PC 2007 03 20
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 20, 2007
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Undestad, Debbie Larson, Jerry McDonald, Kathleen Thomas,
Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon and Dan Keefe
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and
Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
WESTWOOD CHURCH MASTER PLAN.
Steve Mueller: Good evening Planning Commissioners. First of all thank you for allowing us to
show us where we're at with our master planning process at Westwood Community Church. My
name is Steve Mueller and I'm Chair of the Building Team. And to do this I'd like to start with
our original site block and plan. I believe this is about 6 or 7 years old and we are still following
this concept. The site area is 57 acres. Originally it was planned at 180 to 200,000 square feet.
Eventually getting to the worship capacity, worship center of 2,400. Building area. Phase I. 70
to 80,000 square feet. Of course Phase I is built and that is 70,000 square feet with a worship
capacity now of around 900. If you look at the original layout, Phase I building is right here and
then the idea was to add an education or student building here. A gathering education building
here and eventually the worship center. The gridded boxes are all representing parking. There
was imagined the outreach, the community project building here. As well as a park area here
and a retreat center up here. Then if we move onto the July plan of 2001, this was the master
plan that was developed by HGA who did the architecture for Phase I, and again we see how the
buildings are on the ridge here with the storm water pond. You see actual parking and of course
this is built now as parking up here. Again the community outreach building over here and then
future parking shown up in the high area over here. This is of course the worship center. Now
moving onto our master plan. Most recent one. This is from March. We've been working on
this for the past year. March, 2007. The red building represents existing Phase I. We acquired
the property here. It's the old house with the…and then you see the intention of building Phase II
here and Phase III over here. And then the blue buildings, which you're looking at, would be
future optional buildings and they would include a maintenance building here in addition to
Phase II. Chapel addition here to Phase III. Another addition here. Potentially Phase III. And
your small daily retreat center up here. And way back in the woods the potential small
meditation chapel, and then a community outreach, possibly a ballfield here, with a park shelter
building right here. And one of the things that we, one of the reasons wanted to address you now
is to look at the potential for lots being developed here. Residential neighborhood and then our
intention of putting parking with buffers within 30 to 20 feet of that property line, and that
parking is to support eventually this 2,400 seat worship center. So where we are right now is a
slightly larger site because of the acquisition of this property down here. At 58.6 acres. A
buildable site of 53.4 acres. Our total impervious surface area building, drives and parking is 19
1/2 acres or 36.6% represented in this total build out. And the city maximum I think is 66%.
Again the footprint of all buildings is 225,000 square feet and the gross potential square footage
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
of buildings is 354,000 square feet. Parking stalls we have provisions for 1,512 parking stalls
and requirement of the city would be 1,372. And we certainly exceed for the 2,400 seat worship
center that requirement. So that was the main reason for being here was just because we know
that development is occurring around our borders. We wanted to make sure that our intentions,
at least as much as know them today, are known by the city and by anyone who would be
interested in purchasing property or developing it adjacent to our property. So I really don't have
too much more other than if you have questions about our intentions.
McDonald: Have you had an opportunity to talk to the developer of that land to the south?
Southwest of you there.
Steve Mueller: I don't think we have, no. Tom Johnson is here too from Westwood. He's the
Chair of the Leadership Board.
Tom Johnson: We have actually had discussions with them prior to the master plan and it
actually had to do more with the city sewer and water coming through. But as far as the
relationship with Westwood and the developer, everything is just fine.
McDonald: Okay.
Tom Johnson: This was more of an informational purpose than anything.
Keefe: What is your timing on, in terms of your next phases? Any sense on that?
Tom Johnson: Well, you know that's up to funding as usual and we really don't have a specific
plan. We're going to enter into another capital campaign drive that will start actually in 2008.
So potentially you know, we really don't know as of yet so we'll see what happens as a result of
that capital campaign drive.
McDonald: Okay. Does anyone else have any questions? Okay well thank you so much for the
update. Information and best of luck.
PUBLIC HEARING:
T-MOBILE CELL TOWER: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
145 FOOT CELL TOWER WITH A 4 FOOT LIGHTNING ROD, AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FENCE OVER 6 1/2 FEET ON
PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, NORTH OF
CREEKWOOD DRIVE, SOUTH OF HALLA NURSERY, AND EAST OF BLUFF
CREEK GOLF COURSE. THE SITE IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS OUTLOT A,
HALLA MARYANNE ADDITION, APPLICANT T-MOBILE, PLANNING CASE 07-04.
