PC 2007 11 06
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 6, 2007
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas,
Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad and Dan Keefe
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Sharmeen AI-
Jaff, Senior Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd
Janet Paulsen
7302 Laredo Drive
7305 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAKESIDE: REQUEST FOR MINOR PUD AMENDMENT TO ADJUST INTERNAL
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM 20 FEET TO 15 FEET AND ADJUST THE
WETLAND SETBACK CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT WETLAND SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT: SIENNA CORPORATION. PLANNING CASE 07-23.
Public Present:
Name
Address
John Vogelbacher
4940 Viking Drive, #608, Edina
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Kevin, you want to start?
Dillon: So just so I'm clear then, from the edge of the building to the edge of the wetland now
is?
Aanenson: 50.
Dillon: 50.
Aanenson: Correct. And that's consistent with the new classification that we go to Manage 1,
Manage 2. We used to have the Ag Preserve and Natural so this is consistent with the new
wetland regulations.
Dillon: Okay. And so then the 15 feet that's changing inbetween the building, I mean the city
doesn't really care about that?
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Aanenson: No. We see that as a minor issue. They are 20 foot on the, the twin homes on the
north side, those are all 15 feet inbetween. So they'll be more with 20. We could have shifted
them all forward and maybe picked it up on this end but that building was already put in place
because they did as part of the first phase so it wasn't you know, otherwise we could have
probably kept that inbetween. But we certainly didn't want to give a variance to the wetland
setback. We had talked about that originally and that was one... didn't want to do that so since it
was an internal amendment for the PUD, not a variance, we thought that was the best way to go.
Dillon: Okay.
McDonald: Kurt?
Papke: I don't have anything.
McDonald: I don't have any questions either. Is the applicant here? Or representative. Do you
want to come up and address the commissioners? Is there anything you would like to add?
John Vogelbacher: My name is John Vogelbacher. I'm the Project Manager. I'm with Sienna
Corporation. I don't have really anything to add other than you know we had kind of a glitch in
our planning and that's unfortunate but I think in terms of result here we're not significantly
asking for any variances. It fits the project that we have in terms of building setbacks between
buildings and certainly meets the current ordinance for the wetland setback as well so we're
fortunate in that regard. Engineering staff and land planning so appreciate the opportunity to be
in the community. We're very happy with our project. As all things go we'd like things to be a
little bit better but it's been good so far so we're pleased with that.
McDonald: Okay. Does anyone, commissioners have any questions? Thank you very much.
Then at this point I would open up the podium for anyone wishing to make comment. To come
forward and as I said, please address the commissioners. State your name and address.
Deb Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I spoke up about this development
before and there are some items here I'd like to add for your consideration this evening. This
development, as you are aware, the final plat went to the city on October 23,2006. I don't know
if any of you have taken the time to read what went to the city then for approval, but I'm going to
read a little excerpt on it today. This development is gorgeous. You know there's no doubt
about that. It's going to be a beautiful addition to our city, but we did grant variances already for
this development. For the height of the structure and also there are people that live outside of
what we call the normal boundaries to use the beachlot. We granted that to them as well. I don't
quite understand what an amendment is. I look at it as another variance to allow something that
wasn't originally approved. To get approved for this. Condition number 4 on the final plat, a
minimum buffer of 16.5 to 20 feet shall be preserved around the perimeter of the wetland. All
structure, including parking lot, shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer. The
plans shall be revised to reflect the required wetland buffer and wetland buffer setback. It was a
condition. . .
2
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
McDonald: Excuse me Deb, could I interrupt you for a second because I'm not sure what the
relevance is and Kate, could you, I mean I understand the final plat went forward but if all this is
we're looking at adopting what is currently the setback requirements, how is the final plat that
went before the City Council relevant to any of this?
Aanenson: I believe the point that is trying to be made is that, because it was given relief before,
that maybe some additional relief shouldn't be given in the future, but.
Deb Lloyd: The point is the point I'm trying to make is that it was stated in here that it was a
condition that they have, that they apply that setback. And they didn't do it. It was a condition
of approval. In the staff report for this evening on page 2, towards the second to last paragraph
reads, the developer did not review the implications of the townhouse separation requirement
relative to the wetland setback. I mean this is a national builder. I think you have to have some
responsibility here as a builder. I mean I, Sienna Corporation's been around since 1977. They're
in Minneapolis, Palm Springs, Lake Havasu. They have developments everywhere. Oversight,
whatever. Where's the responsibility? So now it says we have to create essentially another
variance to allow this to occur. In my opinion you go over the variance findings. Another
interesting fact. The wetland buffer before was 16.5. Now it's 20. The buffer setback was 40
before. This is on your report. Now it's 30. So the setback was 56.5 in total before. Now it's
less. It's 50. So it's not only the fact that they're meeting the new standards. The new standard is
less. Additionally they're asking for a reduction in setbacks. The week that this was on the
agenda before at planning there was another gentleman that was described as a, really Jerry
described him as a really friendly kind of guy and he had built up, he had built a structure on the
side of his garage to house a motorcycle. And some different points were brought up there. Dan
brought up, do we end up with a potential issue with the fire being able to get to emergency
vehicles if you change the setback there? Setbacks are there for a reason Jerry said. Mr. Thomas
said, I can totally understand setbacks. Ifwe grant them like this it creates a slippery slope. I'm
sorry, Kathleen. Sorry. But setbacks are there for a reason. We have setbacks to ensure there's
open space and adequate light and air. Setbacks promote fire safety by spacing buildings. And
the other impact of this parcel is shoreland. So you're putting the buildings tighter together.
Once they let, that has never been actually done even on a final plat with the actual impervious
surface of this development. There's emails between the Paulsen's and City Council and Kate
and Todd that the impervious surface went from like 41.5, growing, growing, growing. Yeah it
may be under the 50% but do we really know what it is? And you're moving these buildings
together and tighter together. Do we know the effect of the runoff? I mean I just think that this
decision rests with the City Council. This is a political decision, in my opinion. If you go to
what your variance findings should be, you have to assure that, that you're really needing them.
The condition. The purpose is not based upon a desire to increase the value or the income
potential of the property. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. It is
self created. Someone didn't do their job or someone thought oh we'll get this through. I mean
we already lowered the standards of the wetland setbacks. We already gave them that amount of
footage and now if you guys rubber stamp this, anyway thank you for listening.
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: Can I respond or comment or?
3
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
McDonald: Yeah, if you wouldn't mind.
Aanenson: Sure. A variance, a PUD is, there is no internal setback. That's something that we
established. So it is a different criteria for a variance as opposed to a side yard setback on a
residential district that has a standard that's not part of the PUD. That's standard. If you wanted
to say that they had to stay within that extra 5 1/2 feet, could you make all of the buildings
inbetween 15 feet? You can make that. I mean it's 15 across the street on the other side. That
continue the setback. And really the council was actually looking at going less on the, when they
were discussing the setback buffer, the staff felt strongly about keeping the buffer requirements
so we're talking about the 5 1/2 foot differential on that. And to go back and look at the original
variances, you have to put it in context of when we were discussing the merits of this project as
opposed to that it was already zoned residential high density. There was a lot of things that
could have gone in there. It was the desire, because it already had the entitlement on it, which
meant that they could come forward and advance the project. The city's goal was to get highly,
higher architecture and to do a PUD. They did not want to do a PUD. We suggested the PUD in
order to get the higher architecture. Instead of just a standard project which didn't need that
requirement, so we suggested the PUD. We also wanted to mix the product type in there. Not to
have all of one type, so in order to do the condominium projects that we don't have anything in
that market price point right now, there was a variance given to the height of those buildings.
That was the only variance. As a matter of fact if it would have gone in under the existing
standards, those buildings would be closer to all property lines because that underlying ordinance
allowed much closer setbacks. This PUD requires greater buffers around the perimeter of the
property line, so there's benefits we believe in doing the PUD and that's what was discussed at
the time that the PUD so those variances were given for the height. I'm not sure about the dock.
That dock is for the association members themselves. I'm not aware of anybody that this opened
up to except for association members. So with that we still feel that the best way to handle this is
an amendment which has a different criteria than the variance.
McDonald: Okay, because as I understand you're not asking us to vote on a variance. You made
that very clear up front so you're presenting an amendment to the PUD.
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: What is the difference between an amendment to the PUD and a variance?
Aanenson: Sure. The PUD is the design standards you put in place. And at that time they were
negotiated. There is no requirement between the buildings there so we at that time it was felt 20
foot seemed like appropriate. That's what they wanted and as it moved forward we put on the
condition, the wetland buffer setback had been put in place, and then with the retaining walls and
the like, recognized that it probably wouldn't work after we had the first building. Had that not
been done, they would have all slipped forward as I mentioned.
Keefe: There's a variance for setback between buildings because it's a PUD right?
Aanenson: Right.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Keefe: Okay. So that's allowed to have that smaller distance than we would require in another
zoning?
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: Okay. But it does say there's a variance for the wetland setback which was denied, but
then this is coming back really as an amendment to the setback...
Aanenson: Right, right. Right, so again what I'm saying is if you felt uncomfortable doing that,
right. Then you could make all the buildings, the 5 foot inbetween. Then you could make that.
So right now we're just suggesting the 2.
Keefe: In terms of the hard surface coverage, I mean this change wouldn't result in any
incremental would it necessarily?
Aanenson: I don't believe so. I can check. I'll verify that.
Keefe: ... they're not adding anything right?
Aanenson: No.
Keefe: They're just closer together.
Aanenson: Correct. But I could verify that for City Council. The percentage.
Dillon: So is the 50 foot setback from the edge of the wetland, is that applied to all projects of
this genre?
Aanenson: All of them, it depends upon the classification of the wetland. This one is classified
as a Manage 2 which has a 20 foot buffer requirement and a 30 foot setback from that.
Dillon: So there's nothing special being given or.
Aanenson: No. I guess the argument that was being made is when it came in it was under a
different, it had a different zoning. We've changed the setback requirement from the wetland.
That's the point of contention.
Keefe: And that's where the variance really comes into play because the variance was related to
that setback requirement, right?
Aanenson: Except you can make the same argument between the buildings. Correct.
McDonald: Does anyone else have any questions or need clarification?
5
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Larson: Just one thing. Kate, just towards the. . . could they put the buildings 1 foot apart if they
wanted to within this district?
Aanenson: You'd have to give the amendment, correct. Correct.
Larson: But they could.
Aanenson: They could. Right.
Larson: Gotch ya.
McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment.
Mary Borenson: I'm Mary Borenson. I'm here to support and agree with some of the things that
were presented by Deborah Lloyd regarding the impervious surfaces and modified setbacks.
And I have this copy from the DNR web site, which is not a very good copy but it shows that, it
shows the 12 lakes in the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek watershed district. I live on Frontier Trail
but I'm a member of the advisory committee for the Watershed District and it shows color coded
that the light, that the yellow lakes are 1.5 to 3 feet of clarity and they're all on the impaired list
so that includes Lake Riley, Mitchell, Lotus Lake, Red Rock, and Lucy. And it shows only 2
lakes in the watershed district are worst and those would be Rice Lake Marsh, which really is a
marsh, and Lake Susan. It shows a couple of lakes that are better in clarity but the 1.5 to 3 feet
of clarity puts it on the Minnesota 303 impaired list so the City is trying to make, is mandated to
make efforts to improve the water quality on that lake and do projects towards making it better.
