent in towers of this type.
If permission is ! ranted. we wish to 1Itate for the record that we will not be building our new
home and wSJ æek aU ~I remedlesfi8Hab1e to us to overtum the variance and to obtain any and all
damages il1CUmld.
<§:t,\~~
~~~~~
Wertåy Hammond
Oak RIdge Lot 5, Black 1 lak....I~
¿L~
~~~.
~~~Ji~Ç~~~'
'J!Jt¡-~Mt. ~&:otJ. ..¡ ~
~~~~~h,aM..1
.z:;h. ~ ~ ~ eU/tPd.~ ~ Nk
~.~~hú~~~
,ti~~.'. ~<M..~~~
;¡¡ ~~4t 4U-fff~, ~~~
nr.¿ if~ .4:t.- ~ ~ IJ1f/J1 ~ ~
~ "'¡~;t,A1id~~Á.z4e
~ ;0Ð().
~a?It~~~;z:4~
~~Ji~~ -.
~ ~ It- ~ tU4t -'7 Æ- ~
~.
J-~.~~~~~
~ ~ M. ~ "'1':zh. éU¡., CL.,t. ~
w~~.aµ44-~.
oJ -Þd .:t4t- ~ ~ k ~ ~
~ ~ ~ M&C... ~ ~.:tL.:..
,. .
~""""'<'V~.~ðU;~_ ~~...........
;tk.. ~ ~/>I-¡u..I A ~ ~ .G ~
~ÝIt/.zk~~1,th~~
~~..1)ú~~~
a..- ,k.a;~ ~ ~ ~ þ~
~~, .:t~ ~ ~ W1<¡ ;Z;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,k44¿'-ø-~
J;. ~ M-' ~ ~ ~_ t:I~).u...
a, ~ ~ :t:h b.:t; ~ ú. L w.ur ~
~ DA~-;£~ '. ßuæt.
~~À¿L .
~. J:t~a....-~~'Iða., ~~~
~~ ~ ó/ 'M.z:-,M. ð.V:'
~3t/'ír 1Jij:~IVED
sðÞO 1 1999
CITY OF CH""~HASSEN
G)
þ ;ih.m ;)4 fIor p./ ¡VI ¡I ~ ýMD !
t:ú. tI.)-Ul. -u- ~ ~ ~
~ 41fu.. ~~~~~~
~.
t:l~1;z;/ta~ ~~~
~~~~~~
~ ~ ~. W..L- a.4L ¿f7(.. .o:t...
,,4.~.AitL ~ ~ 4 .z;kL ~
~dNL-~~. 'U'.e.. ~ ~
~ ~~ ~;tid~ ~~!z.n..
~ Mut w<- ~ ~ lif1UIÃ Þ ~ .4<i---Æ
- ~.~ ;:a, Þ Jk ~ 1":z;1te.
~ #Jv;z:k. a.-t.«" .;tAe-u;"'- ~ ~
~ N~~;t;,~;t¡
~ ~ ~ ~.d~fé- ~,ZM~_
:¡~I ¿,L.'.vJ~~;th~þ
~It~~~~~)~
~~~~µ.d:6.~
-;n..;d '1 ~ ~ .Jl.a u, ~. ttJ.u;f vJ~ ~
~/tZd~ z;h ~ ~ ~ lH.,
~ ~_r;;th~~~,
uJþtt4-~~~.~~~
~~~~~
~ ¡.J.L-~ ~;t#. ~ Zk
~~~~~~;Z:;-
Ä-~~,u)¿~~
, ~.:t4:t~;cM~~~
ðf ~ "J~ ~d4;t- ~~
~J ~/~ .M.o-p.-"~' ~
~ ~ n ðUIt/ AI~¡(~.
47bu~~~ ~~v~
~ ~I ;th~,;amM.e.
~~~~
~. ~
Q)
-. .Jb-u-~'¿ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~/~U.J; ~~~r"~-¡-
~.PJ...~ .f"..¿·/~ ~ ~
~;C::::i~~
~ ;ti ~ lJI~T j4 &i ~ YpH!. ) !
-~~
!!!r1I.dl. Karen
from:
Sent:
To:
..-.-'
Engelhardt, Karen
ThUlsday, December 16, 1999 3:55 PM
....CÞ.... sfn1ic.£orn'
Æ: US West COImUIicaIians tower
Dear Mr. (. Mrs. Slott: Thank you £or your email. I am forwarding your
comments to Kate "~-"CID, 'our CouImmity Development Director. She is
off today, .but will be badt__rlZllf. 'l.'7Pically all conunents received
are inèluded in the %I!!,pOrt pllCket 1:I>at is submitted to the Planning
"'-'f"orIon ;msl/or CoaDcil.
Karen Engelhardt
Office Manager
-----Original Message-----
From: bills@charlie.sfmic.com [mailto:bills@charlie.sfmic.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 8:13 AM
To: choffmgr@ci.ch~nh~Asen.mn.us
Subject: US West communications tower
We are sending this message to voice our <concerns over the
communications
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 diffi=lt to find these days as the
suburbs expand. We ~iked tbe 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 conununications 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 .orry abautother development that could
threaten
the beauty of the Da~ woaded area behind our home and impact the
value of
our property. Now,".find co:a:seJ._ voz:rying about that very thing.
'We'knaw that all US west p~~a«~S to date have been rejected by the
P~ing
Commission and we applaud the COmmission'. decisions on this issue. We
aJ.so
understand that US West and Holy Cross Church have submitted a new
proposal
involving erecting a steel steeple to conceal or camouflage the
conununications
tower. We see this most recent prqposal as just a desperate attempt to
get
1
~~
/ ~~ t-fI;/
('}J:U ,)}
,lJYV:V
\ \ ~vb Y
¡v~ lv'"
/-'
cv')
bvt.i..'Ý
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 100 foot steeple. When we picture this
small,
quaint little church with a 100 foot steeple and it seems a bit
ridiculous.
We are obviously not in .....l'1'U't. 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 10,
2000 meeting. First, from the beginning Holy Cross Church has said that
if
they heard that their neighbors were opposed to this_tl}ey w01.1ld 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 DB West could be
considering
other sites in the area besides the Holy Cröss 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
~.
-
-
,.
. Min 286
" Holf'CrossLutheran Church
Chanhassen, MN 55331
. 105' AGL
PRlV AIE
Nutibr llisclosun:outside<lf1J S WEST Wireless, L,L.c.
Do nat.distribuJcm,teproduce wit~p-lissioa from U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C.
LI~WEST®
Advanced PCS™
1
I
i
ì
I
,
Min 286
Holy Cross Lutheran Church
Chanhassen, MN 55331
105' AGL
PRIVATE
Not for disclosure outside ofU S WEST Wireless, L.L.C.
Do not distribute or reproduce without pennission ftom U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C.