Public Present:
Name Address
Claire Vogel 815 Creekwood
2
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
Gloria Boynton 777 Creekwood
Anne Vogel 815 Creekwood
th
Steve Edwards 501 50 Street West
Bruce Paul 10240 Mandan Circle
Tim Voehl 770 Creekwood Drive
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: Start with an obvious one. In terms of the city's discretion or guidance or comprehensive
plan or zoning, is there any, what, how much is the phone, are the phone companies limited to
where they can place these things? Now you already stated that it has to be, you did the one mile
search around the subject area and there was nothing. Beyond that is there, are there any
limitations or guidance in the comp plan? I mean, or are they free to put this anywhere they can
find a big enough lot?
Al-Jaff: Any time, we work very closely with any applicant that comes in and when it comes to
antennas, I mean it's something that we take very seriously. We don't want to see a proliferation
of towers throughout the city. One of the things that I didn't mention through my presentation
but it's in the staff report, we require co-location of different providers and we know that
Cingular is going to co-locate on this site. Another thing that I didn't show during my
presentation is the dead zone of, there is a dead zone and I will ask the applicant to answer more
on this issue. Tell you more about it. He explained it to me and when he did explain it I
understood it perfectly.
Papke: I think I understand the rationale you know from a signal coverage perspective why they
want to put it where it is. My only question is, does the city have any leverage or any guidance
on where we want it to be or any restrictions.
Al-Jaff: Yes we do and the applicant has met all of those guidelines and restrictions.
Papke: Okay. So legally they're perfectly empowered to put this where they're proposing to put
it without any inhibitions? Okay. In regards to the condition of moving the tower, is it 25 feet
west? Has the applicant indicated a willingness to move it to accommodate the 101 realignment
or is this, where do we stand on that?
Al-Jaff: They will.
Papke: Okay, so I'll let the applicant, I'll ask again from the applicant's perspective.
Al-Jaff: Nothing in the report should come as a surprise to the applicant. We communicated
throughout the process.
Papke: Okay. That's all I have.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
McDonald: Kevin.
Dillon: What is the capacity of this tower in terms of, I know there's T-Mobile and then there's
talk about Cingular putting extra antennas on it or whatever they're called. I mean you know,
how many layers of antennas from a technical capacity and then like from a practical point of
view too in terms of you know the mechanics of the weight on top of the tower.
Al-Jaff: Absolutely. At the time of building permit they have to design the tower and submit
these engineered plans to our building department to evaluate. Currently they are showing
potentially four future carriers. No, three. Three in addition to T-Mobile. And we know
Cingular is signing up to co-locate on this tower as well. So total of four and it will be
engineered and reviewed by our building department to ensure that it's able to handle the weight
of the antennas.
Dillon: And so when that is submitted and approved by the building department, I mean can you
go back and amend that at a future date to add more tiers of you know antennas, assuming that
the weight and all that would work out? I mean if it could structurally support it. I mean
because my concern, I don't want like antennas all up and down the thing. I mean it would look
a little odd. I mean I know there's only so many cell service providers now but.
Al-Jaff: Correct. But one of the things that we need to bear in mind is that there has to be
separation between the different carriers. The waves cannot interfere with each other. And I
have not seen more than 3 or 4 carriers on a single tower.
Dillon: Is there going to be like a steps or like steps isn't the right word but a ladder you know
for if like a service technician had to climb the tower to fix a broken wire or something up top?
Al-Jaff: Yes, there will be.
Steve Edwards: I can elaborate on that.
Dillon: Maybe I'll save some of my questions that are more for the builder.
Al-Jaff: Yes, the detail questions dealing with the tower, yes please.
Dillon: Okay, and so then how did, so you found the discrepancy in the way that the Halla
parking lot was, okay.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Dillon: And so was that disclosed to you when you were doing this or did you like uncover that?
Al-Jaff: I uncovered.
Dillon: And so then now, so part of the condition of this getting approved in, or I think you said
or just regardless, you have to fix it.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
Al-Jaff: Regardless, this has to be fixed.
Dillon: Just curious, what's their reaction to that? I mean were they like.
Al-Jaff: They haven't said anything but it will get, it's an illegal expansion and it has to cease
and desist.
Dillon: And what's the relationship between Halla and the applicant?