And at this time Lake Riley is considered a recreational lake to support swimming and fishing
and according to these statistics it's marginally supporting swimming and it's possibly impaired.
And given this data any increase in phosphorous contribution could degrade or impair support
for swimming and any increase in phosphorous could further impede phosphorous reductions
needed to address downstream impairments in Riley Creek. So Riley Lake flows into Riley
Creek which is also on the same list. Storm water runoff is one of the most significant sources of
water pollution in the nation. At times it's comparable to if not greater than contamination from
industrial and sewage sources.
Dillon: Time out. What are we, are we getting off track here a little bit?
Mary Borenson: And maybe we are. My concern is for the lake itself and effects of the
impervious surface and changing the setbacks and. . .
Dillon: We just heard that the impervious surface isn't going to change. Or we'll verify that.
Mary Borenson: So the phosphorous and the runoff would, with the buildings being closer to the
lake will lead to more runoff.
Aanenson: They're not moving closer to the lake. We're moving 2 buildings closer to each
other. And actually this project puts storm water in there that wasn't being treated before.
Previously it was running right into the lake. This is the... that was approved. The... are over
6
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
here. This is the condominium building that hasn't been built yet. So these are the two projects
that are moving closer to each other. 5 feet closer to each other. So if you look at these, it'd be
these buildings right here moving closer to each other. So nothing's moving closer to the lake.
Papke: And those drain to the drainage pond?
Aanenson: They're all being pre-treated which wasn't happening under the previous project,
which again is one of the benefits when we looked at advancing this project, that it would clean
up an area that wasn't being treated before...
McDonald: Okay, before you go on. I'm getting very confused about all of this and I guess the
problem is, this seems to be, it was a pretty straight forward, simple thing coming in. This
development had a lot of controversy when it came up. This is being used as an opportunity to
re-open basically old wounds, then I'm not going to allow anyone else to come up forward and
speak about this. If you can't get to why this amendment should not be passed, then the rest of it
is beyond our capability. This development has already been approved. It is already being built.
The project is going forward. We have discussed the issue about water quality. The whole thing
about wetlands. There was a big discussion about that. That is in place. The developer has to
meet those standards. I don't see anything in here that's saying we're going to be changing those
standards. I don't see where that's up for issue at this so unless we can get back to issues that
deal with this amendment, I'm not sure what everybody's talking about and I think the
commissioners would share that feeling that we're talking about things that are beyond the scope
of anything that we can do with this amendment. So if there's not a point to this that leads back
to this, I would ask that you sit down.
Mary Borenson: Thank you for your time.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and to address the issue
of this amendment and of basically just moving these buildings closer together so that it meets
the overall goals of what the city wants? Okay, at that point the public meeting is closed and I
would bring it back up for the commissioners for discussion and we would start with Mark.
Undestad: No. It's pretty straight forward to me. I mean we're not changing anything. Just by
the PUD, by creating the PUD that's where we correct, create all the issues we want to take care
of with the developer. That's why we created the PUD so, all that's been handled here. I don't
see an issue with this.
Larson: I agree. You know they're just shuffling things around within the PUD. It doesn't affect
anything else that's been approved. I don't see any problem with it.
McDonald: Kathy.
Thomas: Ditto.
Keefe: I'm a little bit troubled just in regards to the, now whether it's you know an amendment to
the PUD or whether we need to look at it in terms of it's an amendment to a variance. ... sort of
7
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
crystal clear on that. It isn't really clear in my mind. I guess regards to the issues, setbacks
between buildings, I think we need to think about all, you know and it probably isn't in context
with this, but to think about you know for arguing you know about setbacks between residential
houses and we're allowing this, to get this narrow between buildings. I think we may have a
potential consistency issue there. The runoff, I don't see any issue with the runoff because I don't
believe that it's, we're not adding additional hardscape. I don't believe. I think it's a net zero in
regards to the hardscape issue. I guess I'm kind of on the fence. I haven't resolved it in my mind
in regards to whether this amendment, I mean it doesn't, it seems like a pretty innocuous
amendment but that's my comment.
McDonald: Kevin.
Dillon: I think that the internal setbacks of 15 feet, I mean that is the issue for the developer.
You know it might have the effect of making the property a little bit less marketable just because
it's not as spacious but that's you know their issue. I hear what Dan's saying but I mean it's,
nothing is different than between two adjacent properties that are owned by different people.
Different families or whatever and so I am as well, you know keeping the 50 feet from the edge
of the wetland, I think that's fine. I want to thank the commissioner for bringing us back on task
here for this one too.
McDonald: Okay. I would just re-emphasize everything that you had said at this point. You
know I think I've already said I'm not seeing what the issue really is. The PUD has been settled.
At that point they have agreed to certain standards. What they do internal, I don't see where it's
covered by anything that we've got so I guess I just don't see this as being a big issue. If anyone
wishes to make a recommendation.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the
City Council approve the amendment to the Planned Unit Development, PUD 06-26,
development design standards section c. Setbacks to read as stated in the staff report.
McDonald: Second?
Larson: Second.
Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD 06-
26) development design standards, section c. Setbacks, to read as follows:
c. Setbacks
The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following
table displays those setbacks.
Setback Standards
Highway 212 50 feet
East(Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet -townhouses/twin
8
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Setback Standards
homes;
Building Height -
Condominiums with a
minimum of30 feet
Lyman Boulevard 50 feet/30 feet for beach lot
West(Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet
Twin Home separation between buildings 15 feet
Townhouse separation between buildings 15 feet
Minimum Driveway length (to back of curb, trail or sidewalk) 25 feet
Hard Surface Coverage 50 % *
Wetland: Buffer and buffer setback 20 feet and 30 feet
Lake Riley 75 feet
# Decks, patios, porches, and stoops may project up to seven (7) feet in to the required yard.
* The entire development, including the public and private streets and Outlots, may not exceed
50 percent hard coverage. Individual lots will exceed the 50 percent site coverage.
All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
T-MOBILE: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW A 145 FOOT TELECOMMUNICATION
TOWER WITH A 4-FOOT LIGHTNING ROD AND A 6 FOOT PRIVACY FENCE.
LOCATED WEST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. NORTH OF CREEKWOOD
DRIVE. SOUTH OF HALLA NURSERY. AND EAST OF BLUFF CREEK GOLF
COURSE (OUTLOT A. HALLA MARYANNE ADDITION). APPLICANT: T-MOBILE
USA. PLANNING CASE 07-04.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Steve Edwards
John Landwehr
Wendy Biorn
Jim Sabinske
Gary Anderson
Walter G. & Chrisann Arndt
501 50th Street West
22016 East Bethel Boulevard
555 West 1st Street, Waconia
775 Creekwood
725 Creekwood
10151 Great Plains
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Mark.
Undestad: Yeah, just to help me out here but this all was approved and council went through the
whole thing.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Undestad: Had it okayed. And then after that approval then T -Mobile had to go back and get the
historical.
AI-Jaff: Correct. That's, it's one of the steps that they have to go through and that is consult the
historic preservation. This time around the city contacted the historical preservation and we
actually sent them a copy of the plan and requested that they give a recommendation in writing
whether this location is acceptable or not.
Undestad: T-Mobile wasn't aware of that requirement when they came through the first time?
AI-Jaff: I think they were.
Aanenson: Yes they were.
AI-Jaff: Aware of it. They just did not...
McDonald: We'll get to you guys.
Steve Edwards: I can give you some background on that...
McDonald: Well yeah. Why don't you wait because you're going to get a chance to come up
next.
Undestad: That's all I have for Sharmeen.
AI-Jaff: Thank you.
Larson: No, not now.
McDonald: Dan.
Keefe: Just a couple questions. Quick ones. You make mention on the setback for Highway
101, the realignment. In it's new location it's not even going to be an issue.
AI-Jaff: No and we actually received a letter from MnDot this morning saying that there is
ample room between the new proposed location and where they intend to realign 101.
Keefe: Right. And the, you know it seems like the real issue, potentially negative issue is the
visual intrusion I think is part of the reason why it got moved for the you know historical reason.
They don't want to have big kind of gaudy. Just a couple points on that. You know are there any
of the designs that these phone companies are coming up with for these towers, you know to
make it look more appealing than this hunk of metal hanging up in the air? I mean, and maybe
that's more of a question to ask you guys.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
AI-Jaff: You know color is one way to address that.
Keefe: Well that was the other thing is we've talked about a paint color before. Is that
something. . .
AI-Jaff: Yes, and it's still part of the approval.
Keefe: Yeah, okay. I'll direct that question.
Papke: So what's the down side? Why didn't we pick this spot in the first place?
AI-Jaff: We addressed the location that was submitted by the applicant.
Papke: So in, ifit's always the zero sum game in this kind of thing so in this case it sounds like
the down side is now the people on the golf course more than the cell phone tower? That's kind
of the bottom line?
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: And in terms of if at some point the golf course is developed into homes, those won't be
historical and so the people that buy them will buy them knowing that they have a view of the
cell tower in their back yard.
AI-Jaff: And if the applicant.. . how long of a lease do you have? And it's a 30 year lease.
Papke: So were there any conversations with the owners of Bluff Creek Golf Course about this?
AI-Jaff: They were notified.
Papke: They were notified?
AI-Jaff: Correct. Everyone within 500 feet were notified.
Papke: And they had no comments?
AI-Jaff: We haven't heard from them.
Aanenson: Well that's not, we did have some people come in last week that were concerned that
they'd now have the brunt of the impact. They understand that we're still supporting it. We have
to recommend approval of it but it's, how do you say that. There's an up side and a down side.
Papke: Yeah.
Dillon: So is going to the historical society last a normal order of events?
11
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
AI-Jaff: Typically. This time around we contacted the historic society and made them aware
that this is coming back.
Aanenson: Can I clarify that a little bit more? Typically, if this didn't require a federal permit,
any visual impacts probably wouldn't, mayor may not have been noted by the historical, but
because it requires a federal permit, which we hadn't recognized but that does trip the review by
the historic preservation office. So there might have been another type of building there that
mayor may not trip that visual impact. But the federal permit definitely connects the 106
historic regulation so we missed that step. Well they knew they needed to do it, we missed that
step and it's now so noted. A federal permit does require that.
Dillon: So is the historical society the final authority in these matters?
Aanenson: In this one? Correct. We don't have an ordinance on that. The state historical.
Dillon: It doesn't sound very official. So then, so the first, so does the owner of the property
have an issue? Or is it just the historical society? Was the owner of the property at the first
hearing?
AI-Jaff: The owner of the property, the historic property or the owner of.
Dillon: The historical property.
AI-Jaff: They have an issue and they contacted the city and as such.
Dillon: Because I remember this one but I don't have...
AI-Jaff: They did not attend the public hearing.
Dillon: Okay, so we weren't.
AI-Jaff: They did talk to us prior to the public hearing and after it was approved we also talked
to them.
Dillon: So what if the city said to the historical society well that's fine you feel that way but we
think this tower can be here. Then what?
AI-Jaff: Then you go through arbitration.
Dillon: And is that an option?
Aanenson: Sure. You can recommend what you like. But we're recommending that it get
approved at this location. But you can modify our recommendation.
Dillon: That's all the questions I have.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
McDonald: I guess the only question I've got is when this came before us before, there was the
issue about Outlot A and the encroachment by the nursery into that. Is that still an issue?
AI-Jaff: Encroachment by, I'm sorry?
McDonald: By Halla Nursery.
AI-Jaff: That is still an issue and they have cleaned up the majority of what was stored out there
but it's by no means complete.
