PC Minutes 11-6-07
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
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Undestad: Had it okayed. And then after that approval then T -Mobile had to go back and get the
historical.
Al-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?
Al-Jaff: I think they were.
Aanenson: Yes they were.
Al-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.
Al-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.
Al-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
Al-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. . .
Al-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?
Al-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.
Al-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?
Al-Jaff: They were notified.
Papke: They were notified?
Al-Jaff: Correct. Everyone within 500 feet were notified.
Papke: And they had no comments?
Al-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
Al-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?
Al-Jaff: The owner of the property, the historic property or the owner of.
Dillon: The historical property.
Al-Jaff: They have an issue and they contacted the city and as such.
Dillon: Because I remember this one but I don't have...
Al-Jaff: They did not attend the public hearing.
Dillon: Okay, so we weren't.
Al-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?
Al-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?
Al-Jaff: Encroachment by, I'm sorry?
McDonald: By Halla Nursery.
Al-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?
Al-Jaff: Correct. That's still the case.
McDonald: Okay.
Al-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: Urn, 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 ISO-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