Al-Jaff: The applicant is leasing property from Halla Nursery. From Don Halla. Don Halla
owns Outlot A, as well as Halla Nursery.
Dillon: Okay. That's all the questions I have for now.
McDonald: Kathleen.
Thomas: I'm good. I have a couple questions for the applicant so I'll wait, thank you.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: Well I have a question regarding the height of the tower. That seems really high. Is that
normal?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Larson: Because I mean I've see them along the highway and freeways and stuff and I'm sure
they're not 145 feet high. Or is it because of where it is in the landscape?
Al-Jaff: Terrain. The word that the applicant used when he was trying to explain all of this to
me was signals have to see each other and as such the terrain comes into play and that would also
decide the height of the tower.
Larson: Okay. Let's see here. You answered that one. Barbed wire. Is that a necessary item on
this fence?
Al-Jaff: The applicant feels that it's an added, a security measure. This is an Agricultural Estate
District and barbed wire is permitted in that.
Larson: I mean for animals or people? Either one? It's out in the middle of nowhere, that's why
I just, it just was interesting.
Al-Jaff: I believe the only reason, and we've done this, this is not the first cell tower where we
allowed the use of barbed wire on the top, and again it's because of security.
Larson: Okay. That's all I have, thank you.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
Keefe: Just a couple quick ones. The road off Creekwood, can we restrict them because the
recommendation is for them to come, drive south to the site from the existing nursery, but they
want to come up from Creekwood. Is that something, I don't see any restrictions or any
conditions other than we'd like you to consider, but is that something we can?
Al-Jaff: This property has frontage on Creekwood. This is a, according to the applicant, they
intend to have one trip per month for maintenance purposes. The way the applicant explained it
is, the owner of the property would like to keep the two entrances separate for security reasons.
And that's the reason why we looked at this, at the two alternatives was mainly because of the
length of this driveway.
Keefe: Right. How do you maintain it and who goes on it and, right.
Al-Jaff: But no, there is…
Keefe: But if they choose to do that, if they choose to do that and maintain it and, is there much
we can do about it really? Nothing. Okay. Alright, and then in regards to the conditions
associated with them to remove the illegality, if you will, I didn't see anything in the conditions
here. Is that something that's handled through.
Al-Jaff: It should be.
Keefe: Is it in there? Did I miss it? Okay. I'll take your word for it then. I didn't see it.
Al-Jaff: It's in.
Keefe: Which one is it?
Al-Jaff: It should be under the conditional use permit.
Keefe: I wrote something right above it, that's why I overlooked it. It's there.
Al-Jaff: That's on page 14.
Keefe: Yep. And then the last item I had was related to what Kurt was I think in part going after
was, if this tower's built by T-Mobile and say somebody else locates on it, does that then restrict
somebody else from building a tower within a certain distance from this? Another tower. So for
instance if somebody else wanted to come in and have their own tower, I mean are towers, do we
restrict the distance from tower to tower from different providers?
Al-Jaff: What we want them, and it's not cheap to have a tower.
Keefe: No, I know. Yeah.
Al-Jaff: And so any user will first come and.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
Keefe: They'll likely want to co-locate on there but is there any restriction for somebody else say
to come in and build another tower, if they could get Don Halla gets you know lease payment off
of this and somebody else wants to build a tower and.
Al-Jaff: They have to go through the exercise of demonstrating that this tower cannot
accommodate one. They have to look within a mile radius. Exactly the same way we went with
this applicant.
Keefe: Okay. So the city rules essentially say that if there is an existing tower, you have to look
to co-locate on that if it's within a mile area of service area?
Al-Jaff: That's correct. And we have a letter from the owner of the property saying that he will
allow the co-location. We have a letter, so it's a commitment letter that we get from different,
from the owner of the property that says we will allow co-location on this tower.
Keefe: Okay. FAA lights.
Al-Jaff: We can't control.
Keefe: Is there going to be one on this at 145 feet do we know?
Al-Jaff: To the best of my knowledge there isn't going to be one. If FAA requires any signage
or lights, then their regulations would supersede whatever we have here.
Keefe: Yeah, it'd just be kind of nice to know if there's going to be a blinking light up there or
not. Maybe the applicant can address that one. Okay.
McDonald: I have no questions either so at this point if the, thank you staff for the report. If the
applicant wishes to come up and address the commissioners and address some of these questions
that are kind of waiting for you.