McDonald: And as I recall, no tower was going to be built until that issue was resolved, correct?
AI-Jaff: Correct. That's still the case.
McDonald: Okay.
AI-Jaff: And it's still a condition of approval.
McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions at this point so I guess what we'll look at is we'll
open it up to the public and anyone wishing to.
Papke: The applicant first.
McDonald: Oh, I'm sorry. Getting ahead of myself. Yes, we'll hear from the applicant. If you'd
like to come forward and if you have any additional information you feel that we should be made
aware of.
Steve Edwards: Hello. Mr. Chairman and commissions, my name's Steve Edwards. I'm here
tonight representing T -Mobile. And I do have some representatives of Pinnacle Engineering
who handled the 106 process with the State Historical Society and they're going to touch base on
that. I would like to thank the city staff for putting together a presentation and working with us
through this process. The only thing I really have to add to the, what hasn't been mentioned
tonight is I did touch base with Cingular Wireless which is now AT&T. Prior to this they were
interested in going on it, that we were looking at the first location, and they're still going to
proceed with us if this is approved so we will be meeting the intent of the ordinance to reduce the
number of towers by co-locating other cellular carriers onto this tower. And that, that process
that once, or if this is approved, Cingular will approach, or AT&T will approach the City to go
through that process.
McDonald: Okay. Kevin, you have any questions? We'll start.
Dillon: I don't have any questions for the applicant.
McDonald: Kurt? Dan?
13
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Keefe: Yeah, I'm curious about tower design. What are you guys doing on that because you
guys make a lot of money off these things and you know, are there any advancements in color
design? I mean that's really the primary issue here.
Steve Edwards: Well that's a question I get asked quite a bit. The next question usually comes
up is what about a tree. And the truth is, when you're putting a 145 foot object into the air and it
looks like a tree, it doesn't move. It doesn't, the leaves don't change. It draws more attention
than a regular tower does. When all the other towers, or when all the other trees around it are 65
feet. All of a sudden here's something that's 145 feet. It draws your attention. Whereas, I know
it's difficult to understand and if you don't know what you're really looking at when your view
shed goes across in an area where there is a cell phone tower, you don't always pick it up. In this
case right now with the color that we're looking to do it, which is kind of a lighter blue, I think it
will fade into the sky a little bit. But it is something that has become part of our everyday views
that we do see these, they are all around us and unless somebody really points out, you don't
really pick them out that quickly. So to answer your questions, due to the engineering and the
impact that they have, they actually have something that can deliver the signal. There isn't really
any technology coming down the road that looks like it's going to change what we have to utilize
in these cases.
Keefe: Yeah, like our power lines now. They now go underground but we still have towers that
we have to deal with for the cell service. Okay.
Thomas I don't have any questions, thank you.
Larson: Well it's, one of the comments when you're turning it into a tree idea. I mean I've seen
them. The West has them. They've got palm trees and pine trees and you're right. They look
stupid. Because all of a sudden you'll be going and there's a whole row of pine trees and all of a
sudden there's one that looks like this.
Steve Edwards: I spent a couple years working in Florida where we put up a 120 foot tree and
we had more complaints about that tree than any other site we've ever put up so.
Larson: I mean the palm tree ones I think blend a little better just because they are straight but.
Steve Edwards: But then you're looking at a 30 or 40 foot site. Not.
Larson: Right. Yeah, not 100 and, okay. That's all.
McDonald: Mark.
Undestad: I'd just be curious to hear...
Steve Edwards: Yeah, he's more familiar with the process so I think I'm going to turn my
question over to our engineer from Pinnacle Engineer.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
John Landwehr: I'll do my best to answer your questions. My name is John Landwehr. I'm with
Pinnacle Engineering and we are the folks that have been working with T -Mobile to get through
this process so. Help me out with what specifically your question is.
Undestad: Well the issue of going with the historical preservation now, before and then
Commissioner Dillon's comment too, I mean the arbitration deal and have you ever gone through
that with the State on historical issues...
John Landwehr: Okay. I'll do my best with that. The order of events that go through to put up
the cell tower generally a lease agreement is sought out before the geotechnical work is done and
before what's called a NEP A checklist is completed. And a NEP A checklist, which includes
working with the State Historic Preservation takes a period of time not less than 30 days to get a
response. So, and then part of the NEP A checklist is with wetlands, tribal issues, and other
things like that. So it's a process that takes about 105 days from it's inception and commonly a
property will be secured and to the best of people's knowledge they will do an overview of the
property, in this case the Vogel house was not on the State list at the time that this all began so it
became eligible but it wasn't on the list, so it wasn't an oversight. It was simply not on the list at
the time that this process started. So when the letter went into the State SHPO office to request
the approval for the location, that's when the rest of the information came out. So since that time
you know we've done a crane test. We've done a handful of meetings. We've tried to find what
would be the most reasonable solution to finding cell service to a community that does not have
it, which at times can interfere with 911 and other emergency services who do not have it. And
this seems like the most reasonable solution was to work with the property owner to find a
different location on his property that would still allow a tower.
Undestad: Just to back up. The State when, when everything was approved before, was
approved properly? There was no. . .
John Landwehr: Nothing was approved at the State level.
Undestad: But the house didn't, wasn't on the historical list?
John Landwehr: It was not on the list.
Undestad: And now it is?
John Landwehr: Correct.
Undestad: ... so when you did your application before you checked with the State, the house was
not on the list. That location was okay at that time?
John Landwehr: It was not on a published list but it was eligible. So the way the 106 criteria
works is your initial screening is simply to see if you are in a historic district and if there is
something there. It didn't show up on a list so we didn't know. Until we did, once the property
was secured, then a more in depth review was done and that's when it became aware.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Undestad: But when you say eligible, you knew it was out there but maybe it was on the list,
maybe it wasn't? I don't quite understand it was eligible but it's not on a list but you didn't see it.
John Landwehr: There's a list that's published that tells you that, that there is a historic site. It
was not on that list. When we got to the local level is when it became aware. At that time it was
petitioned to be part of the State's consideration. So there's no way to know those things until
you get down to this level. I hope I answered your question.
Undestad: Okay.
McDonald: Well, I've got a couple questions.
John Landwehr: Wendy can help a little more on that in a moment.
McDonald: I've just got a couple of questions and I guess my concern in all this is that it seems
it was pretty easy to move this site to the west. My only complaint about this was why weren't
we given a selection of sites to begin with. I mean one of the things that came in with all of this
was there was a lot of concern about the visual impact. We agreed to go through because you
know the way that I voted on all of this was, well this is probably the best site and I was relying
upon what was brought before me. To move this thing 500 feet to the west.
Steve Edwards: It's 200.
McDonald: 200. Says there must be a lot of spots around there that this thing could have been
placed and it could have minimized the impact to the community. And I'm not asking you to
design a tower that's going to blend in because I know that's not possible. But the thing is you
can minimize the impact. Why weren't we given a number of sites? Why wasn't this brought up
so that we could have made maybe a little bit better decision as far as the impact of this tower on
the community.
John Landwehr: Within the property boundaries of the specific property owner?
McDonald: Well, I'm beginning to think there's probably other sites outside the property. I'm
okay if you want to put the tower on that particular piece of property. But there's evidently a lot
of places on that property where the tower could have gone and it looks as though some of those
places have minimized the impact of the visual effect of this upon the community. And that's the
only complaint I've got that I'm not sure if it's aimed towards you or towards staff or towards
maybe it's our process, that something should have been done because emotions got a little high
that night and the big thing was about the impact. And now to come in here and say oh, 200 feet
to the west. No big deal. Why wasn't that brought up before? I mean it takes something such as
a historical impact upon a particular house and then all of a sudden we're willing to change it?
It's just, I'm just a little perplexed as to why that wasn't brought to us before. And I guess with
that, that's the only comment and the question I've got, I'm not sure if you can actually provide an
answer or not but yeah, I'm a little upset with the fact this is coming back in here after everything
that we went through at that meeting.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
John Landwehr: I can answer part of your question. I wasn't here for those times so I can only
speak to what I know. There isn't a lot of locations. In fact it was quite difficult to find another
location that would work both from the radio frequency standpoint. Setback requirement.
Property owners. All those things that go into it. I don't know that I would say that there's a lot
of places it can move because it was rather difficult to find this one location. We had like I say a
number of meetings to try and find an alternative and this alternative is strictly driven by the
State Historic Office's request, demand that it not be at it's original location. I think somebody
here earlier on stated that it is kind of a trade off. Either the historic home or some other homes
are going to see this tower. New homes that get built, it will probably blend into their landscape
and they probably won't notice it as much. But I don't know if you want to address any more of
that about the location but we've struggled for about a year and a half to try and find a location
and it has not been an easy process to try and find something that would be suitable both to end
up with an RF signal that provides some benefit, and to appease everybody's needs so it hasn't
been easy. Those things while being considered and it took some effort to find this second spot
to even attempt this.
McDonald: Okay. Well I appreciate the effort to answer the question but you have to admit that
you know, why kind of hangs out there is that without knowing anything about how cell towers
work, you talk about the RF energy and the footprint of all of that, to most people that's going to
go over the top of their head. I understand that you've got to have certain criteria in order to
place a tower but I'm just kind of disappointed that that wasn't explained a little bit better and
you weren't able to defend the current site. You know we're probably getting off track and I
don't mean to do that but yeah, I am just a little concerned with the way we've come back in with
another site to alleviate all these problems before so. At this point now I'll open it up to the
public. To anyone wishing to coming forward and address the commissioners. All I ask is that
you state your name and address and address your comments to the commission.
Wendy Biorn: Commissioners, my name's Wendy Biorn. I'm the Executive Director of the
Carver County Historical Society. Tonight I not only represent the Carver County Historical
Society but also the Preservation Alliance in Minnesota and the Minnesota State Historic
Preservation Office at the Minnesota Historical Society. You asked a little bit about 106. I
guess I'm the person to answer that question. Basically any time there is a federal agency
involved they have to go through SHPO. The 106 essential and 106 has to do with historic
property. And the reason they hadn't done it yet because they had to go through the first step.
Once everything is approved, then they go through the 106. The Vogel property itself is not
listed on the National Register and is still not, but it is eligible. And as such it has the same
rights as if it was registered on the National Register of Historic Properties. Just because it's not
on the National Register, it is eligible and has the same rights and obligations and you have to
protect it as such. Dennis... the State Historic Preservation Office made the determination on
that. So they had a 30 day period after T-Mobile then applied to SHPO, Dennis came out, as I
was there too and they did the crane tower test. At that point he made the determination that it
had an adverse affect on the property, which then threw it back. So that probably answers a lot
of your questions for you. As far as the second location in working with Sharmeen who's been
absolutely wonderful working with her. The whole office has been. T -Mobile has been, and
Pinnacle too. And so we've been through a lot of meetings on this. My understanding that
looking at the different locations, to answer some of your questions. I had the same question that
17
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
you did. I just became involved in this in April, is have we looked at all the other locations?
Why weren't they brought forward? On the property where we were looking, there was actually
one triangular little piece, but Sharmeen can probably answer a little bit better, that was an
alternative location which was the second spot that we determined was, would not adversely
affect the Vogel property. That's the second spot that is being recommended by SHPO and by
your office, so that answers some of those questions. If you have any questions for me regarding
that, I'd be more than happy to answer.
Dillon: Who determines what's an adverse affect and what are the criteria for that?
Wendy Biorn: It could be anything from, in this particular case, visual. It could have an adverse
affect as is a road was coming too close to it, and it doesn't have to be just the property. As in
the house. It could be the land surrounding it as well. Going on right now I'm working with
Minnesota Department of Transportation, and a wayside rest owned by the City of Chaska. And
as they put the road through there it's getting land surrounding that wayside rest which is also
going on the National Register. It too has to go through the 106 Group in order to pass
everything because it is, will be put on the National Register and available just like the Vogel
property. This is something that was put into effect by our First Lady actually not too long ago
as far as the 106 Group.
Dillon: It sounds somewhat subjective to me.
Wendy Biorn: It is somewhat subjective. I guess if you look at it and say how does it adversely
affect the property, there is a list of criteria and I don't have them with me but how it over
shadows the property. How it visually impacts the property is one of the things that are on there.
I wished I had know that ahead of time, I could have brought some of that with. I just finished
the 106 essential course less than a month ago.
Dillon: Because I've been by Halla Nursery and in my mind that's 10 times the eye sore this
thing would be, and that's right across the street. And so, and that was built I don't know how
many years ago but maybe this thing wasn't even being contemplated for the history at the time
that that store was put in.
Wendy Biorn: Well the key there is that when Halla Nursery, did they have federal agency
involved in building that nursery? I would bet the answer is no. A federal agency must be
involved to invoke the 106. In this particular case the FCC was involved, which is a federal
agency. When a federal agency becomes involved, the 106 essential. 106 Group is involved.
That's the difference.
Dillon: Okay.
Wendy Biorn: I was going to, we are very encouraged by the flexibility that T-Mobile has been
willing to do in relocating the tower. I know it's only 200 feet but it does make a difference and
unfortunately it does affect other homeowners. There's no way around that. And from a historic
aspect of things we have to look and follow the National, and this is a national thing. A rule that
must be followed and that's where the 106 comes in. It's a federal thing. They happen to
18
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
determine too, be eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties and therefore has been
identified as a property worthy of preservation. They will be listed on the National Register and
that is part of the thing with T -Mobile as well. Do you have any questions?
McDonald: Thank you. You answered everything for us. Thank you.
Wendy Biorn: You're welcome.
McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come up and comment?
Gary Anderson: My name's Gary Anderson, 725 Creekwood and I'd just like to say that moving
that tower, I've heard 500 feet. 200 feet. The 200 feet would be right in my picture table where I
look out and that's where I write property tax to you folks every year for the last 35 years. To
pay taxes. I look at this saying that council should take a look at this and say, there's no reason
to have a cell phone tower in this area. I know there's progress in the city. I looked at, I spent 2
hours today looking at the 2030 comp plan. If you look in that, there's a historic chapter in there.
I think we all need to take a look at that. I look at that property that's proposed for 2010, that's
all low density housing. In 2010. That's 2 years. That means 4 houses per acre. In that area.
And it's all proposed for 2010. So I'd like to take, everybody take a look at this. I mean you
have a responsibility or just, not to the historical society but to the folks that pay the bill. You
know the guy, people that have been here for 30 plus years and I hope that you would do that. I
ask you, why doesn't the city have a tower on your property? Why don't we get the $5,000 for
taxes? Mr. Thomas made an excellent point. You know why there? Why not on a park,
Bandimere Park? Why, when we put in a commercial area along 312. I know the Vogel sisters
were out here last time. You know their family was the ones that had that house. And...
Aanenson: They did stop up last week.
Gary Anderson: Yeah, they were there and they're sick over it. Very sick over it. So if we take
a look at their plan that we have with the city, 2000 comp plan and you take a look at that, we're
going to go with that, then I think we'd better go with that. The prior meeting that you had with
the setbacks, that you had a meeting with just a little bit ago. I could see where people are up in
arms about. Right down below the hill, the Golf Zone, there's a conditional use permit there. No
fertilization. No herbicide. No fungicide. Ladies and gentlemen, they can build a golf course
like that without any of those, then they should be in consulting because you know what's going
on there. It's called regulation and it's your responsibility to make sure the regulations are taking
place. That's all I have to say. Sometimes you have to stand up and do what's right for the
community. The people that pay the taxes. Not just big companies. And that's all we expect.
Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to make comment?
Chrisann Arndt: I'm really nervous. I'm not used to speaking in front of groups so bear with me.
My name is Chrisann Arndt and I live in the historic August Vogel property. And first and
foremost I want to say thanks to everybody and listening to us as far as trying to move the cell
tower. When we purchased the August Vogel Farm back in '92 ironically one of the very first
19
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
things that we did was bury all the electrical wires and anything that would possibly make the
property look modern day. We've been restoring the house for 15 years now back to the way that
it would have looked in the 1800' s. And it's kind of been an undertaking that has come out of our
pocket. We never looked for any grant money or anything like that. It was a project that when
we first saw the August Vogel house, we just felt that it was a gem and I've been involved with
the Carver County Historical Society in the past as a board member and I have also attempted to
try to get the property on the National Register which now the ball is finally rolling. I've talked
with people from MnDot about the property because of the very first and major concern that I
had was the fact that the house would be taken with any type of 101 road improvements and I
was pretty much rest assured that it would not be. Right after that happened, then the cell tower
issue came up and it was just really upsetting to me to think that you know, that house is
probably one of the most viable, if not the most viable historical piece of property that the city of
Chanhassen has. And that the work that we've put into that house for the last 15 years has been
work that we feel that at this time we're just caretakers of that house and that that house is going
to out live my husband and I and it's going to be there forever and that is actually a real asset to
the city and who knows, maybe one day it could be a museum or some type of an interpretation
center. I know from talking to Wendy that the City of Chanhassen is trying to get something
going on with the you know, their own chapter set up with the historical society and we don't
have a lot of historical properties in the city ofChanhassen. And we really need to consider the
fact that a cell tower sitting in the back yard of this historic property is really going to have an
adverse affect and that I mean, even by moving the cell tower 200 feet, I'm still going to see the
cell tower. Everybody in that neighborhood is still going to see the cell tower but it's not going
to be like right in the back yard to where when you pull up and you see this beautiful piece of
property. Here's a cell tower like right there and so that's why I was for moving the cell tower
because of the effect. Because I really, really think that that house is going to be there for a long
time and I just want all of you to realize that it's a fabulous piece of property and I invite all of
you to come out and see what we've done to it and it will be on the National Register someday
and it is definitely going to be there for a long time and I just want you to consider that and
consider the adverse affect that a cell tower would have on the property.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward?
Jim Sabinske: Jim Sabinske, 775 Creekwood. My concerns is just like you Dan on they found
the site real soon after they couldn't have the site that they had, so I believe they didn't look very
serious about a place to plant the tower. So, and what Mr. Anderson said, he pretty much spoke
for the whole neighborhood up there you know. You guys it's your responsibility pretty much to
see what goes on and take a good look at it because people out there, the ones that's paying the
taxes and make the machine run. I advise you to look pretty serious at things. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment?
Steve Edwards: I think I just need to make a point of clarification. From the location that we
first selected to the location we're looking at now, it is a move of 500 feet. The tower, you first
looked at the crane test was taken at a 200 foot distance. And the setback to that property weren't
actually taken into account when they were looking at that. If you do look at the actual property,
it's an oddly shaped property and we are required to continue to maintain the 150 setbacks that
20
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
are required on the property. And the other locations we did look at over about a 2 1/2 month
investigation of the area, looking at the different areas of the property. Trying to keep it away
from the residential properties as much as possible, while also maintaining the setback to all the
different boundaries so it actually was quite a process to find the location we're in now to meet
the historic preservation office's requirements. To meet the city's 150 foot setback requirements,
and also try to keep as much out of view shed of people's main windows as possible.
McDonald: Let me ask you a question. 500 feet. Is that 500 feet from the Vogel house or 500
feet from the location where it was originally?
Steve Edwards: 500 feet from the location it was originally sited.
McDonald: Okay.
Larson: Can we point out where it was and now where it is, compared to where it is?
Aanenson: It might be easier on the color photo Sharmeen.
Steve Edwards: Approximately right here. There's 150 feet off this setback and 150 feet off this
setback.
Audience: ... access to this property?
Steve Edwards: It will be off Creekwood Drive.
Audience: And you'll have the same access that you had prior?
Steve Edwards: At this time I'd have to go back and look where the prior access was.
Someone in the audience was asking questions to Mr. Edwards regarding the location of the
access.
McDonald: I guess I would ask you, if you want to make comments from the back, what you
really need to do is to come up to the podium because otherwise this doesn't get onto the
television. This is a public meeting. No one can see you back there so if you have comments to
make, I would ask that you come up here and re-address everyone.
Steve Edwards: It appears that we are using the same access.
McDonald: Okay. Debbie, you had a question?
Larson: Well just to bring up what one of the residents had said is there a reason why the
location's closer to the 312 corridor or Bandimere were not considered for this tower as opposed
to where it is going now?
21
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Steve Edwards: We did investigate the Bandimere Park, which I believe is also the nearest city
owned property to the area. And once again to meet the city setback into that park, we'd be
looking pretty much to put the tower in the center of the property was in one of the ballfields,
and that also takes away from our objective of 101 and covering that area. Pardon me while I get
my bearings on these. We did quite a bit of paperwork preparing. So this demonstrates the
location of the proposed site there in the center surrounded by our current coverage in the area.
Larson: Is the coverage in yellow?
Steve Edwards: Coverage is in building and car coverage is in red. In car coverage is in yellow.
And the gray area you start getting into a somewhat shaky area. You start running into dropped
calls and such. Now this is the proposed coverage. This is actually at the first location. I mean
we'd be moving this slightly 500 feet back, which would impact this coverage area over here, but
would still cover the objective we'd be looking for.
Larson: So where's the 312 corridor? Further north?
Steve Edwards: I believe that runs next to the Vogel property.
Larson: Was that already covered? Is that why you didn't consider going up closer to that? As
far as your coverage area. I mean I can see there's an obvious void here. So this location, from
what I see here, gives you a better coverage of non-covered areas?
Steve Edwards: Correct, and 101.
Larson: I'm hoping that will answer the question for the gentleman in the back too.
Keefe: My question was really along 212 as well. Why there isn't a site along 212 because it
sure would seem like there'd be something. It might be more for a commercial line than
residential.
Aanenson: It's not zoned currently yet.
McDonald: All of this should have been covered before and a lot of it was but when you come
back, we re-open things that I know you're not prepared for because in the first presentation there
was a lot more coverage maps and everything and they're not here because this is just an
amendment but when you come back, you re-open questions. Did this, this was really the part of
the public hearing portion of it. If you're finished with your comments, go ahead and sit down
and if anyone else wishes to come up, come on up.
Gary Anderson: I just wondered, how long is the lease again on this?
Steve Edwards: 30 years.
Gary Anderson: 30 years. Is there opt out in this lease agreement between you...
22
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Steve Edwards: Between T -Mobile, yes.
Gary Anderson: T -Mobile and the applicant? So T -Mobile has the right to opt out? Within that
access to that property. . . would that property then be valid for development of low density then?
Aanenson: Where the T -Mobile site is going?
Gary Anderson: Well with the access, where it is going now and where the tower's proposed to
be.
Aanenson: It would have impacted because there's setback requirements from a tower so that
would be taken into consideration at some time in the future when there's building applications.
Gary Anderson: And also with the access? With the road going to the.