Steve Edwards: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Steve Edwards. I'm
here tonight representing T-Mobile. I'd like to thank you for the chance to speak tonight and first
of all I'd like to thank staff. Sharmeen has been very diligent in her questions and has responded
to my questions in a very timely manner. Concerning the site, I know several carriers have been
looking at this area for several years now and I think that's evident by Cingular's applicant with
T-Mobile so far before the tower's even built to co-locate on the site which shows you that there's
a need for a site in this area. I think the site we've come up with fits very well in the area. The
actual bottom of the tower will be very well screened by the existing coverage that's in the area.
And we're more than twice the distance away from any residences as required by the code. A
couple of the issues that have been brought up by staff concerning the access. It's not T-Mobile's
intention to build an 800 foot road right off the bat. I mean it is an inconvenience for T-Mobile
also. But as it's been pointed out to me that Don Halla is not the only owner of this property.
The actual nursery. There is another owner and that owner is not interested in creating an
easement on the property, which don't work into his future plans. So that puts us in the position
7
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
of creating another access off the road. The shortest distance off that road obviously being 101
and I think we're familiar with that being in the process of being moved, and with that that puts
us back to the 800 foot road and the actual access we're looking to complete off that is an
extension of an existing driveway that we were able to basically provide so there won't actually
be a new access off that road created. The issue, I have issue with 101. Ah, the 25 feet. Moving
that back will not be a problem. That kind of works in with the situation with FAA. Currently
we have a letter from the FAA saying that at our exact location with those coordinates we're
okay to go without a light, but we'll have to re-file that now with the new position 25 feet away.
Barbed wire. It's something we typically have on our sites. This is out in the middle of nowhere,
as you said, and if the commission feels it's something they would not like to have on the tower,
we can have that removed. Our cabinets within the fence are extremely durable and they have
alarms on them if somebody goes after them with a baseball bat or something. It's going to take
a few swings before it does harm. And then an alarm goes off within the site and one of our
technicians is actually deployed to the site. Restriction about climbing the tower. There is, our
climbing pegs start about 20 to 25 feet up so our technician actually has an extension of a ladder
or even a cherry picker to access that tower so these aren't accessible by somebody who's not
carrying a really long ladder which might be able to go onto the site. Another, as Cingular, if
another carrier wants to approach T-Mobile with co-locating on this tower, we have what's
known as a master lease agreement in place with all the major carriers which basically makes it a
speedy installation for that carrier to utilize this tower. And if anybody were to apply to build
another tower in this area, they would have to come to the City Council and Planning
Commission and say, and prove the reason why they can't actually utilize this tower, so. I think
that's really all I have. If I can answer any questions you might have.
McDonald: Mark?
Undestad: I was just curious on the question that Kevin had there on how many you can put on
there. How many additional antennas work on that tower?
Steve Edwards: Right now it's planned for 4 with the idea that Cingular's coming on below T-
Mobile. T-Mobile's installing at the 145 level. Cingular will be able to install at 135. The next
carrier at 125 and 110. 115 with 10 foot increments. And in this area, 115 is still a pretty good
coverage area for the fourth carrier coming onto that. If something does happen down the road
and there is a fifth carrier or internet provider or somebody else approaches T-Mobile to be on
this tower, these towers are over engineered. And can be modified down the road if more
strength needs to be put into the tower. But a fourth carrier tower is a pretty beefy tower as it is.
Undestad: Is the inner net that they're talking about, does that go up into your antenna or is that
something that again is going to get below the 115 mark or?
Steve Edwards: That would actually come off of our platform. That would be part of our right
with T-Mobile.
Undestad: T-Mobile and the 145.
Steve Edwards: Correct.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
McDonald: Questions?
Dillon: How far like down into the ground does the tower have to go so it doesn't sway or how is
that engineered? I mean is it just, because there's no guide wires.
Steve Edwards: Exactly, it's engineered. We go out and we take a soil sample of the site. We
send that off to an engineering firm who specializes in foundations. In this area I'd estimate 30
to 35 feet down. Prior to this I've worked in Louisiana. We were going 40 to 60 feet down so,
there's a case now that goes pretty deep down there.
Dillon: That's the only question I have.
Papke: Just a question about how optimal the site is for T-Mobile and for the City of
Chanhassen. It's quite common to build these along an interstate, because you get, you want to
accommodate the people on the interstate. Why not a spot closer to 212 as opposed to right next
to a golf course?
Steve Edwards: I think I'll refer to our existing coverage.
Papke: You know it's referred to several times as kind of the middle of nowhere. There's not
that many residents right around the tower and because of the aesthetics involved, you just, you
know one would intuitively think that a spot closer to the new 212 freeway would be better for
the City and better for T-Mobile.
Steve Edwards: Well as you can see we're actually going to be able to, sorry. This is an existing
coverage as you see kind of the coverage that we currently have. This is what the site we're
actually providing and that's one of the reasons we're going at 145 feet. It allows us to cover a
large amount of area, still working within the city code. One of our biggest problems right now
is along Pioneer Trail. 101 right there and then also kind of dipping down into the 212 down
below. With that, this area's very, very restricted not only from the city code but also you have a
bluff line in this direction. You drop off and pretty much go down about 100 feet down here
until you get into wetland area, and then trailing off over into here we actually have some
coverage along here that we're pretty satisfied with so, what we're really trying, this is really one
of the only opportunities that we've actually had in this area to find a spot that is actually going
to meet the coverage objective. So it's been a difficult and a long couple years working, trying to
figure out what we're actually going to do on this so we're very happy with the location we found
now so.
McDonald: Okay, well thank you very much. At this point we will open this up for public
comment and I would ask that you come up to the podium and just state your name and address
and address your comments to the commissioners. So anyone wishing to comment on this,
please come forward.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
Tim Voehl: I happen to live at the southwest corner, the corner there. My wife and I, and we
have 3 children, we're concerned about looking at the dangers that this might have to our family.
If there's.
McDonald: Excuse me sir, could you state your name and address. This is as much for the
record as anything else.
Tim Voehl: Sure.
McDonald: Just living down in this little corner doesn't really help us.
Tim Voehl: Alright. Tim Voehl. The address is 770 Creekwood Drive.
McDonald: Thank you.
Tim Voehl: So is there any kind of throw off to this? You know one concern that I heard
mention of a lightning antenna on it. And I guess does it attract lightning strikes? I know that
the storms get pretty severe down on the bluff. Is that going to draw lightning up into our area?
Should I go on? I've got a little list here.
McDonald: Okay, go ahead.
Tim Voehl: Okay. Noise. I guess is there going to be a hum at all? I don't know if that's the
case. Visual, what color is it going to be painted? Probably light blue. I assume since it blends
in with the sky. What is the lease term? How long is it proposed to be there? I believe that Don
Halla isn't the owner of that property indefinitely. You know in which case, when it changes
hand, does the tower go with it? Well that's basically it.
McDonald: Okay. I guess in answer to your questions, that's something that he should be able
to approach you at City Hall with all the details of that.
Al-Jaff: Sure.
McDonald: Or is that.
Al-Jaff: All the questions we're able to answer.
Steve Edwards: I can also address those questions.
McDonald: If you want to step up and address a couple of those questions for him.
Steve Edwards: Yes, lightning. There is a lightning rod on this tower. The lightning rod's
actually there to protect the electrical equipment at the base. It's not going to draw any additional
lightning to the area, but what lightning is in the area, it will probably absorb. Noise. There
won't be any noticeable noise. The closest house is 400 feet away. Our cabinets have small air
conditioners in them. I don't think you'll, we have other sites, actually another site in
10
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
Chanhassen on a city water tower which I was here last summer. We're within 90 feet of a
gentleman's back yard and he has not called me to let me know that the noise was a problem so I
think we're okay there. Color. I guess it is light blue huh? Light blue on a beautiful blue day is
a very nice tower. It blends into the sky well. Here in Minnesota we have a lot of gray days, and
the galvanized gray tower is what people are used to seeing, and this is personal opinion. It's not
a problem whatsoever to have the factory do a blue tower. But blue towers stand out on a lot of
days. Whereas a gray tower is the one that we commonly see, and we kind of know what the
gray tower is or, we don't notice the gray tower as the blue one kind of jumps out at you. It is a
25 year lease agreement with Mr. Halla, and that would stay with the property if he sold the
property in 10 to 15 years so.
McDonald: Okay. Thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make
comment?
Gloria Boynton: I wonder if we can see that map again of all the properties with that road up and
to the left there. Now that's your yard right there Tim. See that square on the left hand corner
that looks like it's part of Halla's property. Well Tim and Terry bought that house right there.