Aanenson: Correct. Those would be taken into consideration with the subdivision. They'd still
have to maintain an access to those, if and when that property, and just to clarify, I believe that's
2015. Not 2010.
Gary Anderson: I believe it says 2010.
Aanenson: I'll double check on that.
Gary Anderson: On the north side of Creek wood it says 2010.
Aanenson: Um, that could be true so. But even so they would still have to maintain an access to
that and there's a setback requirement of half the distance of the pole height.
Gary Anderson: So that property would...
Aanenson: No. They'd still have to meet the setback requirements. It could be.
Gary Anderson: ... to get into that. I mean if you look at that access and the.
Steve Edwards: The access is, the way it's worked out.. .the access, as long as we have access to
the pole. It doesn't matter how, if the property's redeveloped, how access continues. So if for
some reason streets would go through there, how it would develop. . . as long as we were provided
access to the site. Our access wouldn't change.
Gary Anderson: And then there's a concrete pad underneath this tower. Who's responsible,
because we don't want to get into the same thing when we did the water department. When we
had to dig up and we found a concrete barrel. A drum there from the cement mix. Who's
responsibility to dig up the footings?
Steve Edwards: The agreement that T -Mobile will remove the footings before...
23
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Gary Anderson: And how deep is that footing now?
Steve Edwards: It'd probably be about 20-25 feet.
Gary Anderson: And so there's going to be 21 feet of concrete underneath the ground. And how
big is that pad?
Steve Edwards: It'd probably be about 8 by, 6 by 8.
McDonald: Okay. Any further comments or anything that anyone wants to come up and address
the commissioners. Seeing no one get up, this meeting is closed and I'll bring it back up for
discussion amongst the commissioners. Kevin, start with you.
Dillon: So you know I mean I agree with the commissioner that, the Chair that it would have
been great to have all this sorted out the first time around but understand the events of the
historical society and all that. You know I guess, my take, I'm in favor of this being, if this
comes to a vote, I'll probably vote to support the staffs recommendation on this but again the
other thing is, I mean we've heard from a couple of people that are, you know are kind of against
this and you know they've made comments on board and they say we speak for the neighbors.
Well where are the neighbors? If everyone's so upset about this being moved, and we've heard
from 2 people that are kind of like against it and is that big of a deal, then you know as a
planning commission member, I'd like to know. But no one's telling me otherwise. There's 2
voices out of, you know there's like 20 property owners that were advised so I mean, if you want
to I guess the message is, you know if you want to have a stake in the future, you've got to show
up.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: It seems like a reasonable compromise and I'm just very happy that the Vogel property
owner seems happy with the outcome here so I think that's a good outcome.
McDonald: Dan.
Keefe: Yeah I'm not, I mean I'm not sure I'm in complete agreement with the conditional use
findings. You know like I say, you know particularly concerned about is number 3. Will be
designed, constructed, operated and maintained so it would be compatible in appearance with
existing or intended character in the general vicinity. I'm not so sure I agree with that finding but
I guess that's my comment.
McDonald: Kathleen.
Thomas: Yeah. I understand the amendment and I understand where we're going to put it on the
property and why, I just have a hard time with Section 106 being that I've got, we went through
all this back in April and then it gets completely put through and then, because the house could
be eligible to be on that list, but it's not on the list but it could be on the list, I just have a hard
time with that. I just, I prefer something that it was not like that so we could make sure that
24
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
when something gets presented to us that there's no way that it's going to have to come back and
be, it could have been on the list somewhere, sometime so. That's it.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: Well, I'm kind of glad that they have come to some sort of mutual agreement to move it
over. Whether it be 200 or 500 feet, whatever that is. As far as not having it at all, I'm real
surprised that that's even being brought up tonight because it's already been established that it's
going to be somewhere. And it's not like we're going to not do it. So I guess I am in favor, since
it seems like the Vogel house is happy with the outcome of the other so it's not in their view.
Beyond that, I think the other arguments of not having it any more, or anywhere because we
don't need it, well unfortunately cities change and Chanhassen is growing and I see this as an
improvement so I would be tending to vote for it so.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Mark.
Undestad: No comments. I'm in agreement here.
McDonald: Okay. The only comment I'll make is just to kind of re-emphasize. When you bring
something such as this, and this is not the only thing that comes up that's controversial. The
planning case before was and I guess what I've learned about this is that you know, going to ask
a little bit more tougher questions next time. Demand a little bit more proof about why
something needs to go where it does. I agree, the cell phone tower becomes a necessity. It's, the
benefits far outweigh the detriments of the visual impact upon the area. I mean in this day and
age you need cell phones. Emergency communications. All kinds of things. It's just, that's the
kind of world we live in. It's a wireless world and it's going to become even more and more
ingrained within the society. I just feel a little bit duped about the whole thing because again
with what we went through back in April about people complaining that this was in their sight,
that still bothers me quite a bit. You know I'm in favor of the tower. I'm not going to vote
against it because you need the coverage but I just think that something such as that would have
made it a lot easier. You know you've got a little bit better acceptance I think this time around
and I agree with Kevin. The turnout is not what it was before so I have to take that into
consideration. That's the only comment I've got. I'm not sure what staff can do about it. I
understand the federal implications of all this. There's nothing the city can do until, we just pass
things on and you never can tell what's going to happen at the next level so I don't see where the
city did anything wrong or the staff didn't do their due diligence or something. But I'm feeling a
little bit more angry towards the applicant than I am with anybody. Enough said. I'm willing to
accept a recommendation from the commissioners.
Undestad: I'll make a recommendation. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the
amendment to the Site Plan Permit 07-04 for a 149 foot telecommunication tower and a 6 foot
cedar fence as shown on the site plan received October 5, 2007, subject to conditions 1 through
10. And the Planning Commission recommends approval for the amendment to the Conditional
Use Permit 07-04 for a 149 foot telecommunication tower as shown on the site plan received
October 5, 2007, subject to conditions 1 through 7.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Dillon: Second.
Undestad moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the Amendment to 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. 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.
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 of90 MPH for 3 seconds (ref. 2000 IBC, Sec. 1609)
and include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice (ref. MSBC 1303.1800).
26
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
b. The plans (tower and platform) must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the
State of Minnesota."
c. The contractor shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss
plan review and permit procedures.
All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
Undestad moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the Amendment to the 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.
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, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: CHAPTER 3. HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND
CHAPTER 4. HOUSING ELEMENTS.
Aanenson: It's kind of a nice segway to talk about historic preservation, we go into that. I think
we did learn something in this process. Whether something's on the eligibility or not, we know
27
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
now if it needs a federal permit, whether typically we think about that as roads. Now we know
for cell towers, so what we would do if this was to come in again today, we would not have the
hearing until they've gone through that process. We can ask for additional time to make sure it's
a complete application so we'll take some of the responsibility for that mistake or permitting it
and, because it creates ill will and I think if we had known about that process, we certainly would
have asked for additional information so from now on when we know there's a federal permit,
the historic preservation does come into play, which is kind of a segway into why we're looking
at identifying historic properties, which we haven't necessarily done in the past. We know there's
some out there but really doing a more thorough job in working with the county. We did notify
the residents, or this was published in the paper, that these two sections of the plan are being
covered. Last night we did have a neighborhood meeting with some of the residents in the
southern end of the city. Specifically talk about the staging of the MUSA, the change that was
brought up by Commissioner Papke last time so we had a really good turnout last night so we'll
bring that information back to you in the land use section as it relates to that. But with that, I'd
like to turn this part of the historic portion of the comprehensive plan over to Sharmeen and then
I'll talk about the housing chapter.
AI-Jaff: This is the first time that the city has included the historic preservation element in the
comprehensive plan. With the rural portion of our community ready for development and the
desire to preserve the city's history, it is the appropriate time to formalize the city's goals for
historic preservation. Looking at this map before you, in 1854 Chanhassen became the first
township within Carver County. The area has a history that dates back about 150 years. In the
city of Chanhassen and when we are looking at historic properties we will be focusing on
buildings and places that are unique, time sensitive, culturally or socially important, or
architecturally significant. So our goal is to promote the preservation and protection of valuable
historic and cultural resources through community partnerships and collaborations with citizens,
non-profit state, federal, public and private entities. One of the things that we have attempted to
do is work very closely with Carver County. Carver County was awarded a grant. They hired
the 106 Group to identify historically significant sites. This process included sites listed on the
National Historic Places and we do have St. Hubert's, old St. Hubert's is one of the buildings that
is listed on the National Historic Places. Sites that are eligible for National Register of Historic
Places, which is what we learned during this process, and with each one of those there would be
a photo incorporated into the research that they would be doing. The 106 Group has phased their
study into baseline data. And at this point they have collected all of the data. We have worked
very closely with them on this stage, basically identifying where all of the historic properties in
Chanhassen is located and the age of the structures, significance of them. We've tried to
summarize everything for them. Over the next month or so we will have some meetings with. . .
basically developing priorities as to how should we delve further into each aspect into each
property. How do we gather additional information and then the final stage would be to identify
and evaluate historic resources that are significant to the heritage. As I mentioned earlier we
have inventoried the city's historic aspects and here is an example of what we did from, was
create a map that, the first 40 years of the city was simple enough to put on one map. After that
we started going onto.
Aanenson: Did I go too far?
28
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
AI-Jaff: No, keep going.
Dillon: Hey, what's that in the background there?
Aanenson: Took me a minute.
AI-Jaff: One of the other things that we are trying to accomplish is develop and maintain a list of
historic sites and structures within the city. We want to develop and maintain an interactive web
site link of historic inventory between the city and the county. We would like to enter that, we
can incorporate historic sites into new subdivisions or developments where possible. Encourage
the preservation and adaptive re-use of structures of historic and architectural significance. This
is the home depot and you can actually see it out.
Aanenson: Did you mean Chan Depot? ... while Sharmeen catches her breath, because she's got
a terrible cold. This is one where we actually moved when we did a road project. When we did
the Highway 5 frontage road. We did the environmental impact. This was sitting on a property
out on Highway 5, or the new location of the frontage road. West 78th Street, so this did come up
in SHPO. We're familiar with that process. Unfortunately we weren't familiar with the cell
tower process so this was relocated to be historically correct. Adjacent to a railroad track and it's
on the Dinner Theater property. Do you want me to switch slides now?
AI-Jaff: And encourage development of buildings that compliment historic buildings and in this
case the Goddard School as well as Remax compliment the St. Hubert's, old St. Hubert's church
design. Again we want to stress that we will be working with Carver County very closely. We
will consult Carver County Historic Society on any issues that come across. We will encourage
properties, requesting historic designation or funding, we will direct them to Carver County
Historic Society. One of the programs that we would like to start in Chanhassen is recognizing
historic properties and that would happen on a voluntary basis. If the homeowners, the property
owners are interested, then we would work with them very closely. And if you have any
suggestions, any additions that you want to see us incorporate into our policies, we would
welcome any feedback from you.
McDonald: Does anyone have any questions or comments on that? I guess I've got one for you.
This is all nice, you know to be able to identify all of this and everything. You've got St.
Hubert's that's sitting down here that's been identified. It goes back to the beginning but yet
nothing is happening and as a result the building, you know from my perspective of looking at it,
is deteriorating. What's the role of the city in all of this? You know are we going to step in and
do something to preserve these? Are we going to find someone to preserve these or, otherwise
why are we doing this?
Aanenson: Well for one, for example what happened tonight. So we would identify something
that's on the Register. If somebody came in with an application that required a federal permit,
we would know that there's a correct process to go through that. I mean we wouldn't go through
the painstaking process of giving a conditional use and site plan approval when we didn't have
all the facts.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
McDonald: That's a good example of what I'm talking about. You had private entities that
moved in there, took it upon themselves to rehabilitate that property to get it to a point where
now it's worthwhile considering things like what's a sale going to do to the property.
Aanenson: But my point is that if we know where they are and they would affect the process,
that's information we should have before we say it's a complete application so that would be the
knowledge. The City, it's my belief doesn't want to get into trying to own and manage all these
you know. What we want to do is work with the county to be the pass through agency for that
funding and, it takes a big staffing level and a commitment and the county's got that process set
up so we want to partner with them to be that, to do a preservation group agency you have to
have an architect. There's a whole staffing level that based on, compare us to what City of
Carver has with a lot more Chaska brick homes. That sort of thing. They've got a different level
of need there. So our goal is to identify these. If there are groups that want to preserve and
protect the property, then we want to channel them to work through the county and obviously
we'd give input to that process. Is there anything else you want to add to that Sharmeen?
Papke: I guess I kind of empathize with what Jerry is saying. I mean it, the plan in here is
basically a plan to do nothing other than make a list.
Aanenson: No. Our plan is to go further and work with the County. Be involved at the county
level. To be partners with them. Not to have a separate...
Papke: But at the end of the day it comes down to budget and having a tangible goal for doing
something concrete so, like Jerry mentioned we have, I don't think anybody would question that
the St. Hubert's Church is probably the crown jewels of our historic piece in the city and there's
nothing in here, there's no goal that says you know, like we did with the storm water. With the
surface water management program. We said okay, you've got Lake Minnewashta and Lotus
Lake and these are all things that we think ooh, let's do whatever it takes to preserve or even
improve them and there's nothing in here right now that says we're going to do anything of that
sort. And that's okay but I just think, you know people look at a comp plan and I think that the
average citizen who you know, got up here tonight. You know I've paid my $5,000 in taxes.
You know I want to see something for it. If! was them I'd look at this and go, this is a plan to do
nothing.
Aanenson: Right now we're doing nothing. Right now we're trying to identify those properties
and then...
Papke: ... as long as we're all clear that our plan is to do nothing.
Keefe: Isn't the first step identification though? Isn't that doing something?
Papke: Sure. Sure. But listen, this is a comp plan we're going to live with for 10 years. That
could be a pile of rubble.
Keefe: ... saying it doesn't go far enough. I mean.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Papke: The value system ofChanhassen is very laise faire, okay. We don't have a community
center of, we don't have a city golf course. You know our value system is very much to let the
private sector take care of these things and if we're all in agreement for that, that's fine. That's
what this... but I think what Jerry is reacting to is in other areas where we have it, we've done
more than that and this is, you know this is a plan that really doesn't have much substance to it.
Much concrete action or.
McDonald: I guess one of the things that's missing, and I bring up the church and the fact that
it's deteriorating. At some point it becomes a public hazard. What is that point? Why doesn't
this plan address something such as, what's the criteria for saving something versus not saving
something?
Aanenson: First of all it's private property. It's not the city's. Their contention is that because
it's a historic building, that the city should take ownership. I'm not sure that the city's made that
decision yet. Right now we're just trying to move in that direction to try to put some goals in
place. Put some, work with the county to develop that. This is the first step.
McDonald: Kate, you misunderstand. We're not saying take ownership, but we're saying that if
this comp plan is to address how we do things with zoning and areas such as that, there should be
more here because what are we going to do if the church becomes a hazard to public safety
because it's falling down because the private sector hasn't.
Papke: That's really a good point Jerry, and one of my heartbreaks in the city is the sanitarium.
You know down by the Seminary Fen. The same thing happened and it's now a pile of bricks
and I think the same thing could happen to the church and if the city, if we collectively decide
that's what we want to do, that's fine. That's kind of what you know the comp plan reflects right
now but I think we all should you know, my take away from that is that we're going to do
nothing in the next 10 years other than make a list and hope for the best that others will run with
this.
Undestad: I think part of what you know I mean, making a list is making it known to the private
parties that own these things, we know it's out there. We're watching it.
Papke: Does anybody not know that the church exists?
Undestad: Right, but it's still a private... What I'm saying is, not all the historical houses, all the
old things around town are owned by private individuals and the seminary. . .
Papke: I'm not saying we shouldn't make the list. That's great. But we shouldn't dilute ourselves
into thinking that this comp plan you know commits the city to do a damn thing beyond making
a list for the next 10 years. Okay? That's all it does.
Aanenson: Chairman McDonald, could I, could I ask Wendy to speak from the Carver County
Historical Society. She's been working with us trying to put this together. Kind of what our
vision is and where we're going.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
McDonald: I think her input would be very good in all of this.
Wendy Biorn: I can address St. Hubert's a little bit. There is a group forming, Chanhassen
Historical Society. They are forming. The sole purpose, although it's called Chanhassen
Historical Society, their main focus is St. Hubert's. They're in the process. They have their By-
laws and they have their letters of incorporation and they are in the process of forming a non-
profit organization. That's the first step. The problem with St. Hubert's, it's still owned by the
Diocese. As such they are not eligible for a lot of grants that could otherwise come their way.
St. Hubert's, from my understanding in talking with the church is that they would gladly sell it
for a buck as long as it's being taken care of. If they were to do that, there's a couple of different
directions as a City Council you can do because even an organization with some people that are
backing it who are quite well funded, the thing is, they can't do it forever so you'll have to have a
re-use surveyor study done of the property to find another usage for the building. Whether it's,
and of course this does not mean gutting it out and making it... What it means is finding it a use
for the property that can possibly help sustain itself, is what it's looking at. Once it becomes a
property that is not church owned, they do become eligible for grants and then they can work in
conjunction with the city. There's a lot of examples of organizations that do that. I come from
one that was very successful up in Rockford in doing that. The City owned the house... historic
house and the Rockford Historical Society was formed to manage it. It is a very good junction.
Under that, you are eligible through the Minnesota Historical Society for some very large grants
that only, when the property is owned by the city and managed by non-profit organizations.
There's not a whole lot of those in the state of Minnesota that are eligible for that type of grant.
So it becomes eligible for money for upkeep and re-use study. The City itself here can help by
having an engineer going and look at a structural, how sound it is. What is it going to take to
keep it up? And a re-use study, which is once they, you or they take the property or if they get
enough donations for it, which is something, the first thing they plan to do is do fundraising once
they become the 5013C, they can pay for the re-use study. Once the re-use study comes, they
can tell you which direction you can go. But you're right, it is a crown jewel of this community
and I would really hate to see it disappear, but the biggest problem is it is still owned by a
diocese.
McDonald: Well see I guess my position is I think the city can bring more pressure to get the
place preserved and they can do that through the ordinance process and inspections and those
things and that's what I think is missing. We have titles that say landmark preservation. What
are we preserving? That's what I think is missing out of this is, if we're going to do this, we
need to say this is what the City's going to do. If you don't take action, we're going to force
something. One way or another, either it gets preserved or we tear it down and that's what I'm
saying, what's the criteria? That's what I think needs to be in here. Not that the city takes
ownership. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying the City has an ownership in this and either the
preservation or the protection of property, and to just sit back and allow it to become rubble is
not an option in my case. Not in this comp plan, so that's what I think is missing. That's my
complaint. It's good to put a list together and identify all this but then what are we going to do
about it?
Wendy Biorn: And I'm hearing that you feel that the city or the council would be willing to
work with the Historical Society. I'm talking either the County or the local organization.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
McDonald: I'm not saying the city has to create a new department or something. It's just, yes
I'm well aware of what the County does and I'm well aware of the group that's trying to do
something with St. Hubert's and that's great and one of the reasons they're doing it is because
they got so frustrated with nothing happening there and they're watching the building fall down.
So you have citizens that came forward. I'm saying the city has a role to play in that and they
can do it by either forcing that development or getting people to look and make choices instead
of just letting things just sit, you know, and I don't.
Wendy Biorn: Is it possible to get some of this organization and some people from the city
together to work together?
Aanenson: Let's back up. Right now we're just going through the comp plan process. This is
going to be a recommendation going up to the council so you've got it at the county. So we've
got 6 month review. We're certainly going to take your comments and advance those to the
council as is the county will give us their comments on the direction we're going on that too, but
I think all that's kind of where we're going to eventually end up having that discussion and that's
why we're having this.
McDonald: That's what we're trying to give you Kate.
Aanenson: And I appreciate it. You know that's what we want to advance is when we come
back in January, at our meeting with the summation of all the comments, we want to you know,
if we haven't put it correctly, what you want to go, and the county will give us their comments
back too about this because it's up there too to give that, and we want to go right. And ultimately
the council's going to make the recommendation but thank you for your comments. Appreciate
them.
McDonald: Thank you.
Papke: One additional comment on this before we close out. You know I don't want to
minimize how difficult this is. You know I've driven by, was it St. John's in Shakopee that was a
massage parole and hair salon for many years, which has now gone belly up but I appreciate how
difficult it is to make these things economically viable.
Aanenson: Did you know Eden Prairie is trying to unload on some of their projects that they
bought.
Papke: They have problems with the Dunn Brothers situation so.
Aanenson: It's a very complex issue so.
Papke: These are.
Aanenson: I guess what, you know what looks like we're not doing anything for us, we're
moving in really a paradigm shift of not doing anything to getting it on the books and ultimately
33
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
what's going to go further, we're going to create ordinances. We're going to do things but what
we're saying now is we recognize the importance and where it goes from there is ultimately
council's.
Papke: I agree. It's great that we have something in the comp plan now. The only down side of
having this in the comp plan is the typical citizen expects that oh, there's a historic preservation
section in here now. Now it's going to have some teeth and there isn't a lot of teeth in this right
now. There's not a lot of commitment.
Aanenson: And I think what the other portion that we're missing is ultimately when we see what
the County's got in their ordinance, because we'll be teaming back in with them and I think that's
kind of the piece that's missing and we'll try to pull that together for you when we come back in
January with the final edition.
McDonald: And I guess I'm willing to wait til January but that's what I'm talking about.
Aanenson: No, and I appreciate your comments. They're very good.
McDonald: Then in that case we'll close out on this subject and we'll move to Chapter 4.
Aanenson: Alright. We'll go to housing. Alright if you want to kind of follow along, I jump
kind of back and forth between this presentation and Chapter 4 in the comprehensive plan.