That's their back yard. And so, and they've got 3 boys and they're concerned about kids climbing
the tower. Getting too close to that equipment and you know this isn't way out in nowhere.
Creekwood has about 20 residential houses right up to the golf course and down… It's not in the
country. This is residential. I don't have any objection and I don't think that the tower looks that
bad…but I just think for the Voehl's, it's quite close to their back yard there.
Steve Edwards: I'm sorry… The drive in, I think you mentioned…
McDonald: And ma'am, just for the record. Could we get your name and address.
Gloria Boynton: Mine?
McDonald: Yes ma'am.
Gloria Boynton: Gloria Boynton. B-o-y-n-t-o-n. 777 Creekwood.
McDonald: Okay, thank you very much. Does anyone else have any comments? Please come
forward.
Bruce Paul: Yeah my name is Bruce Paul and I live at 10240 Mandan Circle in the middle of
nowhere. This neighborhood's been here since the 60's and I look at these photos. None of them
show the shot from my picture window in my front yard. I don't want that thing next to me. It
looks like a Christmas tree. You talk about landscaping and all that with the barbed wire fence.
You couldn't see anything at 12 feet anyway. Can you find a tree 145 feet high? You know we
have to look at this thing sticking up and you know what does it do to our TV interference? Our
AM radio interference that we do have right now. Health hazards. I don't know. Microwaves. I
mean I don't have a clue. You talked about some of these antennas being down 115 feet. What
does this do to this 400 feet area then? And why here? Why not on 312 corridor? You know,
and if Halla's going to get $3,000 to $4,000 rent a month on this thing, why doesn't the City of
11
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
Chan buy a chunk of property on 312 and collect the revenue themselves? What does it do to my
property value? You know the homes are somewhere around the $300,000 to $400,000 range
there and like Gloria said, there is about 20 homes there so we're not in the middle of nowhere.
We might in the southern tip of Chanhassen township but it's not the middle of nowhere. So
that's some of the questions I had and concern about flashing light. It's a very quiet
neighborhood and now I've got this beacon sitting up there. You might as well paint it green and
have a Christmas tree. So that's some of my concerns. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to make comment? Seeing no one
else come forward, I will close the public meeting and I will bring it back up for a discussion
among the commissioners. Mark, any comments?
Undestad: No.
McDonald: Dan?
Keefe: What's a typical city block, 500 feet? Typical if you're going like St. Louis Park, Edina
you know. …500 feet. Is it? 1,000 feet? So I mean it's at least a half a block away from any
house. I still wouldn't want it in my yard either. Looking at it, but I mean we're here to, I mean
it complies with ordinances and that's really what we have to be concerned with so.
McDonald: Okay. Debbie? Kathleen?
Thomas: No.
McDonald: Kevin?
Dillon: I don't have any comments. It looks like, it's too bad that he can't use the access off the
Halla Nursery. I mean I don't know if you could take another run at it to see if that would work
but, you know from a safety and security and potential for mischief point of view, having another
driveway coming in off of another road is you know, I think would be a concern. So if there's
any, you know that would be the one, and that's sort of been tried and you know, a moot point at
this time, that's what it is but I think that would be one thing that would you know seclude this
just a little bit more.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: Well I think probably live the closest to this one. I think I'm about 3/4 of a mile so I feel
kind of bittersweet about it. On one hand I appreciate the comments about the area. It's a very
pastoral area. On the other hand, I only get one bar on my cell phone so I guess this one goes
down into the category of progress, so.
McDonald: Okay. I guess the only comment I would say is, yeah put it in the progress side of it.
I mean people do want coverage for their cell phones and there's probably a lot of instances both
from a safety and security standpoint. We depend upon cell phones very much now and we
should be able to provide coverage to residents of the city and as long as they're meeting the
12
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
requirements, I'd say the tower's going to be built. The only thing is, I hope everyone
understands the restriction about Halla Nursery having to correct the illegal expansion into the
Outlot A, that that could hold up progress of this, but that is a condition of what we will be
voting on here. With that I'll accept a motion. It's your turn.
Larson: My turn? Alright. Okay, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site
Plan Review #07-04 for a 149 foot telecommunication tower and a 7 foot chain link fence with 3
rows of barbed wire as shown on the site plan received January 19, 2007, subject to the
following conditions 1 through 10. And did we have a friendly amendment with that
somewhere? No?
McDonald: Not with that one.
Larson: Okay. And then, do we want to do these separate or together?