Thankfully the county did a lot of the research for this. They hired Maxfield Research Group
Inc. to, and they did that 10 years ago when we updated the comprehensive plan, to study kind of
the current trends of what's happening in the county. And then selected some of those out,
selected cities to look at, so that relates to Chanhassen. So with that, the first thing that we did
with the council is we adopted the Systems Statement. The Systems Statements come from the
Metropolitan Council and they include population, households and employment. I just showed
the population and households. Although their employment factor does come back to some of
the requirements for density. The systems statements were agreed on by the City Council back
in 2000 and the statements are required by law and are to help communities update their
comprehensive plan. So if you look at the population in 2000, what this takes us out to is the
year 2030, estimated population and I'm going to circle back to that number of38,000 because it
has implications as it does with households. So if you look at Chan's percent of the county, you
can see we've historically been the largest city in the county as far as population and as you see
as the county tends to mature, because we're the most easterly portion, adjacent to Hennepin
County, you can see that some of the other communities are catching up to us. Household types,
if you look back at this kind of where we are, as most of you are aware, we're a family of, a
community of households of married with children and we have the highest percentage of
children. In the comprehensive plan I didn't include it in this power point but just something I
wanted to note how it ties back. This is actually on page 4.6 where it talks about persons per
household. And it ties into this slide and the fact that in 1990 we were 2.92 persons per
household, which is in the metro area is on the higher end. I think in some of the northern
suburbs there are some that a little over 3. I'm on page 4-, on that table. Okay. And then in
2000 we actually bumped up a little bit again persons per household. When we got the
population numbers this spring from the Met Council, they actually dropped that number,
34
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
persons per household. After we already redid some of the statements to 2.7 persons per
household. So if we tie that back to what we're expecting for growth, we're actually kind of be
closer to 32,000. And they are using a different model then, census model. They're looking at
vacancy rates. Product type and it's interesting to note when the school district does this, and this
is specifically District 112, they've noted in some of the townhouse projects, the entry level, that
there's actually more than just you know first time homebuyer or senior. It might be a young
family in there. So that has implications that we may not come close to the 38,000. More likely,
if the 2.7 is true, and we did argue that that we think that that's a little low, that we might be
closer to 33,200 as far as ultimate population and that would be in that 2030 year. So Ijust
wanted to again kind of show you that we still will be a predominantly married with children
kind of community for the next few years. The next table from the census and our building
permit activity, in looking at the type of housing that historically has been owner rental
predominantly, owner occupied. Single family detached is our predominant housing type. If
you look at 1990 and 2000, and I'll show where that ends up when we looked at what the
Maxfield study found out going forward. This is one of the sheets that we have to submit that's
required by the Met Council and it looks like a lot of gobbly goop but I'll just kind of briefly go
through it. What they've required is show us that there's a density requirement they requested all
communities to meet and this also ties back to our Livable Communities Act of density so the
key number here is the 3.43 on the bottom. So what we did is we took, this is all of the
residential zoning districts we have in the city. Large lot.. .the 9,000. If you move forward to
multi-family, this would be the ultimate number of units based on land use, 2000 and then high
density, another 2,000 approximately so if you're looking at multi-family, it looks closer to half.
When you take the gross acres and then we have to subtract out wetlands, open space, road right-
of-ways to try to get to a net developable acres. Then we take that and we apply net density
formula, and this is a requirement again of the Met Council so this is a sheet that will go forward
to them and it ties back, and I'll show you how that ties back when we move to some of the next
slides. This is some information again that the Maxfield Group found and has some interesting,
to understand some of the market conditions when you look at this slide itself. So if you look at
traditional demand for for sale housing, what they're projecting is additional, in the year, the next
10 years, another 1,660 units and in the 2015 to 2030 another 1,000 or a total of3,380 new units
for the build out. That would be single family. So what they do is they break that down into
price points and you can see, and this is accurate that we haven't done any single family
households under, detached under $325,000 for a number of years. As a matter of fact when we
get to a future slide you'll see what that, it's pretty shocking what you see for the new price point
for single family detached. So what does that mean? That means there's a pent up demand for
that price point because there's nothing meeting that market, that detached, so that's why you see
an attached product that are coming in under that 325 because we don't have anything in that
price point. So they're still owner occupied but they just tend to be attached as opposed to
detached.
Keefe: So, should I let you finish?
Aanenson: No, go ahead...
Keefe: So in this case, you know when you look at the ratio of single family to multi-family, I
mean they're showing 70% of the.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Aanenson: I think those are flip flopped.
Keefe: But the numbers are consistent if you look at.
Aanenson: Yeah. But ultimate build out, if you take what we have to date, it's so far heavily
weighed, we'll always be 40, 70%.
Keefe: Yeah, I just found that.
Aanenson: Yeah. Well I think when they mean multi-family, I think they mean attached
product. It'd still be owner occupied. I'll come back to that too. There's a couple of points on
that when we talk about price points and the like. So this would be the ultimate demand for
rental, which is about, in the next build out, 2030 would be over 1,055 units. Of that, they break
that down into market rate, which is about half would be about 530. Then they break it down
into how much senior we would need, 425 and then the affordable, 175. Now looking at that
we've had requests to do a significant amount of senior housing. Well in excess of 1,000 units.
We've had some parties interested in providing that, which is well beyond what we believe meets
our needs, and that would be products that would be maybe moving from independent to assisted
living. So again looking at some of our demographics we believe that that may be in excess of
what we want to provide to meet some of our residents, and we've also, you know with the senior
center in this building, congregate dining, we've identified some sites that are closer to this area
that would be appropriate for senior housing. Any questions on that part of it? So this also had
some revealing information on what's happening out in our marketplace. If you look at average
re-sale price. So this would be an average single family. Now this is just retail price so I just
compared ourselves to kind of our sister cities in the county. If you look at our average resale
price, we're at 441. So this would be existing stock with new stock so that's kind of what's out
there in the market. Again, except for Victoria, we're one of the higher ones in the county. Then
this is the multi-family resale price. Again if you look at historically, and this is in detail in the
document, housing chapter 2, that Chanhassen is, has a more modest, if you look at what
Victoria has, 359. Probably more of their multi-family attached is not in the same era or the
same number that we have over time, so if you look at, this is what I'm tying back. This doesn't
say multi-family doesn't say rental or owner, you know it's what it's saying is they're an attached
product, and that's fitting that gap that we don't have anything under that 325. That's when you
can see where we hit that pent up demand to see that projects. And just so you know too, in this
marketplace, if you look at where we have the biggest jump in building permit activities, when
there's that price point in the market because they're kind of be waves of some of that built up,
pent up demand. This sheet right here, I'm not going to try to go through all this. What I just
want to show you is that there is a platting requirement, a platting, what's the word I'm looking
for? A platting process that the Met Council likes us to see that we go through, and actually Bob
Generous on our staff created this a long, long time ago and actually this is the same process that
the Met Council uses. So what we do is we track every project that comes in and we come up
with, this is for single family. What we come up for a net density, so that's the 1.3. If you take
that same process, which we do for all multi-family projects, so we've been tracking these. We
just took those from 1998, and this was the first one we did multi-family. To track for the Met
Council where are we at with density, so this is our overall and this ties back to that, when I
36
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
showed you that formula we have to submit for the Met Council, the 3.4. This ties back that
we're in excess of that 4.83. And this does ebb and flow depending on what products come into
the marketplace and how much single family we're doing. How much multi-family and we kind
of move forward, away from it so it's kind of long term plat monitoring. That's the word I was
looking for. Plat monitoring process. So this is also a submittal requirement that we have to do
for the Met Council. I want to talk about Livable Communities for a little bit. But before I do
that I want to talk a little bit about some of the findings that, this is on page 4.8 of the housing
report. Kind of where we are in the county. Where our population is. You notice we're tending
to age. The largest segment of the population, 38% is between 35 or 54 and the medium age of
the population is 35.5. So they're anticipating that we're going to see more you know, as people
get older, different life style housing choices which we've always talked about too. We've
looked at some products. You know are they, do they have a lot of stairs? As you notice on the
K. Hovnanian project that they actually moved to a condo product and they recognize that they
were having some of those issues, so those were some of the things that we tried to, as we're
meeting with people, to look at those. We will still have a lot of young families, as found in,
recommended in the study and found in the study, and then because we have the transit
component here, the largest portion of jobs, which is also pointed out in the study, that there is
some demand for some of the rental housing and different housing product types as we have
some of those service needs, and that's one of the factors I'll go to in a minute. But I think that if
we look at, even when we did Powers Ridge, that has now become condos. That was started as
apartments so right now that market's a little soft but we anticipate we'll certainly see more
markets, more demand for apartments coming into the market.
McDonald: Wait, Powers Ridge. Is that the new development that's off of the 101?
Aanenson: Nope. That's the one over by Lake Susan. It started off as apartments and it's gone
all condo.
McDonald: It's gone all condo.
Aanenson: And actually those are, if you look at the price points, which I'll go through those in a
minute, so those would meet some affordable goals. So the Livable Communities Act, what
we're recommending is we stay with this. This was our original recommendation for the Livable
Communities Act, and we haven't changed from this. This was our original adoption in 1996.
We haven't moved from that recommendation. We're still recommending that. You can see we
tied that, when we did that in 1996 we estimated that we could meet the 3.3 goal. That's why we
set up the plat monitoring back then so we could track that we're beneath that and again we kind
of move towards it and away from it depending on the projects that are done that year, but that's
our goal. And I just want to take a few minutes, because I'm not sure all of you are familiar with
the Livable Communities Act and how that works. The Livable Communities Act came out of
1995 landmark discrimination case on the Homeland Consent Decree which was a severe
scarcity of affordable housing in, what they considered the region's poor people and they made,
they did demolition of770 subsidized units and said they need to go further out of Minneapolis
and move out into the outer rings and each community needed to accept from that so in 1996
they created a bill called the Livable Communities Act and communities were requested to
apply. The goal was to stimulate housing and economic community development in the 7 county
37
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
area. So the Metropolitan Council does offer money and gives development. We have used
some of the Livable Communities Act. We did use it on the Villages on the Pond. That was
one. We were the first city to go through under that criteria and we did receive funding for that
project itself. So participation is voluntary. We don't have to participate. And then the Met
Council gives us a report every year, a score card on how we're doing on that. As you can
imagine we've moved away from that a little bit. We'll show up next year because we did take
down Lakeview Hills but we did do the project on Lake Susan which is the Sands Company.
AI-Jaff: Gateway.
Aanenson: Gateway Park, thank you. As subsidized, and I'll talk about that in a minute too.
Keefe: What are the benefits though?
Aanenson: I'm going to go through that.
Keefe: Yeah, okay.
Aanenson: So first I'm going to explain what these definitions are, because there's really three
components. One is affordability. So you have a mix of owner/rental. That's one of the things
they say you should look at affordability's one component. Life cycle which means that you
have different types of housing. And the other component is the owner rental mix. So I'll define
those here. So life cycle means that there must be enough variety in your housing stock to
support the physical needs and fit the financial resources of people through their life. So what
does that mean? We've got senior housing. We've got starter housing. We've got move up,
entry level. We have those different types of opportunities, and that's always been in the goals of
the city. As a matter of fact the goals that are in the comp plan, really as I revisit them are pretty
try today as we approved probably pretty much in whole back in 1991 but they certainly were in
place in last. Affordability is based on the census bureau and federal housing subsidy standards
requiring residents to pay up to 30% of their household income on housing. So let me just for
example give you, on the Gateway project. So because there was some concern for the
neighbors that they were all subsidized. They're not. These are working people. So to get into
one of those, if you were to get into a one bedroom, you need an income of$36,000. To get into
a two bedroom, you need a combined household income of$76,000. And then if you get into a
three bedroom, you need a combined income of approximately $50,000. So these are working
people that get in there, so they're income qualified. So when we look at that number, you know
those are, when we talk about people and we're opening up a new high school. How do we
provide opportunities for those type of people to get into and that's where that entry level, when
we look at that 325, owner occupied for people that want to get that price point that allows them.
This is on the renter mix so there's two components to affordability. You know it's, well we have
a lot. We don't really provide subsidy for owner occupied. We've been able to accomplish that
through our product itself. For example Pulte Home came in with products that met that. The
Liberty on Bluff Creek has some products. Now that the apartments that I just mentioned went
condo on Powers Ridge, those also meet the affordability, so that we don't have the problem
with. The problem we have with the affordability, and it's not just Chanhassen. This is regional
is when you do rental. It's almost impossible without some assistance. So for example on the
38
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Gateway project there was a housing district created. Presbyterian Homes, we did provide
assistance. There was a housing district created. So in order for us to accomplish those goals, so
it's difficult because a lot of communities are chasing those same dollars because you compete
before the Met Council. So we did get affordable housing from the Met Council for the Gateway
and we've continued to do that, but it's hard to make up that gap without assistance. City
assistance on a couple different fronts. So the owner rental mix is pretty self explanatory. That's
looking at what our, what we believe is how much, or how much is going to be rental, and again
that hasn't changed. So we're kind of looking at a ratio of 80/20, 90/1 0 and that's where we're
going to end up as you take stock of the overall development of the city. So the benchmark came
into places, they went and they set a city index. What you were at the date, the snapshot when
they did this in 1995. How much did you have? Well one of the points that we made is we're
going to move from that, for example we just talked about Lakeview Hills. There's some, we
have, one of the things which we discussed in the housing element is that we created rental
licensing property. What it allows us for the upkeep as we talk about maintenance of those older
structures, of apartments that we have kind of in the core of downtown. Some of them on 101
that are older apartments that we want to maintain that as viable places to live and requires
property owners to keep those in good shape because those also provide affordable rents, and
those are at market rate just because of the years that they were built. And that information is
also available. We keep that information available for residents that are interested in looking for
apartments but again having the rental license helps us maintain those properties long term to
provide viable opportunities. Any questions that you have on the Livable Communities? I can
go into a lot more of why we would or wouldn't do it or.
Keefe: Yeah. It isn't clear to what the benefits are.
Aanenson: Well you can get assistance.
Keefe: Even when we get some dollars, we get a few dollars. A couple hundred thousand
dollars for Gateway and we get a little bit for the other project. And it's that, is that it? I mean
what are the other. . .
Aanenson: Well any other grants that you apply that the Met Council is the pass through, such
as state highway, those sort of things, they score you on, they grade you on whether or not you're
participating in the Livable Communities Act. And that would include Southwest Transit. It
would affect them too.
Keefe: Okay.
Aanenson: So. This aside, we're following our plan. You know the rub we're going to have is
the rental. It's hard to meet that goal, but we're not the only ones in that situation, but this aside,
we're following our plan and we're meeting those goals. And again the market picks up those
places. Like I said you can see where there's gaps in some of those price points. That someone
comes in and says I can see that there's a demand for some of that so. I'm not sure that it
influences us to the fact that some people think it does. I think there's always an obligation that
we try to find opportunities for, and it's also mentioned in too, if you look at where the growth of
job opportunities, they're still going to be in this part of the county, because we have the transit.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
That that's where the, the high school, some of these other new jobs that we're looking at coming
in the mall, that that would be an opportunity to provide some additional affordable. And I want
to call it affordable. Not, people use the word subsidized or that sort of thing but they're
affordable for maybe entry level working people. So if you look in the comp plan too, we did
identify how we would achieve some of those goals and that's what we've used in the past. To
get the affordability. If you want me to go through those, I can do that but I think those are
pretty self explanatory. So today's date, just to give you the affordable in today's dollars because
I didn't touch on that. If you look at 80% of the median, so that's any home priced over $201,000
so you can see right now we're not building anything, single family detached on this so that's
why you really, in order to get that, for single family home, or for a two bedroom, the 933. This
is just a summary of what came out of the Maxfield regarding Chanhassen, comparing it to the
county. Kind of1ooking at the population. Again they're looking at that number 32 and again
when we accepted the system statements, if you go back, they looked at that population number
at 38 and I believe that we'll probably be closer to 33. If that 2.7 is a more accurate number. So
you look at the household growth. Again for your, the median household price, and that's in
there, I don't know if you caught what our average price for new homes were. It's you know
$999,000. That's a new home price. Pretty shocking. But if you also look at what we did for
single family detached, why that number is slowing down is, that's a narrow market. We do
have, when we introduce other price points or other product types that are going, and I just want
to go back to the Livable Communities Act, we talk about density. One of the projects that we
just saw here earlier tonight, Lakeside, there's different ways when we think about density and
application. That was the first project that we've done that we actually did luxury condominiums
and again we're always trying to challenge ourselves to say what product are we missing in the
community and that wasn't one we had yet. It took an opportunity to avail itself of some golf
course views and lake views, and even those, while those are attached product in there, those are
on the higher end of the attached product and I think if you would compare us to Victoria, that's
definitely the higher end, so we're really trying to make that blend of, so density doesn't always
mean a price point. If you think about that in the future, if we start looking ultimately for
example on the golf course property which we'll be talking about at the next meeting. Thinking
about what are the opportunities there for product and preserving. Think about those so I don't
want to confuse density always mean it has to be a rental or has to be a lesser quality or certain
price point. So there you can see our numbers for Chanhassen, for average resale price and
multi-family. Single family again and there's new construction, 935. Average number, and
again you look at that 85 because that's why you're in that price point of that kind of traditional.
Now this doesn't take into play that this snapshot done, what's kind of been happening this last
year and some of our other projects that we did, the smaller lots and those are doing really well
too but those are closer to the $500,000 price.
Keefe: You know the question, you know when the prices rise like they're saying, I assume the
prices are rising because there's the demand for it in this community. So in terms of sort of
living within the Livable Communities Act, I mean are we sort of going against what the demand
is for the city versus what might be for the region? You know.
Aanenson: No. I think you know the goal that we've had, and we've met that is, to provide that
diversity of lifestyle for all choices, and I think that's the challenges and my concern is that we
do a lot of two story houses and as you look at the demographics that we're aging, not
40
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
everybody's going to want in 20 years buy that two story house so we try to look at products, and
we've had that discussion of more the one level. It's certainly more cost effective and you've got,
you pay the $200,000, if you look at our lot prices which is up in that study too, average lot price
of$230,000 that people want to maximize that investment and go two stories but, and you know
that's why we're challenging ourselves to look at other types of projects so we maybe can do a
single family, for example if you look at what we've done in the Preserve which is doing well,
some of those are single stories which is a lifestyle choice and I think we just have to make sure
that we have that diversity. If you have all of one thing, then some people may have a harder
time selling when you're all competing with 200 homes with the same type. So I think that's one
of our strengths is that we do have a great diversity that meets all our needs. And it's interesting,
we've had people tell us, I never want this and I have people that come in in different
situations... that say I want to stay in the community. Thank goodness I've got another option to
make that happen or their parents need to move here and so, you know we do want to be
community wide and that has been our goal for a number of years so, it's kind of that challenge
too. Look at those opportunities, and we'll talk about that when, we're recommending a few land
use changes but for the most part we're not changing land use. Those have been in place so we're
meeting those same goals. Anything else interesting to note on here. Kind of what we're looking
at again for assisted living and those, we've identified some properties for that too. But I think
you know when you look at us compared to the county, it's pretty amazing... the marketplace.
This is just a summary of what we've done for market rate, just to give you an idea of the
projects that are up on market rate. Now since this was put out, Powers Ridge as I mentioned
has now gone condo so that will have to be adjusted. And then the last thing I wanted to talk
about was that the Met Council comes out with this study that says, this is our responsibility
based on job proximity because not only are we in eastern Carver, over 8,000 jobs within our
community. We're close to Hennepin County which also has a huge employment base. So they
take that. They look at our existing housing stock and our transit level and come up with a
number that they recommend that we need to provide for affordable housing. And that's 1,300.
If you back that out over 30 years and look at the housing demand.
Larson: Where do they come up with that number?
Aanenson: Well.
Larson: I mean really.
Aanenson: Well, it's going to be a difficult number to reach and the fact being is that if you back
that out, it's about 117 affordable units a year. We're not going to make that. We haven't made
that and we know that's going to be a problem, especially when we get into the rental area,
because I think if you look at it for the owner occupied, we have a better shot of making that.
They did adjust that number, which they do every year. This was a 2006 number. They did
adjust it for 2000 and knocked a few off, but if you can see where they're going with that
number. Even Chaska has to provide another 746.
Larson: . . . the transit.
Aanenson: Well Chaska's also part of the transit component too.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Larson: I know but you know.
Aanenson: If you look at where we've done for example where we put Gateway. We put that
across from the transit, those are the kind of opportunities. There's another opportunity that we
see in the core of downtown, as we've talked about that and we'll revisit that on the land use
when we talk about land use. Some of the redevelopment properties that we want to keep some
of that density in the core of downtown. That can also participate in some of the subsidy that we
already provide here, and then also, and we look at the potential for regional mall. That's another
opportunity that they've talked about doing some rental there where you've got transit component
and also access to conveniences, which we certainly don't want to, and I think that's the struggle
that some of the other states, the county has, there's not access to some of those communities
don't even have pharmacies. Some of those sort of things which is a struggle when you're trying
to do senior housing and the like, that there's no access to some of those things. Good news, bad
news for us that we've done a good job of planning for some of those. Also it just so happens
that we're kind of on that growth wave, so I don't want everybody to think that we're you know,
we're staying the course and you'll see that when we did a land use recommendation as far as, as
they march along with density, we do have some large single family potential. We talked about
the Bluff Creek. We also have some large multi-family. We talked about the Moon Valley site,
which some of you walked, that we provided for that, but for the most part kind of the biggest
chunks are underway. The next one that would be coming in would be the Erhart piece and that
we'll talk about next week too. I know this is a lot to digest so what I'd like if you have some
comments, otherwise if you wanted to get back to me on. . . or go back to any of the slides, I'd be
happy to do that. Comments?
Papke: It's a lot of data but, yeah.
Aanenson: A lot of data.
Papke: The comp plan itself, the real meat at the end of the day the real meat is section 4.7. It's
okay. A lot of data and then there's one page of here's what we're going to do. It's not really
very binding or anything. I mean it's just, these are all kind of our New Year's resolutions of
what we're going to try to do for the next 10 years.
Aanenson: Right. The binding part is it ties back into the land use and when I give you that
matrix, and we're not substantially changing from the proportionality. Now what we've done,
and you'll see that in the land use section, is we've taken out some of those areas that are non-
developable. For example you know we showed you in that little 50 some zoning changes that
the Met Council tracks vacant land. So what we want to make sure is on some of those land use
recommendations, if it's not buildable, we want to take it out of the mix because that throws off
our projections of what their expectations are for density so that's part of it. The biggest part of
the clean-up. But really we're not making a major shift. Our goals have been in place for life
cycle housing. We're not making a big paradigm shift. We have found a couple other properties
that we want to maybe shift up that make some sense for either affordable housing or senior
housing. We're sure look with you too but.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Papke: Just one other comment I have, back to the historical preservation again. Had a thought
here. Every year we do a little road trip, a little tour. On my tenure on the commission we've
never looked at historic sites.
Aanenson: Great idea.
Papke: You know we should, the next time we go we should walk through the church. Walk
through the Strawberry Hill. We've seen Strawberry Hill here a couple times but I've never been
in that place. It'd be great to see them.
Aanenson: That's a great idea. We do have a work session, if you look, the 2008 schedule is up.
We do have a work session scheduled so that's a great idea.
AI-Jaff: One of the things that we're trying to work on with the county is actually doing some
tour buses throughout the community and show the different community every month throughout
Carver County.
Papke: There's a lot of stuff in Carver too. And Chaska.
Aanenson: Yep. Well I think that was a great idea. We'll put a list together and you guys can
add to it.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Dillon noted the verbatim and summary minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 16, 2007 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
43