McDonald: We'll do them altogether.
Larson: Okay. And second of all, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Conditional Use Permit #07-04 for 149 foot telecommunication community and a 7 foot chain
link fence with 3 rows of barbed wire as shown on the site plan received January 19, 2007,
subject to the following conditions 1 through 7.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Dillon: Second.
Larson moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approves Site Plan Review #07-04 for a 149-foot telecommunication tower and a 7-
foot chain link fence with 3 rows of barbed wire as shown on the site plan received January
19, 2007, subject to the following conditions:
1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and submit financial security to guarantee
the improvements.
2.Clearing for the tower and equipment pad shall be no greater than 15 feet from the edge of
the pad.
3.A maximum of 25 feet is allowed for clearing the access road to the site. Trees shall be
preserved to the greatest extent possible.
4.The applicant shall install a minimum of eight Black Hills spruce around the equipment
platform. Trees shall be at least six feet in height.
5.Site grading and vegetation removal shall be minimized to the greatest extent practical. If
any excess material is anticipated to be generated as a result of access road construction, the
disposal location must be approved in writing by City staff prior to road construction.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
6.A rock construction entrance complying with the City’s standard detail (#5301) shall be
included on the Erosion and Grading Plan and shall be constructed prior to the remainder of
the gravel road.
7.If applicable, the applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. (Watershed district and MPCA permits
are necessary if the total disturbed area is in excess of 1.0 acres).
8.The monopole/tower shall be moved 25 feet to the west for a total setback of 175 feet and
maintain a minimum of 150-foot setback from the north, west and south property lines.
9.The driveway off of Creekwood Drive may not be used to serve nor access the Halla Nursery
commercial operation.
10.Building Official Conditions:
a.A building permit is required to construct the tower and equipment platform; the tower
must be designed for a wind load of 90 MPH for 3 seconds (ref. 2000 IBC, Sec. 1609)
and include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice (ref. MSBC 1303.1800).
b.The plans (tower and platform) must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the
State of Minnesota.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Larson moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approves Conditional Use Permit #07-04 for a 149-foot telecommunication tower
and a 7-foot chain link with 3 rows of barbed wire as shown on the site plan received
January 19, 2007, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a conditional use permit agreement and submit financial
security to guarantee the improvements.
2. The tower shall comply with the requirements in ARTICLE XXX. TOWERS AND
ANTENNAS of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The tower shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe lights
unless such lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other
federal or state authority for a particular tower.
4. 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.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
5. The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of building permit application showing
the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas and the
minimum separation distances between antennas. A description of the tower’s capacity,
including the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated should also be
provided.
6. The monopole color shall be the brand “Tnemac” and the color “Blue Elusion”.
7. All outdoor storage associated with the Halla Nursery and located within Outlot A, Halla
Maryanne Addition, shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for the tower and
the area shall be revegetated.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GAUER ADDITION: REQUEST FOR A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A
VARIANCE FOR ACCESS OFF A PRIVATE STREET ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3820 LONE CEDAR LANE (LOT 4, BLOCK 1, CEDAR CREST), APPLICANT SCOTT
& LAURIE GAUER, PLANNING CASE #07-07.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Kurt, do you want to start us?
Papke: Could you just make it clear where the private street actually is, since that's the key issue
for which is in front of us tonight? It wasn't, it's a black and white drawing so just.
Generous: It runs through, a portion of Outlot A and then into the right-of-way. Currently it
provides access to the property immediately to the east of that, and so it would be within this
right-of-way.
Papke: So the private street already exists and is built.
Generous: It exists.
Papke: So the only thing that really gets added on here is a driveway off of the existing private
street.
Generous: Right.
Papke: Okay.
Generous: And as part of their original agreement they specified that they could do that, and
then as a condition of approval we require that they provide the access easement and
maintenance agreement.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
Papke: That's all I have.
McDonald: Okay. Kevin.
Dillon: What's contemplated to go into this new lot? I mean is there a person all lined up to
build a house there or is it, are they just speculating that someone's going to build there? What's
planned?
Generous: I've had lots of people ask me. The property owners can probably tell you better.
Dillon: Alright, we'll ask them.
McDonald: Debbie?
Larson: No questions.
Keefe: Quick question for you. I don't know, it was a year or two ago we had a Lake
Minnewashta house that actually had a patio that was built lake side and we had a difficult time
establishing what the OHW was of Minnewashta. You may recall that. How comfortable are we
that it's 945 or 944.5?
Generous: That's specified by the DNR and so they've shown it on their survey where that
elevation is and they've also shown other contours in the area so.
Keefe: So it's really the DNR has that number?
Generous: Right, establishes those numbers and then it's maintained over a long time. It's
difficult to change.
Keefe: Right. Yeah, we just had some conflict in that last one. I was wondering if anything
came out of that. Okay.
McDonald: Mark.
Undestad: I'm good.
McDonald: Okay, well if the applicant wishes to come forward and you can present.
Laurie Gauer: I'm Laurie Gauer.
Scott Gauer: I'm Scott Gauer, 3820 Lone Cedar Lane.
McDonald: Okay. Is there anything about this application you feel we should know before we
vote on it or?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
Laurie Gauer: I think the main thing is that it is an existing private road. It's not something that
we are creating, and that's what your decision is based on, and why we're here is to get that
variance on a private road, and it's there. And like Bob said, you know the intent all along with
when that was put in by the State and then vacated to us was that this property would be
subdivided in front of the house so.
McDonald: Okay. Questions?
Dillon: So is there a builder and a house and all that stuff kind of like.
Laurie Gauer: We're in the process of you know talking with realtors and you know, it was
always our intent at this point in time to subdivide and pay for college tuition.
McDonald: Okay. Debbie? Mark? I'm fine too so I guess that's it. Thanks very much for
coming up. This is a public meeting. If anyone wishes to come forward and make comment.
Seeing no one get up, we'll close the public meeting and bring it back up for the commissioners
for discussion and vote. Mark, anything?
Undestad: No.
Keefe: I'm fine with it.
McDonald: You're fine? Debbie fine?
Larson: Okay.
Thomas: Okay.
McDonald: Okay?
Dillon: Okay.
Papke: As cut and dried as it gets.
McDonald: Okay. Then in that case, I'll accept an amendment.
Keefe: Is there a motion?
Undestad: Alright, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve
a two lot, one outlot subdivision with a subdivision variance for access off a private street, plans
prepared by Frank R. Cardarelle dated 2/11/07 subject to conditions 1 through 27.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Keefe: Second.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
Undestad moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve a two lot, one outlot subdivision with a subdivision variance for access off
a private street, plans prepared by Frank R. Cardarelle, dated 2/11/07, subject to the
following conditions:
1.Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
2.Address numbers must be posted on each home and on Lone Cedar Lane at the private street
entrance.
3.Building permits are required for retaining walls. Retaining walls must be designed by a
structural engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota.
4.If site correction (grading and soils correction) is contemplated, final grading plans and soil
reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued.
5.Full park fees will be collected in lieu of land dedication for one lot in the amount applicable at
the time of final plat approval.
6.Tree protection fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to construction.
7.Any trees identified as being saved on plans dated 2-11-07 that are damaged or removed
shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
8.A minimum of one tree is required in each front yard.
9.A cross-access easement and maintenance agreement for the private street in Outlot A will
need to be prepared and recorded.
10.All structures (with the exception of one water-oriented accessory structure on each lot that
complies with Subsection 20-481(e)(2) of Chanhassen City Code) shall be set back a
minimum of 75 feet from the OHW of the lake (944.5).
11.All grading or vegetation removal shall be subject to Section 20-482 of the City Code.
12.Any existing and proposed docks on the subject properties shall meet the requirements of
City Code Section 6, Article 2.
13.All erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed in accordance with the approved
building permit.
14.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $5,450.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2007
15.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies and
comply with their conditions of approval.
16.Calculations of hydrology in Hydrocad showing that the development meets the requirements
of the City shall be submitted.
17.The garage floor elevation should be raised to prevent water from entering the structure. A
minimum slope of two percent is required on the west side of the driveway.
18.Install a valley gutter along the front of the driveway to prevent drainage from entering
property.
19.Ground (ie. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%.
20.Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan.
21.An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
22.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
23.Encroachment agreements are required for any retaining walls proposed within drainage and
utility easements.
24.Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be
designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
25.Install cleanout for the sewer service at the bend of the sewer service for Lot 2.
26.Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2007 trunk
hookup charge is $1,669 for sanitary sewer and $4,485 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and
watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building
permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the
Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
27.Outlot A must be covered by a drainage and utility easement.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 6, 2007 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim
19